Wednesday, 8 June 2016

WEDNESDAY, 8 JUNE 2016

WEDNESDAY, 8 JUNE 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Obituaries

Sir Graham Latimer

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the passing of Sir Graham Latimer.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I move, That this House mark the passing of Sir Graham Latimer. Reo Māori i te tuatahi, kua hinga he kauri nui o Te Tai Tokerau kua pōuri katoa mātou i raro i tērā rākau. Ko tāku, ko tātou pea, me kī, haere, haere, haere atu rā, okioki pai e te rangatira.

[In the Māori language in the first instance, a huge kauri of Northland has fallen and we are all saddened beneath that tree. I, and, perhaps, we, say, depart, travel on, go forth and rest well, esteemed one.]

Sir Graham Latimer strode tall as a New Zealander—certainly as a Māori New Zealander, but also as a New Zealander. He was a husband, a father, a grandfather, a railway worker, a soldier, a farmer, and, some might think, a somewhat unlikely leader, who rose through the ranks of local leadership and emerged on the national scene.

He had the distinction of holding responsibilities in the New Zealand Māori Council, an organisation of some force, for many years, both as the district chair in Tai Tokerau and then as the president of the New Zealand Māori Council, which was a position that he held for 40 years, until 2012. He was also a National Party candidate in his time, in what we all know to be the very challenging electorate of Te Tai Tokerau. He was unsuccessful in that regard, but he went on to be an office holder in the National Party, where he was both provocative and uniting, which I think is a theme of the work that he undertook on the wider national scene.

He held many first positions in a number of very iconic and influential bodies in our country. He was one of the first three members to be appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal. He was knighted in 1980, and then he went on to take a case against the Government of the time and he won a landmark decision. It was known as the lands case, where the Court of Appeal instructed that on the basis of that success the then Government could not proceed with its State-owned enterprises policy unless, and until, it found a way of protecting assets that might be returned under a Treaty settlement process.

The reason I know that much detail is that I was one of the advisers to the Lange-Palmer Government of that era, and I often sat across the table from Sir Graham Latimer and other notables of that time: Sir Robert Māhuta—tēnā koe, Nanaia—Matiu Rata, and Sir Tīpene O’Regan. These were all leaders from different parts of the country who advanced the cause of making the Treaty of Waitangi a core part of our considerations in our country. He was a wily old fox, I have to say, and I enjoyed the battle of wits, which he won most of the time.

That case led on to a number of developments that we now consider very much part and parcel of the infrastructure of our country. It led on to a substantial Treaty settlement process. It led to the establishment of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. It led to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. These were all economic assets that he was very much involved with, but his efforts were not constrained to economic assets. He was equally interested in the viability and sustainability of Te Reo Māori and was engaged in the cases that sought broadcasting outcomes on radio and television—again somewhat unlikely, because I do not think I ever heard him speak Te Reo Māori, and even in English, he was given to a laconic turn of phrase.

He was extremely pragmatic and opportunistic, ensuring that there was always some gain out of the effort put in. And those efforts, cumulatively, have resulted in a very solid platform for progress and advancement for our country.

He was very fortunate, I think, to be married to a wonderful woman, Lady Emily, who sadly passed away last year, who was the personification of dignity, loyalty, and graciousness and was by his side all through those years. He was very engaged in the Anglican Church and had a very strong faith.

I think his greatest legacy to us, given his much avowed public political leanings, is that he nevertheless straddled the entire political spectrum, because he was interested in results and outcomes. He said at one time—and I am not quoting him accurately—“Yes, what we are doing, taking these court cases and winning, is providing a basis for ongoing conversation, and where is the harm in that? Māori and Pākehā should be able to speak to each other and find better ways of development for our country.”

So he leaves a very strong legacy. He leaves—[Interruption]—do I have to shut up? Oh, sorry. He leaves a very strong legacy in all that he has done, and we see that in these iconic institutions that make up our landscape now. We can see them in the production of the assets that Māori are now in control of. We see it in the language and the broadcasting instruments that we take for granted. I am sure we join with his family not just in mourning his passing—because he lived to 90 years of age, with a huge string of achievements—but also celebrating his life. We should thank him for the contribution that he has made to the ongoing conversation of who we are as a bicultural, multicultural, multilingual, modern New Zealand nation. Tēnā koutou, haere atu rā e pā, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora!

[Greetings to you collectively, farewell sir, and huge acknowledgments and thanks to all!]

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ka iri ake rā a Matariki ki Te Pō, ki Taihoronukurangi. Ka tū au ki runga i ngā maunga whakahī, ngā maunga kekete, e ara mai ai te kekete, i tau mai ko te kekete! Ka tangi atu ki te hau mātao, ki te hau o tonga, te hau i ngaukino ai e aituā i te hunga kaumātua, i te hunga kuia. kāti ake! Ki a koe e Tā Kereama, ka tanuku te maunga o Maunga Taniwha ki runga i Te Marae o Te Pātū, ka horo tonu ko ngā wai o kamo ki runga i tō waka tūpāpaku i tēnei wā.

I ngā tau kua pahure ake nei, i piki ake tātou katoa o te motu whānui ki runga i ō pokowhiwhi. I kite atu mātou o Aotearoa i ngā taumata o te moana, i ngā moemoeā ō rātou mā, i ngā moe hewa o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna! Ko koe tēnā e āhei mātou te kite atu i ngā taumata o te moana, ngā taumata i whakataukitia ai e ō tātou mātua, e ō tātou tupuna! Nō reira, kua tau ngā waewae ō tō mokopuna ki runga i te nuku roa o Papatūānuku. I kite atu ahau i ōu tapuwae nui, i ō tapuwae roa, ki runga i te mata o te whenua e hora nei. Ko te nui hoki o ngā mahi i oti i a koe kua wahaina mai e Te Minita i mua i a au.

Ka noho ngātahi Te Whare nei ki te tangi atu ki tōku apakura kua ngaro atu ki te pō. Ko tāku e kī nei ki a ia, e kara, haere atu rā koe ki tō tuarā, ki tō hoa rangatira a Lady Emily. Okioki mai nā koe ki roto i te poho o rātou i mahi ngātahi ki a koe ki roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei. Ko Matiu Rata tēnā, ko Tā Hēmi Hēnare tēnā, ko Tā Te Kotahi Mahuta tērā. Haere atu rā koe e Tā Kereama, ko te tangi atu Te Tai Tokerau ki a koe i tēnei wā, e moe, e moe, okioki!

[Pleiades hangs suspended above the void and horizon. I stand astride prestigious and illustrious mountains, from where the venerable arise and land. I mourn the cold, southerly, evil wind gnawing away; a death amongst the elderly ones has occurred. Enough! To you, Sir Graham, the mountain of Mount Taniwha collapses upon the Marae of Pātū, and tears from the eye continue to cascade upon your hearse at this moment.

In past years, all of us of the country at large climbed upon your shoulders. We of New Zealand saw the tops of the seas, the aspirations of others, and the dreams of our parents and ancestors. You enabled us to see ocean tops and summits that our parents and ancestors uttered aphorisms about. Therefore, the feet of your grandchild have alighted upon the broad expanse of Mother Earth. I saw your large, long footprints upon the face of the land spread out before me. What a lot of work you have accomplished that the Minister brought and placed before me.

This House sits together to grieve, my dirge, lost to the void! I say to him, go friend, go to your wife, Lady Emily, your support. Rest there in the bosom of those who worked together with you in years past, namely Matiu Rata, Sir Hēmi Hēnare, and Sir Te Kotahi Mahuta. Farewell, Sir Graham, Northland mourns you at this time; sleep, slumber and rest!]

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Ā, e Te Whare tēnā koe. Kua hinga he kauri nui o Te Wao-Nui-a-Tāne, kua hinga he rangatira mīharo rawa atu o Ngāti Kahu. Nō reira, haere ana ngā mihi aroha o Te Rōpū Kākāriki ki te whānau pani me ōna iwi, e tangi ana i tēnei wā pōuri, tēnā tātou katoa.

[So acknowledgments to you, the House. A great kauri of the Great Forest of Tāne and a most amazing leader of Ngāti Kahu has fallen. Therefore, loving condolences from the Green Party go out to the bereaved family and its people grieving at this period of sadness, greetings to us all.]

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to offer its sincere condolences to the whānau of Sir Graham Latimer. It is with huge sadness that we learned yesterday of the passing of Sir Graham, one of the greatest and most influential leaders of Māori in the 20th century. Sir Graham’s contribution to Māoridom, and indeed to all Aotearoa, will continue to reverberate across generations.

As a pillar of the New Zealand Māori Council for nearly 40 years, his commitment to upholding and advancing Māori rights has had a pivotal and an undeniable impact on the Māori renaissance. Sir Graham’s ability to put the interests of his people above all else was clearly evident. Although affiliated with the National Party, he did work very strongly across party lines, notably with the Hon Matiu Rata, to push for greater legal and political recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi. His dedication was such that he famously mortgaged his Northland farm to finance the many court battles that he led.

We have, in large part, Sir Graham to thank for the recognition of Māori rights to radio and television frequencies to promote Te Reo Māori. As a result of this historic campaign, we now have iwi radio stations across the country, a Māori television service, and Te Reo content across mainstream media.

Although I am sure that we would not have agreed on everything, the Green Party shares Sir Graham’s vision of an Aotearoa where all peoples—Māori, Pākehā, and our diverse multicultural communities—live in peace and in harmony with one another; an Aotearoa that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and upholds tangata whenua rights in practice, not just in words.

From serving in World War II to being one of the foremost leaders of Ngāti Kahu and the North, to his leading work in advancing kaupapa Māori, Sir Graham’s legacy is lasting and of huge significance.

I would also like to note the contribution of the late Lady Emily, the first woman to serve on the Māori Council. The Green Party sends its aroha and its heartfelt condolences to Sir Graham’s whānau and to Ngāti Kahu on their loss. Our thoughts are with you in this time of great sadness. Nō reira e te rangatira, takoto mai, takoto mai, takoto mai rā ki te whenua ō ō mātua tūpuna, tēnā tātou e Te Whare.

[Therefore, esteemed one, lie down, lie down, and lie there upon the land of your parents and ancestors, and greetings to us, the House.]

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā anō hoki tātou. E tū ake tēnei hei māngai mō Te Rōpū Aotearoa Tuatahi ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e aku tuākana me te tuahine hoki ki tō tātou rangatira i roto i Te Tai Tokerau, arā, ko Tā Kereama Latimer tēnā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to us as well. I stand as the spokesperson for the New Zealand First Party to endorse the condolences accorded by my elder brothers and sister, also, to our esteemed leader in Northland, namely, Sir Graham Latimer.]

I make no apologies for making this analogy, because I recall the very comments that Sir Graham made when welcoming Her Majesty to New Zealand about her son doing his job so that she could have a grandson. So I am comparing this motion this afternoon to that of yesterday, where we acknowledged, on behalf of the nation, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II attaining the age of 90 years. Today we stand united on behalf of everyone here to mourn the loss of someone who reached the age of 90 years and who passed just the other day; I am referring to Sir Graham Stanley Latimer.

Although I do so with a heavy heart, I reflect on someone with whom I shared some wonderful and challenging times in the North. Sir Graham was born into a humble family among the gumfields of the far north and, as a consequence, learnt early of the challenges he and his family, and, indeed, the wider community of his tribe, Ngāti Kahu, had to face in order to survive the harsh realities of the time. Not one to dwell on the cards that life had dealt him, he went on to join the army to do his duty, ending up by being shipped off to Japan to assist with the clean-up of that country. This obviously had an impact on him in his later life.

Together with his wife, Lady Emily, he went farming in the Kaipara. Before long, and at the will of Ngāti Whātua, the local tribe, he ensconced himself in serving his community, leading him to carry their concerns on to the national stage, where he found himself touching shoulders with some of Maōridom’s leading figures of the time.

I had the pleasure of sitting on the Tai Tokerau Māori Trust Board and the Tai Tokerau District Māori Council with him, and also the Waitangi Day organising committee, where I was able to witness a man who could take the people with him. I have no doubt that because of his influence, my own progression within the Public Service was due in no small way to that influence.

If there is probably one regret he had, given his role in the early history of the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal, it would be not being able to see the Ngāti Kahu claims settled. The personal sacrifices he was prepared to make, all for the advancement of his fellow man, will be a legacy that he leaves for us to aspire to.

It would be remiss of me, knowing the man as well as I do, not to make mention of his wife, Lady Emily. For without her support over the years, much of the legacy I speak of would not be possible. Nō reira e kara, e Tā Kereama, kua tae kē te wā kia tīmata mai tō hīkoiranga ki te wāhi e kīhia nei, “te kāpunipunitanga o ngā wairua”, hoki atu! Kātahi anō he kupu mōu: “Okioki, okioki. Tātai ngā whetu ki Te Rangi, mau tonu, mau tonu, tātai ngā tāngata ki te whenua, ngaro noa, ngaro noa.”

[Therefore, friend, Sir Graham, the time has arrived for you to begin your journey to the place referred to as “the inevitable destiny of mortals”, depart! At last a saying has been crafted for you: “Rest and rest. Stars that adorn heaven are there for ever, people that populate the land disappear into oblivion and are lost for ever.”]

I want to conclude this short stand by quoting from the good book, from II Timothy 4:7: Kua whawhaitia e ahau te whawhai pai, kua omatia toku omanga, kua rite i ahau te whakapono. I have fought the good fight, I have run the long race, and I have kept the faith. Kia ora anō tatou.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. E tāpirihia taku kōrero ki ērā o ngā mihi kua mihia i tēnei wā. Haere atu rā e te hau tipua o Ngāti Kahu ki te paepae o Matariki, o Rehua. Haere atu rā, moe mai rā, i te poho o Ranginui e tū iho nei. E haehaetia te ngākau o te whenua, e te mamae!

[I add my condolences alongside those accorded at this point in time. Journey forth, the famed deity of Ngāti Kahu, to the threshold of Matariki and Rehua. Travel on and sleep there in the bosom of the Sky Father standing before us. The heart of the country is lacerated by the pain!]

The Māori Party joins with the Whare today in lamenting the passing of Sir Graham Latimer, who helped to bring the Treaty of Waitangi back into our nation’s consciousness. He was an outstanding leader, who demonstrated the value of Māori working across the political spectrum. Although he was a staunch National Party supporter and member, he worked with Labour MP Matiu Rata to gain greater recognition of the Treaty. When the late Matiu Rata was the Minister for Māori Affairs, he established the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975, and Sir Graham Latimer was one of its first commissioners.

Sir Graham Latimer was at the helm of the New Zealand Māori Council for 40 years, during a pivotal time of the Māori renaissance. He also, famously, as we have heard, mortgaged his farm to rally against the sale of assets. This generation is indebted to him for his foresight and his courage. Without the work and sacrifices made by people like Sir Graham, we would not have the gains we have made in key areas like fisheries, land, forestry, Te Reo Māori, and broadcasting. His legacy continues today, including the current debate about the allocation of water rights.

Such was the commitment of his whānau to building a mature nation that Tā Graham personally funded a full-page advertisement in all major newspapers throughout Aotearoa on Waitangi Day in 1988. His open letter included a copy of the Treaty and challenged the nation to consider its impact on their lives. Our greatest gift to the whānau would be to see his wishes more fully realised.

Although we mourn a public figure, we know he will be deeply missed by his children, his mokopuna, his whānau, and his friends, and we extend our condolences to those grieving for his loss.

You could surmise from the things that have been spoken here that Sir Graham may have been a Māori Party supporter. I know that, in fact, he would have been a supporter of making Te Reo Māori a core subject in our curriculum, and also he would recognise the oaths and declarations bill that is coming to the House tonight, in recognising the Treaty when you take an oath of office. Nō reira, tāpirihia ngā mihi kua mihia, tangihia te ngākau, tangihia ngā roimata, heke iho te hūpē kia whārikihia te papa e te mamae, tēnā koutou.

[Therefore, append the tributes accorded, allow the sorrow to be expressed, the tears to be shed, and the mucus to descend upon the land covered by the pain; my appreciation to you collectively.]

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to join with others in expressing sympathy and condolences to the family of the late Sir Graham Latimer and in recording my own personal sympathy at his loss. I first met Sir Graham around 1979 or 1980, when he was appointed as deputy chair of the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council, of which I was secretary at the time. We did not know very much about him other than his association with the Māori Council, which, conveniently, had offices just over the road from ours, and we felt that this might have been a convenient device to take some travel costs off the Māori Council’s budget and shift it to ours. But we quickly came to realise that he was a man who not only was wily and shrewd in the best sense of those words but also had a genuine sense of compassion and a clear vision about what he wanted for his people and what he wanted for New Zealand.

He was also a remarkably pragmatic man. I recall one occasion when a colleague, who happened to be Welsh, and I accompanied Sir Graham to the Rātana Pā, and we were given a very formal welcome, as befitted his status. I was not all that familiar with Māori protocol at that stage, but it became clear to me that something a little unusual was occurring because the pōwhiri had become a long series of chants—quite rhythmic chants. I leaned across to Sir Graham and said “What’s going on?”, and he said: “Oh, they are reciting their lineage back to the great canoe.” Each speech took several minutes to deliver, and then there was a silence and he leaned across to me and said “We’re going to have to do the same.”, which came as a considerable shock and a surprise. Then, just before our turn, he said: “It’s OK; I’ll handle it.” So he got up, he spoke for no more than 30 seconds in Māori, and sat down to uproarious laughter. I was somewhat concerned and I said to him: “What did you say?”. He said “I said: ‘He’s Welsh and the other two of us have come from the great canoe Endeavour.’ ”, which, in a way, showed how Sir Graham bridged all worlds. I think he had a remarkable, down-to-earth, New Zealand sense of humour, but he was, through and through, a Māori New Zealander as well.

His achievements during the 1980s and the fact that he held the office of chair of the Māori Council for 40 years is a tribute to his durability, his pragmatism, and his common sense, and this country is considerably the worse for his passing. So I join with others in lamenting the death of Sir Graham Latimer, but I take a certain pride in feeling that I can say that I knew him, and I take a terrific pride in what he was able to achieve on behalf of his people and our country generally to make it a better place for all of us.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I would like to add the ACT Party’s condolences to Sir Graham’s whānau, in admiration of his long and significant influence on our nation’s development. Hokia te rā.

[Revisit the day.]

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Transport Strategy—Greenhouse Gas Emissions

1. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: Why does his 10-year transport strategy make no mention of New Zealand’s long-term target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Because the Government does not follow some asinine paint-by-numbers approach where we value something merely on the number of times that it—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I cannot hear the answer, so I cannot rule whether the question has been addressed. Less interruption, particularly from my left.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: What is very clear is that the Government’s 2015 policy statement on land transport has a clear objective that the land transport system mitigates its effects on the environment. It also makes clear that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport is an important consideration in land transport investment policy.

James Shaw: Given that answer, can he tell the House by what percentage transport emissions would need to reduce from today in order to meet the target that New Zealand signed up to in Paris?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, because it is an economy-wide target that New Zealand has set through Paris. That is the same for every country. Of course transport has to play its part, and that is why we have got a comprehensive set of initiatives, whether it is unprecedented investment in public transport in this Government policy statement—$1.2 billion over 3 years in rail and cycleways and, actually, in roads, because high-quality highways, as the member has found out but does not like to refer to, actually reduce emissions because they result in smoother, more free-flowing traffic.

James Shaw: If new motorways decrease transport emissions, as he just said, why have transport emissions increased by 60 percent in the last 25 years, during which time the Government has built more motorways than ever before?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Because the economy has grown.

James Shaw: Is he aware that the New Zealand Transport Agency’s analysis that new motorways decrease transport emissions assumed zero growth in the number of vehicles on the road, even once these new motorways are built?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I said, when the economy grows and you get more freight and more traffic, regardless of the modes, you see potentially increased emissions. I appreciate that the member, through reasons of ideology, dislikes the analysis, but the analysis is robust, and what it shows quite clearly is that in relation to the Waikato Expressway, that expressway and its design results in fewer emissions.

James Shaw: What proportion of the $40 billion in the transport budget has he allocated in the next 10 years to lower-carbon alternatives like public transport and cycling infrastructure, and what percentage has he allocated to building more roads?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I have made clear, that is an entirely simplistic, asinine approach. If you go across the measures that we have got in public transport, there is unprecedented investment in this Government policy statement: cycleways—unprecedented investment throughout the major cities, the provinces, and rural areas; the electric vehicle policy; and, also, the highways policy. We have a comprehensive suite of initiatives that is actually making a difference.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table this graph, showing that the Government is investing 90 percent of its transport budget in roading projects over the next 10 years and—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Who prepared the graph?

James Shaw: This was prepared by my office.

Mr SPEAKER: And if the member studies the Speakers’ rulings, he will know that that is not authentic enough for me to put the leave to the House.

James Shaw: Given his previous answer, by what percentage will transport emissions fall if he meets his target of 64,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2020?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: If the member puts that in writing, I am sure we can calculate it for him, but I am glad that he recognises that our policy on electric vehicles is more significant and ambitious than any of the hot air that has come out of the Green Party.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table analysis by Massey University’s Ralph Sims, showing that meeting the target of 64,000—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need an explanation of it; all I need to know is whether it is freely available to members off the internet if they want it.

James Shaw: I did not receive it via the internet, but it may be available on the internet.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that the member has not checked to see whether it is available—and I implore members in the future, if they are going to table a document, to take the time to do so, because that is a question that will be asked—I will put the leave on this occasion and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular analysis by Massey University. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! Mr Little, Order! Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! If I need to name a particular member as a last warning, I will not hesitate to do so.

James Shaw: Before he made the big announcement in February to spend $1.8 billion on the new East-West roading project in Auckland, what advice did he seek about its climate impact?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I did not seek advice, but what I know is very clear is that the transport agency factors in carbon emissions into its economic evaluations on roads such as the East-West.

David Seymour: Does the strategy include anything on leading by example or parliamentary air travel?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility—the Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think it should. In fact, I am aware of one organisation that some might say, quite hypocritically, talks a big game but travels more and uses more air miles than anyone else I know of.

Budget 2016—Social Investment

2. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Finance: How is Budget 2016 building on the Government’s programme of Social Investment to deliver better long-term results for New Zealanders?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Government’s Social Investment approach is about using data-driven investment techniques to determine when and how to intervene to change lives for the better. Budget 2016 includes a comprehensive and wide-ranging Social Investment package, providing extra funding of $654 million over 4 years. The Government recently announced an overhaul of New Zealand’s childcare and protection system, which will be in place by March next year. This $348 million of new funding will increase accountability for support services and will sharpen the focus on intensive intervention to keep young people safe.

Chris Bishop: How will the Social Investment package help young beneficiaries transition to more productive independent lives?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Social Investment package provides $61 million to extend the Youth Service to 19-year-old parents and to 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries at risk of long-term welfare dependency. If we do not take action, the average 19-year-old sole parent will spend the next 18 years on a benefit and cost the taxpayer over $400,000. The good news for the House—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked. I will not put up with continual barrage from my left-hand side. If it happens again, I may be asking somebody to leave.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I think the House can celebrate is that the number of teen parents on benefits has halved under National, and we want to continue that success. What the Associate Minister of Finance would also tell me is that, actually, the number of teen pregnancies has reduced, which makes a huge difference as well—that fewer girls have to experience the trauma of abortion at such a young age as well. Social Investment is making a big difference.

Chris Bishop: How is the Social Investment approach improving the provision of education in New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Budget 2016 targets an extra $43 million for schools with students most at risk of not achieving. This is in contrast to the previous approach of funding an across-the-board operational grant increase. Under the Minister, we are looking at those children who have lived an extended part of their life in a family that is benefit dependent and who have only a 48 percent chance of achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 before the age of 21. This policy and this money will make a difference.

Chris Bishop: How has the Government’s focus on targets helped deliver Better Public Services for New Zealanders? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the Minister yet.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Prime Minister set the 10 challenging targets in the Public Service in 2012, and since then, we have come a long way. Benefit dependency continues to fall. We have made significant progress on crime. We currently have the lowest crime rate since 1978. We have reduced the number of children and young people experiencing physical abuse, and immunisation rates continue to grow, with almost 94 percent of 8-month-olds fully vaccinated.

Job Creation and Unemployment—Skycity Convention Centre

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the SkyCity convention centre deal, “it’s 1,000 jobs to build it”, given steelmaking and fitting work has gone to a Thai company at the cost of 100 jobs?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. Not only will the convention centre create an estimated 1,000 jobs during construction but also I am advised it will support a further 1,140 jobs once it is up and running. That is 340 more jobs than originally estimated, and, I am duty-bound to point out, it is 2,140 more jobs than if the member had had his way and scrapped the entire convention centre.

Andrew Little: What conditions did his Government put in the deal with Skycity to ensure that convention centre work went to Kiwi companies and Kiwi workers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There was standard contracting done, but that was done by Fletcher Building. Fletcher Building made it clear that there would be an estimated 1,000 jobs, and New Zealanders have said these jobs, in relation to the ones that will be in Thailand for steel, are part of a joint venture with a Whangarei company called Culham Engineering, which is joining hands with the Herrick Corporation of the United States, which is doing some work in Thailand. As a result of that, 50 additional jobs will be created in Whangarei. Well over 1,000 jobs in total will be created; in fact, 2,140 by the time the thing is up and running.

David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister seen any other reports of the Government trading regulatory favours for low-cost Thai labour?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am aware of work that has been undertaken through cheap Thai labour in Samoa, but the man said that he was guilty of nothing more than helping his constituents. That, of course, was Taito Phillip Field. [Interruption]

Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point or order; it will be heard in silence.

Andrew Little: It has become apparent that the member for Epsom is now routinely using question time to raise questions that bear little or no relation to the primary question—the supplementary question that he is asking. In this case, he is asking a question about a matter that is absolutely not the business of this House, at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I watch all supplementary questions, but I watch the supplementary questions coming from Mr Seymour with particular vigour. On this occasion, I made a relatively instant decision: if the question was in order, I had no idea where the answer would go. I cannot pre-empt where an answer will go, but if, at any time, I sense a question has been put down for no other reason than to attack an Opposition party, I will, as I have done in the past, rule it out of order. The member makes a reasonable point. I will be as vigilant—[Interruption] Order! I will be as vigilant as I can.

Andrew Little: When he changed the law to give Skycity $527 million of gambling concessions, did he think it would repay him by sending convention centre jobs overseas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The convention centre is going to create a thousand-plus Kiwi jobs in construction.

Phil Twyford: There is a net loss of jobs from Hamilton and Rotorua.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, it may annoy the member, because it is going to create 2,140 jobs in total, and, mark my words, those members will be at the official launch, just like they were with The Hobbit—they criticised it, then they went off to the premiere.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer will not help the order of the House.

Andrew Little: Is it a good thing for New Zealand that steel work on the Government’s flagship economic project for Auckland is now going overseas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not going overseas, unless the member counts Whangarei as overseas. Fifty jobs are being created in Whangarei. New Zealand companies have the opportunity to pitch on a great many deals, and, in fact, the latest World Trade Organisation Government procurement agreement that was signed last year gives Kiwi businesses access to $2.3 trillion worth of overseas Government contracts. Yes, some work is done overseas, but a lot of New Zealanders do work overseas. It goes both ways.

