Tuesday, 14 June 2016

TUESDAY, 14 JUNE 2016

TUESDAY, 14 JUNE 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

Orlando, Florida—Shooting

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to express sympathy with the victims of the Orlando shooting.

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I move, That the House express sympathy with the victims of the Orlando shooting. This is a shocking atrocity, and on behalf of all New Zealanders, I would like to express our country’s sincere condolences to those affected by it. As I said yesterday, no innocent person should have to worry about such violence when going about their daily lives or be persecuted for their beliefs or because of who they are. The evening vigils that took place in Auckland, Wellington, and elsewhere were a tangible demonstration of the depth of people’s very real feelings at the scale of this atrocity.

Over the days and weeks ahead we will learn more about the motivations behind this senseless tragedy, but right now there are many people grieving: the victims’ families and friends, and the gay and lesbian community in Florida and around the world. All too often we see these hateful attacks and mass shootings taking the lives of innocent victims. New Zealand stands with the United States and other countries in the fight against violent extremism.

Yesterday I wrote to President Obama to express condolences on behalf of all New Zealanders. Our thoughts are with the victims, their families and friends, and those who responded to this tragic attack, and we wish those who are injured a speedy recovery.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): The Labour Party joins with the Government in expressing its horror at this atrocity and its love and sympathy for the victims and their families. Our thoughts are with the people of Orlando and the United States, as well as their representatives here in New Zealand.

This was an atrocious and hateful act. It was an act of terror. It was also an act of hate. It was a targeted attack at the LGBTI community. It was the deliberate mass murder of LGBTI people because of who they were and whom they loved. These young people were attacked and murdered in a place that was meant to be safe for them. It was meant to be a haven where they could go to dance and have fun and be themselves. This was a place where they would not be subject to homophobia or violence or hatred. And in that place, in that sanctuary, they were murdered in cold blood.

Like millions of people around the word, we have all seen the heartbreaking details of what emerged about this shooting—the stories of first responders arriving at the scene to a chorus of ringing cellphones, as the families of those hurt and killed desperately tried to contact their loved ones; the story of Eddie Justice, who was able to hide in the bathroom of the nightclub long enough to send his mother a text telling her that he loved her, and whose mother then had to read the horrifying words: “He’s coming I’m gonna die”.

This attack has broken hearts around the world, but while we mourn and grieve, we must also rededicate ourselves to the great universal values of humanity that attacks like this seek to deny and destroy: inclusion, openness, respect, love. We must reaffirm our commitment to a society where everyone is free to love whom they choose, to worship how they choose, and to be themselves without fear of violence or repression. We must reaffirm our commitment to ending bigotry and intolerance and hatred wherever we find it, because that is what the path of true freedom demands. While we grieve and we mourn, we remind ourselves that love is love and that love is stronger than hate, and that together we will not let hate win.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I rise to support the Prime Minister’s motion and to thank him for it. The Green Party wishes to express its profound shock and sorrow at what has occurred, and its sympathies to the victims themselves, to their families, to their friends, and to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex communities in Orlando and around the world. An attack against one of us is an attack against all of us. I want to name this as an act of homophobic violence. For those of us who are in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex communities, we know that just below the level of taunts and name-calling and subtle prejudice, there is an undercurrent of violence.

In this particular case, in Orlando, America’s absurd gun laws have been a unique enabler for the mass murder that has occurred. But New Zealand also has a history of homophobic violence. One thinks, for example, of Jeff Whittington, who just over 17 years ago was murdered in this town. It should not be that when I and my partner or any from our communities are out in public, we should have to check who is around before we kiss or hold hands, and yet it is so.

At this time I want to ask everyone in this House and everyone listening to this debate now to pay particular attention to the needs of young and vulnerable members of our communities. For older members of the gay community—for example, like me—we have the privilege of being able to choose whom we associate with. We have the relative privilege of being able to make ourselves as safe as we can be. But a younger person does not have that privilege. They are particularly vulnerable; they need our support and they need our love, right now.

I also want to extend a hand of friendship and of love to Muslim communities around the world. We understand that what this man did is not representative of your communities, and we seek relationships that are based on peace and mutual respect. A belief that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people are not entitled to what we call universal human rights, or, worse, a belief that we deserve death for being who we are, cannot be allowed to stand in the world.

In closing, we in the Green Party and, I hope, this House commit ourselves to act against homophobia and homophobic violence and, indeed, transphobic violence, wherever it occurs in the world, and we seek to be a constant voice in the world for universal respect for basic human rights. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First tenders our condolences, sympathy, deep concern, and regret to the people of Orlando in the USA at this latest terrorist massacre. We in New Zealand First are opposed to religious extremism in any form, and this atrocity resulted from Islamic extremism by a terrorist whose family had sought shelter in the United States. There are those who will take the politically correct view and blame it all on a lack of gun control. They are wrong. They have been misled. They are seeking to divert blame from where it should lie because this terrorist could have used any weapon of destruction—a bomb, an improvised device, a method of mass poisoning—and blaming a lack of gun control in this way is seen, in our view, as simply a cop-out. In the San Bernardino case last year, two extremists gave their baby to somebody to look after and set out to cause a massacre, and when their home was searched, improvised explosive devices were discovered to be present as well.

We have New Zealand cases, as well, of loose border and security controls. Do people remember the hijacking of a plane out of Blenheim by someone whom a political party said should not be here? Or the fact that we could not find a henchman of Saddam Hussein and when immigration officials did, they found a diplomat who had no connection with him at all, and when it was all over, it was found that he should not have been here in the first place? And there are countless examples now where border control officers are making a judgment and having it overruled by others on the basis that they are safe. In short, we are inviting that problem into our country by the looseness and the cavalier attitude we are taking as a country towards matters of security, and—[Interruption] This is not crap; it is a fact, and those who would defend what has gone on here without knowing whom they have brought here and how they are brought here will one day be weeping crocodile tears, pretending that they sought to take action.

With the greatest of respect, one of the reasons that we in New Zealand First are appealing to the moderate Muslims is this: throughout the Western world there are extremists of every religion—we do not distinguish who they might be. But our appeal to the moderate Muslim people in this country, and in any other country, is that the joint security of the country in which you exist or live is dependent on us all alerting the authorities. That is the least we could expect. And as for signing a declaration of values, with the greatest of respect, if you are going to apply it only to refugees and not to everyone who seeks to come here, then you are engaged in a puppy whistle without any real concern for the consequences.

Lastly, there are members here who will say that they are concerned, and yet when put to the test as to the level of upgrade of our security, raising the bar of our finding out who is here, they have simply been found wanting.

Hon Member: Crap.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If it is crappy when I talk about it, sir, that is your speciality.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): E Te Whare e tū nei, kotahi tonu te hāngai o te kōrero o Te Pāti Māori, he tangi, he tangi, he tangi mō te hunga ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi, kāre i kō atu, kāre i kō mai.

He rā mō te kōrero mō ngā piki me ngā heke o te kaupapa nei ēngari, i tēnei rā tonu nei, kai te tangi te ao o te 50 kua ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi. Ka pērā tonu te aro mō Te Pāti Māori i tēnei rā me taku kī atu, ngaro te kai, ngaro te tangata ki te pō. Iri te rau kawakawa, iri ki whare aituā. He piki raukura, he kotore huia ka whatia, ka ngaro ki Paerau ka ngāro, whakaōti atu!

Āpiti hōno, tātai hōno, te hunga mate ki te hunga mate, āpiti hōno, tātai hōno, ko te hunga ora e takatū nei i te mata o te whenua, kia kaha ki a tātou! Ehara tēnei i te wā ki te whiuwhiu kōrero, he tangi ki ngā mate, tangi ki ngā mate! He tangi ki a rātou e rongo nei te ngau o mamae nō reira, anei, anei tētahi waiata, he waiata tangi mo te hunga kua ngaro.

[To the House standing here, the Māori Party has only one focus and that is lamenting, mourning, and grieving for those lost from sight; absolutely no more, no less.

It is a day to talk about the ups and downs in relation to this matter but on this particular day, the world of the 50 lost from sight is grieving. The Māori Party’s focus is unchanged and, furthermore, I say if food disappears mankind will be lost to the void. Suspended kawakawa leaves hang upon the death house, feather plumage and huia tail feathers, adornments of those gone to the meeting place of the dead of no return.

The lines are joined, the dead to the dead and the living to the living, standing here ready on the face of the land, we need to be courageous! This is not the time to cast aspersions but rather to grieve the dead, yes, to mourn for the dead! Weep for those who feel the pain, so here is a lament for those who have gone.]

Ko-ia tēnei—te mōnehutanga te whakapū-aki te ara tā-ro-a,

Ki ngā paepae maunga—i koia e te tini—e te ma-no,

kia tau ki te toka-o-maumaha-ra.

E tangi nei e te hau marangai ma-te,

E ngau kino nei—te aroha—e!

[This indeed expresses the expiration of life and the very lengthy pathway

To the mountains on the horizon to be traversed by the countless and the multitude,

in order to reach the rock of remembrance.

It is here that the wind of death rains tears

of keen heartfelt sympathy.]

Koi nei tāku e rongo nei i tēnei ahiahi, e taku rangatira tae atu ki tō kōrero, tēnā koutou huri noa, kia ora tātau!

[This, indeed, is what I am experiencing this afternoon, my esteemed one, and that includes your contribution, so acknowledgments to you collectively throughout, and my appreciation to us all.]

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): No words, no spin, and no gloss can carry over the events that occurred in Orlando yesterday. The slaughter of nearly 50 innocent people is unacceptable by any moral or ethical standard. Equally unacceptable, I think, is the sort of intolerance and the bigotry—because that is what it is—that gets paraded at a time like this as people start to attempt to explain these unacceptable actions. I believe that bigotry begets bigotry, and that in turn begets the type of extremism that we saw exemplified in Orlando yesterday.

This is not an issue where one makes a moral judgment about anybody. The fact is that these young gay and lesbian people were out socialising, something they should have been able to do in perfect freedom, in perfect security, and in perfect confidence. A madman—because that is the one thing that is certain about the perpetrator—cruelly ended that, and the questions will go on for some time as to why and how. There will be questions about the United States’ attitude to the possession of handguns. There will be questions about the motivation of the individual. None of those actually remove the tragedy of what happened. None of those restore any of those lives, rebuild any of those families or those friendships, or rebuild those shattered communities.

We are a long way away, and I am sure that the people of the United States are not sitting by their televisions now hanging on our every word, but our expression of sympathy and solidarity with them at this time of grief counts in that it shows that as members of the world community we actually share some basic values about integrity, we share some basic values about freedom, and we share some basic values about people being able to live their lives and express their personalities to the fullest extent.

Every time we see an event like this it is a challenge to all of those values that we hold dear, even if we may not be immediately near the scene of the crime. So I share with others the sense of outrage and the expression of condolence and sympathy to the people of the United States, and Orlando in particular, on this horrific occasion. But to start to go beyond that to draw spurious conclusions at this early stage I simply think starts to light the fuse for the next horrible outrage, and that is unacceptable.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I would like to add the ACT Party’s sympathy and condolences to those messages from other leaders who have made dignified and factual contributions to this debate.

It is a great tragedy, and our thoughts are with the victims, with their families, with their communities, and particularly with the LGBTI communities of Orlando, which appear to have been deliberately targeted. Let us remain strong in the knowledge that free and open societies have the resilience to sustain these tragedies, to support each other, and to grow stronger again together. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Housing—Affordability and Availability

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his and his Ministers’ statements in relation to housing?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I do stand by my statements. In terms of my Ministers’ statements, yes, but I would need to see the full context in which they were made.

Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement that “We are building 40 houses every working day in Auckland.” given that under his Government only 23 homes, on average, have been consented in Auckland per working day, compared with 35 under the previous Labour Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I stand by my statement.

Andrew Little: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library that sets out the building consents issued under the previous Labour Government and the present Government and shows the very figures that I have just quoted—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! I have put the leave. The leave has been denied.

Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement that “All roads lead back to supply.”; if so, why have the policies that his Government has implemented over the last 8 years failed to deliver an adequate supply?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Broadly, yes, I think that is right—that all roads do lead to supply. If you have a look at the demand-side things that have been applied, you would not say that they have had a massive impact, and, of course, interest rates could do but they have been falling under a National-led Government, and supporting. But the simple facts of life are that we have a construction boom taking place now in Auckland. We have more people working in construction in New Zealand, I think, than ever before, and more houses being built—considerably more houses than by the previous Labour Government, which was a complete and utter failure in this area.

Andrew Little: If it is all about supply, why is housing Minister, Nick Smith, going around saying that plummeting Māori and Pasifika homeownership levels are the fault of poor education?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As is always the case with an Andrew Little question, one needs to check the fine print. The point the Minister was making—[Interruption] I actually happen to have in front of me his exact quote, if the member wants me to embarrass him and read it back to him, but the simple facts of life are that the Minister was making the point that there is a correlation between income and people’s capacity to own a house. He was simply making the point that Māori and Pasifika, by definition at the moment, have a lower level of income.

Andrew Little: If it is all about supply, why are four of New Zealand’s major banks banning loans to offshore speculators while housing Minister, Nick Smith, says: “The impact of offshore speculator is diddly-squat.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member would have to ask the banks about their motivations—I simply do not know. But I stand by the view that the most accurate information that we have is not whether someone’s name is Chinese in the phone book but whether they actually fit the criteria under the Land Information New Zealand information. Certainly, talking to the banks myself, I have not ever picked up from them that they consider this to be a terribly significant issue. But, interestingly enough, the member seems to be telling the House this afternoon that it is not about supply when it comes to housing, and yet the only two things that Labour has announced in relation to housing are that it wants to build a lot of houses—who knows where and how—and that it has adopted the National-led Government’s policy of metropolitan urban limits.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a very long answer.

Andrew Little: If it is all about supply and the homes are not there, does he now accept that his housing policy has failed and the buck stops with him?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I stand by the view that the Government has a comprehensive plan when it comes to housing, and that plan is working. That is why we are now building 40 houses a day, and under the previous Government we were building 10. That is why there are vastly increased numbers of consents for new houses in Auckland, and why the Government has taken the steps it has.

Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement blaming falling homeownership on people buying houses later, getting married later, and having children later, given that homeownership fell for every age cohort from 20 to 85 in the last census?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. Unlike the member, I do not just make things up. In the interests of an informed debate, let us not worry about the advice I get. Let us go to the 2008 advice from Statistics New Zealand presented to the previous Labour Government, when it goes on to talk about “Possible causes [of reducing homeownership] include increasing participation in alternative forms of long-term investment, a high level of student debt, higher house prices relative to incomes and people forming families later in life.” [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Prime Minister. There is little point in carrying on with the barrage coming from my left. [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: Will he listen when I tell him it is not too late to adopt Labour’s policies to shut out the foreign speculators, remove Auckland’s growth limit, and build affordable homes for families to buy so that once again we can restore the Kiwi Dream of homeownership?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I will listen to the facts, which are that homeownership rates fell under the previous Labour Government. Going back to my answer to the last question, here is the incoming briefing to the previous housing Minister in 2008, under the Labour Government. The advice here is that changes in lifestyle—[Interruption]—these people do not want to hear the answer because they know we are right. They know we are right. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again we are in the situation where Mr Little has asked a question but it appears that Mr Little’s colleagues are not that interested in the answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I seek leave to table the briefing to the incoming housing Minister that quite clearly points out that changes in lifestyle—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That information has already been put on the net and is available to all members.

Hon Members: Eight long years.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need reminding about the term of this Government.

Government Financial Position—Surplus and Crown Debt

2. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to increase surpluses and start repaying debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As the Budget outlined, forecasts are for growing surpluses and debt falling below 20 percent of GDP by 2020. The Government has achieved balanced books so far by focusing on getting results, rather than spending more money. We continued the approach of small additional allowances in Budget 2016, with a net operating allowance of $1.6 billion per year. This is compared with the eighth and ninth Budgets of the previous Government, which averaged $4.3 billion of new money per year.

Jono Naylor: How is the Government seeking to better manage its balance sheet to assist with debt reduction?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The amount of assets the Government owns continues to grow every year, and currently the New Zealand taxpayer owns $280 billion worth of assets, so even small improvements in their management can drive significant gains. Budget 2016 allocated $1.4 billion of new money for capital expenditure. However, because of capital recycling we are actually spending around $2.6 billion of new money. The drive to better use our balance sheet follows on from the Government’s share offer programme, which freed up $4.7 billion for the Future Investment Fund to reinvest in new assets, rather than having to borrow to pay for the Government’s new capital investment.

Jono Naylor: What are some of the assets that have been provided by the $4.7 billion Future Investment Fund, without having to borrow?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Future Investment Fund, which is now being used, has allowed for significant investments in new roads, schools, and hospitals. It also provided $1.3 billion towards projects in the Canterbury rebuild. Outside these headline measures, it also allowed for further investment in core infrastructure for the Government and the country—that is, investment in the security and intelligence services, ultra-fast broadband, SmartGate at the border, our contribution to international organisations, a contribution to refugee resettlement facilities, and also helping to free up land for more housing.

Jono Naylor: How is the Government’s focus on fiscal prudence supporting the wider economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Probably the most important contribution is that it has meant the Government is focusing on the productivity of its own services—that is, getting better results for the money that we are spending. Around 70 percent of the New Zealand economy is services, and about half of those services are Government-run services. So the best contribution we can make to the broader economy is to make sure our own services are more productive—that is, when we spend money, we get results for New Zealanders.

Housing—Homeownership Rates

3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he still stand by all his Government’s policies after eight years?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

James Shaw: When he told the Contractors Federation in 2007 that National had a plan for solving “a severe home affordability and ownership crisis”, why is the home affordability and ownership crisis worse now than it was then?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have all of the data with me, but what was clear back in 2007 was that the then Labour Government had no answers and no response to the issue.

James Shaw: Why does he now believe that falling homeownership rates are because young people prefer to rent, when he said in 2007: “National will be resolute in our commitments to the goal of ensuring that more young Kiwis can aspire to buying their own home.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One of the ways of proving that is there are more Kiwis in work than before, more young New Zealanders are choosing to stay in New Zealand than go overseas, and the Government has established the KiwiSaver HomeStart programme, which was never there before. Core base interest rates are a quarter of what they were back then—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was around falling homeownership rates, and the Prime Minister has not addressed that.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I will invite the member to ask the question again. Could I just ask for a little bit of assistance from my left-hand side. I found it very difficult to listen to the answer, because of the barrage that was coming from my immediate left.

James Shaw: Why does he now believe that falling homeownership rates are because young people prefer to rent, when he said in 2007: “National will be resolute in our commitments to the goal of ensuring that more young Kiwis can aspire to buying their own home.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The basis of the member’s question is either too narrowly stated or out of context.

James Shaw: When he said in 2007 that homeownership rates were predicted to plummet over the next decade, and given that they are now at the lowest levels in 60 years, are we to now understand that that was, in fact, an election promise?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The election took place in 2008.

James Shaw: When he promised in 2010 that his signature tax shift would discourage excessive borrowing and housing speculation, does he consider it a failure that a record 46 percent of Auckland homes are now being sold to investors and speculators?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We reject parts of the member’s question, but there have always been investors in the market. As I have said on numerous occasions, and, in fact, as supported by both the incoming advice from the Minister for Building and Housing and the advice from Statistics New Zealand to the previous Labour Government, there have been a wide range of reasons why homeownership rates have declined over the last 30 years—over the last 30 years. One of them is societal changes—clearly rising house prices also has an impact.

James Shaw: Given that the most common length of time for an Aucklander to hold on to a property is now less than 1 year, is it fair to say that after 8 years of his Government’s housing policies Auckland is a speculator’s paradise?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, for anybody who sells property other than their main family home in under 2 years, they are subject to the Government’s brightline test. Even if they do buy a family home and sell it within 1 year, they would also need to satisfy the intent rules as established by the Inland Revenue Department. I think when the member says—if I have understood his question correctly—that the average hold time is now 1 year, I think that is factually nonsense. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I want to call the next supplementary question, but we cannot have the discussion occurring between the two front benches.

James Shaw: What has changed since 2007 when he said that rapidly rising house prices threatened a fundamental part of our culture, our communities, and, ultimately, our economy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: A lot has changed. New Zealanders have decided that this a good country to stay and live or to return to, as opposed to the 35,000 a year who were deserting to Australia. Interest rates are a quarter on base rates of what they were back in 2007 and 2008. The Government has, through its policies, seen the creation of more jobs in this economy than ever before since 2008.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again my question was around rapidly rising house prices—

Mr SPEAKER: No. The question was not as specific as that. The question started with “What has changed since 2007 …”, and that gave the opportunity for the Prime Minister to explain.

Health Services—Funding Levels

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is the Government investing enough in health, given the health expenditure data he supplied to media last week shows health funding increases failing to keep up with cost pressures in 2016/17, 2015/16, and the year before that, and the year before that, and the year before that?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Absolutely, yes. The information that the Ministry of Health supplied shows that during the term of this Government overall funding has kept up with cost pressures. Some years are slightly ahead and some are slightly behind, but that is the overall picture. Budget 2016 delivered $568 million of new funding for health, the biggest single increase in 7 years. Vote Health has increased by over $4 billion under this Government. I seek leave to table the documents supplied to me by the Ministry of Health showing that overall funding is ahead of cost pressures under this Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I check whether that information has been made publicly available.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, it has not. It has—

Mr SPEAKER: I will accept the Minister’s word and put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Hon Annette King: Why did he get the Ministry of Health to compile new numbers on health expenditure last week, in a form never used before, that is not in line with Treasury’s fiscal strategy model, and was not used by Treasury’s Vote Health team to brief the Minister of Finance on Vote Health?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The reason I asked for those numbers is that Mrs King continues to say that health has been cut by $1.7 million when, in actual fact, it has been increased by $4 billion. She continues to make up a story about the Government not funding demographics and cost pressures when, in actual fact, these figures, supplied by the officials, show that funding is ahead of cost pressures and demographics. So it is, basically, because Mrs King makes stuff up—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not going to help.

Hon Annette King: Why did the new health funding model he asked for, which had never been seen before, use as its basis for inflation cost pressures the labour cost index, which Treasury said does “not reflect the actual labour and other input cost pressures in the health sector …”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, that is not the case. Look, this is a simple table that shows the amount of new funding that has gone in, it shows cost pressures, and it shows that funding is ahead of cost pressures. It is purely to counter Mrs King’s misinformation that she has been putting out there consistently. The fact is, she is wrong; funding is ahead of cost pressures. Sorry, but it is the truth.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a Treasury briefing to the Minister of Finance dated 27 November 2012 titled Budget 2013: Strategy for Vote Health, which has the words I said in my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need any more. Is the Treasury document the member is proposing to table freely available?

Hon Annette King: Well, it was in 2012.

Mr SPEAKER: It was in 2012. Then members can source it if they want it.

Hon Annette King: Does he expect New Zealanders to believe that the five consecutive budget cuts to health spending shown by his own figures have had no negative impact on New Zealanders waiting for health services?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I certainly do not expect them to believe Mrs King’s figures when, in actual fact, funding has gone up by $4 billion under this Government. I can tell the member over there that, actually, she would struggle to name a single service that has not improved over the last 8 years. There are more doctors, more operations, more appointments, and more New Zealanders are getting better services all the time under this Government. As usual, it is very different from when she was in charge. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Annette King, that will not help me trying to control the House. Will the member just stand and ask a supplementary question? [Interruption] Order! Right—[Interruption] No, we are not going to have the interjections from the Prime Minister; we are going to get back to supplementary questions.

Hon Annette King: Why not admit that he has been caught out trying to cover up accumulated shortfalls in the health budget since 2010-11, affecting people like Sharon Cooper, who is in desperate need of knee surgery and has been declined three times in the last year, so far?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Why does that member not admit that she keeps on making up figures that are completely untrue? I do not know Sharon Cooper, but rather than exploiting that person, why does she not ring up my office and we can see whether we can do something for her. Of course, when you are losing the argument on funding, you try personal attacks. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table my letter to the Minister of Health, writing about Sharon Cooper, on his request, which he has not bothered to reply—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part—[Interruption] Order! The last part almost makes me inclined not to put the leave. On this occasion I will put the leave. It is a letter from the member to the Minister. [Interruption] No, I need to put the leave. If the member wants clarification—

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: But you need to give the date of any document—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I can do that. What is the date of the letter, please?

Hon Annette King: The date of the letter is 31 May. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table a letter from the member to the Minister, dated 31 May. Is there any objection to it being tabled? [Interruption] There is objection? No? There is no objection.

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

Budget 2016—Bowel Cancer Screening

5. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the Government is investing $39 million over four years to begin to roll out a national bowel screening programme?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, I can. As part of the $568 million invested in health as part of Budget 2016, $39 million over 4 years is being spent on a national bowel screening programme. Around 3,000 New Zealanders are diagnosed with bowel cancer every year, and it is a major killer. Once implemented, a national bowel screening programme is expected to screen over 700,000 New Zealanders every 2 years.

Alastair Scott: Where will the roll-out start and how long will it take to roll out across all district health boards?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member will be delighted to know that the programme is on track to start in the Wairarapa District Health Board as well as Hutt Valley District Health Board in 2017, subject to final business case approval. It is expected there will then be a progressive roll-out across the country in 6-month blocks over 2018 and 2019. This staged approach is in line with international best practice in adoption of screening programmes. Once in place, district health boards will offer a bowel screening test every 2 years to people aged 60 to 74, the age at which 80 percent of cancers were found in the Waitematā District Health Board pilot programme.