Andrew Little: Is he aware that over 2,000 metal manufacturing jobs have now been lost under his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot confirm that number. What I can confirm is that we are in the height of probably the biggest building boom we have seen in this country for a very long time. That is both residential and in relation to commercial. I was at the launch, with the Minister of Transport, just last week, of the Auckland City Rail Link, which no doubt will be using a great deal of steel. As a result of the Skycity convention centre, 50 jobs will be created in Whangarei, just in relation to that alone. I will bet that member will not go up there and tell those—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been well addressed.

Ron Mark: If, as he said yesterday to Newshub, his Government has “A New Zealand first policy: we always try and employ New Zealanders first.”—what happened with the Skycity deal?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the words I used were “Kiwis first,” because I am fundamentally opposed to New Zealand First.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, Ron Mark. I hope it is a reasonable point of order.

Ron Mark: I seek leave of the House to table the transcript of the Prime Minister’s interview.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not—no, I am not even going to put the leave.

Andrew Little: With unemployment up by 50,000 under his watch, why does he not have any policy to ensure that Kiwis have a fair shot at getting jobs created by Government-backed projects?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is starting to look like a fool. The economy created 200,000 jobs in the last 3 years, there are more Kiwis in work than ever before, the Skycity deal creates 2,140 jobs, and no amount of crocodile tears from the member would do anything other than prove to Aucklanders that, thank goodness, they have a National-led Government.

Andrew Little: If he wants to finally reverse his terrible record on unemployment, including for steelworkers in New Zealand, will he back my bill to ensure the Government buys Kiwi-made and backs Kiwi workers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: New Zealand has the third-highest employment rate in the world. There are more New Zealanders in work than ever before, under this National-led Government. There will be 2,140 more of them as a result of the Skycity convention centre. Yes, of course, in any contract like this, some work is done overseas and some work is done locally. That is quite normal. But that also means that New Zealand companies get to export their products around the world and are involved in some of the biggest projects. I have been to a number of huge projects around the world where New Zealand architects, New Zealand companies, New Zealand engineers, New Zealand builders, and others have been involved. The member might want to live in Fortress New Zealand, along with the Greens, and have a sort of morris dancing session, but the rest of us—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of that question because I think it is bad form to interrupt with points of order.

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

David Seymour: In reference to Mr Little’s point of order, if he listened carefully to what I said, it was actually an attack on—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. That matter was tidied up some time ago.

Defence Force—Defence White Paper 2016 and Funding

4. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcements has the Government made about funding for New Zealand’s defence and security?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence): This morning, along with the Prime Minister, I released the Defence White Paper 2016—a 15-year modernisation plan, worth almost $20 billion, to ensure that the New Zealand Defence Force has the capabilities it needs to meet the country’s security and defence challenges.

Mark Mitchell: What major challenges does the Defence Force face, and how will these be tackled in the years ahead?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As technology advances and the security situation in many parts of the world deteriorates, the Defence Force will be required to respond to a wide range of different situations. Ensuring security and law-abiding activity in our exclusive economic zone is one, which will be boosted by more and better surveillance aircraft and ships. Ensuring we protect our interests in the Ross Sea and the Antarctic and that we pull our weight in supporting a wider Antarctic programme will be aided by two new ice-strengthened vessels capable of spending more time in the Southern Ocean. Ensuring that the sophisticated communications platforms operating on our boats, planes, and other vehicles when they are on deployment around the world are well protected from the growing number of cyber-attacks and assailants who are using that particular method of warfare will be addressed.

Mark Mitchell: How else will the $20 billion of expenditure announced today be spent?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: An exercise like that which we have undertaken in producing the white paper allows us to look ahead to the demands that will come of all aspects of the Defence Force in the years ahead. Today we have signalled the procurement of strategic and tactical airlift assets, as well as air surveillance aircraft. There are also combat patrols sustainment and the tour and operations vessels for the navy, and there is ever-increasing equipment for greater cyber and intelligence capacity to support Defence Force personnel and networks at home and abroad. This is a good white paper, identifying at this point in time the environment we live in and the means necessary for our Defence Force to meet the demands put upon it in the years ahead.

Hon Phil Goff: What does the white paper do to address the serious problem that the Auditor-General referred to last month, which is a serious, significant, and worsening shortage of skilled people in the Defence Force, which he said is stopping the use of the assets that the Minister is spending billions of dollars investing in?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The assets that are not being deployed by the New Zealand Defence Force were purchased under the previous Government’s watch, which did not take the sort of long-range look at requirements for defence that this white paper takes. That may well be something that the Auditor-General has, in fact, determined as a problem, but this white paper speaks significantly about personnel and having the right mix of skills in the military for the years ahead.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a document from the Auditor-General that is part of a Treasury paper that I do not think is widely available. It makes the point that a severe shortage of labour stops—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The paper has been described, and, on the basis that the member is saying that it is not readily available to members, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Grant Robertson: Has the Minister of Finance assured the Minister of Defence that the full $20 billion will be funded?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Minister of Finance has been involved in the discussions that have led to the release of the white paper. Naturally, he is well aware that as he progresses through the next 15 years of his term in that role, it is something that he will have to meet.

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

Mr SPEAKER: No, I need to deal with a point of order. But if it is a point of order that the question was not addressed, it was definitely addressed. [Interruption] Order! I hope that the member—[Interruption] It may not have been addressed to the member’s satisfaction, but it was to mine.

Rt Hon John Key: Does the Minister take confidence in the fact that the Opposition is now saying that we will be in Government for the next 15 years—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility for that.

Grant Robertson: Has he sought an assurance from the Minister of Finance that the Prime Minister’s desire for tax cuts will not compromise $20 billion worth of funding for the Defence Force?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is deeply disturbing that the Opposition’s finance spokesperson has not seen the extraordinary surplus position that the Government may have in the near future. Obviously, that creates a high degree of optimisation for tax cuts, as well as everything else the Government is committed to. Of course, if he is predicating his question on the basis that he thinks that, somehow, something might happen to put him in the role, then I guess everything is up for grabs.

Immigration Policy—Numbers and Impact

5. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration, who seriously misleads the public about arrival figures, when 93,889 non - New Zealand citizens arrived here permanently in the past year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the proposition in the member’s question.

Ron Mark: Why is his Minister of Immigration misleading the public regarding returning Kiwis, when in the past year they numbered just over 30,000, compared with over 93,000 non-Kiwis?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Of course the Minister of Immigration normally talks to these matters in net numbers—what is the net difference—and if one looks at the 71,000, as I understand it, the bulk of the 71,000 net number is made up by either New Zealanders returning or not going, people coming on international working holidays, or people coming to work in skilled and construction areas. Of course there are lots of people who come and go. Interestingly enough, the member might be surprised to know that the number of people who actually have residency in New Zealand is lower than when his leader was the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Ron Mark: Does he stand by his Minister of Immigration’s stance on capping immigration numbers as being xenophobic when many Kiwis are being pushed out of the job and housing market because low-skilled migrants are driving down wages and adding pressure on the housing crisis in Auckland?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One looks at the net migration numbers in New Zealand. As I said earlier, they are made up in a number of different areas. Firstly, we certainly would not want to stop Kiwis who are returning to New Zealand, who abandoned ship after the terrible years of the Clark Government—or during the terrible years—and chose Australia, from coming home. We certainly would not want to stop Australians, who are free to come over here at any time. We would not want to stop people who come as a part of our treaties—from Samoa and the like. We would not want to stop people who come with the skills category we need in areas like construction or agriculture that we see. We would not want to stop students who come to New Zealand, who form a big part of the thing. We would not want to stop people who come on working holiday programmes. I think New Zealand is a far better and richer country for having migration in the way that we do. Yes, it puts some pressure on the system, and we just simply need to fund that or build more houses.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Finance when he was warned by Treasury in December last year that migrant workers are driving down wages and that “The increasing flows of younger and lower-skilled migrants may be contributing to a lack of employment opportunities for local workers”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is fair to say that the Government does not always accept Treasury’s advice, but, interestingly enough, if you look at, for instance, workers who have come under the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme—I think, actually, most New Zealand companies that have been involved in that would say they are invaluable in areas like our viticulture and horticulture sector—the Government has been interested in trying to see whether that will work for local workers and has been trialling domestic RSE schemes. It is actually more challenging to find those workers than the member might think.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in his Minister for Building and Housing, who is not only failing the housing needs of Auckland citizens but also failing to keep up with his Minister of Immigration, who is busy pumping an extra 34,000 migrants into Auckland each year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: By any measure, the Minister for Building and Housing is doing a tremendous job. Yes, of course it is a challenge, but he has undertaken far more reforms than any other housing Minister. Yes, it is true that New Zealand is a popular destination. Yes, it is true that we have got some of the lowest interest rates this country has seen in over 60 years. Yes, it is true that consumer confidence is high and business confidence is high. Yes, it is true that New Zealand is a desired destination for people to come to, but I think that is a sign of success. I know the member wants to be a little down in the mouth about it, but when he was the Mayor of Carterton District, he would have welcomed people coming into Carterton, setting up homes. In fact—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I know the question was particularly long, so I gave the Prime Minister some latitude, but the answer is certainly long enough.

Housing Affordability—Mortgage Rates

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “I’d expect the financial system to take account of the inherent risk of rapidly rising house prices. Particularly the buyers. The buyers need to pay attention to the fact that interest rates will inevitably rise even if in the next couple of years they can’t see that happening quickly. The debt related to mortgages lasts a long time”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes. As I said in that interview, mortgages do last a long time, and buyers who are stretching themselves when mortgage rates are the lowest in 50 years just need to understand the risk or the pressure they will be under if and when mortgage rates come up.

Grant Robertson: Now that he has acknowledged the housing bubble, would it be less risky for homebuyers if the Government had launched a Government-backed building programme for affordable housing, as recommended last week by the Employers and Manufacturers Association and the Property Institute of New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not believe that. What the Minister is merely saying is that, actually, we have mortgage rates that are incredibly low. What a lot of households look at when they are borrowing is their capacity to pay that mortgage, and less about how much they are actually borrowing, as such. What he is concerned about, of course, is that as those mortgage rates go up there may be some concerns about their ability to pay it back. That is the point that he was making.

Grant Robertson: Which of the following Government contributions has added the most to the housing bubble: (a) allowing building consent levels to sit at record lows for 4 years, and still refusing to build affordable homes at scale; (b) repealing laws to promote affordable housing; (c) refusing to put in place restrictions on offshore speculators; (d) encouraging first-home buyers to buy the houses they cannot afford through deposit subsidies; or (e) all of the above?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Those sound like Labour policies that were rejected by the public, but what I will say is that we are doing a heck of a lot around housing in New Zealand. We can see that in that we are building at least 40 houses every working day in Auckland, which, of course, is four times what it was when we came into office. We can see the detail in what is going on in the current situation of, really, years of neglect that has happened by a combination of people, but progress is definitely being made.

Grant Robertson: Is his advice for first-home buyers on the risk of the housing bubble bursting, after 8 years in Government, finally an admission of the complete failure of this Government’s housing policies?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think that first-home buyers understand better than the member does that there is some risk when mortgage rates are as low as they are and they are borrowing to capacity, in their ability to pay it back—that they will be taking into consideration if those mortgage rates do go up.

Childhood Obesity—Health Promoting Schools Programme and Other Initiatives

7. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made on encouraging primary schools to adopt the Health Promoting Schools programme?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: As part of the child obesity plan launched last October, we set a target of signing up 150 new decile 1 to 4 primary schools to the Health Promoting Schools programme over the next 2 years. Excellent progress is being made, with 94 new schools so far having signed up, meaning that 914 out of 1,115 decile 1 to 4 schools are on board—that is 90 percent of those schools.

Jacqui Dean: What other steps is the Government taking to combat childhood obesity?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: New Zealand is one of the first OECD countries to have a target and a comprehensive plan to tackle childhood obesity. Other initiatives include support for more sport and physical activity in schools and front-of-pack health star ratings for common foods. We are also implementing a new health target from 1 July 2016 for 95 percent of obese children identified in the B4 School Check programme to be offered further medical advice and guidance. It is a major issue, and no one single measure is the answer.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Education Review Office (ERO) report dated January 2009, called “Schools’ progress towards meeting food and nutrition guidelines”, which sets out that 95 and 97 percent of schools in 2009 did already meet the guidelines.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular ERO report. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Question No. 8 to Minister

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I direct your attention to Speakers’ ruling 168—in particular 168/4, but all of the rulings on that page are relevant. My question relates to the use of section 32 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act, and I seek your guidance as to whether the fact that this question has been transferred from the Minister of Health to the Associate Minister of Health means that you have accepted that the Associate Minister of Health can be delegated the power that is set out in section 32—as that has not been the historical understanding.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member also raised this point through an email earlier in the day, and that is exactly right. I have been assured by the Government that a Minister to whom the delegation has been referred does have the ability to direct under section 32. So I want to refer the member to two Speakers’ rulings that I think are critical to this: Speakers’ ruling 167/1, that “a question [must] be addressed to the Minister primarily responsible.”; and even of stronger value, I think, is 167/5, that “Ministers not only have a right to determine which of them is the appropriate Minister to answer … [but that] they … have a duty to the House to decide on the appropriate Minister to answer.” I have looked at the delegations; there is no doubt that this matter has been delegated to the Associate Minister. On the advice that I have been given, and an assurance from the Government, in the event that a directive was required, the Associate Minister has the ability, the legal authority, to do so. There is no doubt that I think this question has been responsibly transferred for the member to get the best chance of an answer.

Capital and Coast District Health Board—Management of Ashley Peacock

8. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: Will he now use his power under section 32 of the Public Health and Disability Act 2000 to direct Capital and Coast District Health Board to initiate the transitional support plan for Ashley Peacock, which recommends a pathway to a community placement, immediately; if not, why not?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health): That member should know that what he has asked for is illegal and would breach both the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and the Crown Entities Act 2004. The legal advice that I have received confirms that, as Minister, I cannot issue directions to district health boards (DHB) requiring or compelling them to provide specific treatment to specified persons.

Kevin Hague: Does the Minister accept the findings of the National Intellectual Disability Care Agency, which found that Ashley’s seclusion environment is exacerbating his condition; if so, why has he allowed Capital and Coast DHB to sit on the recommendations for his transition plan for months, without even appointing a project manager for Ashley’s case?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Like many New Zealanders, I have sympathy for the parents of Mr Peacock. However, I am informed that the district health board and the Ministry of Health are working alongside the family to provide for a transition plan for Mr Peacock to be placed into the community.

Kevin Hague: How does the Minister reconcile his Government’s treatment of Ashley Peacock and his answers today with New Zealand’s last periodic report on the United Nations Convention against Torture, which identified the irreversible psychological harms of long-term seclusion such as Ashley has endured?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: What I say to that member is that this case is complex. Mr Ashley clearly has a mental illness, and he also has developmental disabilities. But what is paramount in this case is the safety of both Mr Peacock and those around him. And the transition plan that is being formulated by the parties that I referred to in the earlier answer—it is paramount that the safety of Mr Peacock is at the front of all these considerations.

Kevin Hague: Given that Ashley has been predominantly held in, effectively, solitary confinement for more than 5 years now, why is the Associate Minister ignoring the Human Rights Commission, the Ombudsman, and now the National Intellectual Disability Care Agency, who have all recommended his transition out of seclusion without delay?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I said in the first answer that that member was wrong, and I will say in this answer that he is again wrong. He has not been held in solitary seclusion for that period of time. In 2014, for example, he was held in seclusion for 68 hours. That is, on average, 1½ hours per week.

Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his answer to the primary question, the Minister indicated that he had received legal advice, and I ask that he table that advice.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure the member can. If he was quoting—the member can certainly ask whether the Minister was quoting from a legal document at the time he gave an answer. Was the Minister doing that? Was the Minister quoting from a legal document as he gave his answer? He was not.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I was quoting legal advice.

Poto Williams: Why did he say “I’ve been given reassurances that [the health board] are working closely with the family, on a solution.” when sources close to the family claim they have been excluded from meetings with Capital and Coast DHB management and senior officials?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Again that member is wrong. The advice that I have been given is that they are working closely alongside the family for a transition plan for this individual. It is sad—it is very sad—that members opposite are using this case as a political football to advance their political interests.

Homelessness—Statements about Ministry of Social Development Activity and Emergency Housing

9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she stand by her statement that her advice to the Prime Minister about the Salvation Army’s visit to Bruce Pulman Park “was not sufficiently clear”; if so, why did she and her office release the same misinformation to the media?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): To the first part, my answer is yes, as it was yesterday, and to the second part, it is because we obviously did not realise that it was not sufficiently clear when we made the statement, and after we did, we have tidied that up.

Phil Twyford: Did she tell the Prime Minister that officials from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) went out with NGO personnel, including the Salvation Army, to talk to homeless people; if not, what precisely did she tell the Prime Minister?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I cannot remember the exact wording of what I told him, but it was around this kind of statement: “A mobile squad made up of MSD staff and NGOs including the Salvation Army has been visiting Auckland City Mission and areas of Auckland to engage with people who may need help with emergency housing.” From that statement, you can see that that could have meant that they were going out together or, as I thought it read, that MSD were going to the Auckland City Mission and the Salvation Army had been going to the park. But, at the end of the day, whether they were there together or separately, it does not omit from the actual situation, which is that we were going out trying to engage people who are in dire circumstances to make sure that they are getting the assistance that they deserve.

Phil Twyford: How does she reconcile her statement “I have nothing to apologise for.” with the Salvation Army saying that her mistake has put at risk their ability to help the homeless?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sure that most members of this House have a huge amount of respect for the work that the Salvation Army does with our most vulnerable, and as a consequence of that, as I say, the statements were not meant to be misleading. All I can do is front up and say that I made that mistake, and that is where it sits. But, honestly, you apologise to the Chinese and I will apologise to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Supplementary question, Phil Twyford.

Phil Twyford: Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am calling for a bit of discipline from both sides of the House.

Phil Twyford: Does she accept that it is a failure of her Government’s policy that after 8 years in office she is pre-booking motels for homeless people and charging them for it?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are the first Government to put more than $41 million into emergency housing and give them certainty of funding and make sure—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is absolutely no point in the Minister continuing the answer if Mr Twyford does not want to hear it.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would like to continue my answer, though.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, there is no point with that sort of level of noise being raised, and I am very tempted to—[Interruption] Order! I am very tempted to move immediately to the next question. There is very little point in supplementary questions being asked when that sort of barrage occurs. I will allow the member, on this occasion, to continue with his supplementary questions, but I expect an answer to be heard with far more decorum than it was just a minute ago.

Phil Twyford: Why did she and the Prime Minister work so hard to try to blame homeless people for their plight instead of doing something credible to fix the housing crisis that she and her colleagues made?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I know that the facts do not work for the member, but perhaps he would like to listen up to some of them. We are the first Government to put more than $41 million into emergency housing, give certainty of those beds, and increase the number of beds available. We are the first Government to actually be putting that money where it is really needed and addressing those needs as they are.

Broadband, Rural—Progress and Benefits

10. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made on the progress of the Rural Broadband Initiative?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications): I am pleased to advise the House that phase one of the Government-funded Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) is now complete, on budget, and ahead of schedule. We have 154 new cell towers built, a further 387 are being upgraded, 108,000 copper lines have been upgraded, and more than 300,000 rural families and businesses are now able to access faster broadband services and, in some cases, are able to access an internet service for the very first time. The original specification for the fixed wireless service was to provide at least 5 megabits per second at peak speeds. Recent testing shows the 4G service is, in fact, delivering speeds nine times faster than that—40 megabits per second, and, in some cases, even more.

Brett Hudson: In addition to broadband, what other benefits has the RBI programme delivered?

Hon AMY ADAMS: As well as providing faster broadband, the new tower build programme has extended nationwide mobile coverage by 6,200 square kilometres of rural New Zealand. At the start of the build, nationwide mobile coverage of New Zealand’s land mass was at 38 percent; with the roll-out of the RBI, mobile coverage is now at approximately 50 percent of our land mass and growing, including 77 percent of our State highway network. This increased connectivity brings real benefits to rural New Zealand, with over 2 million New Zealanders able to make cellphone calls in the last quarter on one network alone, thanks to the RBI.

Police—Road Safety

11. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she believe that having Police on the road has a role in road safety, given her recent statement, “There will be fewer police officers on the road”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes.

Stuart Nash: Is she aware that according to official statistics, cellphone use contributed to only 0.05 percent of all fatal or serious injury crashes; if so, why did she blame men on cellphones for the increased road toll?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The facts speak for themselves. For the 5 years from 2010 to 2015, cellphone offences: 70 percent male. Cellphone-related fatal crashes: 73 percent male. Driver deaths: 86 percent male. Percentage at fault: 85 percent male. Alcohol offences: 76 percent male. Illegal street racing: 97 percent male. The facts speak for themselves.

Stuart Nash: Who is right: the Minister when she said that having fewer police is not to blame for the increased road toll, or the hard-working Associate Minister of Transport, Craig Foss, when he said that “Fewer police officers might be a contributor.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, clearly, I am responsible for my statements, and, clearly, I agree with them.

Denis O’Rourke: To assist the efforts of police for road safety, will she seek the full implementation of the Australasian New Car Assessment Programme five star safety rating -technologies; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I believe that is a matter for the Minister of Transport or for the Associate Minister of Transport; certainly not for the Minister of Police.

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The police very often advocate for improvements to roads and improvements to motor vehicle technologies, and I would, therefore, expect that the Minister should have a view on this.

Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister did express a view on it, which was that it was more appropriate to be asked of the Minister of Transport. That is her view, obviously. Further supplementary questions?

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, no, I have ruled on that matter. [Interruption] Mr O’Rourke, I have ruled on that matter. If you want to raise a fresh point of order, I will hear it, but I am not going to have you argue with me while I am in the Chair.

Denis O’Rourke: To assist the efforts of the police for road safety, will she seek safety improvements for regional roads, especially where there are accident black spots; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, it is certainly an issue that Ministers and members of Parliament talk about quite a lot, because I fully agree that there are black spots. The three big issues in road policing and road safety include engineering, which is what he is talking about, and that is something that we talk about regularly.

Stuart Nash: When she says she is not “a big fan of the absolute restrictions on speed”, is that because she thinks men on phones cause more deaths than speeding?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because, actually, I do not agree with giving people speeding tickets for driving 1 kilometre over the speed limit. Because, do you know what, the way I see it—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Or even 3 kilometres over the speed limit. And one of the things I think is that when we have that sort of what I would say is very strict adherence, we can end up with drivers watching the speedometer to the exclusion of watching the road and considering the road conditions.

Stuart Nash: Is blaming men on cellphones not simply a way to hide the fact that a cut in funding for road policing will inevitably end in more deaths on our roads?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is a 6.7 percentage increase in the road policing budget. It is, in fact, $100 million more than the budget that was approved 10 years ago under the previous Government. It is a huge increase, but the fact is that we also have technology at play here. Police have roles in education and enforcement on the roads; they are not all actually driving the cars.

Stuart Nash: Given her statement that “I’m one of many people who consistently sees people still on mobile phones whether they are in trucks or vans or cars”, has the police data and research team also had funding cuts and does it now rely on what the Minister sees when out and about?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, it is actually just noting that I am somebody who gets out and about. I do not sit around an office looking at the mirror, like that member does.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The last—[Interruption] Order! The last part of that answer does not assist me in doing my job in this House. Question No. 12—[Interruption] Order!

Commerce Commission—Funding

12. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What steps is the Government taking to better protect consumers and promote competition?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I was pleased to announce today that Budget 2016 provides the Commerce Commission with an extra $15.2 million of operational funding over the next 4 years. In the past 3 years there has been significant legislative reform of two Acts that the commission enforces, the Fair Trading Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. The extra funding will help ensure that the commission can even more actively enforce the recently reformed consumer and credit laws, for the benefit of all New Zealanders. The last time the commission’s funding for general market regulation was increased was in 2005. Budget 2016 increases it by 25 percent.

Andrew Bayly: How else will this funding increase benefit New Zealand?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: With this additional funding, we will see faster enforcement action to stop consumer harm caused by non-compliant businesses, such as those engaged in misleading practices or irresponsible lending. In one recent example, last week the commission succeeded in court action against a pay-day lender operating in a low-income community whose practices included charging his customers a 50 percent weekly fee. The Commerce Commission plays a vital role in enforcing competition law and responsible lending practices, working to ensure that New Zealanders—especially those in vulnerable circumstances—are protected from businesses using dishonest practices, and that honest traders are able to compete on a level playing field. The additional funding will ensure that the commission’s good work in areas like this continues and expands. [Interruption]

Andrew Bayly: How does this announcement—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the member yet. I was waiting for Mr Tabuteau to cooperate.

Andrew Bayly: How does this announcement support the Government’s national strategy on financial capability?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Last year the Government signalled that improving the financial capability, or money skills, of New Zealanders was a priority. The Government can make a difference in three ways: firstly, through legislation such as recent amendments to the Fair Trading Act and Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act; secondly, by ensuring that those laws are properly enforced by a well-resourced Commerce Commission, as this Budget ensures—but we also know that when it comes to steering people away from being entrapped in a cycle of debt and poor financial decisions, properly enforced laws can take you only so far; the long-term challenge is to improve the money skills or financial capability of New Zealanders. The Commerce Commission also plays an important role here by educating and informing businesses so that they are aware of their new obligations, and consumers so that they know their rights under the new laws.

Urgent Debates Declined

Defence Force—Defence White Paper 2016

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the release of the New Zealand defence white paper today. The release of the paper is a particular case of recent occurrence and involving ministerial responsibility. The more difficult test is whether the release of the white paper requires the urgent attention of the House, and whether there are other parliamentary means of debating the subject. The white paper sets out a 15-year spending plan. Select committees are currently carrying out the examination of estimates and they will subsequently be debated in this House. This provides an opportunity to debate the Government spending in relation to defence. Given the duration of the plan set out in the white paper, there will also be ample ongoing opportunities to scrutinise it. I am not convinced that the release of the white paper has such an element of urgency that it warrants the setting aside of the normal business of the House. The application is therefore declined.

General Debate

General Debate

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. More and more, New Zealand First and the New Zealand public are beginning to see that the battle against the National Government is, rather, a battle against its sponsors. The National Government avoids issues of national significance and puts them aside, and, in fact, it denies that they even exist.

I want to talk today in this time slot about the Government not talking about Silver Fern Farms. In fact, it is very clear that it would rather disavow any knowledge and claim that it does not know what is going on. The reality is, though, that this highlights its lack of commitment to the rural community and to our farmers. But we know that for 23 years New Zealand First has stood up in this House and supported and backed marginalised New Zealanders, and, more and more, we are beginning to see that it is the rural community and New Zealand farmers who are actually being marginalised by that Government across the House today. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has never been afraid to stand up and take a battle to the powers that may prevail at any given time, but the Government refuses to acknowledge that there is even a problem. It either cannot be bothered, it is not interested, or it has a self-interest in denying that there is a problem.