Refugees—Vetting Process

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; by standing here and saying so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by a statement in November last year that refugees “go through a proper vetting process, and a lot of work is done to establish that they are genuine refugees.”; if so, why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he have confidence in the Refugee Status Board, which is responsible for approving or declining applications for refugees and for protection status in New Zealand; if so, why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have intimate knowledge—the member would really need to put that question down to the Minister—but I do not have any advice that it should have concern to me.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he does not have advice, then why did he make the statement in the first place, given that the Immigration and Protection Tribunal has overturned hundreds of decisions since 2011 made by refugee and protection officers who have interviewed each claimant; and would he agree that the claim process is seriously flawed?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions there. The Prime Minister can address one of them.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member using a big growly voice will not make me feel any more frightened. Secondly, we stand by the view because there is a very thorough process that both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees goes through and then our own immigration people when it comes to vetting people who come to New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would he make the statement that refugees “go through a proper vetting process, and a lot of work is done to establish that they are genuine refugees.” if he does not know, given his previous answer, that that is a fact?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is correct, and because, if the member goes back and looks at the question he asked me, it was about the particular entity in question and whether I had any concerns about it. I do not know information about the particular entity; I know about the process. But I have not had any information that would indicate to me that there is a problem with the entity.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Amongst numerous examples, how could an Iranian man granted refugee status in 1998 on fraudulent grounds subsequently make six return trips to Iran, have that refugee status revoked in 2007, yet overturned by the tribunal in 2013?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will appreciate that I cannot comment on an individual case.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister assure New Zealanders that we are not allowing in people who do not respect our laws and allowing people who are coming here to treat women as cattle, unless they are first fully vetted?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are two important points to the debate. Firstly, people are vetted, and a part of that vetting includes an interview to see whether they are likely to have and share the sorts of values that are consistent with New Zealand society. Secondly, when they come to New Zealand, as part of the process they go through at Māngere there is an induction into the New Zealand way of life. It includes things like New Zealand’s laws and customs and culture. It includes aspects of the way of our life, like how we treat women and children, that homosexuality is OK, and how we treat our environment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Putting aside that no one knows where “Mānge-ray” is—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the supplementary question, please, without the lead in?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s all right. The member doesn’t know where Northland is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, that is why you got wiped out, son. That is why you lost it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 190/1: “Supplementary questions must not be prefaced with a statement.” Could the member now ask his supplementary question, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who does he have confidence in: the refugee and protection officers who interview each claimant, or the tribunal, which has, in countless cases, subsequently overturned their decisions on appeal?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have confidence that the system works at all levels.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I table two documents? The first is a very-difficult-to-find tribunal case—[Interruption]—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear this in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —dated 2 May 2013, and the second is a refugee and protection claim process map prepared on request. That is from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) in 2015.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave for both those documents: a tribunal case dated 2 May 2013 and an MBIE document. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

Resource Management Act—Resource Consents

7. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for the Environment: What does the latest monitoring report on the Resource Management Act 1991 say about the number of late consents and the time it takes for new plans to be completed?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The number of late resource consents has dropped by 92 percent from over 16,000 in 2008 to just over 1,200 in the last year. This reflects the changes the Government made in its first phase of Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms where there was a penalty on councils if they went beyond the 20-day statutory period—$450,000 of fees that had to be refunded—and I think that incentive has improved council performance. In terms of plan making, the average time for councils to write a plan is over 8 years and to change a plan is over 4 years. That is much too slow when you have got a sector like housing moving from a lull to a boom inside 3 years. That is why one of the most important priorities in the Government’s second phase of RMA reforms is to make changes to ensure that that is a lot quicker.

Scott Simpson: What does the latest monitoring data on the Resource Management Act show in relation to consent monitoring and compliance?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report shows that 88 percent of resource consents in New Zealand are meeting all of their compliance requirements. That is to be welcomed, because a key purpose of the RMA is looking after the environment well while simultaneously making sure we minimise the compliance costs. One of the further ways in which the Government wants to improve that is through national environmental standards—of which we have another four in the pipeline—so that we can get costs down while still protecting the environment.

Scott Simpson: What does the latest monitoring data on the Resource Management Act say about the cost of resource consents?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report shows that $76 million has been spent over the last year in processing resource consents. It does show that there have been savings since our first wave of RMA reforms. One of the significant things it shows is that a decision to make a consent notified increases the cost by fivefold. There are also still cases where the cost of a resource consent is greater than what the actual cost of the building project is, and, again, the RMA reforms that we have before Parliament allowing councils to waive the need for a resource consent have the capacity to reduce that $70 million - plus cost.

Financial Systems—Stability and Housing Market

8. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor that concerns about the stability of the financial system are rising as a result of rising house prices in Auckland and other regions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I agree with the governor on many things. I agree with his comments, made just last week, that the domestic economy continues to be supported by strong net immigration, construction, and tourism. As the Government has said, one of the consequences of limited housing supply is increased risk of a house-price correction. That is the overseas evidence, and in the judgment of the Reserve Bank Governor that is a risk to system stability. That is why the Government is focused on improving supply by working with councils on a range of initiatives.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect your rulings about addressing the difference between addressing and answering a question. That was a question on notice. I do not believe the answer addressed whether or not the Minister agreed with the statement of the Reserve Bank Governor quoted in the question. She mentioned—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I agree with the member. I am no wiser now as to whether the Minister does agree with the Reserve Bank Governor or does not. It is a relatively specific question. Could the Minister address the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, said: “I generally agree with most statements made by the Reserve Bank Governor.”

Mr SPEAKER: I heard that, but that makes us none the wiser as to—this is a very specific question. It was put down on notice. This is a question about whether the Minister agrees with the Governor of the Reserve Bank’s statement that there is potential for some instability in the financial system because of rising house prices in Auckland and other regions. I know the Minister has said “We often agree with the Governor.”, but I am none the wiser, and therefore I think Grant Robertson is right. I think, to give it some coherence, I am going to ask the member to repeat the question.

Grant Robertson: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor that concerns about the stability of the financial system are rising as a result of rising house prices in Auckland and other regions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I agree with the governor on many things, and I agree with his comments, made just last week, that the domestic economy continues to be supported by strong immigration, construction, and tourism. We certainly acknowledge that there are risks with rising house prices and people’s debt to that, and that there may be a correction. In the totality of what the Reserve Bank Governor has said, he is entitled to make his opinions, and we do not have to have an agreement on whether or not we agree.

Andrew Little: Ha! Entitled to make his opinion!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is called independence. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Listen, I have helped the member in getting the question asked. On this occasion, it was addressed to my satisfaction. The Minister said that there are risks—that answers the question—and those risks could occur if there was a correction. The question has definitely been addressed on the second occasion.

Grant Robertson: Why does he think the four major banks would, effectively, ban lending to foreign speculators if they were not concerned about financial stability and there was a housing bubble that is fit to burst?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Those four banks are entitled to make any decisions they like on whom they lend to, and they are fully responsible for that and that is not the business of Government.

Grant Robertson: Is Martin Hawes correct that “Most Auckland property ‘investors’ at the moment are really speculators.”, and why has the Minister allowed speculation to be the dominant feature in the Auckland housing market?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am not sure about those exact comments. Certainly I have seen the comments from the Reserve Bank Governor where 40 percent of homeowners in Auckland are investors, and we see, actually, as a consequence of that, that it does mean that there are rental properties available for those who need to rent as well, which is important. [Interruption] Well, it is. Part of it is that we actually need rental properties for those who need to rent as well. But I am not aware of those particular comments that he referred to.

Grant Robertson: Can he deny that Auckland has met three of the four preconditions for a housing bubble outlined by Martin Hawes: (1) that asset prices lose touch with intrinsic value, (2) that it attracts a lot of media attention, and (3) that they inflate in times of easy credit, and will he admit the increasing likelihood of the fourth condition, which is that they always end in a crash?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions, the Hon Paula Bennett.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Minister has expressed in just the last couple of weeks concerns around the level of debt that individuals are getting into and where they have looked—at the moment they look at their ability to pay that back on a weekly basis and not actually the debt. Those prices that go up often do go down, and he has expressed concern about that in the past.

Grant Robertson: Which of the following failures by his Government is most influential in allowing the housing bubble to develop: (a) refusing to build affordable homes at scale to increase the supply, (b) repealing laws to promote affordable housing, (c) refusing to put in place restrictions on offshore speculators, or (d) encouraging first-home buyers to buy houses they cannot afford through deposit subsidies?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That would be (e) none of the above.

Offenders—Support for Offenders with Mental Health Needs

9. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Corrections: What additional support is Corrections planning to offer offenders with mental health needs?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): The Department of Corrections is to receive close to $14 million in new funding from the Justice Sector Fund to enable it to purchase mental health services for offenders in prison and in the community over the next 2 years. A Department of Corrections study released today found that 62 percent of prisoners had some form of mental health or substance abuse disorder in the last 12 months and that 20 percent had both these disorders. The department will receive $10 million over 2 years to contract mental health clinicians and support workers to work with offenders in prison and the community. Contracted service providers will work with individuals experiencing mental health issues and will provide support to staff managing them. It is estimated that over 9,000 offenders will be eligible for these new services each year. The funding is for 2 years and will be evaluated at the end of that time.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What initiatives does the department have planned to address the mental health needs of female prisoners?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The department will receive an extra $877,000 to spend on social workers and counsellors to work with female offenders dealing with trauma and to support them with parenting and family issues. Female prisoners are a small proportion of the prison population. However, they play a significant role in the communities and families that they come from. Many women come to prison struggling to deal with past trauma and what has occurred in their families. By providing better access to professional counsellors and support to cope better with their complex lives, we can reduce the harm that can be done to themselves and others.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What initiatives does the department have planned to address the mental health needs of community-based offenders?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The department will receive an extra $2 million over 2 years for supported accommodation for a small number of offenders with significant mental health concerns or intellectual disability. The department will also receive $920,000 for wraparound, post-release support services for prisoners and their families with multiple mental health needs. This will also be used to support families from the start of an offender’s term of imprisonment, providing opportunities to remain engaged with critical services such as education, health, and other social agencies.

Mahesh Bindra: Will she confirm that funding has been cut for chaplaincy services, given that this service is an important factor of mental health and rehabilitation for all offenders; if so, by how much?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a long way wide of the initial question, and I cannot confirm that.

Social Housing—Reform and Evictions

10. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Housing: Are the Government’s social housing changes providing a “fairer and more efficient” assessment of people’s housing needs when Sister Anne Hurley of the Sisters of Mercy says that “state houses in Wiri were now changing hands every few months as successive tenants were evicted”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): The member is confusing the assessment of people’s needs by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the tenancy management policies of Housing New Zealand. However, we have made a number of changes that I believe have provided fairer and more efficient outcomes, such as prioritising families at risk of rheumatic fever, requiring tenants to nominate three areas that they want to live in, and increasing the range of housing support products available.

Jan Logie: Does she accept, as reported in the New Zealand Herald, that miscommunication between Work and Income and her housing needs assessment unit, which she put into MSD to ensure a fairer and more efficient process, has instead resulted in wrongful eviction orders being given to already struggling families?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, I am not aware of details around particular cases that the media have been putting out there, but what I do know is that Housing New Zealand informs me that it evicts people very much as a last resort. When someone is behind in their rent, every effort is made to make contact with the tenant so that they can work out a repayment schedule and work with MSD. As a last resort, Housing New Zealand goes to the Tenancy Tribunal, where, again, they have mediation and try to work out a repayment schedule. If there is miscommunication between MSD and Housing New Zealand on individuals, then I expect that to be sorted out and not to be the case.

Jan Logie: When Housing New Zealand is evicting families does the Minister know whether they are going to cars, garages, the streets, or to her “ghost” emergency beds?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I know is that it is an absolute last resort for Housing New Zealand to be looking at evicting people, and if it is, in general there a number of reasons, but the bulk of them are actually for quite serious antisocial behaviour and illegal activity. The other reason that Housing New Zealand is looking at moving people within a 90-day period is to shift them, which is through no fault of their own, and it looks at moving them on to another place. That might be around health and safety, or the house is deemed to be unsafe. It is a last resort to evict people out of their houses, but there should be mutual obligations to treat them with respect.

Jan Logie: Will the Minister guarantee that no more families will be evicted or threatened with eviction because Work and Income and her housing needs assessment unit are not talking to each other?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I certainly expect MSD and Housing New Zealand to be working together on individual people and ensuring that they are sharing that information, but, equally, we need people to engage with Housing New Zealand when there are problems. By the time we get to the point of giving 90-day notices, particularly on the issue of their rent arrears, it is because people have not been engaging with them and have been ignoring requests.

Phil Twyford: Is it fair for her staff to leak private information about a police investigation, doing what she always does: character assassination to divert attention from her failed housing policy? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the Minister, if she wants, to answer.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is an utterly ridiculous question and just simply not true.

Māori and Pasifika Students—Student Achievement and Homeownership

11. JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister of Education: Does she take any responsibility for the poor education that Hon Dr Nick Smith says is partly to blame for falling rates of Māori and Pasifika home ownership?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I consider it helpful to the House to quote the Hon Dr Smith’s full comment, which was: “The fact that our Māori and Pacific people have lower rates of home ownership is just a broader reflection of the fact that they tend to have lower educational achievement, that they have lower incomes, and that translates itself into housing.” It is not an excuse; it is simply saying that good education—reinforcing the importance of that for Māori and Pacific communities, helping them be able to achieve higher incomes—as well as direct assistance around housing is all part of the solution to turn these long-term declines around. I do take responsibility, along with all my colleagues on this side of the House, for raising educational achievement for all young people. We know that gains in educational achievement means gains in economic success. Under this Government, the provisional number of 18-year-olds with National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 has increased for all young people, and the data shows that the largest gains have been made by Māori and Pasifika students, up 62 percent and 54 percent respectively since we took Government. I would put this Government’s record up against that previous Government’s record any day of the week.

Jenny Salesa: Does she think it is acceptable for a Minister to respond to a story about falling homeownership by blaming lower educational achievement, when educational achievement for both Māori and Pasifika has been rising for the past 25 years?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Actually, under that previous Government—we now have 26 to 33-year-olds who are struggling, and they were educated under that Government. However, the point of accurately quoting my colleague was to fully explain that there was no blame attribution; it was simply factual. Lower educational qualifications lead to lower incomes, which leads to lower possibility of participating. That is why, under this Government, we have been focused on raising it, not wringing our hands and shouting abuse.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been answered.

Jenny Salesa: Does she think that when Nick Smith was making that statement he was referring to her performance in delivering 11,500 more young Pasifika not in employment, education, or training?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, she does not think that, and if the Opposition wants to ask questions about other members’ quotes, why do they not direct them to them, instead of this silly game here. I am proud of our Government’s record—[Interruption] It is silly; selectively choosing parts of a quote is just silly. I will say again: I would put our Government’s record in terms of education in general, and Māori and Pasifika in particular, against that—including that last night in Auckland, McAuley High School, with a high Pasifika girl population, was selected as the winner of the Prime Minister’s Supreme Award.

Jenny Salesa: Does she believe that Nick Smith was just endorsing Bill English’s statement that a lot of young Kiwis are “pretty damned hopeless”; if so, why?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, she does not believe that. I am sorry that member holds such inaccurate beliefs herself.

Jenny Salesa: Has she discussed the Minister’s comments with him; if so, did she advise him to stop blaming Māori and Pasifika and to instead just start building houses?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I did discuss it with my colleague, and I totally agree with him that in order to raise economic participation we have to raise educational achievement. That is why this Government has focused on doing exactly that. That is why we have seen the 62 percent and 54 percent gains. They are higher than anything ever produced under that previous Government.

Teachers and Education Leadership—Prime Minister's Education Excellence Awards

12. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made to celebrate the very best in teaching and leadership?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Last night, the Prime Minister and I were delighted to announce the winners of the annual Prime Minister’s Education Excellence Awards. The awards celebrate the very best in teaching and leadership, and recognise the importance of community and parental engagement. McAuley High School in Ōtāhuhu won the supreme award by creating an environment for educational achievement based on high expectations and strong parental and community connections. The other category winners were: for excellence in leading, Rotorua Boys’ High School; for excellence in teaching and learning, Te Puna Reo o Puhi Kaiti, Gisborne; for excellence in governing, Rangitoto College, Auckland; and the 2016 Education Focus Prize: Health and Well-being went to Karanga Mai Young Parents’ College and Early Learning Centre, Kaiapoi. I want to congratulate all our winners and acknowledge the more than 200 awards’ entrants.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What other initiatives are in place to strengthen and raise the status of the teaching profession?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Teacher-led Innovation Fund supports teachers to develop innovative practices. The first round of the fund has been completed with 40 research proposals receiving funding. I recently announced its extension for a further 2 years, taking the total amount invested to support innovative teaching practices to $18 million over 5 years. We have also established the independent Education Council to strengthen and raise the status of the profession. We have re-focused teacher professional learning and development on maths, science, reading, and writing as priority areas. We have created new career pathways for teachers in the 117 Communities of Learning. We have also trialled post-graduate teaching programmes like Teach First NZ. Great teachers, great early learning, and great schools transform lives. We want to raise the status of the teaching profession so that more of our kids grow up wanting to become great teachers themselves.

Urgent Debates Declined

Refugee Quota—Increase

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate, under Standing Order 389, the announcement of the decision to increase the refugee quota to 1,000. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The business of the House should not be set aside just because an announcement has been made, even though it may be important. There must be such an element of urgency that the matter must take precedence over other business. Concern has been expressed at the level of the increase in the quota, which comes into force in 2018.

The Estimates debate must be held before the end of August and that provides an opportunity to debate the economic and infrastructure sector, which includes immigration and refugee resettlement. Because the policy does not take effect until 2018, there will be several other wide-ranging debates that provide opportunities to address this issue. For example, there will be a debate on the Prime Minister’s statement and another Budget debate before the policy comes into force. On that basis, I cannot accept that the matter requires the urgent attention of the House, despite its importance. The application is, therefore, declined.

Bills

Contract and Commercial Law Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move, That the Contract and Commercial Law Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Sorry, Mr Speaker. I could not hear most of that. Could you please repeat the motion?

Mr SPEAKER: For the benefit of Mr Robertson, we have moved a motion that the Contract and Commercial Law Bill be read a first time. It is a revision bill. Therefore, there is no debate. I have then subsequently moved that it go to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I am putting the question.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Bills

Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

First Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Coroners Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 7 June.

Part 2 Amendments to Parts 3 and 4 (continued)

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to strongly oppose clause 32 of this bill because it takes away from the families of New Zealand Defence Force personnel killed in action the right to have independent and open scrutiny of the circumstances of the death of their loved ones. This is not what the families of Defence Force personnel want, and there is no justification for this clause to go into the bill.

I want to quote, firstly, from a young woman whose name is Sarah Erb. She is the partner—or was the partner—of Corporal Luke Tamatea, who was killed in Afghanistan in August 2012. What she said was that the coroner’s report into his death had helped her and Luke’s mother to get answers and to gain closure. She said: “Without that report we’d feel quite ripped off … That’s our loved one and we should know what has happened.” I want to put to the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith this: why should the loved ones of those who die in the service of their country be denied an open and independent inquiry into the deaths of those service personnel members? We have that at the moment.

The fact that we have this amendment before the Committee is because the Defence Force took umbrage that an independent person could look into the death of somebody killed in action and maybe reflect on issues that pertain to national security or military tactics. That is not what the report that caused this particular change actually did. You can read coroner J P Ryan’s report, and it is a straightforward explanation of the circumstances of death of three people who were killed on that day, 12 August.

The families of those military personnel members have the right to have such an inquiry. Without the coroner’s right to inquire into the death of somebody killed in action, there is no mandatory report that is required into those deaths. What usually happens, however, is that the Defence Force will set up a court of inquiry into it. What is wrong with that? Well, what is wrong with it is, first of all, it is in secret, and, secondly, it is not done independently. Defence Force personnel members themselves fear that such a court of inquiry could be more concerned not with what caused the deaths of those soldiers, but with the Defence Force protecting its own reputation. This is an inquiry by a body into its own actions or lack of action, and that is exactly what the families are concerned about. Sarah Erb said that she did not receive any information back from the military court of inquiry. How can that be satisfactory for somebody who has lost the person whom they love in conflict?

It is not just the families, although they, in my mind, are the most important people in this, but also former Chief Coroner Neil MacLean, who said that this is a backward step. He said this proposal is out of step with other countries. I want to read to Minister Smith what Chief Coroner Neil MacLean said. He said: “It flies completely in the face of what the Australians and the English have been doing for a long time, which is real co-operation with the coronial system.” He said: “Next of kin sometimes aren’t too happy with military investigations. For better or worse our society has said it’s important to have some independent judicial officer with sufficient power say ‘what is actually going on here? What are the facts? Are there any lessons to be learned?’ ”. He said: “The moment you start to erode that power and say that’s only if it’s not a combat death, that’s representing a watering-down [in the power] of the coroner.” So I want the Minister to tell this Committee why he is ignoring the recommendations of the former Chief Coroner and why he is acting in a way that flies in the face of what the families of Defence Force members who die in combat actually want.

This was not the only option in front of the Government. I have read the regulatory impact statement. I hope the Minister has, because he will see in that that there was another option. If the Government is genuinely concerned about national security issues, why not have the default position that the coroner will hold an inquiry, and then give the Attorney-General, if it transgresses into matters of national security, the right to suppress that information? That would automatically allow the coroner to do what the coroner to date has always been allowed to do: inquire independently and make his or her findings open to the families, the public, and the people of New Zealand. That was something that the regulatory impact statement said would find an appropriate balance—a balance between the need for independent scrutiny and the need to protect national security issues.

I have an amendment before the Committee that says that option D of the regulatory impact statement should be the option that this Committee votes for, not the option that the coroner is ruled out unless the Attorney-General says that he can do it. When I put that to the select committee examining this bill, the Justice and Electoral Committee, there was on all sides sympathy for that position. That position was not adopted by the select committee because the Minister said no. Well, I want the Minister in the chair to get up and publicly justify why the Government is suppressing the facts of deaths in these circumstances, when that is not what the families want and it is not want the coronial system says is necessary.

I think this bill is a backward step. I think this bill is not about protecting national security; it is about covering up the circumstances that might prove embarrassing to the Defence Force or the Government, and that is not something that is tolerable here. The report that was given to the Chief of Defence Force, which I got under the Official Information Act, said that this is not even necessary. It said that concerns were raised that the issues that were driving this change are addressed by amendments in other parts of the Act. It says that this is based on one particular incident, and it is not the norm. It says that this will create a negative perception from families and the media about how deaths will be investigated. This is the information being given to the Chief of Defence Force. So it raises concerns about the option that the Government has taken. It says that courts of inquiry are not mandatory for deaths by hostile action. That means that there will be no mechanism of mandatory investigation into deaths of this type.

Is that a tolerable situation to have, where our men and women die in combat and there is no mandatory system to investigate, in any way, the decisions that led to their deaths? I think there has to be such an investigation, but it should not be a closed investigation by top brass in the military looking at their own decisions. How can that be independent? How can that gain the confidence of the families and the people of New Zealand if it is not even out in the public arena? This is something that deserves to be in the public arena. If we do not learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them. You learn from your mistakes when you openly and transparently investigate them, and make that public. Then there will be pressure on the system if there is some inadequacy. It might be that there is inadequacy in the way people are trained or in the way they are equipped, or whatever. But we have the right to know that, if it is our families who are being put at risk and who are dying in combat.

The regulatory impact statement said that if the option I am promoting in my amendment was adopted, it would find balance. So I want the Minister to say why the Government is taking away that balance. Why is it taking away from those families the right to have an independent scrutiny of what happened when their loved ones were killed? We have had from Government no answer to that question—no real justification for what it is doing. I am asking, genuinely, the Minister to please consider the alternative option that the Defence Force said to its Chief of Defence Force would be OK in covering some of the concerns it had and that the regulatory impact statement said found a proper balance between the needs for national security and the needs of the family to be satisfied that everything that should have been done was done, so that they are allowed to know why they lost their loved ones in action.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to begin, first, by supporting everything that my colleague Phil Goff has said around why we feel so strongly about the amendment that he has tabled, which essentially reverses the onus as it currently stands in regard to the coroner’s involvement in deaths offshore. It was a significant debate at the Justice and Electoral Committee. But what I would like to focus my contribution on, for this part of the debate around Part 2, are two elements of the Coroners Amendment Bill as they relate to what the coroner is able to make recommendations on and the follow-up response that other agencies are required to make to those recommendations, which were two core debates that the select committee had.

First, I do want to acknowledge though that we do have a backlog of cases being faced by our coroners and, much more importantly, by the families affected by those coronial inquests and inquiries. We acknowledge the heartache that those delays cause. We do understand the ambition, the goal, behind this amendment bill, but for us the test always had to be to what extent we are actually forgoing some important checks and balances that the coroner has a role in ensuring are in place in order to reduce that workload. We feel the bill has gone too far in that regard, and simply needs to resource the coroner better.

New section 57A, inserted by clause 30, particularly highlighted that issue for us. The Chief Coroner did comment on this part of Part 2. This is the part that sets out what a coroner is able to make recommendations around, and it states: “(1) A responsible coroner may make recommendations or comments in the course of, or as part of the findings of, an inquiry into a death. (2) Recommendations or comments may be made only for the purpose of reducing the chances of further deaths occurring in circumstances similar to those in which the death occurred.” It goes on to set out some of the criteria for making recommendations. The first, which I think was actually the sticking point, states, in new section 57A: “(3) Recommendations or comments must—(a) be clearly linked to the factors that contributed to the death to which the inquiry relates;”. It must be clearly linked to the factors that contributed to the death to which the inquiry relates.