The Newshub article from last week was an opportunity for the New Zealand public to finally see that there is a fundamental flaw within the regulatory framework and oversight of this country when it comes to the Financial Markets Authority. These concerns arise particularly from Shanghai Maling’s current application for the so-called joint venture with Silver Fern Farms—New Zealand’s largest meat exporter and a code-listed company here in New Zealand. It is now clear that Silver Fern Farms did not advise its shareholders correctly or honestly on its current levels of debt, and, most particularly, claims to the shareholders that it could not get forward projections for more than a year have been proved to be demonstrably false. I say this because the evidence that New Zealand First has does prove conclusively that the statement was false, and shows that there were forward projections, but those 4-year projections were actually given to the potential overseas investors and not the shareholders and the farmers of New Zealand.

Critically, we now know that 574 pages of documentation went to the overseas investors but this same information was withheld—and I say it again: withheld—from the shareholders. In fact, New Zealand First laid complaints over the sale of Silver Fern Farms with the Financial Markets Authority. We actually supplied the documentation so that the authority could follow up, but it failed to do this. Actually, it did not even call us once to follow up on the submissions that we made to it. It did not include an accurate chronological order of the financial accounts, which would be critical to any meaningful investigation. The Financial Markets Authority failed to send anyone into Silver Fern Farms’ head office to actually ask questions of the management and the board—not a single person actually went to have that conversation.

This so-called National Government needs to be held to account. New Zealand First does not intend to let highly paid public officials get away with anything less than, at the very least, competent performance. It should consider itself here now warned that we will be holding it to account. New Zealand First has new information that will reveal the truth to the New Zealand public, the shareholders, and the owners of the Silver Fern Farms—serious documents that could construe serious fraud. This is a dirty deal, and one that speaks to the aspirations of the National Government and the tenants whom it calls farmers in New Zealand.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration): That would not be the first time that someone from New Zealand First has stood up and given us a speech in this House about some amazing intrigue that they have managed to uncover somewhere—some sort of double-dealing, some sort of slippery activity, etc. But here today we have no questions in the House about this matter; just one of its backbenchers standing up and spraying his allegations all over the place, trying to besmirch the reputation of the New Zealand Financial Markets Authority, which actually may not have any jurisdiction in this case whatsoever. So all I will say is this: put your evidence on the table, Mr Fletcher Tabuteau, let everybody see it—let everybody see it—and then if there is something in it, then, clearly, the law will take the appropriate course.

But the real question here is: how can New Zealand First have the audacity to stand up and claim to be a friend of the farmer? The first point is that it fails to recognise that it is now the main Opposition party. Labour and the Greens, with their little deal last week, where they are one and the same—Greens-Labour or Labour-Greens; spit it out and either way it is the same thing and they are finished. New Zealand First is now the most prominent Opposition party in the House, and it claims to like farmers but will not vote for, and does not support, the best trade deal that New Zealand could ever get for our primary product. See, there is a party that actually believes in insular New Zealand—that a tiny little locked door surrounded by a Donald Trump wall would be a much nicer place to live, where everybody could be so much more prosperous if we just traded with one another. If we could take our 60 million sheep and just sort of sell them to one another over and over again, we could all be wealthy. It is the sort of protectionist rubbish that Winston Peters has been on about for years, the sort of protectionist rubbish that got us into trouble and that led to the reforms of the 1980s, and the sort of protectionist rubbish that New Zealand voters will continue to reject because today they are a lot smarter than your average New Zealand First backbencher.

I think that one of things that has really surprised me in the last couple of days has been the complete turn-round in attitudes over the way in which the House seating plan works here in Parliament. Post the election we had New Zealand First saying that it was the third-biggest party in the House, and, therefore, it should sit on the cross benches—that is over there where the Greens are. The Greens, legitimately, as the second-biggest Opposition party, should have been where New Zealand First is now. But the Greens Party put its foot down and said that there is no way that it wanted to sit so close to Labour because it had a memorandum of understanding with National and therefore, it had to take these seats over here. Now, of course, we have got the coming together, the holding of the hands, the big embrace, and the great race for what will be electoral oblivion for both of them, and those parties are not prepared to sit next to each other. Not only have they ended the marriage, they have also signed the terms for the divorce on election day. I want to know why New Zealand First is not claiming its right to sit in the cross benches as it properly should, being the main party—

Richard Prosser: I’d like to sit over there where you are. You’re just keeping the seat warm, Gerry.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, it is not a good thing to break the speech to acknowledge an interjection, but Mr Prosser just said that he wants to sit over here. Well, one day, Mr Prosser, when you are an old man and you come back as a tourist, they might let you sit on one of these seats. But it will not be happening by virtue of the ballot box, I can assure the member of that. I could go on about that, but taunting the Opposition is never a fair or reasonable thing.

I just want to say that I am absolutely stunned that in the House today, when we had the announcement this morning of a $20 billion plan for the future of the New Zealand Defence Force, that same party that is now obviously the most prominent Opposition party had no question on the matter in the House—most disappointing. What is fair to say is that over the next long period of years, the New Zealand Defence Force will be able to plan properly the way in which it acquires the equipment it needs and the way in which it structures its force to be able to deliver in the best interests of New Zealand security.

The one thing that surprised me today was the Labour Opposition asking the question: “Is it affordable?”. Well, it is 1.1 percent of our GDP, which is pretty good relative to other nations. Yes, there will be plenty of people in here who want to say “Spend more.”, but it is pretty good going.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): The most disturbing aspect of National’s housing crisis is, as reported by RNZ last Friday, the fact that children as young as 11 are sleeping under bushes in South Auckland. I want to pay tribute to the journalism of John Campbell at RNZ and Mike Wesley-Smith at TV3’s The Nation, who have run stories in recent days that have brought to the tearooms and the kitchen tables of New Zealand the scale of homelessness and the plight of the homeless under National’s housing crisis. New Zealanders do not like it; they are profoundly disturbed by the social crisis that is homelessness in this country today.

So what is the Government’s response to that social crisis? Paula Bennett is pre-booking motels for homeless people and charging them for the pleasure of it. That is this Government’s response. She is making homeless people pay the debt racked up after they have been in a motel for 7 days and is taking it out of their benefit. She even refuses to collate the data on the debts. She knows—she knows how many people have got debt, because it is on their files at Work and Income. She could add it up at the drop of a hat, but she refuses, because she does not want the public of New Zealand to know the scandalous debt that is being exacted on homeless people on her watch. How is that for cynical?

For Paula Bennett and John Key, homelessness is not a social problem to be solved; it is a political problem to be managed, which is why the Prime Minister said a couple of weeks ago that Ministry of Social Development (MSD) officials had gone out with the Salvation Army to knock on the car doors of homeless people—a complete fabrication. It was made up. It did not happen. They—John Key and Paula Bennett—embarrassed one of our most respected social agencies into publicly correcting the Prime Minister.

This was classic Paula Bennett. She was feeling the heat over the Government’s total failure to respond to the housing crisis, and what did she do? She did what she always does, and that is try to turn the tables and blame the victims of her failed policy. She told the Prime Minister that MSD officials had gone out at night with personnel from the Salvation Army to try to help homeless people, but according to Paula Bennett, they did not want to be helped. What a disgraceful fabrication—a lie designed to caricature the victims of National’s housing crisis and blame them for their plight. That is typical Paula Bennett.

You see, Paula Bennett and John Key got the benefit of a generous taxpayer-funded welfare system—of State housing designed to put a roof over the heads of people who needed it. It was OK for them—for the Prime Minister and Paula Bennett—to get that kind of help to get a start in life, but under this National Government, the homeless and people who need a hand up are caricatured as the undeserving poor. That is how this Government rolls.

If Paula Bennett’s flying squads were not enough of an insult to the public’s intelligence, then think about this: her big policy that she announced the day before the Budget was that Paula Bennett was going to pay $5,000 for people to get out of Auckland so they could find a house. Never mind that the Government is also paying people who need a job $3,000 to move to Auckland. Never mind that in places like Huntly, there are not any empty State houses for them to move into.

If children are growing up sleeping under bushes in this country, if they are living in cars and garages and campgrounds, how will they ever, ever grow up to be good citizens in this country? How will they ever get the opportunity to be healthy, to be educated, and to have a decent crack at the good life in this country? The fact is that they will not, and National members’ negligence in allowing the housing crisis to spin out of control, their refusal to do anything meaningful about the scale of homelessness in this country, and their cynicism in trying to spin and divert and distract public attention from the failure of their policy is a betrayal of those children.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister responsible for the GCSB): Along with other members of the House, I want to acknowledge the passing of Sir Graham Latimer, a great New Zealander. I remember him very well from the early days of some of the litigation that the Minister of Education referred to, with his lawyers David Baragwanath QC, as he then was, and the late Martin Dawson. They fought great fights for the New Zealand Māori Council and achieved a great deal for their country.

I noted with interest what Mr Paraone said about the fact that Ngāti Kahu has not settled. Well, there are two words that answer that completely and they are “Margaret Mutu”, but I hope that one day soon there will be a settlement with Ngāti Kahu, as there has been with the other Te Hiku iwi.

I suppose it is necessary to make some ritualistic comment about the Labour-Green memorandum of understanding, but, frankly, I cannot be bothered because there are some very serious issues that need to be dealt with.

The first one, which was obverted by Mr Brownlee, is the all-important core responsibility of Government, which is to protect a nation’s borders. He deals with it as the Minister of Defence, and that is why there is the white paper that has been published to deal with some of these important issues. But I also deal with it as the Minister responsible for the GCSB. The common issue that Mr Brownlee and I—and also the Minister for Communications—are very worried about is the issue of cyber-security. I look at Mr Paraone—and he would be an aficionado of the James Bond movies, probably going back to the first one—and he would remember very well some of the cyber-security incidents that occurred in those films. Frankly, they all seem to be fantastical and totally unreal, but it is with us now.

I refer, for example, to what happened to the Bangladesh Bank a couple of months ago when someone hacked into that bank and, suddenly, well over $100 million was transferred to some accounts in Hong Kong. We all know what happened with Sony when it offended a certain head of State of a certain nation in North Asia. We do know that it is possible for people to hack in and not simply steal money out of accounts, but to play with systems and cause mayhem. These are very serious issues that should engage all members of Parliament and are ones that greatly concern the agencies for which I have responsibility. This is why we have established a project—which is becoming more well-known now—called Project CORTEX, which is designed to provide security assistance for medium- to large-scale companies and also Government departments to make sure that these sorts of attacks do not happen. We all know what happened to the Australian Parliament a couple of years ago when there was a cyber-attack on that: I think it was shut down for a couple of days.

As we prepare the intelligence legislation for debate in this House, I hope honourable members will realise that these kinds of incidents are not isolated; they are very, very serious. Mr Brownlee is dealing with them as the Minister of Defence to protect the kit so that it can defend our shores; I am dealing with them as the Minister responsible for the GCSB; and, of course, Mrs Adams mentioned just a little while ago the appointment of the Computer Emergency Response Team to ensure that businesses get some guidance on how to deal with these issues.

I very much look forward to the forthcoming intelligence debate. These are big issues, and I hope all members will join in that debate with the interests of our country at heart.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I have some questions, because yesterday in the House during question time David Seymour asked the Prime Minister whether he had checked to make sure that people were actually homeless instead of just renovating. The Prime Minister responded and said: “No, but, you know, perhaps we should have a policy for checking to make sure that people are not renovating and are instead homeless.” The Prime Minister rolled around and laughed with it, joked around, and so did most on the benches, actually. So I have some questions, and I would like to know whether, given the Prime Minister’s behaviour and joking response in the House yesterday to a question around homelessness, he will apologise to New Zealanders for not taking the issue seriously.

I have quite a few questions. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister will apologise to the 11 year-old girl who loves school, particularly maths, reading, and languages, also Beyoncé and kapa haka, looks forward to school and wants to do well, but is failing in her schooling a bit because she is living in a van with her family of eight. She is definitely not renovating. I would also like to know whether the Prime Minister will apologise to the disabled mum with children who has been shoved out of her rental property because her community is now unaffordable and out of her reach, and she is finding herself at the back of the line, trying to rent another property, in a another, cheaper area, and trying to find an appropriate house. That mum is not renovating. I have another question, and wonder whether the Prime Minister will apologise to the family of 15-day-old baby Mereana, who was welcomed to Te Puea Marae just very recently because her family was living without a home. Baby Mereana is not renovating.

I would also like to know from the Prime Minister whether he will advise his Ministers to go and visit Te Puea Marae as a first step, and as part of the Government’s commitment to urgently addressing this housing crisis. There is one renovation that Te Puea Marae needs to do because one of their buildings—where they are storing mountains of clothing donated by generous and also poor-income people in their community—has been filled up, and there are no lights in there at night. When I was working in that room with the marae we could work only until 5 o’clock before it got dark. It is quite possible that Te Puea could do some renovating.

On television news yesterday, Paula Bennett refused to give Te Puea Marae and other marae like Manurewa, who are now setting up to help the homeless, any official status as emergency housing providers. She refused because she said that year after year after year the marae would just keep having to help these homeless people. The Minister for Social Housing admitted that her Government cannot actually solve the housing crisis, and instead wants New Zealanders to accept that this is normal.

Most New Zealanders—kind, compassionate, ordinary New Zealanders—do not accept that this is normal. They understand that this Government is doing its best to do as little as it can, rather than all it can, to ensure that families are in warm, dry, affordable homes. When the Greens are in Government, I look forward—and I understand that New Zealanders want us to do all that we can and use all the tools and resources that we have—to ensuring that all New Zealanders are living in a warm, dry, affordable home, and are not just renovating.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): I am not known to shy away from a bit of a fight, but the thought of the Greens being in the Government is actually enough to get me going, and, in fact, I am thinking that if that ever happens we will all have to leave the country.

I am a huge fan of the Rt Hon Helen Clark. I think everyone knows I am much more of a fan now she is in New York and not here, but I am actually a fan of hers because I like the fact that she has got some courage and she says what she thinks, and also she had to deal with all sorts of issues in her own party and she brought them together with a moment of unity in the years that she was in charge. I think that she was incorrect in one area—well, many actually, but one in particular—notable today, as I recall her describing New Zealand as being in a benign strategic environment.

Do you know what? You could not get more wrong now. If you travel overseas, you start to see just how not very benign at all our strategic environment is. You stay in New Zealand, you get involved in areas like police, or even corrections, defence, the security agencies—you get to realise pretty quickly that it is not that benign anymore. The fact is that we have a very difficult presence in the world. Sometimes it is called IS, Daesh, all sorts of other things, but it is actually about violent extremism, and that is an area where I have a role as the leading Minister in countering violent extremism.

It is very fortunate, having been Minister for Ethnic Affairs and actually meeting and knowing many people across the whole spectrum of religions and ethnicities in New Zealand. But, of course, violent extremism is not limited to people of ethnicities other than the dominant ethnicities and population base in New Zealand. It can be across everywhere. This is actually a huge issue, which is why I was really pleased with the $20 billion modernisation programme for our Defence Force, because it is incredibly important that our Defence Force is able to assist New Zealand and promote New Zealand’s interest, but also that it can, in fact, defend itself against cyber - intelligence and attack—so, too, the New Zealand Police. The New Zealand Police holds a tremendous amount of information. I do not think most of us here would want to see that compromised by any lack of attention. We also have, of course, our Special Air Service. This Government funded and promoted the battle training facility in my electorate of Ardmore. That is a tremendous facility, and I was able to be there for its opening, and it is, yet again, another example of our commitment.

We are currently ranked, I understand, 18th in the world for cyber-attacks, and last year, when I had slightly more time on my hands than I do now, I travelled to New York and met with one of the world’s leading insurance brokers to talk to them about what they saw as the growing trends in threats to countries and to business. The No. 1 threat by far is, in fact, cyber-attack. They saw this as something that is very, very difficult to insure against. It is very difficult to do anything about it, there is also so much ransom, and so many attacks go on that never get any publicity. Obviously it is a huge issue for banks, insurance companies, and all sorts of businesses, particularly those trading and with intellectual property. This area should not ever be discounted, but I understand from these people that it is, actually, often used as one of the ways in which terrorism is financed—that and oil and other things like that.

We need to look no further than to what the UK has had to deal with, even recently. Recently I was in the UK. They told me that they had 300 violent extremists in their prisons. We have got probably two. This is an issue that is coming our way. This review—this white paper in defence—is well on time. It is appropriate and it is something that we will no doubt need to consider as time moves on. Thank you.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): In the course of the Queen’s Birthday weekend, the Labour Party and the trade union movement buried a Pacific matriarch. Her name was Filiamata Fiu. Filiamata Fiu’s husband died about 25 years ago. She had one child, who was dead at the time of her death, and she had no other children. At 79 years of age, this woman owned her own house from the 1970s, when she was supported through the Government scheme of the day and was able to get a loan guaranteed by the Government at 3 percent. At 79 she owned her own home, and she helped people with the little social security she got.

Fili spent all her life fighting for social justice and fairness for workers. She had worked at Auckland Hospital and lived her life believing in the principle of solidarity. To Fili, the principle of solidarity meant that she paid her taxes so the kids down the road would be able to get an education. She paid her taxes so that the Government of the day would provide health care and social welfare for the protection of the vulnerable, for the unemployed—all the people whom New Zealanders have traditionally paid their taxes in order to protect. That is what Fili did all her life. She lived the principle of solidarity and paid her taxes, to ensure that the people who could not afford to buy their own house would be able to rent a house and be supported through that.

Pita Paraone: And she had her faith.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Absolutely! She had her faith.

I want to come back to the final words that Fili gave to a member of the Government, in her final week. We saw the Budget introduced last week, where this Government attempted—failed, I would say. The Government failed to address the key issues that face our people. It does not fix the housing problem at all. It underfunds health, it underfunds education, and though it predicts some economic growth in the years to come, it also lays out that the 5.6 percent unemployment rate—146,000 people—will remain the same next year. For Māori it is 12 percent unemployment. For Pasifika it is 10 percent unemployment at the moment.

Although the Budget predicts economic growth, the economic growth would benefit those at the very top of our income ladder, rather than those at the bottom. I say that because economists have said that most working people would have a reduction in their income—a reduction in their economic share—of 1.3 percent. That means that every worker would lose $400 per year, per person, in the next year. That is what the Budget fails to do. It fails to fix the housing problem. It fails to properly fund health and education. In fact, one of the habits of this Government is that it continues to underfund the increases that come from inflation and population growth, and then it calls it more funding.

Infometrics research showed us last year that the Government underfunded health by $1.7 billion, and, again, that is done in this particular Budget. Infometrics research said that this Government has underfunded health by $1.7 billion in 6 years. In fact, it was the professional medical specialists who released a report last year, saying that the funding of this Government in the health sector is based on misrepresentation.

If we are to believe what this Government has said—that it is fixing everything, that it is doing all it can—why is it that Te Puea Marae in Māngere has had to step forward and take on 54 families who were living in cars? If things are so good under this Government, why is it that even though Te Puea Marae took on 54 families who were living in cars, so that it can provide them with decent accommodation during the winter, there are more and more people in homeless situations? The Auckland City Mission today released its report, saying that homelessness in Auckland City has more than doubled in the last 3 years. We have had this Government for the last 8 years. Despite what National said at the very beginning when it took office, when it promised every New Zealander a brighter future, that is not the case today. More and more people than ever before not only do not own their own home—for Pasifika it is 16 percent—

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am sure I am not the only member in this House who cringes with embarrassment when words like “Chinese-sounding names” are used as a measure of the same issue that that the previous speaker, Su’a William Sio, was talking about, and has done so repeatedly over some months, as if having a Chinese-sounding name is somehow something to be ashamed of. Well, I am ashamed when I hear members judging New Zealanders by the sound of their name. I am also hideously embarrassed when there is discussion about Indian chefs, as if that group of people were also a group of people to be ashamed of. And of course Thai metalworkers have now joined that category of people in New Zealand of whom we should be ashamed.

Well, I will tell you who should be ashamed. The Opposition—the Labour—

Carmel Sepuloni: Stop making things up.

JACQUI DEAN: Yes, you see, they are reacting now because they should be ashamed. They should be ashamed that they are showing a misogynistic tendency, which says that you are OK if you have got a New Zealand - sounding name, but you are not OK if you have got a foreign-sounding name: “Do not come to New Zealand. We do not want you. We want only New Zealanders in this country.”

Carmel Sepuloni: Misogyny has nothing to do with race.

JACQUI DEAN: Well, come on down—misogyny, and xenophobia as well. Well, I mean, that is true, by implication.

Here is an invitation to members of the Labour-Greens/Greens-Labour—well, who would know and who would care? But here is an invitation to some of those members to come on down to Central Otago and have a look around at the skills shortages that we deal with on a daily basis. I would like them to come on down to places like Alexandra, to Wānaka, and to Queenstown. Come on down to Roxburgh and Cromwell.

In fact, David Parker, sitting there on the other side of the House, had a brief time as MP for Otago and he did a pretty good job of it, actually. He changed the immigration settings around Queenstown, providing for a very quick turn-round for those people coming from overseas who needed work permits. It was David Parker who did that. Imagine how embarrassed he feels now, at the current attitude of the Labour-Greens/Greens-Labour-New Zealand First unholy alliance, where they are, effectively, shutting the door on people coming into New Zealand with the skills and labour that we need so badly. So how do you imagine Stuart Nash feels? He represents an area that is strong in pipfruit and strong in wine. What does he think, when his own party and his potential coalition—God willing it will never happen, because New Zealanders certainly will not accept it. How would he feel, along with his colleague David Parker, having represented in the past those areas of New Zealand that need skilled workers?

We have skill shortages in the regions. I often go to a meeting in Alexandra. It is called the Central Otago Labour Market Governance Group. Again, I am sure that when David Parker was the member for Otago he also would have attended those meetings. There are representatives of the growers, of course, but also the Ministry of Social Development and Immigration New Zealand are represented, as well as Seasonal Solutions Co-operative Ltd. Pipfruit New Zealand is also represented, and I turn up as often as I can, along with the mayor and councillors. It takes that kind of combined effort to put a case to Immigration New Zealand to get Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE) workers into the region.

What are Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First going to do about those? What is their policy around RSE workers coming into New Zealand? Do they still support those workers or, if it is in line with their current words around the immigration of workers, are they going to turn their backs on them? I can tell you that we need those workers. If we do not have them, we will not get the grapes picked. If we do not have those skilled workers coming from overseas, we will not get the apples picked. For many, many years Roxburgh growers tried really hard to get apples into Australia. Their industry was shaky. We now get the apples in; now the problem is we need the workers. Shame on you, Labour. Shame on you, New Zealand First. Shame on you, the Greens. Your xenophobic attitude is hurting the regional economies of New Zealand.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Moe mai rā e te rangatira Tā Graham Latimer, nui te aroha ki tōna whānau.

[Rest there, esteemed one Sir Graham Latimer, and much empathy to his family.]

In September 2015 New Zealand, along with 192 other UN member States, adopted the sustainable development goals (SDGs). They applied from 1 January this year. The first goal that the House may be interested to know is that there would be no poverty. We want to end poverty in all of its forms everywhere. Our Prime Minister went—he attended on our behalf—and at the General Assembly he committed not only New Zealand but our Government to these 17 SDGs. By 2030 we are supposed to reduce, at least by half, the proportion of men, women, and children living in poverty.

I think that no group of people in New Zealand more exemplifies those living in poverty than the homeless. By definition, the homeless are people living in severely crowded homes, in motels, in boarding houses, on the streets, or in cars. Between 2006 and 2013 homelessness in Aotearoa New Zealand increased by 25 percent. So I would like to say congratulations to the National Government! You have increased homelessness in New Zealand by 25 percent. That is over 41,000 New Zealanders who are living in a homeless state. So rather than reduce poverty, this Government is actually increasing poverty. That will mean that every year 2,000 more New Zealanders will be homeless. By the 2018 census that will be over 51,000 people. This is National’s legacy and John Key’s legacy as the leader of our country.

What did Budget 2016 deliver to address poverty? What did it deliver? Well, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, the Salvation Army, the Auckland City Mission, Te Puea Marae, and Manurewa Marae, it actually delivered nothing. That is what this Government has delivered to reduce poverty in Aotearoa. This Budget does not lift one person out of poverty. This is more than a “get stuffed Budget”, actually; this is a “you’re not important, you’re a liability, you’re undeserving, you’re invisible and unworthy of our help Budget”. National just does not care. In fact, its solution—which is its solution for everything—is that there is no problem that tax cuts cannot fix. We all know that that is what the agenda of this Government is.

Tonight at 6 p.m. at Manurewa Marae the community is gathering. We have responded to the call of Te Puea Marae, which has responded to the people across Tāmaki-makau-rau who need somewhere to sleep, somewhere to get a hot meal, and also a place where they can have a shower and wash some of their clothes. Actually, it is great that Minister Tolley is here in the House this afternoon, because my office has contacted the Clendon Ministry of Social Development office. We are hoping that the Ministry of Social Development staff will be involved in a triage process, and that that is going to enable us to identify the people who come to Manurewa Marae and who need help.

Hon Anne Tolley: Why don’t you get up to date? They’re already there.

LOUISA WALL: Su’a William Sio, my colleague, talked about the 53 families who are at Te Puea Marae. There are going to be over 50 families coming to Manurewa Marae, so it is wonderful that the Minister for Social Development has committed to her staff being there to help in the triage process, so that we can have a plan of action that is going to address the needs of every single family and every single child who lives in homelessness and who wants to come to Manurewa Marae, not just to seek refuge for a night, not just so that they can have a place to sleep and something in their belly, but so they can actually have a sense of calm in their life and not live in a stressful situation where they are living in a car. It is wonderful that the Minister has committed to her staff being there to help the community.

Who cares about the homeless in New Zealand? Te Puea Marae, Manurewa Marae, the Salvation Army, Auckland City Mission, and the people and the community groups who are knitting blankets, who on Saturday will meet me at 11.30 at Manurewa Marae. They are going to collect these blankets from rest homes around Tāmaki-makau-rau, because they know that there are people in need who are cold. Those are the people who care about the homeless. It is philanthropy that cares about the homeless, not that Government. Shame on you.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Firstly, I would just like to start by acknowledging the Hon Gerry Brownlee, our Minister of Defence, who launched our defence white paper this afternoon with the Prime Minister, the Chief of Defence Force, and with our Secretary of Defence, Helene Quilter. I would also like to acknowledge the Minister because he very kindly extended an invitation to both me and the Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, to accompany him recently up to Iraq and Camp Taji to go and visit our troops up there and have a look and see how the mission was going. I am going to come back to that.

I just want to speak very quickly about the defence white paper because I was heavily involved in the consultation phase of this, and I was very happy to hold and host three meetings—one with the Warkworth RSA, one with the Wellsford RSA, and we also went up to the Kerikeri RSA. I just want to acknowledge the Chief of Army, Major General Peter Kelly and also the Deputy Secretary of Defence, Tony Lynch. They both attended these meetings also, and I think that highlighted just how important the consultation phase on the defence white paper was.

Obviously there was a lot of detail and a lot of the submitters wanted to talk about capital investment and equipment, which is important and has been captured in the white paper document, but the one thing that did come through very strongly and I just wanted to highlight in the House tonight is just how important the men and women in our New Zealand Defence Force are now and into the future. To highlight that I would just say that one very, very common thing that came through from all of the submitters and all the meetings that we held was that the personnel within our Defence Force are the most important capability that we have. Without well-trained experienced people who are motivated and committed to the organisation, no capability will ever reach its true potential. That is very true, and therefore today, in my general debate speech, I just want to acknowledge all of our Defence Force personnel, whether they be at home or whether they be serving overseas. And I want to acknowledge their families as well, who also make a sacrifice when they are away.

I would like to refer very quickly to our mission in our Taji. I personally was very interested in this, because I was involved back in 2005-2006 in the initial training programme that was established for the newly formed Iraqi security forces. We would be naïve not to acknowledge and say that there were some big challenges in Iraq, in terms of the quality of personnel that are available, the different loyalties and where those allegiances lie, and a central government that has to be able to deal with those things. But that should not stop us from constantly working and trying to increase the support, and the level and the quality of those troops who, ultimately, are tasked with going out and meeting this threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or Daesh.

The one that I noticed is that—we were very lucky while we were in Taji—one of the divisions that had been on the front line had just returned from the front line in Ramadi, and had actually just liberated Ramadi, which is a very important strategic town in Iraq, and they had pushed Daesh out. They had been very, very successful. This was a combat division that had come back to Taji to get some further updated training and also have some junior leadership training delivered by our Anzac mission with the Australians at Taji.

The thing that struck me was this: No. 1, they were just very pleased to be back—their attendance numbers were up. Back in 2005-2006 when the Iraqi troops turned up—and let us take the tactical support unit, for example, which was more or less a special forces unit, even they would turn up pretty ragtag—they would not have uniform footwear on; often the footwear that was issued to them would disappear. They would not have a standard uniform that was issued to them. The one thing that I noticed about the troops who were coming back into Taji was that they were very, very well presented and well turned out. I use that as a bit of a meter for me to say: “You know what, the Iraqi security forces are getting better. The quality of the training is getting better. The way that they deploy is getting better.” That could be judged off the way that they actually turn themselves out and the pride that they take in their own appearance.

The one thing that was highlighted through all of our meetings—and I have to say that I was actually very proud of our own defence Minister and the way that he presented and advanced our own interests and stated our case, in terms of how we feel the deployment in Iraq—[Bell rung] Am I out of time?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes. Your time has gone. You had 5 minutes.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise proudly on behalf of New Zealand First to take part in this debate. I want to say that it was interesting hearing the Minister of Defence’s speech here today, trying to convince the House that the National Party is the only party that understands rural provincial New Zealand, and using as an example, to quote him, his “deep knowledge of farming”, and telling us all that there are “50 million sheep in New Zealand”. Well, there might be 50 million sheep who follow the National Party around, but let me assure of this: there are only 29 million sheep in New Zealand right now, Mr Brownlee. So if that is an example of how connected the National Party is today with the rural sector, then it is a—buzz!—fail, big time.

The other point is that he lamented the fact that he never got a question from me on the defence white paper today. Well, how bizarre, because Mr Brownlee spent 3 minutes of his 5 minutes attacking Mr Fletcher Tabuteau—someone who seems to scare him more than the Taliban, I might add. He only devoted less than 1 minute of his speech to his defence white paper himself, so push it off to one side.

New Zealand First would argue that there is no party in this House more committed to a strong Defence Force. The defence of our nation, the defence of our sovereignty, of our flag, of our way of life, and the protection and enhancement of our Defence Force capabilities and our Defence Force personnel are chiselled in stone here, because we have fought the battles on behalf of the Defence Force at a time when the National Party would have us believe that Defence Force members did not need a pay rise, because they got free dental care. And that was a quote from Jenny Shipley, actually, back in the 1990s.

New Zealand First would like to think that on a matter of defence it is of such importance that we might see some attempt to form a political consensus across the House when producing a white paper and when making policy of this nature, to prevent the debacles and the reversals that we have had to sit here and witness in this House through successive Governments, be they National or Labour.

Debacles, reversals—let us talk about a couple. Let us talk about the debacle of the light armoured vehicle purchase where New Zealand First tried strenuously to stop the Labour Government doing that, but it went ahead, and now we are stuck with what we have got. And the NH90 purchase, which has got massive shortfalls in respect of its marinisation, something that does not appear to be getting addressed in the defence white paper—

David Shearer: Actually, that’s rubbish.

RON MARK: It is not rubbish, Mr Shearer.

David Shearer: It is rubbish.

RON MARK: Read the reports. So we will move on.

David Shearer: Read the reports, Ron.

RON MARK: Touched a nerve over there.

The reversals—let us talk about the decision by a National Government to purchase F-16 fighters, promptly overturned by an incoming Labour Government. Promises from the National Party—and I can quote Simon Power word for word in his speech at a hall in Bulls—that the National Party “would reinstate the air combat capability, mark my words” were backed up by the ACT Party, which said “it will happen in a National-ACT coalition Government.” And what did we see? A complete abandonment of that promise by the National Party. In this defence white paper today is there any mention of re-establishing the air combat capability? Not a mutter, not a murmur, not a syllable—nothing, neh, nyet, zipper, zero.

What New Zealand First would like to see is some commitment to give stability and security to the Defence Force personnel whom the honourable Mark Mitchell just applauded. I have to say, if there is one person who does understand Iraq and does understand the issues it certainly is not Mr Brownlee; it is certainly Mr Mitchell. I applaud that, and I thank him for his comments.

We would say this to the National Party: we are working on a white paper, which we will release in time, and in doing that we have uncovered some things. We have looked at the white paper produced today—I have to say to Mr Brownlee, it is a bit hard to debate your white paper when you are briefing the media and you are holding a press conference, and you have not seen fit to put the paper up on the website so that the rest of Parliament could access it. What was it—1 o’clock in the afternoon when they finally put it up? Or was it just short of 1 o’clock? That is absolutely appalling behaviour by the Government.

If one wants a debate on it, then tell the Speaker to give us an urgent debate; if one wants a debate on it, put the paper out in a timely manner at the same time the Government gives it to the media. I rest my case on that. But if one wants to have a look at the very issue that Mr Mitchell raised, the personnel issue, have a look at this diagram here. Over successive years, between 1984—

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

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. As the final speaker in this general debate this afternoon, and hearing a lot of the to-ing and fro-ing, I think one of the most important things to me, as someone who went away overseas for 2 years but stayed 24 years and travelled extensively right across Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, Scandinavia, and then into the Middle East, is the fact that you need to go away from this country in some ways to really appreciate what we have actually got here. I just hope that we can all sort of come together across the House, particularly when we are talking about the defence of Godzone—the defence of this country.

I want to come now to the Defence White Paper 2016, which was released this morning, just to sort of talk very briefly about certain aspects of that white paper. Being overseas, you do actually see how insular we can be here in New Zealand, but when you look at that white paper and look at the threats that have been identified, particularly over the last 5 years, they are something that we need to take note of. This is really the essence of why we actually need this white paper: it is identifying those threats.

The major ones there—there are actually seven of them. The first is that increase in activity and operations in the New Zealand exclusive economic zone, in the Southern Ocean, and also in the Pacific. The next one, No. 2, is the increased likelihood of a terrorist attack here in New Zealand, keeping in mind that the risk is still actually quite low. The third one is the increase in the military spending right across the South-east Asian region. The next one is the increase in turmoil since the Arab Spring of 2010, particularly in North Africa and also in the Middle East. The other one is very much around the rapid evolution of the cyber-threat, and that has been well highlighted here today. The final one is the degraded relations between Russia and the West. They may be a long way away, some of those things, but they are things that really need to be identified and that we need to be aware of. So that is the first thing: threats.

The other thing is the talk, particularly with the consultation process, around people. He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people. When we look at our Defence Force, one of those things that was highlighted was about our people. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Māori influence and contribution that have been in our defence forces right across our history. When we look at these things, particularly around Māori, I am so proud that we actually see that our culture is embedded in the Defence Force.

The final thing is something about this paper that I actually think is really important. It is around civil defence. The actual assistance that the military had given—I go back to the Christchurch earthquake in 2011, particularly around the emergency. What we saw come in was the navy, was the army, and was also the air force. They came in, and as soon as we saw them—as people of Christchurch, as people of Canterbury—well, then we felt safe. It was a safe haven there. That continued all the way through.

So in saying that, particularly talking about this white paper, one thing is that, yes, it is $20 billion of investment, but it is an investment that is real. It is an investment that we are going to need to take us through, looking at the next 25 years. Let us get across and really talk and work together, because the defence of God’s own country, New Zealand, is what it is all about in the end. On that note, it is about defence, it is about people, and it is about acknowledging the threats. Kia ora.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill

Referral of Bill and SOP 181 to Government Administration Committee

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I seek leave for the order of the day for the consideration by the Committee of the whole House of the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill to be discharged, for the bill to be referred back to the Government Administration Committee, and for the committee to have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, to adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 181.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that course of action? Yes, there is.

Bills

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to come into force on 1 April 2017

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is debate on clauses 4 to 18 and schedule 1.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for this to be taken as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I am dealing with the matter. [Interruption] Will the member please be quiet, I am ruling on this matter.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It with a sense of strong déjà vu that I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, and it is my sincere hope that we do not see a repeat of what we saw last time around. The use of the filibuster against a bill that aims to actually support families and children was, I thought, particularly ugly last time around, only accentuated by having to listen to speech after speech after speech from Mike Sabin telling us how to parent responsibly.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to start by interrupting the member and reminding her that this is a debate on this bill, on this part, and it is a narrow debate. Referring to previous bills and previous debates is out of order.

SUE MORONEY: Thank you, Mr Chair, for that guidance. I will now address Part 1, which is the part that actually tells the country about how affordable this bill really is.

As the member promoting the bill, I have worked hard to make sure that it is affordable for the country, and Part 1 expresses that. It does not say we should get to 26 weeks of paid parental leave tomorrow, or even next year; what Part 1 does is say that we should implement this in a staged way that is affordable for the country by increasing paid parental leave on 1 April next year to 22 weeks. That is, effectively, what Part 1 does, and the Government Administration Committee did a lot of work on ensuring that we got agreement and we got good official advice on what the cost of taking that staged approach to implementing extended paid parental leave would be. This is very important in this debate because of the threat of a financial veto that hangs over the head of this bill, so I do want to take a little bit of time to share with the Committee and with the country what the costings were, because they show how affordable it is.

The officials told us that for the financial year we are about to enter into—that is, financial year 2016-17—the effect of this bill would be a gross cost of $12.7 million. That is the impact of Part 1 on the budgetary year that we have just finished debating in this Parliament. I note that because it, in fact, equates to only 0.7 percent of the additional spending that this Government has already committed to the Budget for 2016-17—0.7 percent. That is no justification for a threat of financial veto. When the Government has already seen fit to pour $1.8 billion additional spending into next year’s Budget and this bill would take just 0.7 percent of that additional funding to fund it, it is clearly not an issue about unaffordability. The Government is spending in that same budgetary year $12 million on new charter schools—you know, those charter schools that are failing; the ones where the people operating the charter schools, when they fail, get to keep the taxpayer money. That is $12 million in the next Budget year on that initiative. This bill would cost the same amount, but this bill would actually impact on 30,000 babies and their families in the next 12 months. That is the estimated number of families that will be using paid parental leave in that budgetary year—30,000 families will benefit from this. That $12.7 million, in Labour’s view, is a great investment in the future of this country.

We know that if we can extend, in the first instance, paid parental leave to 22 weeks by 1 April next year as Part 1 asks, then those children will have that ability to get that bonding and attachment going well between parent and baby. If the mother has already established a great breastfeeding regime, that will not be interrupted by her having to go back to work due to financial constraints. That is going to be to the benefit of us all, because the other thing the officials gave us advice on at the select committee was that when we get those things right we save money in a whole lot of areas. In fact, what they told us was that we are going to save, immediately, $28 million as a country if we implement this bill. That is cost savings on things like not having to spend taxpayer money on early childhood education subsidies—the taxpayer paying for other people to look after those children, as this Government would have it, rather than mum or dad being able to be at home on extended paid parental leave, able to get that bonding attachment happening, and able to make sure that the bills are getting paid, the financial stress is not so great on the family, and all those things that submitters came and told us about at the select committee.

One of the things that really stood out for me this time around in the select committee process and the submissions, and why we do need to get to 22 weeks’ paid parental leave by 1 April next year, is that families came and told us that this generation is having to make choices between whether they save to buy a house or whether they have a baby. Those are the sorts of decisions that people in well-paid jobs are now having to make in John Key’s New Zealand. In John Key’s New Zealand, housing prices have increased so much that the families—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to remind the member, again, that this is a narrow debate. The House has accepted at the second reading the principle of this bill; all we are debating is whether these clauses implement the principles that the House has agreed to.

SUE MORONEY: Thank you, Mr Chair. So 22 weeks is what we are seeking in Part 1 of the bill. It is part of a stepped approach, and the approach of making this affordable so that we can get to 26 weeks, but we will talk about that more in Part 2. Part 1 should be supported by parties right across this Parliament. I look forward to hearing the further debate on that, and I look forward to hearing votes in support of this important measure and this important investment in New Zealand’s future.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to contribute in the Committee of the whole House on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I am not on the Government Administration Committee, but I have contributed on this bill in previous readings, so it is really good to have this opportunity.

Speaking on Part 1—as we know, Part 1 is about affordability and also about extending paid parental leave to 22 weeks. As I said, I am not on the select committee, so I did not hear the member Sue Moroney, who spoke before me on this bill, explain why she proposes that paid parental leave should be extended in two stages. That was one of my questions I wanted to ask the member: why did she decide to propose that we should extend paid parental leave in two stages? That first stage is extending it to only 22 weeks.

There is a resemblance to what the Government has done. We increased paid parental leave in two stages. We increased it from 14 weeks to 18 weeks over 2 years, and the reason was affordability. We wanted to make sure that what we are doing is affordable. We also made sure that we were not just increasing the length of the paid parental leave, but including other workers. We included other care arrangements along with extending the length of paid parental leave. So—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt this member as I interrupted the previous speaker twice. This is a debate on this bill and not on previous bills. So members going over what happened previously might have been relevant at the second reading and might be relevant at the third reading, but it is not at this Committee stage.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Talking about affordability, that was my question to the member: why did the member decide to propose this extension in two stages—that is, going to just 22 weeks in the first stage? If it is about affordability, I want to ask the member—the cost of this is going to be close to half a billion dollars. Where will the member get that half a billion dollars? Where should we cut that expenditure, all the investment that we are currently making, in order to increase paid parental leave to 22 weeks?

We know that the intention behind this bill is good, but it is about affordability and it is about timing. We know that in 2007 the Families Commission recommended increasing paid parental leave to 13 months, and then the Labour Government decided not to because it knew that it was not affordable. So my question to the member is still how are we going to afford to increase paid parental leave so quickly when we have already increased paid parental leave to 18 weeks from this year. It is a long-term view. It is not a short to medium term view. It is not something that we can start this year, do for a couple of years, and then decide that it is not going to work. We need to see what will be the cost of this policy when we implement it in the long term.

It is important that taxpayers understand why we are doing it. We are answerable to taxpayers, and I would like to know from the member how she is going to explain to taxpayers that it is a good measure to increase paid parental leave so quickly when we have already increased it to 18 weeks—to increase it to 22 weeks. I do understand that the reason is bonding. I also see that—

Carmel Sepuloni: You know what it means?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: I do understand that this is about bonding, and, yes, bonding is important, but that does not mean that if parents go back to work after 18 weeks or 22 weeks or 26 weeks, there is no bonding or no opportunities for bonding with their children.

I also want to know why the member decided to increase it to only 22 or 26 weeks. Why not go longer? Because there are other proposals in different countries that want to see paid parental leave be longer. It is not that we should be comparing our paid parental leave with other countries, because if other countries are doing something, that is not a statement to us that we should follow. We have our own things to look after. We have to see what is affordable in our country. Given that we have just come out of a huge global financial crisis and that we had the Canterbury earthquakes, we need to be very careful in terms of how we manage our finances. We need to see what is affordable. Looking at the timing, this is not affordable, and I still ask that question to the member as to how she thinks spending close to half a billion dollars on this is justified. How will she justify it to taxpayers? Going around talking to people, they think that as we have already increased it to 18 weeks, we need to see the impact of that before we jump on to the next step. It is something that we need to be very careful about, how we invest our money.

A member spoke about cutting spending for charter schools. That is very ironic—

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Kaiwhakahaere, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. I am sure that the member, Sue Moroney, has brought this bill to the House with very, very good intentions, but I do want to, I suppose, respond to some of the comments she has made during the first two calls that she took in this Committee stage debate, and also perhaps pose a couple of questions to the member in the chair as well.

I think that despite the good intentions of this bill, if we look very closely at Part 1 and some of the amendments to the principal Act that are proposed in that part—namely, the extension of the duration of paid parental leave—the extensions that would be provided for in Part 1, obviously, are only those that take effect on 1 April 2017, and subsequent parts deal with the subsequent tranches or phases of extension of parental leave. The figure that she quoted was a figure I did not catch exactly. Maybe she would be able to just confirm. It was something like $10 million or $11 million worth of costs—

Sue Moroney: $12.7 million.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —$12 million worth of costs in the first year. The question is whether that figure is actually an accurate portrayal of the real costs of the provisions provided for in this part, given that other estimates that we have seen show that those costs are actually compounding. They are not a one-off. They go on year after year, and they will compound up to a cost of something in the order of $445.8 million a year—at least, that was the figure that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has provided as an estimate.

I would also like some clarification from the member. She said that there would be significant cost savings, which, from memory, were roughly twice as much as the costs of this bill and that would be met by the taxpayer. Would she be able to provide, I suppose, some clarification for us of how realistic she thinks those cost savings calculations might be?

The other question I have came from the select committee stage. We heard evidence from a range of submitters, many of whom were in favour, and I will concede that. I think, actually, that for people on this side of the Chamber there is no inherent opposition to the concept of providing paid parental leave as Part 1 does. Actually, this Government has been progressively extending paid parental leave, not only in duration, as Part 1 provides for, but certainly in breadth of availability to those who are self-employed, seasonal employees—people who traditionally were not receiving this sort of paid parental leave support.

The question comes from the submissions, particularly the submission of Mr Paul Clark who is the managing director and owner of the New Zealand Ammunition Co.—it is a small business that provides essential equipment not only to our police force but also to our Defence Force. He is also the chair of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, so he is someone who is well versed in the recreational shooting and hunting industries. He made what I thought was a very good submission, which does have some material questions that are relevant to this part, around the costs on small businesses. So far in this debate we have talked about the costs and the impact on the Government’s fiscal outlook, potentially, and the figure that I have quoted is in the order of $450 million going forward. That is a 4-year cost. That is not over the lifetime of this policy but that is just within 4 years.

The points made by Mr Clark, which I actually think do deserve a response from the member in the chair, are around the cost to small businesses—the calculations made by small-business owners; not only the financial calculations but the employment decisions that are influenced—under the understanding that they will be required by the law to take on a considerable financial expense should one of their staff have children. So I would like some responses from the member on those questions.

As I have said, on the side of the Chamber we are very, very hesitant. In fact, we are opposed to the provisions provided for in Part 1 because we believe that they do represent going a little bit too far, that there is a balance to be achieved here, and that a reasonable amount of paid parental leave is something we can all agree to. But when the costs rack up into the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars per year, then that is an issue that I think we need to look at very seriously.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Obviously, given how particular the Part 1 clauses are, this will be a reasonably short and concise contribution to this part of the debate. But some of the questions that were raised by the last speaker, Mr Paul Foster-Bell, were, I thought, worthy of response.

One of the turns of phrase that he used when talking about the general support that this House has for paid parental leave was that we all support a reasonable amount. Part 1 sets out what a reasonable amount might be from the perspective of the majority of the House, and it is based on an evidence base, rather than on a finger-in-the-air test of what might be reasonable. We have traversed those various reasons why 26 weeks is what is internationally considered as a reasonable amount, and, obviously, it is for health and wider beneficial reasons, but Part 1 then sets out how we would stage towards those 26 weeks.

One of the other members in this Committee just raised the question as to why it was only 26 weeks and why not 12 months. Well, that actually proves a point that Labour has been trying to make throughout this debate, which is that Part 1 is not staged to 12 months because of financial considerations. It is Labour’s policy that that, in an ideal world, would be where Part 1 would take us—in fact, Part 2 takes us all the way through to 26 weeks—but we have taken into account issues that were raised on the other side of the House around the financial viability of going to that point at this stage and we fell, after consideration, on a staged approach that first said “Let’s at least get to 26 weeks.”, which is why Part 1 takes us, first, to 18 weeks and then beyond. But, covering off—because so many people have raised in Part 1 the costings question, which is relevant to Part 1—I do want to just clarify that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) itself has anticipated the cost of the first staging of this bill to be roughly 0.7 percent of the additional net spending budgeted for 2016-17.

So it seems completely inconsistent to me to hear from that side of the Chamber that there is an issue around the affordability of Part 1 when, in question time today, we had Gerry Brownlee, who was asked by our finance spokesperson about the $20 billion, I believe it was, roughly, required for the Defence Force, as to whether he had spoken to Bill English about that massive amount of spending. If I remember correctly, his words were that there was an absolutely stupendous surplus that was available to the Government because of its pristine financial management, which meant that it was possible that that $20 billion could be invested in the Defence Force. So how is it that we do not have enough within the Budget to allow Part 1 to be enacted—0.1 percent of spending, relative to the 2016-17 Budget—but, on the flip side, we can not only afford $20 billion for the Defence Force but also afford tax cuts next Budget as well? So this is not an issue of it not being in Part 1—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to ask the member to narrow up things.

JACINDA ARDERN: I just wanted to respond to the issue that has been raised there, but also I want to come to the work contact hours, which no one has raised so far. Within Part 1 we did originally have a raft of provisions around maintaining work contact hours during parental leave. It has not been removed because that is not a good provision; it has been removed because that was picked up in the Government’s bill, where it extended paid parental leave to 18 weeks after, of course, we had had this debate in the House extensively prior to it, which led, of course, the Government to finally accept that the general public wanted to see that extension. So that is why those provisions have been removed, and I think rightly so.

I think it is fair to say that we could talk at great length about the trade-offs, or the costs that come with not having paid parental leave that are not factored into MBIE’s calculations. We could talk at great length around the different stages of development for a baby from 18 to 22 weeks, but, actually, all that Part 1 is doing, essentially, is setting out the phasing in of those two stages of paid parental leave. It is a very narrow part, and I think probably everything that needs to be debated has been. Clearly, on this side of the House there are simply different priorities, and that is why we have prioritised the idea that this could be done, it could be staged, and it could be made effective—

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure, again, to take—it is kind of a bit like the never-ending story, actually. I keep being brought back to this Chamber to take a call—or maybe it is just because it is about paid parental leave. But, regardless, it is a pleasure to take this call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

Obviously, Part 1 is one of the operative sections that looks to extend paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 22 weeks, and there has been some debate already on this provision in respect of cost. I understand that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment figures have said that it is at $445.8 million over 4 years. I guess what I bring this back to is that when you are in Government, it is about swings and roundabouts, and it is about a suite of measures to give children the best start in life. So, from my perspective, I believe in paid parental leave—I am going to put that on the table. Obviously, I am a mother of two myself, and I believe in the benefits of paid parental leave.

But, as has been mentioned before, there was a Government bill in this House prior to this one, the Employment Standards Legislation Bill, which extended this leave, and Part 1 at this point in time is redundant in that it is really about a suite of measures to give young children the best start in life. I do want to put it to the member that I am surprised that the keeping-in-touch hours—or work contact hours, as they are called in this bill—were not explored further and were not left in this bill. I think that work contact hours and keeping-in-touch hours are an exceptionally good idea that has been supported by this Government, as was mentioned by the member opposite as well.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member can discuss what is in the bill, not what was taken out of the bill—all right? So this is about the bill as it has emerged from the select committee in the second reading. It is about the bill now.

SARAH DOWIE: Thank you, Mr Chair. So, back to the operative section of Part 1, the extension of 18 weeks’ paid parental leave to 22 weeks—this is a matter of cost. Like I say, the Government looks at cost—and it was mentioned prior by the member opposite. Look, just because we do have a surplus at this stage, it does not mean that we spend it. You know, the Opposition would be well advised to take account of saving for a rainy day, and there are all sorts of situations that come up when you are in Government and you are managing this fine country of New Zealand—horrific instances such as the Christchurch earthquakes—that require attention and require money to help support people, moving forward.

So it is one thing to single out parents and babies as to the best start in life—yes, in a world where we had unlimited funds, extending paid parental leave with all of the benefits that ensued from it would be fantastic—but this is a Government that has got us back in black. We have brought our books back into surplus, and we are looking at pragmatic management of this country, looking at all different aspects of equality of life in New Zealand, and spending this money wisely and in a measured way, moving forward.

So, as I said, I support paid parental leave. It is a fantastic concept and there are benefits with it. We talk about bonding with baby. One of the best parts of my life was, obviously, having children and being a mum and being on paid parental leave. It was not as broad as it is now, and it was certainly not the 22 weeks that Part 1 looks to extend it to, but it is a time to bond with baby and it is a time to look at encouraging mothers to do things such as breastfeed. Breastfeeding is seen as—breast is best. Breast milk provides all of the nutrients that are best for baby, but, notwithstanding that, if you cannot breastfeed, it is still an important time for mum to take the time to properly bottle-feed baby.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the member, I am going to reiterate a ruling I have made now, I think, about four times, to remind members about relevance and repetition. I actually came very close to terminating the member Sarah Dowie’s speech for both. Being repetitious with irrelevancies is not helpful.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the first call in the Committee of the whole House stage on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Part 1 refers to—and it has been amended to ensure that it is up to date—replacing 18 weeks’ paid parental leave with 22 weeks. That reflects the decision from the Government Administration Committee—and I had the privilege of sitting on the select committee—that, first of all, we needed to update it to take into account the changes that were made last year, basically, as a result of Sue Moroney’s previous bill. But also 22 weeks is one baby step—excuse the pun—towards 26 weeks. Part 2, which I will not discuss now, talks about extending that further, to 26 weeks from 2018.

The progression towards paid parental leave is an essential part of what we should be doing in this country to ensure that we do have a stable economy. People across the Chamber have been talking about costs, and I think we need to bear in mind that the costs are actually more than covered if we look at the longer-term view. If we look at paid parental leave being at 26 weeks—although, this Part 1 talks about 22 weeks, which, as I said, is the baby step on the way—we are looking at a way of addressing the pay gap between men and women. We are looking at a way of ensuring that women who are having children are able to stay in the paid workforce, and it addresses some of the inequities that occur in the workforce around pay. That is one area where it is good for the economy.

The other place where it is good for the economy—22 weeks and then 26 weeks, but, ideally, we would like to see 13 months, which would bring us into line with many of the other OECD countries, but let us focus on 22 weeks in Part 1. The other thing that this would be good for the economy around is the area of ensuring that newborns and their families are able to connect and make solid connections. It ensures that there is ample time for breastfeeding and it gives a start out that is a bit of stability for the family. When you do that, you start to offset some of the potential problems that can occur further down the track. This is research that has been traversed time and time again. It is irrefutable. It is evidence-based that if we invest now in ensuring that we have stable families, there are savings down the track in terms of the health system, in terms of the corrections system, and in terms of education failings—for all of those things, there are savings there. So this short-term approach from that side of the Chamber saying “We are not going to support it because it costs this much.” is not taking into account the longer-term savings.