I have a couple of examples where I have concerns as to whether we are narrowing the ability of the coroner to do their job. An example I will use is a similar example to what was used at the select committee. If there is a finding by a coroner that the core cause of a road accident was the over-consumption of alcohol, for instance, the major factor that contributed to that death was clearly the consumption of alcohol then leading to impairment of the driver, causing the accident. What if that accident also occurred on a bend of road where there had been several other accidents in a short space of time, clearly indicating, perhaps, some danger around that particular piece of roading? It could be argued that that was not necessarily the direct cause of the accident, given the role that alcohol would have played, but it may have been a factor.

A similar example was used, from memory, around a deliberate road accident, but I think the point is the same. In fact, we are drawing a fuzzy line here as to what a coroner can determine to be a direct factor, a direct cause of death, or not. We may be limiting their ability to draw to our attention additional factors that may be important in that case. I think you will find that coroners frequently find situations where there will be supplementary causes around the edges where it is difficult for them to distinguish whether or not it was a primary factor clearly linked to the death, but it still might be relevant to the death. It may well be that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, wants to clarify that that is not the intent of that new section, but it was certainly in the interpretation from the coroners, and surely that is what we should be concerned with.

I want to come to my two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) because they are covered off in the next new section 57B, in clause 30. This is something that I feel very, very strongly about. They relate to the recommendations themselves that coroners are able to make. They are set out in new section 57B. Here it talks about the requirement for a coroner to consult certain persons or organisations on recommendations or comments that they are going to make. It is very explicit that if there is an organisation or person to whom a recommendation directly relates, then the coroner must notify the person of the proposed recommendation or comment. Although there is an obligation on the coroner to notify those individuals, there is no reciprocal requirement on those relevant organisations to respond to a recommendation.

This has been the subject of a reasonable amount of debate, particularly amongst the coroners—actually, not “debate”. They have a very clear view on this, and the view that they presented to the select committee was that if a coroner makes a recommendation, surely the least that we could ask for is a response from the relevant organisation—not a requirement that they adopt the recommendation, because there will be recommendations that, from time to time, an organisation or an entity disagrees with. But surely the least that we could require is a response. Where is the harm in that?

I really seek from the Minister a response to that question, because, to date, I have seen nothing that sets out a reasonable argument as to why we would not want a response after all of that investment, that time, that energy, and the submissions that were made. The work that goes into a coroner’s report is substantial—and then we do not even require a response. We would not do the same, for instance, to a Law Commission report. We might be a bit pithy in our response, but at least we give one. Why would we not require that here?

There are some very, very good reasons that I have set out in Supplementary Order Papers 146 and 145. Just to explain the difference between the two: Supplementary Order Paper 145 adds in clause 30 new section 57C, “Persons or organisations must respond to coroner’s recommendations”. It is very explicit that it must be a written response, it must describe the actions that they are going to take or plan to take, but does not oblige them to take any actions, and it must then present that response within 60 days—a reasonable amount of time—to the Chief Coroner, and then that response is able to be made publicly available, with a summary of responses reported back every 12 months. It is a very transparent way of collating what happens as a result of a coroner’s report.

The difference between SOP 145 and SOP 146 is simple: my assumption was that not everyone would necessarily want to require all organisations to respond, because that could include private entities—although I would argue that they do need to be included, particularly when we look at, for instance, the hot-air balloon company that was the subject of a coronial inquiry. It makes sense that we include adventure tourism. We heard a lot about agricultural aviation and the accidents that occur there, and it makes sense for private entities to be subject to this requirement. But in case people are not comfortable with that, SOP 146 is a backup, as it were. It narrows the scope of the SOP and requires only Government agencies to respond to coroners’ recommendations.

But I want to leave the final word to the coroners themselves as to why a mandatory response—not mandatory implementation, but a mandatory response—is so necessary. Judge Neil MacLean, ex - Chief Coroner, stated in an interview 4 years ago that “one step that I have cautiously pushed is to follow what the Brits do, what some of the Australian jurisdictions now do, and actually make it mandatory, compulsory, to respond to a coroner’s recommendation. … at the moment, our recommendations sort of can easily, so to speak, die in the ditch, because they go out there, they sit there, they’re never actioned.”

The report then went on to talk about the fact that recently before that interview a 12-year-old had died after inhaling butane with a group of friends in a Christchurch car-park, and despite the coroners dealing with 28 butane deaths from 2007 to 2001, resulting in numerous recommendations, it was their assessment that nothing had happened as a result. Again, another example, Rotorua coroner Wallace Bain had also reported that a Taupō jet ski accident that resulted in the death of a young person was then followed by another death just a short time later, and that that person would be alive today if his recommendations had been implemented.

I would like to hear the Minister’s response to those SOPs. I believe strongly that the research by Otago University justifies them, as does the Chief Coroner’s view.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): I am specifically going to speak to my colleague the Hon Phil Goff’s proposed amendment and take a bit of a different spin on it, because currently the coroner has the ability to inquire into deaths of armed service personnel on active service, unless authorised by the Attorney-General. What the legislation will do is basically flip that on its head and say that coroners cannot do an investigation into deaths of armed services personnel, unless the Attorney-General asks them to. The implications from the families’ perspective are really what I want to focus on.

The Hon Phil Goff has talked about a specific example, and that is of Corporal Luke Tamatea, who was killed in Afghanistan in 2012 when his Humvee was destroyed by a roadside bomb. In that particular case not only did the coroner undertake an investigation or an inquiry but the military also undertook an investigation. The interesting commentary from the family was that the coroner’s report into the death of Corporal Luke Tamatea helped not only his partner, medic Sarah Erb, but also his mother to get the answers that they were looking for, which enabled that family to get closure. I want us to focus on that—it enabled the family to get closure.

In respect of the military inquiry that was held in terms of Corporal Luke Tamatea’s death, the family got no information. So that is incredibly significant. The coroner undertook an investigation—completely independent and transparent, and in the public good—and not only did the family receive the findings of that inquiry and investigation but also we all did, because the aim and intention of these inquiries is that we can understand what happened, we hear from people who were involved in that particular incident, and it is the learnings from that coronial inquiry or investigation that then give effect to the recommendations that my colleague Jacinda Ardern was talking about, so that we can ensure that these deaths, if they are preventable, never happen again.

In terms of a military investigation or a military inquiry, I think that we would all assume that the families would have access to the report findings. What has been really interesting to research is that the court of inquiry for military deaths is actually empowered by the Armed Forces Discipline Act of 1971, and so a court of inquiry must occur when a service person dies in the course of their duties. However, when I searched through the Act, and specifically section 200, for that guarantee that families are entitled to the report findings, guess what? It does not exist.

This is probably why in the instance that I just talked about, the death of Corporal Luke Tamatea, his family and his partner were not privy to the military findings, because nowhere in that legislation are families guaranteed to receive that information. So I guess my question to the Minister responsible for this piece of legislation is whether we are going to now guarantee that families receive the military findings from investigations and inquiries. We are taking away an ability at the moment for the coroner to do an independent investigation, which, in the interests of the public good, is actually shared with us all, including the families.

The most interesting other point to note at this point in time is, however, that on a case by case basis the records of the military’s investigation can be released to the public based on high public interest, and to also note that a relevant factor is the wishes of family representatives and the people who are also involved in the inquiry. So it is interesting that we say that we will ask the families whether or not they agree on a case by case basis, but then we do not guarantee that they have access to the report findings. So I want to know from the Minister in the chair whether or not we are going to ensure that families of people in our military will automatically get any finding that only the military will now conduct, because they have had the safeguard in the past of the coroner and the coroner’s office being able to undertake an investigation that guaranteed to them that they would be able to get closure because they had access to the information of that coronial investigation.

That is really, I think, at the heart of my colleague the Hon Phil Goff’s proposed amendment, because if we cannot guarantee that the families of our military personnel—who actually are the victims when their loved ones are killed fighting for our country. If we cannot guarantee to the families when their loved ones do die, and a military investigation is conducted—if they do not automatically have access to those findings, then I actually think that there are going to be a lot of questions asked about how families can then understand what happened to their loved ones, and, in this case of Corporal Luke Tamatea, how they are going to get closure.

If this piece of legislation is going to create this big, huge black hole for families, I seriously think that we need to put on the record that it is the expectation of this Committee and this Parliament that families will have automatic access to military investigations. If we cannot do that, then I think an amendment needs to be tabled immediately by the Minister of Justice to address this issue. I am currently on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was not on the select committee during the course of the submission process for this piece of legislation but, having looked at my colleague Phil Goff’s amendment, and then, from my perspective, looking at the true intent of this, I think that if we have left a big black hole that our families are going to fall into, we need to do something about it. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I have already commented in the previous session of the Committee on some of the Supplementary Order Papers that have been submitted, but I do want to comment specifically in this speech on Phil Goff’s amendment regarding deaths in hostile action. The reasons I want to comment are that I can see that in the current law there is coronial jurisdiction for deaths of defence personnel regardless of circumstances, in addition to the court of inquiry process, and that process also has a safeguard in that it is itself subject to an external legal review panel conducted by a Queen’s Counsel. Under this bill, that coronial jurisdiction will continue when the death does not happen during hostile action.

The Justice and Electoral Committee’s changes to section 59 of the Coroners Act, specifically the addition of new section 59A(2) and (3), inserted by clause 32, will operate to protect the national interest by preventing an inquiry when the coroner determines the death was caused exclusively by the hostilities during hostile action and not otherwise. But the section—and this is the issue—also allows coronial inquiry into deaths during hostile action as well if the Attorney-General directs that should happen. Phil Goff’s amendment simply reverses that and says that, instead, the section will always allow such an inquiry unless the Attorney-General acts to prevent it. So it is really just as simple as that.

On the face of it, that does not seem like a big deal, but I actually think it is quite important, and some other speakers have mentioned the reasons why. However, I want to point out that whichever of those two options—what is in the bill, or Phil Goff’s amendment—will be adopted, new section 59A(4A) sets out the manner in which the Attorney-General will consider whether to act or not.

I want to read that out, because I think it is quite important. In new section 59A(4A) it says: “(a) whether the investigation or inquiry is likely to identify the cause and circumstances of the death; and (b) whether the investigation or inquiry could reveal information that may prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand; and (c) whether the investigation or inquiry is likely to examine military tactics; and (d) whether a court of inquiry has been, or will be, assembled under section 200A of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 for the purposes of collecting and recording evidence about the relevant death.”

So there you can see, in a nutshell, what the primary considerations are. As others have said, there does need to be a balance here between, on the one hand, protecting the rights of families to understand what happened—and the public, of course, as well—and, on the other hand, these specified circumstances that really are extremely important for New Zealand’s national interest, and they must be balanced as well. In deciding which way to go—with what is in the bill or with Mr Goff’s amendment—I think there are three reasons why Mr Goff’s amendment should be supported, and New Zealand First will vote for it.

I would ask the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, whether he would consider voting for it as well and making that change for, perhaps, these reasons and maybe some others. I am sure we all want a good bill. I am sure this is not a political contest. We just want something that will work, something that will achieve the balance I have spoken of, and, most particularly, something that will operate so that the public generally and, most particularly, the families concerned will be able to see three things.

Those three things are: (1) that there has been no political interference and no strange happenings behind closed doors that give rise to suspicion; (2) that the process itself is properly transparent and those matters I have referred to are properly considered in an open way, and that people can get information about that to satisfy themselves of that; and (3) that it does place the emphasis in the right place. I think, actually, this is the most important reason for me. I think it is the most important reason because it is a matter of emphasis, and the emphasis should be, I believe, in favour of transparency—showing the public and showing the families concerned that there has been proper process, that there is nothing to hide, and that the only reason why, if it does apply that there should be no coronial inquiry, is one of those four reasons I read out regarding the national interest, and for no other reason whatsoever.

So I think that those are three very powerful reasons that mitigate in favour of the approach taken by Phil Goff in his amendment and why I believe the Government should consider this again. I would ask the Minister of Justice to do so. If she feels that it is not possible for the Government to do so, I would ask the Minister in the chair to comment on why it should not, bearing in mind those three reasons I gave. If that happens, I would be willing to listen to that, but, as it is at present, I believe Phil Goff’s amendment should be supported.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I want to just make some brief comments in regard to clause 41 of the bill, which replaces section 80. The theme of this particular clause of the bill is around the decision of whether or not to conduct an inquest into deaths in custody. The current situation, of course, is that it is mandatory. I am speaking specifically about deaths in prison, but there are other forms of custody and care, obviously.

The default position at the moment is that a coroner must undertake an inquest when there is a death in one of our prisons. When the original drafting of the bill came to us and we saw that there would now be a discretion allowed, that was a deal-breaker for the Greens. That was entirely unsatisfactory for us for two reasons, the primary one being the wording in the original bill that said that there would be some discretion and the coroner would have to consider the following, that: “the dead person was, at the time of death, a person in official custody … and the negligence or misconduct of a person other than the dead person appears to have contributed to the dead person’s death.” In effect, that said to us that you had to be proven guilty before there would be an investigation. It suggested, almost, that a coroner would have to be satisfied there was something unwholesome in the death, something of concern, before they could conduct an inquest. That seemed an entirely roundabout way of approaching things.