The other area where this bill—and particularly this part, the extension to 22 weeks, and then to 26 weeks—is good for the economy is around the employers. We have now got a global labour market. We have got a situation here in New Zealand where in order for us to compete globally we need to be having a skilled workforce, and employers are having to compete in that labour market to ensure that they get them. Our parental leave does not make it attractive for those skilled workers to remain in this country. Certainly, if there are better, family-friendly provisions in other countries and companies based overseas, then we start to lose those people who could be contributing their expertise and their innovation to our economy, which desperately needs that. We need that to solve some of the immense problems of the day—for example, to address some of our issues around climate change. So it makes sense to extend paid parental leave, as it says in Part 1, to 22 weeks and then to 26 weeks so that we can actually be an economy that can compete internationally.

I think it is very short-sighted for the other side to suggest that this is going to cost too much when, in fact, that side has directed enormous amounts of funds at areas that we would see as not a priority—areas that do not have short or long-term benefits, basically—things like roads of national significance, which was an issue that was traversed a little bit today during question time.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting my colleague, but she is ranging quite some distance from Part 1—

DENISE ROCHE: Oh, I did stray—you are quite right.

Iain Lees-Galloway: —of this bill, and, in fact, was talking about 26 weeks, which is in Part 2.

DENISE ROCHE: I was talking about 22 weeks.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Roads of national significance are not part of this bill.

DENISE ROCHE: Sure, back to babies. No, you are quite right and I do apologise. I thank members this side of the Chamber for that. So, basically, 22 weeks in Part 1—we support that. We support it because it is a sensible progression from where we are at the moment, which is 18 weeks, through to 22 weeks, and I will talk a little bit more about 26 weeks when we get to that part of the bill. Thank you.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I have to say that I am very surprised that the Labour whip took a point of order against a Green member—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. I have ruled on that matter, and that is the end of it, so we will not get into this cross-play. I have ruled on that matter. I told the member who was speaking at the time, Denise Roche, that that was what the member should do. She came back to the bill, so we cannot relitigate those points that I have already ruled on.

MARK MITCHELL: Thank you for clarifying that, Mr Chair. I am very happy to take a call on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

Hon Member: Say it again. Say it again.

MARK MITCHELL: I want to acknowledge—I will probably come back to it—Ruth Dyson, the chair of our select committee, the Government Administration Committee. She has done a very good job of chairing the select committee and taking this bill through, and I hope that she takes a call in the Committee tonight to speak to the bill. I want to acknowledge the member, Sue Moroney, of course. And, of course, I have got some questions, too, and I hope that the Chairperson will allow me a little bit of latitude to address some of the issues that were raised by the Opposition members during our speeches on this part.

Cost keeps getting raised, and I want to speak about cost, because we have got the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which has worked on the costings and has come back and was able to report and inform the select committee that the cost is going to be $445.8 million over the next 4 years. That is a significant amount. Anyone sitting at home who is in charge of their own household budgets knows that if you take money from somewhere then you have either got to replace it or one of the family is going to miss out on something. I am really interested to hear, and I would ask the member, when she takes a call—and I am hoping that she takes the call after mine—to run through again and explain to us where the money is going to come from over the next 4 years.

Carmel Sepuloni: She already answered those questions. She doesn’t need to take a call on it.

MARK MITCHELL: Well, it would be good for her to highlight that again and talk us through that again—where the money is going to come from and where the savings are.

One of the interesting points that was raised, and I am sure that the member in the chair, Sue Moroney, would agree with me on this one, is that by extending paid parental leave, somehow we are not going to have to build any more prisons, so there is going to be a big saving in the construction of prisons. I cannot see that. I would like to know the rationale. I would like to know the methodology behind that statement, because personally, I cannot see that.

I am going to come back to cost, but I want to talk about small business, because my colleague and the deputy chair of our committee, Paul Foster-Bell, raised a very good point, and that was the fact that we heard submissions from small-business owners. Actually, when you look at the New Zealand economy, 70 percent of our economy is made up of small to medium sized business. When you actually delve into it, when you have a look at our small businesses out there that are always passionate about what they are doing and are always looking for the ability to be able to grow, often cash is king—right? They want to make payroll every fortnight, they want to make payroll every month, and their employees are extremely important to them. So we as a Parliament—and we are not the ones out there every day, working hard and toiling hard trying to grow these businesses, and trying to make sure that there is a strong cash-flow—are very careful about what we do in here. The decisions that we make in here will have a direct impact and can have a direct, negative impact on what our productive part of the economy is trying to achieve and do. So a policy like this needs to be examined very, very closely.

I just want to highlight and come back to the comment that my colleague Sarah Dowie made. It was very good in the sense that we do support paid parental leave, and this Government has got a proud record of having extended that and taken a round of policies that actually provide more support to new parents. I think a very interesting point that came up during our select committee process was that we assume that it always relates to mothers; actually, it does not. Having been a single father myself, it actually relates to fathers, as well. That brings me to another point that I would like to highlight, and that is one of the issues that was raised the last time—

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I move, That the question be now put.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I will keep this short and sweet because we have traversed the content and the detail of this bill significantly already in numerous debates. I would just like to speak to Part 1 and put on record the Green Party’s support for this bill, but also acknowledge that the 22 weeks of paid leave that is in Part 1 is an accommodation that has been made by this member. I doubt that anyone on this side of the House would think it is ideal. With the amount of time that this House has been discussing the need for 26 weeks, I think that, actually, everyone on this side of the House is probably ready to go straight to 26 weeks, to give the country what it has asked so clearly for.

However, the fact that we have 22 weeks’ paid leave in Part 1 of this bill is another demonstration of the absolute willingness of the sponsor of this bill, Sue Moroney, to bend backwards to do everything in her power to try to persuade this Government to give the country what it wants. In the last iteration of this bill she confined it down to significantly premature babies and children with very significant disabilities—down to very significant measures. She brought it right down to try to get it over the line for even one group of people, and still this Government just pushed and pushed and was so mean that it could not deliver it.

The truth is, Part 1 of this bill is another reflection of this Government’s meanness and how far this member has had to go to try to get it over the line. It is a real shame, because, actually, all the evidence supports 26 weeks, and we will speak more to that on Part 2 of the bill.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. It will be a relief when we do eventually get on to clause 1 and can talk about a different title—a slightly shorter one—for this bill. But the main points that we have traversed in Part 1 have been around cost, so I would like to raise just a few items. One is the cost that the member sponsoring the bill raised, and then some consideration of cost and affordability, which a previous Opposition speaker, Ms Ardern, raised.

Ms Moroney, when she was having her first call on this bill, pointed out that in the first year the cost impact of Part 1 would be $10 million—I think that was what she said. That is not quite right for one reason, and is very, very wrong for another. The reason it is not quite right is that the latest edition of figures from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) actually says it is about $12 million through until the end of the current financial year—so until the end of June this year. The reason for that, which is relevant to the cost consideration as Ms Moroney put it, is that officials, of course, had to give advice on the bill as it was introduced to the Government Administration Committee, and not on the amendments or the recommendations that we finally arrived at.

Originally, what was going to happen was the first increase in weeks of paid parental leave was going to take place in the past—they were going to take place a couple of months ago in this year. Of course, officials made some estimates based on the remainder of the current financial year before then projecting forecasting costs into the future. The bill as has been reported back to the House, which is under consideration in this, the Committee of the whole House, has actually shifted the start date from 2016 to a full year up to April 2017. What will happen in that year, of course, is that when it does come into force on 1 April 2017, should it pass—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is in the commencement provisions of the bill. We are on Part 1. You will get a chance to talk about the preliminary clauses that come into force on 1 April 2017 later on, but I just ask you to focus on Part 1.

BRETT HUDSON: The implication of Part 1—of moving to 22 weeks—will see an increase in costs of about $12 million from 1 April 2017 through until the end of June 2017. From that point on, each year of paid leave at 22 weeks, doing a rough mental calculation—because MBIE rated the total costs of the full bill across 5 years, plus the few starting months, to be $466 million. Very roughly, if it was only at 22 weeks—which, of course, is all that Part 1 does—then, fundamentally, half is going to be in the order of around an additional $230 million over that period of time. The Government’s point has always been—and this did not seem to be grasped by the submitters at the select committee—that it is not one additional dollar of paid parental leave that is necessarily the problem, but the total cost.

In the course of the consideration of both this particular bill as drawn and the previous iterations of bills in a similar vein, the Government has taken steps to increase paid parental leave. It has increased it from 14 to 18 weeks—

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member appears to be straying into other pieces of legislation, not Part 1 of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am listening very closely. In fact, I have Part 1 in my hand. Being able to refer back is OK, so long as one does not dwell on it. I am listening very carefully. I have the bill in front of me, and I ask the member to concentrate on Part 1.

BRETT HUDSON: Thank you, Mr Chair. Exactly the point being made is that the Government’s position has been that it is the complete cost of the change that is the issue. The Government has made the affordable steps already. The most recent Budget, of course, in which the Government has not made a further extension, shows that within the current fiscal envelope there is not the headroom right now to increase paid parental leave further—that the Government has many responsibilities above and beyond simply paid parental leave. We have got schools’ infrastructure, we have got additional money—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

BRETT HUDSON: We have got issues that the Government spends money on that mean that if we are expending money in certain areas, then that money is not available to be expended in this coming year on an extension to paid parental leave. So the position for the coming financial year still remains, and is very clearly evidenced by that current fiscal position, that a move to 22 weeks is not affordable.

Another member opposite, Ms Ardern, made a point about large surpluses. They are actually a future consideration. They are not relevant to Part 1, but she did get to talk to them, so I just want to cover them. Her point was simply this: if in an answer to a question in the House today we can talk about spending a sizable amount of money on defence, then we can spend that amount of money on paid parental leave. The point is that the forecast of those large surpluses will not see them realised and growing in size for about another 2 financial years, and then a further 2 years beyond that. That is well outside the scope of Part 1.

What the member was trying to do is spend money we have not yet earned on something that would cost us money in the next 12 months. It is not exactly unusual for the Opposition to do that—in fact, it is pretty much what it always campaigns on—but what it is not is evidence of money available today to put into force the effect of Part 1, which would be to add a further 4 weeks of paid parental leave. To claim that statements made in the Budget or that answers to questions in the House today are somehow evidence of affordability could not be further removed from the actual situation. It may be—and I am not going to speculate on what our Minister of Finance would do in that position—that with those surpluses in the future, there could be headroom to change, but it is not in this coming financial year.

I just want to mention—and I will not dwell upon this—another reason for the overall picture that we would take, which has an impact on our position on Part 1 and why we oppose it. Care and support for families with newborns can take a number of different forms. This bill would propose simply extending additional weeks of paid leave. But what the Government has done, and still looks at doing further, is actually broaden the eligibility for the level of paid parental leave that exists today. We look at seasonal workers, employees with more than one employer, different family caring arrangements like whāngai parents or grandparents caring for children—family and care arrangements that are relevant and meaningful for the parents but that previously would not have been eligible under a paid parental leave scheme. The Government is expending finances to deliver those services and to broaden the eligibility, but a dollar spent in doing that is, in effect, a dollar that is not, therefore, spent on Part 1—on an additional 4 weeks.

When we look at this and say “Are we prepared to make this extension?”, it is important that we look at the additional expenditure in the area of paid parental leave—not just in the number of weeks, but in the different eligibility broadening. It is important that we look at the total cost, rather than just look at very simplistic things like how many weeks and the total number of weeks. I think this Government has very clearly expended a great deal extra, as I have said, in moving to 18 weeks from 14 weeks and also broadening the eligibility. So we take the position that we show care and support for young families—we are putting the things in place to help them get the best start—for a broader section of the community, in fact, than this bill would give that to, because this bill does not have anything to do with other care arrangements or anything to do with employment arrangements. It is simply about a number of weeks. If it had not been for the measures the Government is looking to put in place, this bill would not apply to those people; it would actually leave them out in the cold, so to speak.

We take the view that there are a couple of ways you can address the whole issue of caring for young families: you can simply take a simplistic approach of increasing the number of weeks, or you can do it via other means. We have been doing it through a balance of both—increasing the number of weeks of support but also broadening the eligibility. On the whole, our view is that that gives a far better outcome across a broader group and is affordable in our current fiscal conditions, whereas to accept Part 1 as it stands would simply be to put in place something that is not affordable in the coming year or the coming couple of years, given the projected surpluses.

Even if we were to consider it further in our forecast surpluses, I would caution the House that a Government has more responsibilities than simply the services or the costs under this bill. When we do look at larger surpluses in the future, we have to think about the other pressing needs across society around the services and the infrastructure that a Government is duly responsible to deliver and make sensible and pragmatic decisions about that are relevant to all of those factors. Right at the moment, our position remains that to support Part 1 and to increase paid parental leave by this amount so soon is unaffordable, and it is something that we cannot and will not support.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 58

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

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Kia ora e Te Kaiwhakahaere. In the earlier stages of this debate I posed a number of questions to the member in the chair, Sue Moroney, and I am disappointed they have not actually been addressed and responded to. A few more have come to mind during the subsequent course of this debate. It has been focused solely on Part 1, which deals with the first tranche of expansion in the weeks of paid parental leave. One of the assertions made by the member during her speech at the very start of this debate was that it would have a positive effect on the breastfeeding of New Zealand children. This is a topic that I never dreamt for a moment that I would be addressing here in our House of Representatives, but it is something that, actually, is very pertinent if you are interested in the health and well-being of New Zealand children—our mokopuna, young New Zealanders. It actually has a lifelong effect on the health, the well-being, and, actually, the other social outcomes for young New Zealanders if they have the maximum opportunity to have exclusive breastfeeding—that is, to be fed only human breast milk for as long as possible in their childhood.

Of course, we on this side, being scientifically minded and a Government that is based on rationality and logic, accept the research in that area, but what has yet to be, I think, demonstrated completely—and certainly to the level where I am totally convinced you can claim an extension in paid parental leave to the 22 weeks provided for in the first tranche of this bill, as per Part 1—is that it will have, I think, the transformative effects that the member was alluding to, particularly among some of the more vulnerable communities in New Zealand.

We saw statistics that came from empirical studies in other countries. We saw studies conducted in Norway that were providing arguments in favour. We saw studies from the United Kingdom and America—very different cultural contexts. When the Ministry of Health came in to talk to the New Zealand example, which is very different to those Nordic, Scandinavian, North American, or European examples, the evidence was a little bit less clear. So the questions I suppose I have for the member are about what weighting she puts on the figures that actually show that Māori and Pasifika people do have a significantly lower rate of breastfeeding—particularly exclusive breastfeeding—and how she thinks the extension of paid parental leave to 22 weeks will have a significant or transformative effect on those communities where there is a major underrepresentation of exclusive breastfeeding.

Similarly, I would also like to know whether she thinks that there might be, I guess, in some ways negative consequences by saying that you have to stay at home—you have to be on paid parental leave—to be able to breastfeed or to be able to exclusively breastfeed. This is actually sending a negative signal out there to say that this is something that should not be encouraged in companies. Even in this place, when I first started working for the National Party, I actually worked for Katherine Rich, who was a very fine list MP based in Dunedin at the time, and she was one of the few members who actually had a baby while she was in Parliament. She was one of the pioneers, I suppose, in that regard, and was provided with a room near the Chamber so that she was able to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! It is interesting, but Part 1 is about 22 weeks. So tie it back to 22 weeks.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I guess the point I am making is that breastfeeding is a fundamental premise of why the member is arguing for an extension to 22 weeks. The evidence was significant, but not entirely conclusive, that extending paid parental leave to 22 weeks would have that transformative effect on the levels of exclusive breastfeeding, and whether there would be a knock-on effect, particularly to private companies but also the Public Service, where we are saying you actually have to go home—you have to be on leave to be able to do this. It is a natural function, but it is also very important for the health of children. It gives them that immunological, nutritional—every advantage in health, even educationally, and going on into rates of offending.

We did have a significant range of evidence. I want to commend the members of the Government Administration Committee, who looked at it very closely and scrutinised that. I want to commend our tenacious committee clerk, who did a wonderful job of ensuring that we followed up with officials to get access to the evidence we needed. But is the member convinced that that evidence is as clear as she seems to want to have the House believe?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): There is little debate in Parliament around the merits of paid parental leave. The core issue in this part is whether there is some magical number of weeks in which falls the line between good Government policy for families and children and where it does not. The member in the chair for the bill puts that line at 26 weeks, or half a year. The—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. Part 1.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Part 1. As I understand it, Mr Chairman—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Twenty-six weeks is in Part 2.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —the duration of the extended leave is covered in this part, Mr Chairman. Am I not correct? [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on Part 1, and that refers to 16—[Interruption] When I am ruling, we will have some silence please. We are on—if the member would like to sit while I just rule on this.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Certainly.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 1, and Part 1 refers to 22 weeks. Part 2 refers to 26 weeks, so I will ask the member to come back to 22 weeks, in Part 1.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Indeed, Mr Chairman. As I was saying, there is an arbitrary argument around the exact number of weeks of paid parental leave that should be provided.

Carmel Sepuloni: Like the number of houses that Minister was supposed to build—arbitrary number.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, actually, we are building double the number of houses—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Now, relevance here. We are not talking about roads of national significance, and we are not talking about houses; we are talking about 22 weeks.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no, I have ruled, so just carry on with Part 1, please.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If members opposite interject on a completely different topic—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am ruling. You have got the call, and it is Part 1.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The debate around the number of weeks that it is appropriate to provide for paid parental leave effectively comes down to an issue of fiscal prudence. This Government stood on a platform of living within its means. Although paid parental leave has been extended, we have worked very hard as a Government to ensure that we balance the books, but let nobody misunderstand, the surplus is absolutely wafer-thin. In fact, every time there is a new level of forecasts, there is a bigger difference from month to month in the size of the surplus. So, for instance, last year this Parliament debated back and forth, and I do not think any Minister, including the Minister of Finance, knew whether it was going to be a black number or a red number. And even the 2 financial years where we are looking out, in out-years, those numbers are under 1 percent of what the Government spends.

The problem is that in every single area of Government endeavour there is an argument from the Opposition that it is not enough. Paid parental leave is no different to any other area. Whether it is issues of mental health, whether it is issues in the broader health care sector, whether it is issues of housing, or whether it is education, medicine or whatever, including paid parental leave, the Opposition always says: “It is not enough.” And that is where the Opposition is in paid parental leave. The Government’s position is quite simple and is this: if we spent in every single area, including this one, where members opposite want to spend, we would be back in the position we were in when they left Government—of horrendous and increasing deficits, increasing debt.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, at the core of the issue, at the core of the debate about paid parental leave, is the issue of affordability. The reason that members on this side of the Chamber say, yes, we are in favour of extending paid parental leave but at a rate that is affordable is that if we go down the road proposed by the Opposition—whether it be in this policy area or any other—the level of increase in expenditure will just get New Zealand into the sort of financial pickle that other Governments and previous Governments in this country have got themselves into. They know how to spend, but they do not know how to earn and they do not know how to live within their means.

So I simply come back again and say that paid parental leave is a good thing. This Government is proud of its record, but what differentiates this Government from members opposite is that we know how to live within our means.

Phil Twyford: You’ve borrowed more than any other Government in history.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members opposite clearly do not know. I am simply saying I am very proud. Members opposite are questioning the Government’s fiscal record. I think the fact that we have produced three consecutive, very small surpluses—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. This is getting very wide. I would like to hear about 22 weeks. That is what Part—[Interruption] Order! The member will sit while I am ruling. It is all very well talking about surpluses and talking about deficits and talking about other things, but this is really quite a narrow debate that talks about 22 weeks, and I would actually like the member to mention, somewhere, 22 weeks.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am very happy to mention 22 weeks, and the reason the Government does not support the extension of paid parental leave is that when we are running wafer-thin surpluses, when we have worked so hard to get New Zealand back in the black, when our Government has campaigned election after election, successfully, on a message of living within our means—

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We will have silence when votes are taken, thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am very pleased to take a second call on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in relation to 22 weeks of paid parental leave. I do want to come back to the cost, and I do want to talk about that because it is significant. It is the primary reason why we are opposing this bill. It is not that we do not support paid parental leave, and I support the comments of Minister Dr Nick Smith, who took a call before me on that. He outlined that very clearly.

I want to talk about some of the submissions we heard and some of the concerns I had as a Government Administration Committee member. I know the last time I took a call, when I sat down one of the Green Party members got up and said I was—I forget the term now, but it was something like mansplaining—

Hon Member: Manscaping?

MARK MITCHELL: —man-something. Basically, it was an attack on me because I am a man and I dared to take a call on this bill.

Brett Hudson: Did you apologise for it?

MARK MITCHELL: There was no apology that came. I was highly offended by the comment, but I am actually used to that. I understand why the Labour whip would take a point of order. That is something that a National Party member would never do against another National Party member.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have ruled on that matter, and matters of procedure are not part of Part 1 of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I do ask members to come back to the part. If you are serious about the relevancy of Part 1, I would ask you to come back to the part. It is a very narrow debate. It is about 22 weeks. You can refer to what happened in the select committee and how you came to report back to the Committee of the whole House, but I do ask that you concentrate on Part 1 and, specifically, on why it is important that it is now 22 weeks, or otherwise.

MARK MITCHELL: Let me come back to the 22 weeks, and also let me come back to the point that I was going to make.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What do you mean “come back”? You have to have been there to come back.

MARK MITCHELL: I am sure the chair of the committee, Ruth Dyson, will get up and take a call and support me on this. She supported me in the committee when I raised this issue. My concern is that I think we all accept breastfeeding and breast milk—if a new mother is able to do that, it is definitely the best thing for her child, without a doubt. I do not think we challenged the science around that or the submissions that were made to the committee. The one concern I had with some of the language that was being used and some of the discussions in the committee—the risk is that if a new mother, for whatever reason, whether it be medical or physical, was unable to actually breastfeed her baby, somehow her role as a mother was diminished. If a mother—

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This discussion about the merits of breastfeeding, although interesting, is well wide of Part 1 of this legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): If it was part of the submissions that were heard and it relates to why 22 weeks is important, then that is fair enough. But I do ask the member—this is my second time asking the member to concentrate on Part 1. Otherwise, I will terminate his speech.

MARK MITCHELL: The point I am trying to make, as it relates to 22 weeks of paid parental leave, is the fact that we just have to be very careful that as part of the debate, we do not send a message to new parents that if they are not taking 22 weeks’, or if they are not even taking 18 weeks’, paid parental leave, actually it does not mean they are not able to form a strong bond with their child. It does not mean that somehow their role as a parent is diminished. I know that in my own circumstances, with my mother, she was not in that position, and yet I feel my siblings and I have got a very strong, healthy bond with my mother. She has been an outstanding mother.

I do want to come back to the cost. I know there has been significant focus on this, but I do want to discuss it because the fact of the matter is that if we take half a billion dollars over the next 4 years—and I think the Minister highlighted the fact that although this Government has been very successful in its economic management, with a finance Minister who has delivered us back into a situation where we have surpluses—albeit thin surpluses—when we came into Government we were projected to have 10 years of deficits at least. That is an achievement in itself, and it puts us in a better position. Ultimately, it may put the Government in the position where it has got additional funds to be able to decide where in the economy it is going to be best used for everyone, for all of us as Kiwis. But at the moment we are facing a bill for an additional half a billion dollars over 4 years.

I guess I will take it back to my own electorate. A fortnight ago we were very lucky to open a complete new rebuild of the junior side of Warkworth Primary School, something that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. We are not talking about education; we are talking about this.

MARK MITCHELL: OK. I understand, Mr Chairperson. I guess I am trying to use real examples in terms of the fiscal impact of an additional half a billion dollars of spending over the next 4 years, which is significant. So let me be more general in my comments. When the Government makes its decisions around appropriations, then, of course, we have to be very focused—

CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I am really pleased to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. In using the full title of the bill, I particularly want to refer to Part 1, where we are looking at the changes between the number of weeks. Included in Part 1, of course, there are the amendments around paternity leave entitlements and partners, and around work contact. But, philosophically, the philosophy behind the Part 1 changes is around extending paid parental leave out to 22 weeks. Behind that philosophy, and, I am sure, through the submissions to the Government Administration Committee, what was heard was the difference it would make to extend, through this bill, paid parental leave to 22 weeks.

In recognising what stage a baby is at and its attachment to its mother, or, in fact, parental leave for its father, between the difference of what this Government has done—taken 14 weeks up to 18 weeks—and the suggestion in these amendments to the Act that it be taken out to 22 weeks, what we have, philosophically, is a belief that it must be done for the good of the baby and the mother, irrespective of the half a billion dollars of cost that has been projected over 4 years. The debate today in this Committee stage is about whether one is more worthy than the other. We are saying, as a Government, that we cannot afford to take it to 22 weeks at this time, despite the philosophy of the bill’s sponsor that it must be taken at this time, to the detriment of expenditure on other matters.

I am remembering back to when our twins were 18 weeks old, and the difference between that and 22 weeks. I think the philosophy behind paid parental leave and the importance of where we were, some 8 years ago, at 14 weeks, and now, at 18 weeks—that is a phenomenal difference in the age of a child, or children, as it was in our case.

That has been, with the full support of the Opposition, a good move to have made. However, there comes a time when it is really important to determine whether in fact the additional fiscal burden should be taken right at this time. That is why Part 1 and the amendments that Part 1 makes to the current Act, taking it out from 18 weeks to 22 weeks, is philosophically about whether now is the right time. As a Government, we are saying “Not yet. There are other priorities for us.” but it must be remembered that we are completely committed to children having a good start in life, to the development of that bond between the parent and the children, and we have consistently said that we will extend it further than the 18 weeks, which it currently is, out towards 22 weeks at a time when this Government can afford it. In fact, we have been consistently in favour of paid parental leave, as evidenced by our extending it from 14 to 18 weeks.

In addition to that, the important thing that has been achieved before now, instead of taking it to 22 weeks, is the modernisation. In this particular part it is all about 22 weeks, but the modernisation that we have done of paid parental leave to understand that there are some families who need it to be longer for a very good reason—and we have budgeted and provided the funding for that in legislation that has already modernised it.

So my premise here is that this is a philosophical difference about whether now is the time to take it, as Part 1 suggests, out to 22 weeks. I sought today to be on my feet to say that I believe in paid parental leave but that now is not the time. We have competing interests as a Government, and the half a billion dollars that this will cost over 4 years is not for just now. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): The proposition in Part 1 of this bill is that the length of time for which paid parental leave is paid to new parents should be extended from what it presently is—18 weeks—to what the bill proposes, which is 22 weeks. That is the question to be debated.

If you will forgive me, I have a recent experience, on behalf of a friend who had a baby quite recently and had it very near to the time—1 April of this year—when the entitlement period under the current legislation was changed from 14 weeks up to 18 weeks. She was also aware at this time of other changes that were being made to paid parental leave, on which I will not dwell as members are well aware of what those are. It is interesting to just get an insight into how much this change actually makes to the people watching this debate on TV or listening at home on their crystal sets, because ultimately these bills are about the people of New Zealand and the access that they have to the resources of Government. It is interesting, because she was quite keen to hear when the amendment would go through and the changes would occur, and whether or not they would occur at such a time that if her baby was born in time, she would access an additional 4 weeks’ leave. Who would not want to attract an extra 4 weeks of payment when they have just had a baby, at a time when they are under some financial pressure?

We can actually backcast what a 4-week shift from 18 weeks to 22 weeks might look like by looking at the experience of a person who had a baby right around the time there was a similar law change to what this amendment would propose occur on 1 January 2017, which occurred on 1 April 2016—to increase paid parental leave by 4 weeks. As I said, she was interested in this change and in this occurrence, but not wholly interested. I can tell you why that might be, and it goes to the heart of the fact of this issue, and it questions the reason why Parliament has devoted so much time to debating this matter, because, as an expectant mother, she was embarking upon a voyage that will last for around about 20 years. As soon as one begins to debate the correct length of time for the Government to offer some support, the question immediately turns to “Is 22 weeks the correct length of time to pay paid parental leave in the year of 2017?”, which is as long as it will continue, if indeed this part and Part 2 of the bill are passed by this House.

It leads you to ask about other stages of development that we might equally have used to make an argument for the optimal length of time for the Government to use scarce taxpayer resources to give money to parents. Parents sitting at home might ask what about 22 weeks is so substantial. Is it not more important to extend paid parental leave to 40 weeks? If you get to 40 weeks, you are at the stage when babies begin to crawl, when they can pick up objects, when they can wiggle. This is actually important, because this part is fundamentally about a debate about what the optimal length of time is.

What is on the table is 22 weeks. I would like to illustrate, by contrast, that there are some other developmental stages that are important in a baby’s life that might bring into question, for members in the Chamber and those listening at home, whether or not there really is so much wisdom—as the Opposition and the member in charge of the bill claim—in picking this time of 22 weeks for the bill. So I do think it is germane to raise the question of whether or not it should be 40 weeks, but what about another critical time to be at home with a child? That is the time of 52 weeks, the time when a baby begins to understand simple instructions. That particular period is absolutely critical in a child’s development because so much of our brains and the way that they have developed and the reason that our brains are so much larger than other animals of similar size is that we have developed such complex language.

Processing and developing language is actually a task that is critical to our development; in fact, it drives much of our development. If we accept the premise of this part—that we must increase the entitlement of paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 22 weeks in order to improve the quality of children’s development—then we might ask why we are prepared to extend it only to a time that will not allow parents to benefit from this bill when children are developing language, which is so important to our entire species and the development of our brains.

But there are further stages in a child’s development that might equally have the question asked of them. Once you start to ask about 22 weeks, you come up with so many other milestones that parents sitting at home know are equally important. They might ask about 104 weeks—that is language again, so critical in the development of a child—when children are expected to join sentences together. That is a critical stage because the ability to formulate full sentences is absolutely critical in the development of any child. There is much research showing that the children who are confident and articulate are those who are able to succeed in a whole manner of ways in life, and that might well be a good use of scarce taxpayer resources under a bill such as this. But, again, parents might ask if that is really the correct balance.

You can actually carry on this debate quite extensively—perhaps as far as a child’s 260th week, or 5 years of age, when they begin to attend primary school. I have heard it debated that there should actually be 260 weeks of paid parental leave. Why stop here? If we accept the premise that parenting is so dependent on having paid parental leave, then why stop at 22 weeks? It appears to be—

Sue Moroney: Then any step toward that is a positive.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I hear—

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

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Kia ora tātou. The House is resumed. Members, prior to the dinner hour we were debating Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. David Seymour had the call and he has 2 minutes and 11 seconds remaining, should he wish to avail himself.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I do, indeed, wish to avail myself of this remaining 2 minutes and 11 seconds, or whatever is now left of that, as my contribution to the Committee stage debating Part 1 of this bill.

Mr Chair, when one of your fellow presiding officers was here, I was just making the point that there are actually very interesting stages of development throughout a child’s life, and the question of whether we should be voting in this Committee to extend the eligibility for paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 22 weeks on 1 January 2017 is really a question that has to be put in the context of those other developmental stages. Just to give you an idea, I was referring to the development of language and the various stages of a child’s development at which language becomes an important factor because a child has reached a milestone in linguistic development and the way that that affects the development of brain capacity. Indeed, language is very important as an explanation for why humans have much larger brains in comparison with their body size than other species.

I would also preface that by talking about the very real personal experience of a close friend of mine, who gave birth at or near 1 April this year, when there was a 4-week increase in the period of eligibility for paid parental leave, and the effect that that had on her. I just make the point that, ultimately, that particular increase, although attractive, was really not critical because it occurred in such a long context. The reason for that might be that this particular amendment will not affect the overwhelming majority of parents because, as it has been noted in earlier debates, there are approximately 60,000 children born in New Zealand each year and only approximately 26,000 parents actually take advantage of paid parental leave.

The premise that we have been asked to accept by the Opposition and the member in charge of this bill is that paid parental leave makes such a substantial difference that it is critical to the upbringing of a child—that it is critical tonight that we increase the period of time for which a child qualifies as rapidly as possible, and that we do that in time for 1 January next year. Yet how can it be simultaneously true that this 4-week increase is so important to the welfare of children and yet, at the same time, we find that the majority of parents will not be affected whatsoever because they do not take up any amount of paid parental leave for any length of time?

The other interesting thing about this particular amendment to move from 18 weeks to 22 weeks is that it actually is very poorly targeted at people who really need additional care and additional resource. You might contrast that with an amendment the Government has recently made to paid parental leave that extends it for babies who are born prematurely. You can look at the data that this Government increasingly has when it chooses to direct the State’s resources to increasing outcomes for children. What we find—for instance, from the outcomes of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, which was presented in an excellent lecture to parliamentarians over the dinner break, and it is a shame that more did not take advantage of it—is that, actually, this bill would make an extension of State resource to around about 45 percent of kids born, in an indiscriminate manner.

In reality, this Government now has a lot of data through its social investment framework to show that rather than applying wholesale increases and extra resources for an additional 4 weeks to the 45 percent of children whose parents have self-selected to apply for and receive their paid parental leave entitlement, this bill is actually going to lack the targeting that could be so much better in terms of getting outcomes by applying resources to those who are in greatest need. Let me give you a few examples from this rich data set that the Government now has available and that we should be applying scarce resources to, rather than applying them wholesale—

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Although the member is speaking about the bill in broad terms, he is not really addressing Part 1, which I think he should be doing at this point.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chair, I can absolutely assure you that I am speaking to the question of whether this part, which extends resources wholesale to a wide range of the population, is the most efficient way to apply resources.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): OK, well, I am ready to make a ruling. The member will know I have already given one signal to keep it narrow. Although the member may well have been speaking to that up here, in his head, it needs to be delivered, because it is not what he is thinking that is in or out, as far as relevancy goes; it is what he says. If he can keep bringing that back to his 22 weeks over the next minute and 14 seconds, he will be doing great.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I suspect that my greatest challenge of all is to ensure not only that I am thinking it here, in my head, and speaking it here, with my voice, but also that you, Mr Chair, are hearing it there, in your ears.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Don’t go there, OK?

DAVID SEYMOUR: Let me continue by saying that it has been raised in this debate—by members who are in favour of the bill and members who are opposed to the bill, and opposed to this part and in favour of this part—that it is the best, or, in some speakers’ cases, an inefficient, use of the Government’s resource to have a wholesale increase in the entitlement for all parents from 18 weeks to 22 weeks, when, arguably, given the resources that the Government has in terms of data, it could be better targeting that resource. That is a very important consideration for members of this Committee listening to the debate but also for those people at home and those parents at home who might ask: if we are going to have a social contract where we pay an amount of tax—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): David Seymour, final call.

DAVID SEYMOUR: If we are going to have a policy where a scarce taxpayer resource is utilised in order to achieve better outcomes for all of our children in this country, then would it not be better to ensure that that investment is informed by the best data that we have? Simply saying that we wish to extend leave from 18 weeks to 22 weeks on 1 January 2017 is far too arbitrary, given that there is so much need out there and we need to do so much better for our children. Yet we find ourselves with an Opposition that is not prepared to use the relevant data and is not prepared to target resources towards need, but is instead content to rather arbitrarily—and, as I said, in the case of my friend it does seem rather arbitrary, in the wider consideration of parenting that is required—try to extend paid parental leave to 22 weeks on a particular day.

Why might that be? Well, we actually can look at the motivations behind a part such as this and the history of those who have proposed such parts, because public policy exists in a political context. Public policies that are not politically sustainable will not be sustained in a country, so it is worthwhile examining what previous speakers have said about initiatives such as this and their attempts to justify them.

As far back as 2002 Labour introduced paid parental leave—I think it was to only 12 weeks. Labour members would have argued at that time that it simply was not fiscally responsible to further extend paid parental leave. Of course, what is interesting about 2002 is that it was an election year, so I am building the case that we are not talking about extending paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 22 weeks because there is any evidential basis that this is the best use of taxpayer funds for making children better and for allowing them to develop into stronger and better citizens. There is a history where, actually, this type of policy has been proposed in years such as 2002, which was an election year. Labour again moved a change in the law similar to this in 2004, at exactly the time that there was a major change in the polling fortunes of the party that year. The interesting thing is that those were quite modest extensions of paid parental leave. They got us from zero to 12 weeks and 12 to 14 weeks. But the interesting thing is that at that time, the Government had much, much, much larger fiscal surpluses than it has now.

This is why targeting is so important. Today we live in a time when, compared with 2002 or 2004—when we had large fiscal surpluses and political pressure on Labour in Government—there have been modest extensions. The extensions today are constrained by there being a much, much smaller amount of fiscal headroom and, frankly, a lot more pressure on taxpayers, who have suffered from acute fiscal drag since that time. When we look back at the history, we can unpack some of Labour’s motivations.

It is not about the welfare of children. If it was, why do only 46 percent of parents who are eligible actually take it up? It is not about stages of development because, as I have argued, there are so many other critical stages of development that 22 weeks or even 26 weeks—which I am looking forward to debating in Part 2—will miss. It is simply about political posturing on behalf of the Labour Party to attempt to raise the age of entitlement, and when you gather up the evidence that we have seen throughout the history of this particular topic, when you gather up the evidence from child development, and when you gather up the fiscal record of various Governments when they have attempted to increase the eligibility for paid parental leave, what you find is that—[Bell rung]

Iain Lees-Galloway: Thank God for that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No, I pushed the button all by myself.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to come into force on 1 April 2018

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure finally to rise to speak to Part 2 of the bill. This is the part that brings in 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, and it brings it in on 1 April 2018. So for all of those members who debated the bill without having read it, naming different dates that are completely wrong, can I encourage them, please, to read the bill. It is 1 April 2018 when this bill proposes that New Zealanders should be able to embrace 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. And why 26 weeks’ paid parental leave? Well, it is not just a figure plucked out of the air; it is not just a figure that is an excuse for trying to filibuster a bill. It is a number that is based on—

Hon Member: Politicise—politicise.

SUE MORONEY: No, no, it is not politicising the issue of children and their families, as the Government is so interested in doing. It is based on what the World Health Organization says, actually. So I would like Government members to listen up to that. The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months. It recommends this not because it is its personal view, but because of the research and evidence that says that if, as a country, we can support women to be able to achieve that—and I acknowledge that not everyone can; but where we can, we should—that will reduce the amount of money the rest of us have to pay on hospital admissions.

Even if we were to be completely selfish about this, that would be a good enough reason in itself. But I am not prepared to be completely selfish about this, because it is also about the health of that child—the health and well-being of that child throughout their entire life, from the age of 26 weeks right through their adolescence, right through their adulthood—and the ability for them to lead the most fulfilling life possible. Is that not what we should all be embracing? Is that not what we here in this Parliament should be dedicating our time towards? I certainly believe that is what we should be doing.

So 26 weeks has not been plucked out of the air, and, yes, there are arguments, as it becomes affordable to this country, to look to extend it further at other times. But that is not the argument that Labour Party members are mounting at this point in time. We are saying right here, right now that, in fact, in 2012—right there, right then—it was affordable, and it still is today. How do I know this? How ironic is it that we are having this debate here today on the very same day that the Government has plucked a figure of $20 billion out of the air for defence? Here we have the Government MPs today saying that 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is unaffordable, but on the very same day $20 billion is magically plucked out of the air for defence—well, that is affordable. I think that tells us everything we need to know about the Government’s priorities: defence spending over children. Is that not what we expect to see from a National Government? And it has been played out again today.

I want to put on the table the agreed figures—not the made-up figures, not the trumped-up exaggerated ones that the Government MPs have been using tonight, but the figures given to us by officials and agreed to by the Government Administration Committee. Around that select committee table, we were able to get rid of the politics for that nanosecond of time and focus on the things that mattered, and here is what we agreed to: we agreed that to reach 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, in the next financial year—that is financial year 2016-17—it would be $12.7 million. In the Budget year 2017-18, it would be $65.4 million additional. At full implementation, in the year 2018-19, it would reach $107 million. That sounds like a lot of money when you are working on your household budget, but here is the other element: we also agreed—because officials gave us research and evidence and data that supported it—that on full implementation there will be around $30 million worth of immediate savings. That is not even going near the big cost savings out in future years, which all the experts tell us are where the big cost savings are to be had. That is on day one—on day one—of implementing 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, which Part 2 brings into law. Then we would save in the order of $30 million every year.

We need to think about this in context, because these are big numbers. What does it mean in the context of Government spending? For next year, it would mean just 0.7 percent of the additional money that the Government has already committed in the Budget. That is not of the entire amount that the Government is spending—that is such a small decimal point I cannot even get my head around it—but just of the additional spending, the $1.8 billion of additional spending this Government did without raising anyone’s taxes and without causing any major drama; 0.7 percent of that amount is what this bill would cost in that year. Let us go to the 2017-18 Budget year. It would be 3.6 percent of the additional spending that the Government is planning for that year. Then, as I said before, finally we would get to the gross amount of $107 million.

People might wonder why there is a bit of disagreement going on between the National Government and this side about what the costings are. There should not be any room for disagreement, because the officials’ figures are the official figures. But here is the game that the Government is playing. What it is doing is it is adding all of those years up together for 5 years, and then it is adding a bit on the top as well. That is what it is doing, because I heard several of those members say $500 million dollars.

Brett Hudson: It’s $466 million.

SUE MORONEY: It is not even $466 million either, Mr Hudson.

Brett Hudson: Yes, it is.

SUE MORONEY: No, it is not. What we have agreed in the select committee is to work on the return to work assumptions. What this means is that not everyone is going to take—

Paul Foster-Bell: Assumption. It’s a word.

SUE MORONEY: No, they are—well, they are not assumptions, because they are based on what actually happens right now. It is based on what actually happens right now. Not every single woman—when they take their 18 weeks’ paid parental leave, they do not all take 18 weeks. They do not all take the 18 weeks. So it is based on real-life data—what we know. I am surprised that members who were on the select committee do not understand this, because we went through it and dotted the i’s and crossed all the t’s on it. We had a lot of debate about it, and they still do not seem to get it.

What we know is that 2 months before the paid parental leave provision runs out, around about 5 percent of women will return to work. Why will they return to work? Well, there are a number of different reasons. More and more frequently, it is because the payment for paid parental leave is nothing near their ordinary wage, which means that they cannot afford to stay off work for any longer. As that Government keeps putting housing costs up all the time, they are struggling to pay the rent. They are struggling to pay the mortgage. They are never going to be able save to get into their first home. So people are returning to work sooner, and 5 percent of them will come back in the fourth month. A further 10 percent of them, we know, will come back at the fifth month. By the time we get to the sixth month—the 26 weeks—another 15 percent of them will have already returned to work.

Those are the figures that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) used—“MoBIE”, sorry; I should call it by its correct name. “MoBIE” used those figures to inform the select committee. Now that Government is using other figures to try to trump it up to make it sound like it is more expensive than it actually will be. What is its motivation? What could possibly be its motivation? It is trying to give some sort of bizarre justification to a financial veto. That is why it is using trumped-up figures. It is disrespectful to families, it is disrespectful to the select committee process, it is disrespectful to all of the submitters who came and talked to us and asked us to make sure that we got it costed properly, and it is disrespectful to the officials who worked hard on providing this information for the select committee.

I urge Government MPs not to continue to play politics with this bill, not to continue to exaggerate the figures when they know the truth of the cost, and not to try to give themselves an excuse for the embarrassment that they are now bringing upon themselves to suffer of putting a veto against the democratic process in this Parliament. That is the position they are putting themselves in. They are arguing against the majority of New Zealanders. They are arguing against the majority of MPs. I want to say to those MPs who are taking this seriously, who are giving it the due respect and the scrutiny that it deserves, that those MPs have made this decision after giving full scrutiny to the research and evidence and to the financial information, looking at the broader picture and saying, yes, this is affordable for New Zealand now. Not only is it affordable but also if we do not do it, then we are choosing a future that is not good for New Zealand.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Kaiwhakahaere, tēnā koe. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to Part 2 of this Committee of the whole House debate. I want to pose a couple of questions to the member on Part 2 of this bill. I do not have high hopes that they will be answered or even addressed given what happened with my questions on Part 1, but I am going to ask them anyway. I have a couple of comments to make first, though, on the contribution of the member in charge of this bill, Sue Moroney.

Firstly, I think that the comparison that has been drawn between the extra funding that has been sought via this measure and the $20 billion investment into our Defence Force, which is being considered in the white paper process, is completely fallacious and specious, and, I think, quite misleading to the public. I think Governments over a number of generations now have accepted that the defence of the realm is the first and absolutely primary responsibility of any Government. No child in this country—

Richard Prosser: We haven’t seen any proof of that out of you lot.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: No child in this country, Mr Prosser, is able to live a happy and healthy and productive life in this country if they do not live in a safe country that is well guarded and well defended, and that is why that investment in our Defence Force is required.

Secondly, the term over which the member is talking is quite different. She is comparing apples and pears. That is an investment to be considered over a 15-year period, whereas the costings that the Government side has been quite correctly using—and let us point out that these are Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment costings, and I think it is disrespectful to the officials who did their very best work and submitted those figures—in some cases they were estimates, Ms Moroney, and in some cases they were forecasts. They are predictions; they are guesses, because this is something that might happen in the future. Those very best guesses that the ministry was able to give us were in the range of just under half a billion dollars, but over a 4-year period once this policy takes full force. So she is comparing something over a 4-year period with something over a 15-year period. I think that that is a very false comparison to make, and it is quite misleading to any of the poor unfortunate viewers who may be following this debate this evening.

Thirdly, I want to turn to the fact that there was a split view—in fact, a mixed series of opinions—given to us as we heard submissions on the Government Administration Committee. I want to reference, in particular, the submission made to the committee by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), because I think that evidences very much the fact that there is not universal agreement on this among the NGOs and those who care very deeply about the well-being of children in New Zealand. In referencing the submission presented by Associate Professor Susan St John, the respected professor at Auckland University, I would like to quote directly from the submission if I may.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): You are talking about 26 weeks now.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: So in terms of the 26 weeks, what the Child Poverty Action Group had to say was “Extending the duration of [paid parental leave] will have no impact on child poverty, which is the most critical issue at this time, and a stated priority of the Government.”—

Carmel Sepuloni: Nothing the National Government has done has had an impact—

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —contrary, it seems, to what the Opposition whip is screaming out at the moment. “In fact,”—it went on to say—“spending more on PPL may preclude other more vital spending for the 250,000 children in New Zealand enduring poverty, such as extending the full Working for Families package to all the low income families with children as CPAG has recommended.”.

So in its submission, No.1, the Child Poverty Action Group submitted that the extension of paid parental leave to 26 weeks, as is proposed in Part 2 of this bill, be delayed until there is adequate recognition of the needs of all newborns. This, I think, backs up some of the points that members on this side of the Chamber have been making thus far in the debate. There are always competing priorities for precious taxpayer dollars. This is one very important area—looking out for our youngest and most vulnerable citizens—but it is not only this measure that is competing for those precious taxpayer dollars, and to divert resources from our hospital system, from our education system, and even from the defence of this country in order to extend this measure to something that we are not able to afford is, in my view, the wrong path of action to take. It is not just members on this side of the Chamber who are saying it. There are other people saying it, including some whom we would often disagree with, such as the Child Poverty Action Group, which I think gave quite a persuasive submission to the select committee.

So I would like to hear from the member in the chair, the sponsor of this bill, what her view was on its submission and why she thinks it is important that we ignore that and actually proceed with 26 weeks, which she argues is not an arbitrary figure but is a World Health Organization - mandated figure.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It seems to be my lot in life at the moment to follow Paul Foster-Bell in this debating chamber, which is fine by me because he gives me plenty of material. So what this comes down to is whether the Government will support extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks or whether it will not, and it comes down to priorities. We have heard from the Government that it is not prepared to spend the money on extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks. That is all it comes down to.

Then we heard from Paul Foster-Bell: “Well, if we did that, we’d have to take the money from health or we’d have to take the money from education or we’d have to take the money from some other part of the welfare State.” I have got a suggestion. The Prime Minister says we can afford $3 billion worth of tax cuts—not $3 billion over 15 years or $3 billion over 20 years, but $3 billion year after year after year. The Prime Minister says we can afford $3 billion worth of tax cuts. Take it from that. Take it from that.

I am not even sure what the percentage is, because it is so minuscule. It is such a tiny number—far less than 1 percent of what the Prime Minister says we can afford in tax cuts—that we could use to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. That is a far better use of that money. The return we would get on that investment is far better than simply handing out $3 billion, and we know where it goes when the National Government gives tax cuts. It goes to the people at the very top. It certainly will not be going to the people who would benefit from getting paid parental leave extended to 26 weeks. So there is the solution.

Paul Foster-Bell has been asking questions. He wants to hear the answers. Where is the money coming from? There is—

Paul Foster-Bell: What’s the answer?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: There is the answer, Paul Foster-Bell. There is the answer—0.03 of a percent. So the Prime Minister can still have his tax cuts, and we want just 0.03 percent of that to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. There is the answer—there is the answer. I get all these spurious questions, and Paul Foster-Bell laments the fact that he is not getting answers from Sue Moroney in the chair or from the members opposite. There is the answer. It is very straightforward.

This Government can find money for its projects that it prioritises. It has already accepted that paid parental leave is a good investment. It took it a while. It took a long time to catch up. It insisted, back when Labour and the Greens—and I am not sure what New Zealand First’s position on it was at the time, so I will not put words in its members’ mouths, but back when paid parental leave was first introduced, back when we had those surpluses David Seymour was talking about earlier on, National members said it was not affordable then. So they have never thought it was affordable because it has never been a priority to them.

The money can be found. It can be found from all sorts of different places if we just set this as a priority, if we just make children a priority. But the easy answer is to take 0.03 percent of the tax cuts the Prime Minister says are going to be affordable. Take that money and extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. It is not hard.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and to talk about the proposed 26 weeks of paid parental leave. I was a bit worried about Mr Prosser, because a burst blood vessel is actually really bad for your health, Richard. I want to acknowledge Clayton Mitchell and the contribution he has made. I would invite him to get up and make another one.

Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s not the Academy Awards. Just talk about Part 2.

MARK MITCHELL: I just want to—oh, Mr Lees-Galloway is getting excited over there, again.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): So here we go.

MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Mr Chair, you are right. What I would like to do is just address some comments that the sponsor of the bill, Sue Moroney, made in her speech, and that was around the third time tonight that I have heard her talk about the announcement that was made today about the defence white paper—and if you will bear with me, Mr Chairman, these comments were made by the sponsor of the bill—and the fact that the Government has committed $20 billion over the next 15 years to invest back into our New Zealand Defence Force. But I just want to highlight the fact that, in actual fact, in terms of spend in New Zealand, we commit about 1.1 percent of our GDP annually to our New Zealand Defence Force, and if we compare that to, say, the US, which—

Richard Prosser: That’s not the net figure, though, is it? Take off depreciation and take off the capital charge, it’s about 0.87. More disingenuity from National.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order!

MARK MITCHELL: I have not fact-checked this—I am concerned about the blood pressure as well, Mr Chair—but I have not fact-checked this and I think the US is about 3.4—

Denise Roche: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In the previous parts, we have had lots of instruction to keep our comments to within the part in the bill that we are discussing, and I really think that the speaker on that side has gone off point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, thank you for your guidance. Relevancy is a matter for the person in the Chair at the time. I had the privilege of listening to that debate on the radio as I was driving down—which says more about me than anything—but I invite the member who has the call, Mark Mitchell, to continue and make his point succinctly.

MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Chair. So if we look at Australia—and, again, I think the Minister of Defence commented today at his press conference—it is about 2.1—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes, OK. You are not doing it, so move on.

MARK MITCHELL: —and Canada is pretty close to us. But I want to make reference to the fact that the sponsor of the bill highlighted the investment into the New Zealand Defence Force as if to say that if we can make that type of investment as a country, then we should be able to take that money and allocate it to paid parental leave; but they are two totally different, separate issues. Actually, if you are talking about the health and well-being of our children, the security of our country and our economic zone is actually pretty important to the health and well-being of our children. I watched with great interest the debate in the House of Commons in the UK towards the end of last year, when the chairman of the Defence Committee got up and made a very compelling argument for increased spending, actually, in the UK’s defence forces because the threats and the security situation—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! The member has been given as much latitude as he is going to get. He either gets to Part 2 or he sits down. I notice he is currently sitting down.

Hon Members: He’s coming in to land.

MARK MITCHELL: I am coming in to land—I am coming in to land.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No, he cannot come to it eventually; he has got to come to it now.

MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Chair. So my point is that I cannot make the link between saying that the Government has committed to an additional $20 billion of funding over 15 years for our New Zealand Defence Force and money that we are talking about now over the next 4 years for paid parental leave, because the reality of the matter is that—and we spoke about it earlier in the night—when this Government came into office, we were facing deficits for a decade. The Minister of Finance and our economic team in Cabinet and caucus have been fiscally disciplined around making sure that we get the country back into surplus, which is what we have done. It might be a thin one, but it is growing every year. That will provide opportunities and that will provide, in the coming years, decisions for the Government to make about where that additional money and funding will be spent. Of course, the decision will always be whether we will continue to pay down debt, because if we are talking about kids, the last thing I want is our children or our grandchildren inheriting a debt that we have built up over time because we have been irresponsible in the way that we have spent the money that comes in.

I think that the argument that the Opposition whip put up around tax cuts is—let us understand one thing. If we make a tax cut—

Iain Lees-Galloway: I’m not a whip. I am just sitting here.

MARK MITCHELL: Well, he is pretending. Maybe he is the pretend whip—I do not know. He seems to be a lot more vocal than the whip tonight—I will put it that way. But the point that I would make is that if the Government decides to make a tax cut—

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): It is wonderful to take a call on Part 2 of tonight’s bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I have to say to Mark Mitchell: “Mate, you were putting a glass eye to sleep with that speech.” Let us just try to bring some context back to what we are here to talk about, which is the extension of paid parental leave from 22 weeks out to 26 weeks.

What I am hearing over there—although it is a bit of fluffery and a little bit of pokery—is that the Government members would like to support this because they can see the sense in it, “But, you know what, we just can’t quite afford it at the moment.” This is what the discussion is all about. Yes, we are right on the mark, are we not? Except you are not very good at articulating that tonight—the National members just seem to be fighting over a chip like seagulls, mate—so let us try to put it very clearly.