I guess my other general point is that, sadly, in my view, the Department of Corrections is not an organisation renowned for its transparency. I believe it has a culture that is very inward-looking and very defensive. We have seen several inquiries in various forms into deaths in custody where it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that those deaths were preventable and they were a result of lack of adequate monitoring or lack of appropriate and timely health care, and so, for all of those reasons, we were completely opposed to the idea of discretion.

Our position has changed now because, in large part, of the submissions we got from the coroners themselves. The Chief Coroner came to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and one of the points she made was that due to some very misguided—I call it—changes to sentencing and other laws, we do now have this phenomenon of many more people growing old in prisons. The general health status of inmates in our prisons—generally, their health is probably like that of a person 10, 20, 30 years older than their chronological age. As people age in prison they are susceptible to illness and disease, and the coroner specifically noted examples where a person might be diagnosed with a cancer, they might spend their last year in prison suffering from that terminal condition, and yet, at the point of their death, the coroner was obliged to conduct an inquest. I heard similar submissions, just informally, from meetings with several other coroners, and they were all unanimous in their belief that they ought to have a degree of discretion in these cases.

We have got to the point of being satisfied with that, given that the new wording now speaks to the fact that the test, if you like, for coroners is that the death was a death in custody and the death would not reasonably have been expected by a doctor who had access to the person’s health information as defined, etc. That seems to us to be a much more straightforward, much more sensible solution, where there is a degree of discretion for coroners. Where there is an otherwise apparently fit, healthy person who has died unexpectedly, and if a medical practitioner looking at that person’s notes would not have expected that death, then that is a reasonable base level, we think, for triggering a coroner’s inquest. On that basis, I think that has come to a good place.

In fact, I have got a great deal of confidence, I would have to say, in the coroners. I think they are appropriately sceptical in these matters—they will conduct a fairly rigorous investigation initially, and if they are not entirely satisfied that the death was explainable by, for example, a pre-existing health condition, then they will trigger that inquest. We think that is a better place to be. Inquests are expensive, they demand a great deal—not least of all from any family that an inmate or a person in custody might have—and they can cause significant delays and upset, so I think that has probably come to a good place. As I say, I must stress that that was based on a number of both formal and informal conversations with coroners who were unanimous in believing that we ought not to have that mandatory provision. For that reason, the Greens are now supporting this bill.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I just want to make a brief call on the proposed amendments in the name of Phil Goff, and thank him for the thoughtful contribution that he made to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Mr Goff’s amendments would allow coroners to investigate military deaths in action unless the Attorney-General directs the coroner not to investigate, which is contrary to what is proposed in the bill. In response, I would say that this issue—which always involves a grieving family of a Defence Force member or civilian in hostile action—was debated extensively by the select committee, and it was decided to retain the option in the bill as it was drafted. Inquiries into military deaths will potentially expose sensitive information relating to tactics and relating to matters of national security, and we should not underestimate the importance of not making that kind of intelligence available because the lives of others may depend on it.

It is appropriate to have the Attorney-General direct the coroner to investigate, to protect national security and, potentially, top secret tactical information. One of the members who spoke previously did go through the relevant provisions in the Coroners Amendment Bill, and I do not propose to go through those again, but they are new section 59A(4A)(a), (b), (c), and (d) in clause 32. If the Attorney-General does direct a coroner to carry out an investigation or to resume an inquiry, the coroner might open or resume that inquiry, but the only purpose of that inquiry is to, as far as possible, relay the particulars specified in section 4(2)(a) of the Coroners Act. These proposed considerations would assist the Attorney-General in considering whether coronial investigation might be helpful or might be redundant, or, indeed, might pertain to issues that are non-judicable.

I would say that this option, as proposed in the bill, is to also avoid duplication of investigations of defence combat deaths, given that they are normally investigated by the Defence Force’s court of inquiry process. I know that the court of inquiry process is a process that is disputed and perhaps undervalued by the Opposition, but we were assured in the committee that that court of inquiry process is truly independent, and so that is the view of the select committee.

I also want to make a brief comment around Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Jacinda Ardern. Again, there was a lot of discussion around the potential merit of requiring a mandatory response to coroners’ recommendations, including by the Chief Coroner. However, we felt and came to the conclusion that rather than require a mandatory response, it is more beneficial to better focus on the coroners’ recommendations and involve those relevant individuals—so, instead of waiting for a recommendation and then having a mandatory requirement for a response, to involve at an earlier point in the investigation those relevant individuals and organisations—to ensure that the coroners’ recommendations, when they are made, are indeed useful. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to make some brief comments to underline the argument that my colleague Jacinda Ardern has been making, particularly in relation to new sections 57A and 57B, and also the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 145 and 146 in Jacinda Ardern’s name. What I want to do is just extrapolate a little bit on the argument that she presented around the coroner’s investigation and reporting on the matter of death as a result of accident or crime and the recommendations that are then made by the coroners.

The example that Jacinda Ardern uses, and that is also part of the Labour Party minority view, is the case where a road death has occurred and where there is an issue—for example, of the misuse of alcohol—that is a major contributor to that death. However, as part of the investigation, the coroner discovers that there are other contributing factors that may or may not be as weighted in the result of the death but are significant and are contributory—they may, for example, be road conditions. So in the case of a death that has occurred as the result of the misuse of alcohol, where there have been other contributing factors, the coroner is unable to actually include in his or her report these other factors that may or may not be significant. However—and this is the point I want to underline—those elements may be significant in other accidents or other deaths, and the fact that they are unable to be reported as part of the investigation actually means that we are losing the opportunity to then ensure that other accidents and other deaths are potentially prevented.

I think it is significant, particularly when this year—and, I hear, over the last 3 years—the road toll is actually on the rise. Part of the concern for those in the road transport organisations would be things like road conditions, weather conditions, and the condition of motor vehicles, as well as the condition of the driver in charge of the vehicle at the time of the crash. This really speaks also to the Supplementary Order Papers in the name of Jacinda Ardern, which not only look at the ability of the coroner to make those recommendations but also require agencies and individuals to actually respond to those recommendations. The SOPs do not require that the individuals or organisations make recommendations for changes, but they do require that they make a response. This is really important, because then the coroner should be able to report on those findings, and those findings will be useful in being able to prevent other deaths in the future.

In that regard, I also want to talk to the submission that was made by the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand with regard to the reporting of suicide. Where we are discussing being very open about making recommendations and requiring responses about other deaths, there is a particular sensitivity when we are reporting suicides. One of the pieces of evidence that the Mental Health Foundation gave was in the reporting of suicides—the sensitivity that is required and the level of detail that is then reported in order to prevent copycat suicides. However, when we look at best practice for organisations that support those who are having suicidal tendencies or thinking of self-harming, one of the recommendations that it makes is that we are sensitive to the actual mechanism of that death. We must continue to talk about suicide as a concern for our community but there are ways to do it that are sensitive, to ensure that we do not then perpetuate other copycat suicides. It is a very important element to consider when we are asking coroners to report findings on deaths where people have taken their own lives.

On that note, I just want to finish with the issue that was raised by my colleague about the wishes of whānau. My colleague Louisa Wall raised this in the context of investigations of Defence Force personnel who have died in combat, but the notion of the wishes of whānau needs to be underlined throughout this work. It has been noted that whānau wish to be consulted about releasing the details of the death of their loved ones, but it does not actually recommend to us the weighting of their decision making in the release of the evidence of the investigation that the coroner has made. It is interesting because whānau will have differing views. Some will be very open to the nature of their loved one’s death being advised to the general public and some will not. That might be due to the nature of the death or it might be due to the family’s sensitivity, but I would encourage the Minister to consider more fully the impact that whānau believe that they can have in relation to this and the wishes of the whānau in regard to the death of their loved ones. Thank you.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I move, That the question be now put.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I would like to talk specifically to the amendment to clause 41 in my name, which deletes clause 41. The point goes back to what David Clendon was saying about deaths in care or custody. I can understand the position of people who are saying that when you have somebody in custody who maybe has had cancer for a year or so, or has a history of ill health, and they pass away in custody, it is really not important to go to the extent of having an inquest; rather, an inquiry will do. I can sort of understand that, except that what my amendment does—what section 80 in the Coroners Act 2006 did was it took out all the discretion. It said that a coroner must decide to hold an inquest for the purposes of the inquiry if the death appears to have been a death in official custody or care.

The concern, really, is more around those people who are in State care, such as children under Child, Youth, and Family (CYF) care who may have taken their own lives. There was an example that was brought up in the select committee process, where the Justice and Electoral Committee was advised by an ex-coroner of a case involving a young person in CYF care who did commit suicide. The changes to the Act would lean towards an inquiry being held in this case, but the coroner in question actually conducted an inquest, which allowed, as a result of the hearings that took place, the coroner to identify a series of suicides in this whole community, and the local district health board (DHB) was alerted; then the DHB was able to put in place strategies around the cluster of suicides. So I think it is important, in particular for those who die in State care, that an inquest must be held, rather than just having the discretion that maybe an inquest might be held, and just having the inquiry. As we know, the inquiry is a paper-based look at the death, rather than actually holding hearings and looking into the full circumstances around the death.

That said, the deaths in custody—I understand where others are coming from, where other parties are coming from. I understand that this particular clause, clause 41, has support from various organisations, but I still think that deaths in custody do need to be looked at in depth and all the circumstances around those deaths in custody should be part of a full inquest, just to be on the safe side.

I know that we have a lot of respect for coroners and the work that they do. In fact, a relation of mine is the coroner up in the north there. So it is not to say that coroners will try to take shortcuts in this instance. It is really just making sure that the whole system, the whole circumstances around the death of a person in custody, is looked at. If you take the suicide that I mentioned before, about the young person in CYF care who committed suicide, the DHB being alerted would never have happened if an inquiry had been chosen over an inquest.

So we are also concerned by the loss of more critical examination of deaths in corrections facilities. We believe that there are a number of instances where people have passed away in corrections facilities where the circumstances around their deaths need to be looked at. This is just a short contribution to talk about my amendment, which proposes that clause 41 should be removed and that section 80 as it is in the Coroners Act 2006 should be kept as it is. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I just want to follow on from my colleague Kelvin Davis, who was speaking to his amendment to clause 41, about deaths in custody, because this was a substantial debate at the Justice and Electoral Committee. I take on board the points that were made by David Clendon around the good work that was done to narrow that provision around the circumstances under which an inquest would not be held, but the reason that we still have concerns is threefold. The current clause, as it is written, is still heavily reliant on the medical records as they are written and made available to a doctor, and on the doctor then making a decision based on those medical records as to whether or not the death would have otherwise occurred naturally.

Medical records and the medical care of prisoners, if we are speaking specifically of prisoners, are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections. They are corrections-controlled. There is no ability for external medical provision, really, unless someone is taken out of a facility. Our concern is that under the current regime, that could raise questions for family members around whether or not those medical documents are always the best way for a doctor to make an independent decision. We have argued for some time that district health boards should be in control of the provision of medical care in correctional facilities, rather than the Department of Corrections. That is one of our concerns.

We absolutely accept that in our current environment we are having people die of natural causes—we are—and that, actually, it would make sense to find a way to filter out some of those inquests and inquiries in custodial care. But our concern is that under the current medical regime within correctional facilities, with the amount of mismanagement that has gone on with the privatisation of those facilities, we do not believe that we have a regime that family members will necessarily believe there is enough transparency around. Perhaps if we changed the way that medical treatment is provided within our corrections facilities, then there would be a place for that clause and that clause would probably be on a much surer footing.

We also need to remember that this amendment does not relate only to correctional facilities. We are also talking about deaths in custody in mental health institutions and deaths of children in care. I want to ask a question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, because there has been no contribution from the Minister so far in this debate, and we have raised substantial issues—substantial issues—that we have requested a response to. I would seek from the Minister a response around these provisions around holding inquests versus inquiries. When it talks about deaths in custody, does that relate to children under the care of the chief executive? In our minds, there should be an inquest on every occasion that there is a death of a child who is under the care of the chief executive of Child, Youth, and Family, because, actually, just saying “a child in residence” is a very narrow group.

There are 5,000 children in care at any given time, and do you know what? Under this clause, they could, presumably, be determined to have died of what could be considered a natural cause. It could even determine my question as to whether or not Sudden Unexplained Death in Infancy (SUDI) would fall under that example. If a child who was under the care of the chief executive died of SUDI, would that result only in an inquiry rather than in an inquest? I have read reports from the coroners where it is clear that the family will get much more closure from an open and transparent process. If it was their child in care, I absolutely could understand why they would want an inquest rather than an inquiry in those circumstances.

So I have two points. Is a child who is in foster care considered to be in custody, or is the care of the chief executive considered to be something that would always have an inquest? My second question is: if they die of SUDI, for instance, would we then have an example where a doctor would say: “No need for a full inquest.”? Actually, I think that would be wrong, and I think families would be deprived of the closure they need. Those are a couple of the reasons why we have this amendment. I understand the need for there to be greater efficiencies. We are just concerned that we have not got the checks and balances quite right.