The reality is that it is going to cost around $100 million per annum to extend paid parental leave out to 26 weeks. If I look at that—$107 million, I think somebody is giving me the nod for, but we all agree that it is around the $100 million mark. I think the honourable member Iain Lees-Galloway does make a very valid point: building up to the election, we were talking about tax cuts that we could no longer afford, and they are likely to be on the table for next year—and 0.03 percent of the tax cuts that have been put forward for next year’s Budget is more than enough to pay out on $100 million of paid parental leave.

You might not think that that is enough money to find, but if you go back through the coffers of the National Government’s decisions over the years, you will see that when times were tough, when we had a global financial crisis, this Government, which sits across from us today and says it cannot afford $100 million a year, found $1 billion to bail out its South Canterbury Finance mates—$1 billion. When times were so tough and businesses were hitting the wall, the Government found $1 billion to go and do that. Just this year, when times were so tough, it found $27 million to do a flag referendum. It found $16 million to go and invest offshore over in Saudi Arabia, in the Middle East there, to build an abattoir that gives no benefit to New Zealand businesses. It has found $140 million to go and invest in China’s infrastructure. When this Government decides to find money, it knows exactly where to find it.

What this comes down to is the Government’s mean-spirited nature in stopping a bill going forward that is going to benefit families and our communities in this country. That is what it comes down to, Mr Mitchell, not this: “Well, we can’t quite afford it.” If I could just bring people’s attention—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Just come back to the bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Twenty-six weeks—that is what it is about, and the affordability of it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): And the movement to 26 weeks from 22. That is what this part is about, so let us—[Interruption] Clear the hell out of that. Go on.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: I do want to note that when we talk about the OECD, when it suits, the Government members are the first people to jump up and say: “OECD figures show that we’re at the top 4 percent when it comes to jobs.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): This does not really sound much like the part we are talking about. [Interruption] You have spent two-thirds of your time talking about the other bit.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: When we talk about paid parental leave, the Government says: “It is not in our interest; we are not interested in what the OECD is.” But it is interesting to know that when you look at the 41 countries here, New Zealand is currently in the bottom seven when it comes to paid parental weeks given—18 weeks. But, in actual fact, by the time you look at the average payment rates of all of these countries in the OECD, we are in the bottom three countries. We pay out only 47 percent of the average of the rest of the world. These countries that pay out 16 weeks’ paid parental leave or 14 weeks’ paid parental leave invariably give 100 percent of the national average annual salary to take home, which doubles that figure. We are still, even going to 26 weeks, going to be well behind the rest of the world when we compare ourselves with countries in the OECD.

This is affordable. This is about our communities. This is about connecting our families. It is about putting priorities back into, from the Government’s position, actually holding privileged positions to make sure that our families can look after themselves properly. We need to get back to enabling one-income families to support themselves, moving forward. We need to get back to families being given the time to spend, to connect, to bond with their children, and to nurture and to breastfeed them. This is what this bill does, and I cannot see any justification from this Government’s position to say otherwise.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I would like to speak to this, Part 2 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, brought forward by Sue Moroney. Others have spoken, I think quite coherently, about and demonstrated quite clearly the meanness of this Government in refusing to support this. So, in this contribution, I am actually going to try to dwell on the benefits of 6 months—of the 26 weeks, as opposed to the 22. I am hoping the Chair is going to appreciate that effort.

There are very significant reasons for the 6 months. The first one, which was already mentioned by the sponsor of the bill, is that the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of a baby’s life. Anyone who listened to the submissions and anyone who has been in a family, who has had a baby, and who has tried to juggle work and the needs of their baby and breastfeeding will know that it is an exceptionally difficult thing to do. We certainly heard from people presenting to the Government Administration Committee about how they were unable to manage work and breastfeeding and their sanity, so they left their jobs because they could not manage those things and they had to put their child first by continuing to breastfeed. That had a very significant financial cost to those families, and it had career consequences for those women.

It was a demonstration of a time when they were trying to juggle those things. The stress on them and their baby was unacceptable. That is, ultimately, what this bill is about—removing that stress and ensuring those babies and those families are supported by our employment laws to be able to work and maintain attachment to the workplace and have a family. You know, that is how most people live. As a country, we have a responsibility, collectively, to our children, and our employment law is one way we can demonstrate that.

Another reason for the 6 months—the 26 weeks—is that, actually, employers told us it would help them manage workflows and leave. It is much easier to find somebody to fill in for 6 months. When it is a shorter period, they typically fill in and have other people cover that person’s job, and it is actually much more difficult to manage. Also, the other benefit of the 26 weeks is that when they employ somebody on a contract to fill in for those 6 months, somebody else is getting access to the job market who was not in it earlier. There are so many benefits that kick in at 6 months, and they do not kick in earlier.

The Green Party’s policy is for 13 months, and I do not think that is unreasonable when I consider that booming economies like the Czech Republic and Estonia somehow manage to offer 3 years of paid parental leave. It does just kind of grate a little bit to hear from this Government that it thinks 26 weeks is just too much of a stretch and out of our affordability range. I am personally more aspirational for New Zealand. I think we can do 6 months. I think that with the will of the people and with our economy—you know, the resources we may have as a country—we can cover it.

When we hear the arguments about the in-work tax credit and how that should be more of a priority—I absolutely believe we should extend the in-work tax credit to people. I do not think that it should be either/or; I think it should be both, and that we will be better off as a country and that our children and babies will be better off if we do both. But, strangely, this Government has voted against both of those things repeatedly. So it is telling us that an argument against this is the in-work tax credit—hmm! Strangely, it has a record of not supporting that either.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Ms Moroney, it is an absolute delight to take a second call on Part 2 of this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Part 2, as we have heard, is about extending paid parental leave from 22 weeks to 26 weeks on 1 April 2018. Notwithstanding the arguments about the finances and the fact that this side of the Chamber believes that our funds are better spent elsewhere at this time and that it is about a suite of measures to give children and families the best start in life, and given that this side of the Chamber actually agrees that paid parental leave is a good idea and that I myself have put it on record that the concept of paid parental leave is a very good thing, I am going to focus on what the 4 weeks from extending the 22 weeks to 26 weeks would afford to mothers and/or fathers, because, of course, paid parental leave now extends to both parents and to carers.

We have already heard in Part 1 about the benefits that paid parental leave affords for breastfeeding. As a mother who could not breastfeed, paid parental leave was still very vital in respect of bottle-feeding. We cannot forget that. Yes, breastfeeding is considered best—the right vitamins and nutrients provided for baby—but it is still a very intimate experience to bottle-feed your baby, and that should not be lost or criticised. Some women cannot breastfeed, or choose not to, but it is still a very valuable time to bond with baby and an intimate experience to feed baby.

Moving on from that, in respect of the increase from 22 weeks to 26 weeks, those extra 4 weeks afford more than just bonding with baby. It is something that I have focused on in other speeches on this subject. It is the factor of isolation and the part that isolation can play in a young mum’s or young dad’s life, or in a first-time mum’s or dad’s life, when they first have baby. It can often happen if a person is isolated geographically, but it can also happen in cities if people are isolated from family members. For example, when I first had my child, I had a friend who had migrated from Australia to Southland who did not have the luxury of family and wider whānau support, and because of that, she was isolated. Coming back to what that increase of 4 weeks from 22 weeks to 26 weeks would afford, it is extra time to get involved in community activities with that extra financial support provided through paid parental leave, and to get involved with groups that provide support.

When you look at groups like Plunket—and for me, I have often talked about my involvement with SPACE through Playcentre, Supporting Parents Alongside Children’s Education, a course for first-time parents—it is about getting involved with those people who are going through the same changes as you: raising baby, looking to bond with baby, going through the challenges of the child’s development—

Richard Prosser: You’re sounding like you’re wanting to vote in favour.

SARAH DOWIE: Well, I will round it off, Mr Prosser. I will round it off. The extra 4 weeks afford that time to bond with other mothers or fathers, and they in turn give support to those parents—that parent who could be isolated. That is a positive thing that the increase from 22 weeks to 26 weeks allows. It extends the paid parental leave period and gives that extra financial support to that family to enable them to do that.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I almost feel like allowing the previous speaker another call because she was making such great arguments—fantastic arguments for extending paid parental leave from 22 to 26 weeks, because it makes so much sense. It is a pity that people in this House do not really have the choice to vote for what they believe in sometimes, because I think that member, Sarah Dowie, was expressing a real belief in the importance of relationships with babies, and the importance of parents having strong relationships with babies. Good on her for standing up for that, because one thing we know about our kids and relationships is that the thing we can give them that is of most importance—which is why Part 2 is so critical—is our time.

Our kids need our time, and if we have to go to work, we cannot give them that time. After the initial insanity of becoming a parent, particularly for mothers—because, really, you have no idea what is happening the first time—we need a lot of time to recover. I would argue that 6 months is a minimum—6 months when one’s life has completely changed and has been completely turned upside down by physical, emotional, economic, and social status changes—because we do not actually value parenting in our society, and every decision that I see made by the Government does not value parenting. We need to support this bill because it is going to give people time.

I will tell you why going from 22 weeks to 26 weeks is such a brilliant idea. As we have heard tonight, it is because it is good for employers, it is good for employees, it is good for babies, it is good for mothers, it is good for fathers, it is good for communities, it is good for the future health of the child, it is good for the future education of the child, it is good to break the isolation of parents, it is good for relationships, it is good for bonding at all levels, and it is good for sanity. There is nothing more insane, as I am sure the Government Administration Committee heard, than being torn in 1,200 different directions because, after 22 weeks, you were the person—the mother or the father—who was still feeling that they were just adjusting to this new little person, or people, in their life, plus to all the other people whom they are responsible for. But no, they had to go back to work.

The Green Party is incredibly proud to support this bill. We think that Sue Moroney has shown—in all the parts, but particularly in Part 2, because that is what we are talking about—incredible tenacity in holding on to every opportunity, and in keeping the community of parents with her. Every step of the way, parents are with Sue Moroney, and they are with all of us who support the bill, because, putting aside all the financial, fiscal, discipline, and weirdo arguments that I have heard tonight—which are really just about meanness and refusing to prioritise children—this is a positive step. As Jan Logie so rightly said, we live in a country that can do this. The only reason we cannot do it is that the Government is too mean to do it. Other than that, the arguments have been made, the evidence has been presented, the support has been demonstrated in the community, the logic has been shown, and the need is there.

When our children are babies—whether they are breastfed or bottle-fed—they need us. I think that 13 months, which is the Green Party policy, is a fantastic idea and that Sue Moroney has done amazingly well to get from 22 to 26 weeks, as a step towards what I know she really believes in. What she really believes in is that people should have as much time as they want—not just people who are wealthy, but everybody who has a job and a child should have these options. The Government, whose mantra of “choice”—it is constantly using the mantra of “choice” until, honestly, I feel like if I hear the word “choice” again, then I am going to strangle myself with my own “choices”. Honestly, if I hear that once again, because if there is one thing I know—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Back to the bill.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: —it is that in Part 2 this bill acknowledges that parents should have the choice. That is what I am standing up here tonight to say. If we are serious about anyone having any choice about anything, and that actually matters, then put babies and children first for once. Stop being so mean and mean-spirited and put babies and children first and allow parents to stay at home for 6 miserable months—well, hopefully glorious, celebratory, participatory, amazing months, but they are quite often quite intense months. Allow parents that choice. If this bill is not to succeed, never fear. The women of New Zealand will never give up. Kia ora.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora. I was not going to take a call this evening, but this will be the only opportunity I have to speak on this bill, because it no longer falls inside my portfolio area; my colleague Clayton Mitchell will actually be taking the call in the third reading.

I must speak in this Chamber, because it will be a historic moment when this bill gets through this stage—which we hope is prior to 10 o’clock this evening—and when it finally goes through its third reading and when the Government fulfils its promise to veto what the majority of the elected members of New Zealand have voted for. That will be an amazing moment in the history of New Zealand because it will send such a striking message. I must stand as a woman, as a mother, as a New Zealander, and as an elected member of this Parliament to speak to Part 2 of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): And the 26 weeks.

TRACEY MARTIN: Exactly, and how important 26 weeks are. I am going to speak personally about why I—not New Zealand First, but why I—believe it is important that this goes to 26 weeks. It is because I believe that by extending it to 26 weeks, we may just see, for the first time in our history, in some sort of mass movement, men pick up the opportunity to take at least the last month—the last 4 weeks—of those 26 weeks and stay at home with their babies, to be able to participate and to bond in the way I believe that the mass majority of young, current New Zealand fathers wish to participate. They will value that time with those children, and, finally, we will have a larger number of men who truly understand the unpaid work that is done by women over the period of time when they stay home and raise the next generation.

When a young person gets in trouble in this country, women and parents are the first people whom the media look for and ask: “Where are their parents? Where are those who raised them?”—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Not in the first 26 weeks they do not—come on.

TRACEY MARTIN: “Where are those who bonded with them?”. If those parents are there for the 26 weeks at the beginning of that life, how that story might be different. If men have some opportunity in those 26 weeks, which are in Part 2, then how different might our society be. If men are able to truly feel valued inside the home as much as they feel valued inside the workforce, because of the 26 weeks that is here in Part 2, how different might our society be.

So I take this opportunity to support the bill that is being put forward. “Tenacity” is a word that should be tattooed somewhere on Sue Moroney because of the way she has stuck with this issue. Do not give it up; we will not.

I call on the Government to think hard before it declines 26 weeks in Part 2. The majority of New Zealand’s representatives support this bill. There is only a one seat difference between that side and this side. Think hard before you decide to cast your veto.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a further call on this. There has been quite a lot of wide-ranging debate since I made my last contribution, but I actually intend to pick up where I finished off, on the question of 26 weeks. Actually, I think that in this Committee we are not debating whether paid parental leave is a good thing. We are not debating the benefits. We are debating the duration, when it comes to this particular part of the bill—26 weeks. The member who is sponsoring this bill, Sue Moroney, told us when she made her introductory comments to this part of the Committee of the whole House debate that these are not arbitrary figures, that they are not random figures, and that it is not her 26 weeks that she came up with. This was the World Health Organization’s mandated, recommended research figure. Well, is it not a bit suspicious that 26 weeks is also half a year? It seems like a very rounded-off amount of time to come to. Is the member quite sure that it was not 24 weeks or that it was not 25.7 weeks? It does seem to me a little bit suspicious.

But, also, the World Health Organization’s members are not the only people with an opinion on this matter. I back the United Nations system, but we do have to acknowledge that the World Health Organization is an inherently political organisation. It is a committee of the UN, with representatives elected from a range of countries who get themselves on to the various committees. So I think the member needs to look closely at that source for her suggestion of 26 weeks. It is not the be-all and end-all. As I have said, there are other organisations in this country, including the Child Poverty Action Group, which made a very cogent, coherent, and, I think, persuasive submission that as good as parental leave is, there are other priorities that any other Government has to consider.

Tracey Martin: Oh, my goodness. They’re going to really dislike you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: It is a little bit rich, actually, from Mrs Martin, I have to say—it is a little bit rich to be lectured from across the aisles by Mrs Martin, because Mrs Martin does not have to consider the other priorities that Governments do have to consider. This is the very reason that a financial veto exists, Mrs Martin. You make some interesting allegations, but, of course, the previous Labour Government exercised its financial veto 31 times during—

David Seymour: No!

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Yeah, actually—31 times. So I think we on this side of the House should not be lectured. But we are not even at that stage yet; that is pre-empting business that is yet to come. We are yet—

Tracey Martin: It’s because your finance Minister said it in the paper. I do apologise! I won’t take his word for it.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —to see how the cards fall in this part and in this Committee, at the end of this Committee stage, and at the third reading, when that is even a consideration, Mrs Martin. I think the member is getting a little bit ahead of herself at this stage.

But, look, there was so much. Actually, I am going to agree with some of the things that the member Catherine Delahunty said about this part of the bill—the 26 weeks not being one of them, but many of the benefits of paid parental leave are. I actually do want to commend Sue Moroney. There will be some people who say that this is a highly political bill and that she is playing politics with quite an emotive issue, and who will accuse her of cynicism, but I actually want to commend her for what I think is a well-intentioned attempt to raise this issue twice in 2 years. Well done, Ms Moroney, on the luck of having it drawn, I suppose.

But I do agree with some of the things Catherine Delahunty was saying. The bonding between a parent and child that happens in the first few weeks, months, and even years of life is very important. I think it is a little bit arbitrary, though, that we have settled on 26 weeks in spite of inconclusive evidence from the breastfeeding experts, particularly in the New Zealand context, as to the ideal time to be given for leave to encourage breastfeeding. A point that I think has been made earlier, but which I want to emphasise, is that suggesting and allowing this idea to get out there that the only way a mother can exclusively breastfeed—or, in fact, breastfeed in part, or breastfeed her child in any way—is if she is on leave from the workforce completely is sending the wrong message to employers. Employers in this country should be aware that they do have a responsibility to make facilities available for mothers so that they are able to appropriately breastfeed their children.

I also back up the comments made by my colleague Mark Mitchell, who, I think, very sensibly pointed out the important role of fathers here. It is not entirely about the role of mothers—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No, it is about the 26 weeks.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I think we have to think of both parents in the arrangement, and, actually, 26 weeks, in my view—

Kris Faafoi: Well done.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —is not the right balance. It is wonderful to see Mr Faafoi is going to make a contribution—

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): It gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Speaker—sorry, on behalf of the ACT Party. I would never purport to rise on behalf of the Speaker, but, you know, a little bit of ambition can go a long way.

I am struck by the fact that many of the arguments I made in Part 1 in respect of the extension of paid parental leave entitlement from 18 weeks to 22 are also quite relevant to this particular part, too, on the extension of paid parental leave to 26 weeks.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Does this mean we are going to have four calls repeating them?

DAVID SEYMOUR: How many would you like?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): One good one.

DAVID SEYMOUR: If I cannot do that, would you take four bad ones?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Go for it.

DAVID SEYMOUR: OK, thank you, Mr Chair. There are actually a number of topics, but, thankfully, Tracey Martin has given me fresh material in her contribution, which was around gender equity. Her claim was that the extension of paid parental leave by 4 weeks, from 22 to 26, will be mainly occupied by fathers. Her claim can be further extended in that it will actually lead to a cultural change in gender relations in New Zealand.

In other words, she believes that men, hitherto somewhat unfamiliar with domestic chores and duties, will find themselves taking that extra 4 weeks off and discovering a whole lot of things about parenthood they would not otherwise understand. Give me a break! Never has there been somebody so out-of-touch with the modern reality of New Zealand. That might be the 1950s world view that we hear from New Zealand First, but the reality is that my friends who are parents, fathers, are deeply involved in every aspect of childcare, and they do not need an extra 4 weeks of paid parental leave to achieve that. As usual, Tracey Martin is an inspiration. I wish I was as clever as she thinks she is, but few of us can ever be.

The reality is, if you go a little bit deeper into her argument, it is not entirely obvious that an extension of paid parental leave really would lead to men—or fathers—taking a larger role in the household. It might well be—and I would be interested to hear from the member in charge, Sue Moroney, whether she has considered the implications of this bill for gender equity—that an extension from 22 weeks to 26 weeks would actually lead to women taking more time off work and men being even further shut out of parenthood. It is really not obvious what the real effect would be on the roles of different parents, even if we buy into Tracey Martin’s rather imaginative and out-of-touch version of gender relations in New Zealand in 2016.

On behalf of the fathers in New Zealand who are intimately and deeply involved in their children’s upbringing, I say to her that it is, frankly, a little bit offensive that the only way we will be kick-started into fatherhood is by an extra 4 weeks of paid parental leave, extended from 22 weeks up to 26 weeks.

Tracey Martin: You have no concept of what you are talking about, you typical man.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders require that a running commentary is not allowed when members are barracking. I have not had a moment’s respite from Tracey Martin’s screeching. I wonder whether you could call her into line.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I would like to sustain that point of order. In fact, the member may well have been reading my thoughts. The member interjecting constantly—a constant flow across the Chamber—is contrary to the Standing Orders, and just a little bit more than the rest of us can stand.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you for sustaining that point of order. It might interest you to know that as one ages, one’s ability to hear higher frequencies diminishes, which is why the leader of New Zealand First has been able to tolerate that member for so long.

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Are you going to allow that sort of sexist comment to be made in this Chamber?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Firstly, I did hear a number of the interjections that the member made to the member who currently has the call, and I understand that we have been having quite a robust debate. I do not believe, as the Chair, that was a sexist remark, and so I am not going to take issue with it at the moment. I would like all members to be a little bit more sensitive as to what may cause offence within the Chamber.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No, I have ruled on the point of order. Get on with your speech.

DAVID SEYMOUR: That is exactly what I will do, but I will just point out that elderly hearing loss occurs in men and women. I was not being sexist towards the leader of New Zealand First.

There are a number of other matters in this part of the bill that I think deserve attention, other than gender equity and the role of fathers in New Zealand. One of them is the universality of the uptake. I think this is important. If it was important in Part 1, when we discussed the fact that not every parent takes up paid parental leave, then it is even more important when we extend it to 26 weeks. We understand that every year in New Zealand approximately 60,000 children are born—

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): It is my pleasure to take a call in this Committee stage of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. This Part 2 debate is about extending paid parental leave from 22 weeks to 26 weeks, and I would like to really focus on the rationale for 26 weeks. The proponent of this piece of legislation, Sue Moroney, has been very clear that it is linked to the World Health Organization (WHO) and evidence about the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding. For the information of other members of the Committee, WHO has actually looked at 14 research publications, and that optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding has been determined for the first 6 months of life. It is considered a global public health goal that is linked to a reduction of infant morbidity and mortality, especially in the developing world. So there is actually a rationale around the 6 months and why 6 months is so vital, and a link between this specific piece of legislation and the breastfeeding of our children.

It is also relevant in the debate to look at article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That particular convention states that children have the right to good quality health care—the best health care possible. What we know is that “Breast is best”, and for the first 6 months of life, children having an opportunity to be breastfed is incredibly important. So the rationale for the 26 weeks comes from that piece of research evidence, the World Health Organization, and an array of research and publications about how important and vital it is for the growth and development of our babies.

For people listening out there, the 26 weeks was also part of a recommendation of a November 2013 report by the Health Committee. That select committee was chaired by Paul Hutchison. That Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse with a focus from preconception until three years of age (Volumes 1 and 2) actually had a section about paid parental leave. I am sure the National members of Parliament would be really interested in the inquiry and this piece of evidence that I am about to propose. Actually, Dr Hutchison was a huge champion, particularly, of the rights of the child, making sure that every child in New Zealand had the best possible start.

On page 39 of that report, under the heading “Social economic determinants of health and well-being”, there was a section about extending the duration of paid parental leave to between 6 and 12 months. The rationale for that really was, again, about breastfeeding, because it helps baby form positive attachments with their primary caregivers. To quote from that report, it also said this: “common sense suggests that a non-stressful, relaxed environment for as long as possible after birth fosters breastfeeding and helps babies form positive attachments with their primary caregivers.” In fact, the proposition for extending paid parental leave in that report was from 26 weeks at a minimum to 52 weeks.

It is interesting when we look around the world. When this bill passes—and I want to congratulate my colleague Sue Moroney—we will join Chile, Mongolia, and Hungary. Poland actually allows 26 weeks, the Czech Republic 28, Bulgaria 32, Slovenia 34, and Norway between 35 and 45. Ireland allows 42. It is 52 weeks in Albania, Montenegro, and the UK. Croatia allows 58, and Estonia 62. The champion around the world is Sweden, at 68 weeks. So what we are actually doing is creating a minimum level of paid parental leave, which so many international organisations around the world have said is incredibly important if we want to focus on the health and well-being of our children. I think what we have heard tonight, really, is procrastination on that side of the Chamber and a focus on what is important to them versus what is important to us. I think the compelling arguments from our side of the Chamber really have put children and families at the centre of a piece of public policy and legislative reform. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I want to reiterate some of the arguments that have been made earlier, in so far as they apply to the schedule of this bill. We on the Government side do not have—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise. I have fouled this up by giving the member a call and a bit of extra time. We will go straight to the question. We have, of course, debated schedules 1 and 2 as part of the earlier debate.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Kaiwhakahaere, tēnā koe. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to take this call on the title and commencement clauses of the bill. This bill, in Sue Moroney’s name, is called the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. It is quite a mouthful, and it does, to some extent, I suppose, do what it says on the label: it is about paid parental leave. It is about protecting the employment of those workers who are on parental leave, so that they have work to come back to. But where I take some, I suppose, contention with the proposed title is the “6 Months’ Paid Leave”. That is not actually what the bill does—not initially, anyway.

When this bill was first looked at, at the Government Administration Committee, it came in three tranches. There were the parts of the bill that were supposed to come into force on 1 April 2016. Of course, those were overtaken by events, and we have amended the bill accordingly. Although there was no agreement in the select committee on the bill as a whole, we did agree it would be patently ludicrous to have a commencement of some clauses that had been overtaken by events. There had already been an increase, delivered by this Government, in paid parental leave duration but also the work contact hours, although not under that name—the staying in touch provisions, to allow parents on parental leave to keep in touch with the workplace, to keep up to date, without losing their entitlement—had already, effectively, been enacted by this Government.

In the bill as it stands now, when it comes into force, there will not be 6 months’ paid parental leave—or 26 weeks, as it is described in the bill. Initially, when the bill first comes into force, as of 1 April 2017, there will be 22 weeks of paid parental leave. This does not then increase to the 26 weeks, so the extra 4 weeks is added on, on 1 January 2018. In my view, this is not an entirely accurate description of what this bill does.

The bill should perhaps be called the “Parental Leave and Employment Protection (First 22 Weeks Next Year and then 26 Weeks the Year After That) Amendment Bill” because that would be, I think, a more accurate description of what it actually does. I know it does not exactly roll off the tongue, but it would at least portray this bill in a faithful manner. I think that is something that we should consider in this Committee stage so that it is fully understood that as of the moment it is signed into law by the Governor-General, it will not deliver 6 months’ paid parental leave—that is something that is coming down the track.

When one gives, it seems, little consideration to the fiscal impact of what one is doing, one does wonder why you would simply stop at 6 months when you are in the position of the Opposition of being able to promise very much and not consider too much what else has to be sacrificed to pay for those promises. One does wonder why you would simply stop at that 6 months, or 26 weeks, and why you would not keep on going. But anyway, that is my suggestion—that we bring some accuracy to the naming of this bill and make it very clear to the New Zealand public that it is, in fact, not 6 months’ paid parental leave that they will be entitled to from the commencement of this bill on 1 January 2017.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I just check: did the member move an amendment then?

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: No.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, he did not. Right.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise to speak on the title clause. I think the point here is more than just the fact that the Government Administration Committee recommended that we strike out “and Work Contact Hours”. It is more to the point of the significance of why that has come about. In its most obvious sense, it is because the select committee recommended that the work contact hours provisions that were originally in Part 1 of the bill should be removed. But the real heart of the reason for that is that they are no longer required. That speaks to one simple fact, that a measure that this Government has put in place actually provides work contact hours to the same extent, or near to the same extent, in another piece of legislation that has passed through the House and is now an Act. The Government has undertaken those measures, which means that the provisions already exist in the law, and therefore there is no need for them.