I want to come to suicide reporting. That has not been spoken of during this debate. It is incredibly important. I actually had a member of the public contact me and raise the fact that in terms of suicide reporting, as it sets out in section 60, inserted by clause 33, inquiries must always be opened into a death where “(a) the death appears to have been self-inflicted;”. But what is the proportion of inquiries versus inquests for self-inflicted deaths?

The reason I ask that is I have had members of the public contact me and say that there are some circumstances where we would have done well to conduct a more robust inquiry into those self-inflicted deaths. A coroner, in fact, raised the fact that in his town, had he not conducted an inquest, he would never have been able to identify that there was actually a string of self-inflicted deaths in his community that had not been connected. Some conversation around where we are making those decisions and why, and whether we are serving those families and communities well by drawing that line, would be a useful discussion.

But the issue that came up frequently in the debate was around the reporting of self-inflicted deaths, because, of course, under the current legislation we have very tight criteria. Currently, no one may make public any particular relating to a death suspected to have been self-inflicted until the coroner has completed his or her inquiry into the death. So no one is able to report on a self-inflicted death or give any of the circumstances or even imply that it was self-inflicted. The select committee was very clear that, actually, under the current environment and the way that these situations are often reported, many, many people are often in breach of this requirement.

There are many, many circumstances where the media may be compliant, but everyone surrounding the media, particularly in an engaged social-media world, is then acting in an uncompliant way. That is causing a real discrepancy in what is happening in reality. We had a very robust debate at the select committee around these changes, and I think that, on balance, even though it could be argued either way, it probably got to a much better place than the current legislation, at least.

We now have a situation where, unless an exemption is granted, the requirement now is that if an incident is being made public, a person may make public that death as a suspected suicide until the coroner’s findings are released. There is able to be a discussion based on what is suspected to have happened, but there are still limitations, and those limitations are that the method and, for example, the place in which the death occurred, if it suggests the method, may not be publicly discussed.

The reason for that is that we tried to look at the available evidence around what may act as triggers for copycats, and the evidence seems to suggest that method plays an important part in those tragedies. Our responsibility is to try to act as responsibly as possible and find a balance between the reality of the conversations that happen in the public and what we should still try to restrict in an effort to try to ensure that we do not create flow-on effects from the reporting of suicides.

I want to acknowledge, though, the contribution people made to that difficult debate that we had. The select committee tried to give it the fullest consideration. We were very mindful that we did not want to, for instance, have members of the public inadvertently falling foul of the law because the law did not make sense, but at the same time we felt a responsibility to listen to that research and evidence base. That is the middle ground that has been reached: you can talk about suspected suicide, but we must then still wait for a coroner’s report, and there are restrictions on the detail that is able to be provided.

I think the select committee reached as good a place as it could, but I am mindful that we will probably see movement in this space again in the future, as there continues to be rapid development on reporting. But, more important, what must guide any future decisions will be the evidence and research presented to us. I do not want to be dictated to simply by what the media chooses to report, relative to what other members of the public are able to put in a blog. I would rather be dictated to by what the evidence tells us is the safest way to report and with regard to the wider community and those families who are involved in those tragic situations.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am not going to accept the closure motion. I just want to make it clear to the Committee that to date the debate has been relevant and not repetitious. The legislation is not trivial legislation. It is substantive, and there are some important amendments to it that are before the Committee, including one from the Minister. I just want to repeat a previous ruling that I have made, and that is that when proper questions are asked of a Minister and they are not addressed or not answered by the Minister, that will tend to extend the debate. I think we are in that situation now.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I just start by thanking Jacqui Dean for her comments and for the hearing that I got at the Justice and Electoral Committee on the change that I am now bringing to the Committee by way of my amendment. She said that she thought the contribution was a thoughtful one, and I think that all members on that committee did give it proper consideration and there was support for at least acknowledgment of the arguments from all sides of the House.

As you know, the decisions that are made about bills are not made at the select committee but often they are made by the Minister, and I am urging Minister Smith, quite genuinely, to answer the questions that I have raised. The amendment that I am bringing forward is an amendment that I am bringing forward on behalf of the family members of those who were killed in service of their country. They have expressed genuine concern, heartfelt concern, about what this means for the information they might get about the circumstances in which their loved ones were killed. It is not a frivolous contribution that I am making. I thank the New Zealand First Party—Denis O’Rourke—and the Greens for their support, and the Labour Party, of course, but I do not see this as a partisan amendment. I see this as an amendment that is actually based on addressing the concern that the Defence Force raised, but in a way that best satisfies the requirements of transparency and accountability.

Minister, if I can take your attention just to look at what the regulatory impact statement from the department behind this bill actually said about the option that I am promoting. The question—it goes through all the options and it asks whether these options balance transparency with the risk of inquiring into matters of State. The answer that the department itself says about what I am recommending is: “Yes. Achieves a balance—it ensures that coroners investigate the deaths of members of the [Defence Force] except where the Attorney General considers there are risks to national security.” So it cannot be that concern about national security prevents the Government from supporting my particular amendment. Again, the department says that “A coronial investigation will provide independent scrutiny of the circumstances in which the death occurred, which is accessible to the public.” I am asking you, Minister, why we should not have independent scrutiny in a way that is accessible to the public but, most particularly, to the families who have suffered the loss that they have.

For the next question from the regulatory impact statement “Does the option duplicate investigations?”, the answer is “No”. In fact, the coroner has always relied on the New Zealand Defence Force to provide some of the factual material about what happened in the circumstances of the death. It asks whether it is consistent with other legislation—yes, Minister, my amendment is. It is consistent with the Visiting Forces Act 2004. In its conclusion, it sums up by saying, yes, this option does give us “Adequate opportunity for an independent inquiry.”, it “Does not contravene national security.”, it “Provides transparency …”, and it says, as an adjunct, that coronial resources would, of course, be stretched if there was a major war, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the 21st century, where the circumstances of death are pretty much the same as those that occurred with the loss of 10 New Zealand lives in the Afghanistan conflict.

So I am asking you, Minister; this is the one place where you can be accountable to the House. This is the one place where I and other members of Parliament can get an explanation from you as to why you would not support this amendment, for which the bereaved families have shown real support, and about which the former Chief Coroner has said is more democratic and is more consistent with the countries that we would always compare ourselves with in this field: Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It is consistent with what they have done. What we are talking about is a coronial investigation that is the status quo. That right is there for the coroner to look into the deaths, and there has been no evidence that coroners have done other than work cooperatively with the New Zealand Defence Force.

It is not too late for the Government to change its mind. I am not trying to embarrass the Government; I am simply saying this is the option that makes sense, and this is the option that those families want.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to respond to the points that have been made by a couple of members in the Committee stage. In respect of the issue of military deaths, these issues were well canvassed at the Justice and Electoral Committee, as my colleague Jacqui Dean noted, and the concern that has been expressed by members of the Opposition is whether a coronial inquiry is a more appropriate mechanism for investigating a death where a person serving in the New Zealand armed forces is killed overseas. I think the really important point in making a judgment about whether the investigation will be independent or not is the fact that the New Zealand coronial inquiry is going to be totally dependent on the information that is provided by the Defence Force. The idea that somehow if the Defence Force—and I am not ill-disposed; my view is that our senior Defence Force personnel grieve at least as much as, if not more than, we parliamentarians when we lose a member of our armed forces, so I do not buy into the rhetoric that somehow there will be some cover-up. But even if you do accept that rhetoric, my point would be that if the Defence Force is going to control all the circumstantial evidence about what occurred in a foreign country such as Afghanistan, then a coronial inquiry is no protection against it.

Equally, if we look at the experience of the United Kingdom, it is absolutely clear from the experience of coronial inquiries that you then have in a public forum that defence forces having to disclose what their tactics are and what the capability of their equipment is in a public forum, is actually contrary to the interests of protecting the people who serve in the armed forces. Actually telling others in other countries what we are able to do and how we operate to try to win conflicts is not in the interests of the safety of our brave men and women who serve in our armed forces. The final point I would make in that regard is that this bill proposes that if there are exceptional circumstances, then the Attorney-General is able to have a coronial inquiry.

In respect of the issues that were raised by the Green Party about the issues of deaths in custody of the Department of Corrections, what we have now in the law is a blanket requirement for there to be a coronial inquiry into all cases of deaths that occur within our prisons. Actually, there are circumstances in which prisoners die entirely as a consequence of natural causes. To put the system to the automatic expense of going to a full coronial inquiry is so typical from the Greens, who never face the reality that there are limited resources and that we want the resources of the coroner focused on those cases where there are the most lessons to be learnt in order for us to ensure matters of public safety.

In respect of the last issue—whether we have got the balance right in the reporting of suicide—this bill makes a modest allowance for social media and for more open reporting of suicides; although it still sticks with the clear, scientific evidence that if suicides are reported inappropriately there is actually a risk that we, in fact, increase the risks to the wider community.

So, in my view, the provisions of this part, as have been appropriately dealt with by the select committee and with the amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper, provide the right advances for the improvements in our coroners’ laws in a way that maximises the safety of the public while still ensuring that our coronial system provides the reports where they are needed so that we can learn and prevent deaths in future.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): I would like to focus on clause 52, which inserts new section 116A, “Establishment and constitution of suicide and media expert panel”. I would like to do that within the context of the make-up of that particular panel. I did want to ask the Minister in the chair, Nikki Kaye, specifically about the skill set of this particular panel, because this panel is being constituted to provide advice to the Chief Coroner about applications for exemptions from the restrictions that apply to the publications of suicide in New Zealand. The members of this committee are going to be experts in suicide prevention, with expertise in the media, expertise in tikanga Māori, and expertise in Māori youth suicide. I want to commend the establishment of this particular expert panel, but I do want to ask the question about whether expertise in terms of LGBTI issues is also valid expertise for this particular expert panel.

For just a little bit of history so that people know where the establishment of this expert panel came from, I would like to acknowledge the previous Minister for Courts, the Hon Chester Borrows, because it was through him that Law Commission report No. 131 was actually constructed. That was about suicide reporting.

This phenomenon of suicide in our country is an issue that we all should be incredibly committed to addressing, because if we look at the suicide statistics, this 2014-15 reporting year we had 564 deaths by suicide. The previous year we had 529 deaths by suicide. In 2013-14 we had 541 deaths by suicide. I think that if we look at our history of the phenomenon of suicide, the issue that this particular establishment has highlighted means that it is incumbent upon us and, obviously, the coroner’s office to do as much as we can to prevent the phenomenon of suicide in our country.

We have created this expert panel because there has been debate about whether or not the media reporting of suicide actually exploits a vulnerability in certain members of our community so that they go on and emulate the suicide of somebody else. This copycat phenomenon has really limited our ability, sometimes, I believe, to talk about some of the suicides that happen in Aotearoa New Zealand. The establishment of this particular expert panel is going to enable us to have conversations—and those conversations, I want to highlight, from parents, for example, who have lost loved ones and who, in retrospect, when they look at the behaviour of their children, see signs that they did not pick up on. There is an ability, I believe, to come to a position where we can try to prevent future suicides and ensure that our young people are receiving the help that they need. If this expert panel is going to contribute to that, then that is a fantastic achievement of this piece of legislation.

I would like the Minister to make a contribution about whether other expertise was sought, or whether they think that within the areas that I have mentioned LGBTI issues will be talked about, because whether we like it or not, the statistics are really clear from youth surveys that if you are an LGBTI young person in New Zealand, your rates of suicide attempts are two and three times higher. For our trans kids, I think that they struggle not only with their identity but with the fact that they do not have people to talk to about what they are going through. Actually, we have an incredibly unresponsive health system. I know of young trans people who, if they are lucky enough to access hormones, will not be eligible to have the surgical reassignment surgery that they need, for 32 years. How is that going to impact on a young trans person who is diagnosed today and has to wait 32 years to receive gender reassignment surgery? Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes, I think we are in a position—no one else took the call? OK, in that case I will just ignore it and we will go straight to the questions. Is that all right?

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 2, and the following amendments in her name to clause 56B be agreed to:

in the heading to clause 56B replace “on and after 1 July 2016” with “after commencement of Coroners Amendment Act 2014”.

in clause 56B, heading to new section 143A, replace “on and after 1 July 2016” with “after commencement of Coroners Amendment Act 2014”.

in clause 56B, new section 143A, delete “on and” and delete “on 1 July 2016”.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 145 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 32 be agreed to:

replace section 59A(2) with:

(2) A coroner must notify the Attorney-General before opening an inquiry into a death, if the coroner is satisfied that the death—

(a) occurred while the dead person was a member of the Defence Force on operational service; and

(b) arose from hostilities in which the Defence Force or an allied force was engaged.

delete section 59A(3).

replace section 59A(4) with:

(4) Where the Attorney-General has been notified of an inquiry under subsection (2), the Attorney-General may direct the coroner to—

(a) not open an inquiry, or to adjourn an inquiry, into the cause and circumstances of a death; or

(b) complete an inquiry to determine the cause of death, but not make recommendations, or to withhold certain details from publication.

in section 4A replace the chapeau with:

(4A) Before the Attorney-General directs a coroner not to carry out an investigation, or to adjourn an inquiry, the Attorney-General must, without limitation, consider—

delete section 59A(5).