But it speaks to more than that. What it shows is that while this bill and maybe other previous, similar pieces of legislation have been in the House in the past, the Government has been acting. The removal of the work contact hours from this particular member’s bill, because the Government has already done something that means they are no longer required—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to require the member to resume his seat. I remind him that we are now debating the bill as it was passed at the second reading. The words that the member is debating are not part of the title and, therefore, are not part of the debate.

Hon Ruth Dyson: A page a day. Get some advice from Paul Foster-Bell.

BRETT HUDSON: One page a day—thank you, Ms Dyson. In that case, we will instead move on to the commencement date. The commencement date would see the first tranche of 4 additional weeks from 1 April 2017. As my colleague has noted, originally that was going to be 1 April 2016, which, of course, would have been a bit of an impossibility, so it was a very sensible decision and recommendation to move that forward to next year, and then the further 4 weeks in 2018. But what that does is bring expenditure into those specific time periods, and as we have heard through the debate, the officials gave advice to the committee that the total expense over a 4-year period would be about $466 million additionally, and these commencement dates would lock that in. It became very clear that through to the fiscal year of 2020, that would see an additional cost. These commencement dates in this bill would commit the Government to that sort of expenditure.

The implications of that have been reverberating around the Chamber this evening, where people are very strongly suggesting that the fiscal conditions of today, when we could potentially enact the legislation, simply do not permit for that increased level of expenditure. Although Treasury may be forecasting some surpluses—some incredibly good ones, actually, in the years to come—they are quite some years in advance, and further ahead than even the commencement date of Part 2 if this bill were to be enacted. So both commencement elements of both Part 1, for an additional 4 weeks, and Part 2, for a further additional 4 weeks, would commit the Government to expenditure that does not easily fit inside the current fiscal envelope as projected by Treasury over the next couple of financial years—the period when each of them would come into effect.

That is the heart of the Government’s position, and has been throughout debate on the bill—that it is not about an additional dollar of paid parental leave; it is about the total cost of a programme. It has been the position that the total cost of 26 weeks is not affordable in what we have today or can see in the immediate term of the commencement of Part 1 and Part 2, and that remains our position. So as we come near the end of the discussion on these preliminary clauses, we would restate that were these clauses to be passed or agreed to by the Committee at this stage, and to progress to a third reading, then they would be, effectively, seeking to commit the Government to expenditure that does not readily fit within the envelope today. It is expenditure that we say we should not be now committing to for this purpose. The Government has many responsibilities to meet, and to expend more in this area would require a change in another area of expenditure. It is our view that what we have mapped out—at least, in the Budget for the coming 4 years—is a better use of those projected funds. So the Committee will make a call shortly, but it is our view—

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I seek leave for all clauses to be debated as one.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): So you want clauses 1 to 4 and Mr Seymour’s amendments—soon to be ruled out of order—to be debated as one question. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Kaiwhakahaere, I apologise for my tardy erection in the House. [Interruption] In speaking on this first clause of the—[Interruption] I am sorry. I apologise if I have embarrassed the member Mrs Martin, but—[Interruption] Yes. In speaking on this first clause of the member—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! [Interruption] Order! I think if members could get a grip, we will just—[Interruption] Just get on with it.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: In speaking to this first clause of the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill in the name of the honourable member Adrian Rurawhe, during this Committee of the whole House debate, I first want to say—

Richard Prosser: The upstanding member.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Yes, a very upstanding member—thank you, Mr Prosser. The bill has a number of concerns for people on this side of the House, but from the outset I want to indicate that the Government will be supporting it. That is because this is a Government that is concerned with transparency. We are believers in open government. We think it is good that the public of New Zealand can have scrutiny over what the Government does with its money, and how it uses the resources granted to the executive by Parliament, and for those reasons in particular this part of the bill does meet with favour from this side of the House. So I want to congratulate the member Mr Rurawhe on actually convincing Government members with the power of his debate, particularly in the select committee stage—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The Committee was invited, and declined the opportunity, to have a broad-ranging debate across the clauses. I now ask the member to address clause 1.

Kris Faafoi: I seek leave for all clauses to be taken as one debate, again.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to get a little bit of advice, because my understanding is that you cannot seek leave for the same thing twice. I am advised—which is slightly different from the way that Sir Gerry Wall used to rule, well back—that the House is its own master, and I will put the question. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The member gets to start again.

Clauses 1 to 4

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was not tardy at all on this particular occasion.

Clause 1 of the bill is, of course, just the title clause, so I was hoping that might allow for a slightly more wide-ranging debate, given that it is only one sentence and it includes the words “Official Information”, “(Parliamentary Under-Secretaries)”, and “Amendment Act”. So being able to take this one debatable clause is helpful, because actually it is a very, very difficult—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just do it.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: The issues that we do have concerns around include, actually, clause 4, which varies the definition of what a “Minister of the Crown” is. We heard during the select committee stage some erudite observations from, for instance, Sir Grant Hammond, the President of the Law Commission, but those were in a personal capacity. Those were not made in his position as president. He was, I think, in between appointments at that stage, or the board had not authorised him to comment officially. He was of the view this was a device that would allow the parliamentary under-secretary to come under the scrutiny of the Official Information Act (OIA).

Although that might be the case, it was somewhat concerning to members, particularly on our side, that we were varying the definition of what a “Minister of the Crown” is. It might be only for the purposes of the OIA, but would this be a slippery slope? Would this open the door to others being considered, for the purposes of the OIA, to be a Minister of the Crown, even though they are clearly not Ministers under the Cabinet Manual definition of what a Minister is? They are not members of the Executive Council of New Zealand, and they enjoy none of the privileges—indeed, protections—of Ministers. For instance, parliamentary under-secretaries do not enjoy the honorific of “the Hon”. They may be honourable members, but they do not have that titular honour.

They also do not have the services, for instance, of the VIP Transport Service. It might be seen as something of a luxury, having access to a Crown car, but it is a very useful amenity for Ministers who need to have confidential conversations, for instance, with their officials on a cellphone in the back of the car so that they are not necessarily being overheard by taxi-drivers or other people who are not cleared to the appropriate security clearance levels.

These are amenities that a parliamentary under-secretary does not enjoy, yet they would have imposed upon them the criteria of the OIA not only with regard, obviously, to their official duties, because that already is the case. The parliamentary under-secretary that we have in the current Parliament, Mr Seymour, is subject to the OIA in so far as he is delegated responsibilities within the education portfolio or the small business—or is it the regulatory reform portfolio? But, in any case, that was a concern for us because, on this side of the House, the other thing we take very seriously, as well as transparency, is also the protection of the confidentiality of constituents who might come to a member of Parliament.

So, having inherited the Westminster system, we have here members of Parliament who also hold roles in the executive, unlike other jurisdictions like the United States, where there is that complete separation between the executive and the legislature. We were somewhat concerned, I have to confess, Mr Rurawhe, that it would be possible to extend this even further or to make an argument based on the change being made here, because it is a change. We have to face up to the fact that this was not the intention, as expressed in clause 4 of this bill, of the original drafters of the OIA.

Certainly, there was no evidence that was provided to the select committee, and research was done by our justice ministry officials, that it was the intention of those who drafted the original OIA, which was a very forward-looking piece of legislation back in 1982, which was put down in the dying days of the fourth, or was it the third, National Government, the Muldoon National Government in 1982—many years ahead of the equivalent Freedom of Information Act in the United Kingdom jurisdiction. But from when this Act was drafted, clause 4, as it is laid out now, is a change. It is a departure. It is not a correction. It is not bringing it back to what it should have been; this is an innovation. It is a clear change that we are making, so we must understand that, I believe.

Similarly, I think it is also necessary that we are mindful of the fact members who are parliamentary under-secretaries are also members of Parliament, and we do not want this to be seen as an open door to other further innovations that could have a negative effect on, for instance, the ability of members of Parliament to conduct their constituency business with confidentiality for those who bring—

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): There is no tardiness here. I would like to address this bill with particular regard to the amendments on my Supplementary Order Paper 181.

Hon David Parker: We wouldn’t notice anyway.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Ha, ha! That was quite good.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt the member straight away and say that he is aware—because it has been reported as such—that his amendments are out of scope, and although he may make a passing reference to them, he cannot build a speech on it.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Let me address the bill a bit more widely before making a passing reference to my Supplementary Order Paper, and you will see that my speech is roughly built upon the amendment that has been ruled out of order, but it does actually form an interesting piece of backdrop to how the Committee came to be debating the bill tonight.

As has been discussed at length through earlier stages, clause 4 of this bill—really, the only clause that has a huge amount of influence—extends the powers of the Official Information Act from members of the Privy Council and from Ministers and Associate Ministers to parliamentary under-secretaries. This was not the intention, as Mr Foster-Bell has said, of the Official Information Act.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Executive Council, I think the member means.

DAVID SEYMOUR: The Executive Council—very sorry. You are right, Mr Chair, and thank you for that correction. It also was not the intention when such matters were revisited by the Constitution Act by the fourth Labour Government in 1986. So it is a significant change. As Mr Foster-Bell has said, although I am not so worried about which perks come with the bill, I do not think that there should be a balance between obligations and perks, because we are all honoured to serve here in Parliament, in whatever capacity. What is important is that clause 4 will make no material difference to the way that parliamentary under-secretaries operate and the transparency in the way that they operate.

I might venture that as the only current member of Parliament who has served as a parliamentary under-secretary, I am in a unique position to say this. I think you will find that is true—the last one was actually Dover Samuels. I have already made a point of tabling or proactively releasing all official information that I have held in my capacity as a parliamentary under-secretary. In an earlier reading I made a point of piling it up on this desk and showing members quite what a volume of information has already been made proactively available. But more importantly—

Hon Ruth Dyson: When did you start releasing it? Before or after this bill was drawn?

DAVID SEYMOUR: The member is asking did I begin those releases before or after this bill was drawn. I suspect that what she will find if she looks back through the records is that the notion of proactive release began in December 2014, when I signed a letter with Minister Parata, which was a guide to how Official Information Act requests to my particular duties as parliamentary under-secretary would be dealt with. I am not aware of when the bill was drawn, but I think the member will find that, actually, the bill was drawn after that time—so a good question, but, as is often the case with the member, not a particularly relevant one.

Hon Ruth Dyson: A good but incorrect answer.

DAVID SEYMOUR: If I can return to the substance of the bill rather than the heckling that I am encountering from the far corner, the second reason why clause 4 will make no substantial difference is that according to the Constitution Act, a parliamentary under-secretary derives all of their powers from the Minister. So to the extent that the parliamentary under-secretary is exercising any power, how they are exercising it and what it is being used for can be discovered by sending an Official Information Act request to the Minister’s office. That is why Minister Parata and I, given that we thought we might get a lot of Official Information Act requests, actually moved to have a procedure for dealing with such requests, and, funnily enough, as parliamentary under-secretary I have been signing up the ones that were not already proactively released, which it turns out most of them were.

It is a clause that will have no material impact on the operation of parliamentary under-secretaries. It will not give the people watching or listening at home an additional insight into how parliamentary under-secretaries such as myself operate. I am more than happy for this bill to go through on that basis, but I would say that once we have breached the distinction between the Executive Council—

BRETT HUDSON (National): I just note thanks to the Committee for agreeing to treat this all as one question. So let us move on.

As Mr Seymour said, the substance of the bill is clause 4. It is around the redefinition of “Minister of the Crown”. My colleague Mr Foster-Bell pointed out that although the argument is clear that the redefinition applies only to this particular Act, the Official Information Act, the act of undertaking a redefinition of what is a Minister itself fills us with some concern. I think Mr Seymour was just touching on the point that I would make. I do not argue or make comment on his contributions that with all of the work that he has been doing and the process that he has in place in his office this will make no material difference to the actual information that is released. The part that does concern me, although we will be supporting the bill tonight, is that this change not only blurs but basically removes the distinction between what it means to be a member of the Executive Council and what it means to be a member of the executive.

We had a number of submitters—not terribly many, but we had several—and the point from the Law Commission, for instance, was that in the first reading of this bill a number of members, and I was one of them, used the term “executive” about the Official Information Act not applying to parliamentary under-secretaries because they are not members of the executive. They are, so we were incorrect. The distinction lies in the difference between the Executive Council, which all Ministers are members of, whether they are Ministers inside Cabinet or Ministers outside Cabinet, and the only members of the executive who are not on the Executive Council, who are parliamentary under-secretaries.

I asked, as part of the select committee process, for officials to go back and look at the 1980s, at the time of the passing of the Official Information Act and in subsequent years, for utterances in the House recorded in the Hansard or any other correspondence or commentary they could find from members of House that would indicate that around that time or in the subsequent years they thought: “Oops, we made a mistake. It had been our intention that the Official Information Act would cover all members of the executive, and we should really think about doing something so that these parliamentary under-secretaries are covered.” There were at least a couple of them in the 1980s—such as the Hon Annette King and the Hon Peter Dunne, to mention two—who were parliamentary under-secretaries who were not covered under the Official Information Act, which had been passed in the early 1980s. When they were parliamentary under-secretaries they were not covered under it.

Officials reported back and reported that they could find no record at all that gave any indication that any members, at least in the House, had made any utterance that suggested that they thought they had made a mistake, that the bill needed to be amended, or that somehow because parliamentary under-secretaries were members of the executive, they should have been captured under the Official Information Act. So from that lack of discourse we can all take, I think, great confidence that at the time of the passing of the Act and in subsequent years it has not been considered that parliamentary under-secretaries should be included under the Official Information Act.

In taking the step that officials recommended—and, admittedly, they recommended it because, given the Government Administration Committee agreed that we would recommend the extension to include parliamentary under-secretaries, the most expedient way of doing that was simply to redefine what a “Minister of the Crown” includes under the Act. But the concern is that, as I have said, all Ministers are members of the Executive Council but parliamentary under-secretaries are not. We are concerned that the redefinition just destroys that distinction, and we do feel—I certainly feel—that the distinction has always existed for a reason, and it is quite arguable that we are just removing the reason, which in itself is a little troubling.

Having said that, despite the concern that I do have about doing it that way, we do believe on reflection through the select committee—particularly its members, but also other members in the Government caucus—that the transparency and greater access that this will afford and the greater confidence this will give the public in the access to information, including those actions that are delegated to parliamentary under-secretaries, do outweigh a concern that we might have about the blurring through a redefinition. So we did support this bill in the second reading and we will be supporting this bill this evening as well, but we do have some concerns.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I just wanted to open my speech tonight by going back to the chair of the Government Administration Committee—the very good chair of our committee, the Hon Ruth Dyson—and some comments that she made and directed towards Mr Seymour in his role as a parliamentary under-secretary. She challenged him in terms of when he had actually begun releasing documents under the Official Information Act (OIA). He came back and he was very clear about the fact that he had signed an agreement with the Minister of Education, Minister Parata, in December 2014, and that is when the process had begun. Just looking at the documentation that I have, I can confirm that this bill was introduced into the House on 23 July 2015 and it was referred to the committee on 14 October.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When was it lodged? You don’t know the answer to that question, do you?

MARK MITCHELL: Well, that might be a very good question. If the chair takes a call, that might actually be a very good question for the chair to answer.

Hon Ruth Dyson: The Chair’s there.

MARK MITCHELL: The chair of the select committee—the chair of the select committee. I have been waiting all night for the chair to take a call. I was assured that she will, so we will wait and see. I think that this just supports and highlights the comments that were made by David Seymour—that actually he had already initiated this process under the OIA before the bill was even introduced into the House. So I just wanted to support him on that.

I would be the first to admit that I was a bit cynical when this bill was introduced to the House.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Surely not!

MARK MITCHELL: No, that was at the start of the process, and I will explain why I was cynical, because under a Labour Government—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, the member is not going to explain why he was cynical. What he is going to do now is go back to debating clauses 1 to 4, which we are currently considering—remember? We had a first reading and a second reading. We have agreed to the principles of the bill. All we are doing now is debating whether these clauses do the job or not.

MARK MITCHELL: I think the clauses will do the job, Mr Chair. I do not think there is any concern or worry about that at all. But I am just very interested that our Parliament has actually had parliamentary under-secretaries before, under both National and Labour Governments, and the legislation that existed then seemed to work very well. I think we had the Hon Dover Samuels who was a parliamentary under-secretary. He seemed to operate very well under that legislation, and so I could not see initially what the immediate issue was under the existing legislation. Parliamentary under-secretaries have obviously served very well and very transparently under previous Governments, so—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK, the member will resume his seat. David Seymour—sorry, Eugenie Sage.

David Seymour: Mr Chair, you can’t take the call away.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It was an absolute mistake. I call Eugenie Sage.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): It will be only a brief call, Mr Seymour. We are very pleased to support this bill. Yes, there certainly have been parliamentary under-secretaries before, but I do not think they have been responsible for such ideological nonsense as we have had with this parliamentary under-secretary and his promotion—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am now going to warn the member. She is even worse than some of the people being off the topic before. Clauses 1 to 4 only.

EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Mr Chair. So we are pleased that the Government is going to support the bill, because it is a tiny sign that it does recognise the value of the Official Information Act.

However, the Law Commission did a very comprehensive review of the Official Information Act, putting out an issues paper in 2010 and then quite a comprehensive report in 2012, The Public’s Right to Know, which recommended a much more extensive review of the legislation. It is really disappointing that the Government has not proceeded with that. So we would like to see the recommendations from the Law Commission’s report, which are along the lines of some of the changes in Mr Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 181—which is out of scope, and we are pleased it is out of scope because it is very poorly drafted—including that the Officers of Parliament, with certain exclusions, be included in the Official Information Act. We would like to see the Act completely rewritten so that it is very clear, because, as the Law Commission pointed out, deciding or determining whether an agency is actually subject to the Act is quite complex.

But I can see Mr Chair is a bit concerned about the scope of my speech, so I will simply say that we support the bill. I congratulate the member in the chair, Adrian Rurawhe, and look forward to a much more comprehensive review of the legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): David Seymour, I think—after the debacle earlier.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I thank the member who just resumed her seat, Eugenie Sage, for setting a new standard in the scope of this debate, which, of course, I will not seek to reach, because I respect your rulings, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member must not mislead the Committee.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I want to touch on Supplementary Order Paper 181 because—as I was working towards in my speech—it is an important part of the story of how this bill got here. It has been helpfully alluded to by the member who just resumed her seat that Part 4 in this particular bill does actually change—oh, sorry, section 4, does actually—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Clause 4.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Clause 4 does significantly change the role of parliamentary under-secretaries. Once you are prepared to open up that distinction, then I think it is worth asking whether this is the right way to do it. This House has limited time. There are limited resources for transferring information within Government. How do we find the optimal level of transparency across Government, given those constraints?

It seems to me that the Law Commission did, in fact, make a very, very helpful contribution in its 2012 report on the public’s right to know when it advocated not only that the Official Information Act be extended—as it has been in clause 4 of this bill—but that it be extended much, much wider. Of course the principles on which the commission drew, in making those recommendations, are the same principles that clause 4 in this bill purports to be based upon. It recommended, for instance, that the Office of the Ombudsman should also have the Official Information Act extended to it. I support that, and I will mention, in passing, a Supplementary Order Paper that has been ruled out of order that actually would have made that change.

The Law Commission—showing neither fear nor favour for its own profession—also recommended that the judiciary has the Official Information Act applied to it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): All right. Do I need to tell the member?

DAVID SEYMOUR: No, no. I have got the message.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Right. Well, the member will now come back to the bill.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Chair. As we can see, there is a theme here: by excluding a number of other possibilities, this bill has been very narrow in scope. It also tells us something about the motivations of the member in charge of the bill. I think that the people at home will often judge politicians by their motivations and they might wonder why Mr Rurawhe has brought any of these four clauses, including clause 4, to this Committee. The fact that he has been so unwilling to follow the Law Commission’s very sensible recommendations and has included only parliamentary under-secretaries in clause 4 is one of the reasons I find it so difficult to support clause 4.

I think people at home will be wondering why—if he was really committed to the public’s right to know—Adrian Rurawhe drafted a clause that was so limited in its scope when other credible sources say that there are so many other aspects of government that might have been included in that clause. That is why I find it so difficult to support clause 4, and it is why people at home might be wondering why Mr Rurawhe drafted such a narrow clause. Perhaps, if we are very lucky, Mr Rurawhe will actually stand up and give the Committee his explanation of precisely why that is.

I think it actually is worth mentioning that on several occasions in the recent past a member has left this Parliament because of prosecutions brought in the court system, presided over by the judiciary, where they were ultimately exonerated in court but none the less lost their career. I think that if we are prepared in clause 4 to extend the Official Information Act to parliamentary under-secretaries and if the judiciary is also being seen to have so much influence on the proceedings in this House, and actually change the balance of the House at different times—

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I thank the member David Seymour for yielding briefly as I take another contribution in this Committee stage debate. I have actually got a couple of questions for the honourable member Mr Rurawhe, because, as we commenced this Committee stage debate on this interesting, if short, piece of legislation, Mr Rurawhe did not make a contribution. We have had a few questions already. I would like to add a couple to that. The clause that I do not have a question on is the “principal Act”, as laid out in clause 3. That is very clear. I understand that entirely and I think that if a member does not understand what the meaning of that clause is, they probably should not be in this place, because it is very straightforward.

Clause 1 is the title clause. I actually would like to ask why the member chose to call it the “Official Information (Parliamentary Under-secretaries)”—plural—“Amendment Bill”, because of course there is currently only one parliamentary under-secretary, and one might feel that it is somewhat targeted upon the only current parliamentary under-secretary. So I would just be interested in an assurance from Mr Rurawhe that this is actually a high-minded point of principle and not simply targeting the only current under-secretary of State. I would like to know the answer to that question.

The second question, Mr Rurawhe, is around the commencement clause, clause 2, which says that this Act comes into force the day after it receives the Royal assent. I would like to know from Mr Rurawhe whether he had in mind, when devising this clause, the retrospectivity of the Official Information Act. It is inherently something that is designed to allow transparency on information that has been accumulated, generated, and stored over a long period of time. We have heard from the member Mr Seymour, the only current parliamentary under-secretary under this National Government, that he has put in place a very proactive approach to responding to Official Information Act requests, or, in fact, proactively releasing information before the requests are even made, in so far as his education portfolio is concerned. I am not quite so sure whether he has that proactive measure in place on his, arguably, less controversial portfolio of regulatory reform.

If this bill comes into force immediately on the day after the Royal assent without any period to allow it to be bedded in, what kind of compliance burden might this place on the smaller office of a parliamentary under-secretary vis-à-vis a larger office of a Minister, be it a Cabinet Minister, a Minister outside Cabinet, an Associate Minister, or even a Minister of State, although there is no one who holds that sinecure, obviously, under this hard-working National-led Government. So the question there really is whether a day after the Royal assent is sufficient, given that over the course of 18 months or so that the member has been a parliamentary under-secretary a vast amount of information may have been generated, accumulated, held, stored, and processed by his office. He might have received, for all we know, many thousands of pieces of correspondence in the field of regulatory reform because there are many letters written by admirers of this Government, I am sure, and of the wonderful policies that have been implemented to make life easier for small-business owners, cutting through the red tape. I am sure he gets thousands of congratulatory cards on a daily basis from businesses up and down the country, be they in Clutha-Southland, or Dunedin North—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! There is nothing in the debating phase that prevents members being ironic, but they still have to be relevant.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. How do you know he is being ironic?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Paul Foster-Bell.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: My point here, and the relevance to this particular clause, is I am concerned—and I hope Mr Rurawhe will respond to this—that there could be a vast array of information generated in this modern, highly automated, technical age in which we live held by Mr Seymour’s office that does not fall under the category that he has explained as being proactively released. Therefore, has the member proposing the bill considered the impact that that might place on a relatively low-resourced office, when you compare it with the offices of other Ministers—that there would be a burden being placed on staff, or perhaps public servants. What is the cost to the taxpayer that that might bring? So I would like some answers from the member, if possible.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Kaiwhakahaere o te rā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you Mr Chair of today’s proceedings, and acknowledgments to us all.]

I would like to try to answer or to address some of the questions that have been raised by members. I have been listening very carefully to them, and I would like to, if I can, try to join some of them together because I think some of them are relevant to each other.

So, first of all, about intent—it is very easy for us to look through our 2016 lenses and try to predict what the 1982 intent was. The information from the Ministry of Justice seems to say that there was no intent around parliamentary under-secretaries whatsoever, and what ended up in the Act was the intent. The issue for me is what is our intent in line with information that has come to this House and to members of Parliament—for example, the document that members have referred to—and the public’s right to know. Surely, the intent of this Parliament tonight is what we should be talking about. Quite clearly, so far, all of the submitters have agreed with this bill and the Ministry of Justice has recommended that it be supported into legislation, and that is quite clear. So I think it is this Parliament’s intent that is what counts to do with this bill.

The issue around capturing a member of Parliament’s work through this bill is, quite clearly, also addressed by the Ministry of Justice. The Law Society said that any risk of capturing parliamentary information is mitigated by the withholding grounds contained in the Official Information Act. That is never ever going to be captured under my member’s bill, and so members can rest assured that that will not be an issue, or it ought not to be an issue.

The title of the bill, Mr Foster-Bell, clearly reflects what this bill is about. My understanding is that the title of the bill should be relevant to what is in the bill. It could not be more relevant. What it is not relevant to is anything else that someone might want to add to it. That would change the whole nature of the bill. So I think that the title of the bill is absolutely correct.

Retrospective issues—a good question, and I have thought about that. I take Mr Seymour’s word. He has stated to the Committee that he has already provided that information, so what additional compliance burden will be on him? Well, according to his own answer or his own information to the Committee, it would be nothing, because he is already doing that. He is already, by his own statements in the House, providing that information, and I think that is fine. Before that, I am not sure. I am not sure what one can do through this bill to address, say, former parliamentary under-secretaries. I am not sure. I suppose you could try making an application to the Hon Annette King perhaps, or to Peter Dunne. I am not sure that they hold that information. It is probably in the archives, anyway, so I do not see that as an issue at all. I have thought carefully about that and I do not think that is really an issue.

Mr Seymour has quite rightly said, as I acknowledge, that he has told this Committee that he has already provided information through the Official Information Act—and that is fine. He says that will make no material difference. What it will make a material difference to is the future, and the obligation for future parliamentary under-secretaries to be compliant with this bill when it becomes an Act. That is quite clear.

The question around why it is so narrow—well, it is narrow in the respect that it does what the title says it is going to do. I would make a distinction—I would make a distinction—to what has been tabled, like this: this bill makes a change to the definition of who, along with Ministers, is liable to Official Information Act requests. What it does not do, as has been proposed by Mr Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 181, is add new agencies into schedule 1 of the Official Information Act. It does not do that. The other difference, of course, is that those clauses have not been scrutinised by a select committee, and they have not been subject to public submissions. I think that would be a mistake.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am not going to let the member carry on debating something that is out of scope. The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye—oh, sorry. I will make it clear, as I have previously, that I am not putting Mr Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper because it is out of scope.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 109

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

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill without amendment, and the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Given the efficiency of the Committee of the whole House, I seek leave for the House to adjourn.

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

The House adjourned at 9.49 p.m.