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 63

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Kelvin Davis to clause 41 be agreed to:

Delete clause.

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

Ayes 32

New Zealand Labour 32.

Noes 88

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 88

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 32

New Zealand Labour 32.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to schedule 1 be agreed to:

in schedule 1, heading to new schedule 1, replace “on and after 1 July 2016” with “after commencement of Coroners Amendment Act 2014”.

in schedule 1, new schedule 1, clause 1, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order:

commencement date means the date on which the Coroners Amendment Act 2014 comes into force

in schedule 1, new schedule 1, heading to clause 2, replace “1 July 2016” with “commencement date”.

in schedule 1, new schedule 1, clause 2(1), replace “1 July 2016” with “the commencement date”.

in schedule 1, new schedule 1, clause 2(3), replace “1 July 2016” with “the commencement date” in both places.

in schedule 1, new schedule 1, clause 2(4), replace “1 July 2016” with “the commencement date”.

in schedule 1, new schedule 1, heading to clause 3, replace “1 July 2016” with “commencement date”.

in schedule 1, new schedule 1, clause 3(1), replace “1 July 2016” with “the commencement date”.

in schedule 1, new schedule 1, clause 4, replace “1 July 2016” with “the commencement date”.

in schedule 1, new schedule 1, clause 5(1), replace “1 July 2016” with “the commencement date” in both places.

in schedule 1, new schedule 1, clause 5(2), replace “1 July 2016” with “the commencement date” in both places.

in schedule 1, new schedule 1, clause 5(3), replace “1 July 2016” “the commencement date”.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is with some disappointment that I see we have reached this stage of the debate with some of the more substantial parts not being able to be included at this point in the discussion because, in all of this, some of the amendments in the clauses that are left for debate are still contingent, of course, on the coroners’ reports carrying some weight. So if this bill in its entirety—whether it be the discussion that we have had about narrowing down what a coroner reports on, down to the different jurisdictions that some of the subparts set out, and deaths to be reported and post-mortems as they are set out in the final schedules—is set out so that we can have an efficiently run system where there is a clear jurisdiction for coroners, surely it all leads to nought if there is actually no requirement for us to do anything off the back of a coroner’s report. In all of this debate around the jurisdiction of coroners, the difference between whether or not they are resuming or adjourning an inquiry, and the role of pathologists versus coroners, surely all of that just becomes a debate of fancy if, at the end of the day, what a coroner produces as a report holds no weight—absolutely none.

So my frustration with us being at a point where we are debating consequential amendments, and some of them as they relate to the Burial and Cremation Act, Search and Surveillance Act, Visiting Forces Act—all of that, still, is a debate around the detail, when, actually, the coroners themselves are producing reports at great expense to the taxpayer that hold no weight. We had an opportunity here in this debate to give just a little bit more clout to those reports. We had the opportunity for those recommendations not to be enforced, not to be compulsory, but to at least trigger a response.

I would have thought that the families who are involved in these situations and who find themselves in a tragedy, be it via an aviation accident—and we had a lot of those people come before the select committee and talk about the deaths in the agricultural sector, in agricultural aviation, right through to the families who came and talked about the tragic deaths related to the hot air balloon accident north of Wellington. In all of those cases those families surely would want to see at least a requirement from those companies, Crown entities, and Crown organisations that are involved to at least look and respond to a coroner’s report.

So my argument, as we reach the conclusion of debating the consequential amendments—the schedule of this bill—is that, actually, it all becomes just trivia if we cannot at least conclude as a Parliament that what a coroner says matters; that what a coroner concludes is worth that investment from the taxpayer and is worth the submissions that those family members and organisations produce with the time that it takes. Because here we have debated at great length: “Oh, when shall we have an inquiry; when shall we have an inquest? We have got to save some time and some money.” Well, what are we saving time and money for? Apparently so people can do a full inquest when it is required, so that we can then ignore everything that they say.

The final response that I would like to make, then, in relation to all of those subsequent amendments and schedules is that the debate becomes pointless if we do not have some requirement on those affected organisations to at least respond. That is a point that I want to underline in this final, concluding debate in this House.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): We bring in these amendment bills because there is something wrong, something missing, we have thought of something, or times haves changed from when the original legislation was put in place. This is an Act that Labour introduced 10 years ago, and times do change. But the test of a good bill, in my view, is whether it has improved the situation, does it make it better for New Zealanders, and does it do a favour to society? When I look at this, I do not think it would. So when we call this an amendment bill, it is actually a bill that is going backwards.

I firmly believe that the coroner has a very important role to play in our society. Coroners are independent—we know that; they are experts in their field. What this bill actually does is to narrow the scope of what they are allowed to do and the recommendations that they are allowed to bring in. So why would we bring in, or legislate for, recommendations that do not actually strengthen the role of a very important part of our society; which, in a way, almost weaken it, or—as Ms Ardern highlighted—actually take power away from an independent body? I do not think there is anything in this bill that has actually amended the legislation in a way that has added—well, there are parts that have—to the Coroners Act 2006, but it has actually taken away from the ability of coroners to act in a manner that, I think, society has come to expect from them.

We do know that coroners can be overloaded—there is no doubt about that—but now it is no longer mandatory for coroners to hold an inquest into deaths that occur in official custody. I would have thought that that is a vital part of the independence of our system. We have a professional body of men and women who have the abilities and the skills to undertake the sorts of inquests that I think New Zealanders have come to demand, and now, after 10 years, expect. This bill has not taken us forward; it has taken us backwards.

As of 1 July—which is only 2 weeks away—this is going to come into play, and I think that New Zealand is going to be the worse off for it, to be honest. There is not too much more I can say with regard to this, except to sum up what the other speakers have concluded: the fact that this should actually be non-contentious legislation. The role of the coroners in society should be something that all parties in this House agree upon in a bipartisan way, because it is such an important part of our system. The fact that we do not agree on it—that there are divisions across the House in something that should not be contentious—shows a flaw in this piece of legislation, I think.

I think what should have happened with this is it should have stayed with the Justice and Electoral Committee until it could actually gain consensus, or it should have been withdrawn and gone back to a process that allowed consensus to be developed. When we start undermining pillars of our community like the coroner, or undermining the powers of the coroner, then you have got to ask where it stops. I just think that the independence of someone like the coroner is important, because what they have done in the past—and this amendment bill strips away a lot of it—is to provide recommendations in a way that others cannot. What they have also done, I believe, is to add a level of legitimacy to a process that has often needed that in place.

As we know, they cover all manner of issues and deaths, and all manner of incidents; it is really a one-stop shop, I suppose. We cannot have the police do this—we cannot have the police investigating deaths in custody. We know that we can have inquiries of different natures, but I just think that it was a very good backstop. It was a very important part of society, and the checks and balances in place allowed things to function in a way that New Zealanders had come to expect. This is a pretty poor substitute for that. I have taken Jacinda Ardern’s lead on this; she has done a very good job in presenting the case. Unfortunately, we are not going to win in this, and I just do not think it is a great result. I suspect we are going to see this legislation back in the House in 2018, with the powers of the coroner returned to how they were before this bill.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I arise to make a brief contribution on this particular part. As my colleague Mr Nash—

Stuart Nash: Learned.

PEENI HENARE: —my learned colleague; I apologise—takes the lead from Jacinda Ardern, our other learned colleague, I like to take my lead from the Hon Phil Goff, who has seen much legislation pass through this House and would have been here when the bill was introduced. He also, I thought, gave a very good speech on his amendment, one that acknowledged the families, and the tragedy that sadly met Mr Tamatea and the others in military action, serving our country. He was approached by the people. So when I consider this particular bill, I think about the people in cases like this. I think about whether this particular amended bill will meet the needs of the people.

We heard harrowing submissions from the people around some of the processes that have taken place in the past, and it seems that far too often we are in the House here debating bills that really only tinker around the edges. They do not actually get stuck in and make some meaningful changes. Although it might propose some good things, we would like to see more good things in this particular bill. That is what we wanted to see. I believe that the amendments that were, sadly, voted down in this Committee would have really given this bill some teeth. I will say this: we had come very, very close. Jacinda Ardern, in leading the Labour Party on this issue, came very, very close to supporting this bill. Sadly, once again the Government has given us a Coke Zero or a Diet Coke when what we are actually looking for is the full-bodied Coke—something that will actually give the coroner’s office the power to do what the public expects it to do.

Coroners do a great job, and I want to thank them in this contribution, but I will say this—I will say this: the hard work that they do is not being recognised by this bill. It really is not. They have produced great bodies of work in the past. This side of the House, in particular, has taken health and safety in the workplace very seriously. In my contribution earlier on this bill I talked about the tragic and sad and horrible record of the forestry industry. We on this side of the Chamber would have liked to see the recommendations from the coroner actually carry some weight, so that people across Aotearoa New Zealand would see that we are empowering the coroner to make sure that these kinds of tragedies are not revisited.

This is an instance where, once again, we are tinkering around the edges, exemplified by the number of amendments put up by our side of the Chamber, by the Labour Party, that I thought would have actually really given this particular amendment bill some punch. In closing, the Coroners Amendment Bill perhaps should have been the “Coroners Tinker Around the Edges, Not Quite Hit the Mark Bill”.

Stuart Nash: The “Disempowerment Bill”.

PEENI HENARE: The “Disempowerment Bill”. I agree with the comments made by my colleague here, Mr Nash, that there is a good chance we are going to be back here some time in the future. I have had a discussion with a current serving coroner who expressed to me his dismay that the bill did not quite get across the line. For those who are actually dealing with the people, those who are doing the work, it does not give them the capacity to make sure that the office stands with a solid reputation moving into the future. Thank you.

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

Ayes 88

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 32

New Zealand Labour 32.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to clause 2 be agreed to:

replace “1 July 2016” with “the day immediately after the expiry of the period of 1 month that commences on the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent”.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 88

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 32

New Zealand Labour 32.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

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

Ayes 88

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 32

New Zealand Labour 32.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill

Riccarton Racecourse Bill

In Committee

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Business Committee determined on 9 March 2016 that the Committee stage of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill be considered as one question for the purposes of debate, with separate votes on each question at the end of the debate. The question, therefore, is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and clauses 1 to 14 and schedules 1 and 2 of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill stand part.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill in the Committee stage. We have said in previous readings that these are two pieces of legislation that started life in quite a different form—as a local bill, in one instance—and they are now coming back to this House for their Committee stage, after being worked on by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and are being heard as one question.

I would like to acknowledge the work that the Local Government and Environment Committee did on this legislation at the select committee stage. I think a number of very good changes were made that see better pieces of legislation returned to this House. I think it was fortuitous that a number of the permanent members of the Local Government and Environment Committee at the time were in fact Canterbury-based MPs. So in addition to myself, and Eugenie Sage from the Green Party, we also had Matt Doocey, Joanne Hayes, and Nuk Korako from the National Party, who heard this legislation. Of course, we were ably assisted by those not fortunate enough to come from Canterbury.

What this legislation does is it enables the development of housing in the area around the Riccarton Racecourse, which in itself is fortunately placed in the good electorate of Wigram. It will allow for the development of housing in that area. But in this contribution at the Committee stage, I want to concentrate on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill part of this legislation, Part 2, and specifically clauses 9, 10, and 11 if time permits. I may have to come back to them in a later call.

Clause 9 of this bill is an important clause in this legislation, in that it sets out the minimum requirements for the development scheme, should it go ahead. The legislation is quite prescriptive around what the minimum requirements for the development scheme will be. There is a requirement for 180 affordable homes to be built on this development land: “issued with code compliance certificates under the Building Act 2004, and to have been sold for occupation primarily as the home or residence of not more than 1 household, no later than 5 years after the approval date.” That clause 9(a) there actually sets a bit of a gold standard for what housing should be, and, unfortunately, it is not what we are seeing in terms of housing in this country at the moment. We are not seeing enough affordable housing. There is a definition of “affordable housing” in this legislation, which we think is at the high end of what is affordable.

But also there is the issuing of code compliance certificates. If you are familiar with the number of repairs that have happened in Canterbury over the last 5½ years, it is not a foregone conclusion that you will have a code of compliance for your building. But I think to be sold “for occupation primarily as the home or residence of not more than 1 household” is an important part of clause 9(a). What is being said here is that a family home should not have a number of families squashed into it. Throughout other parts of my electorate it is not uncommon to have 17, 18, or 19 people living in a home that, really, should only be used for the purposes of housing one family. So I am very pleased to see that.

I am also pleased to see that there is a bit of a protection against “ghost houses” contained in this clause 9(a) as well, in that these houses do have to be occupied no later than 5 years after the approval date. These houses cannot be built and merely sit there and not be utilised, with the owners thinking that they are just going to wait for the capital gains to flow in rather than provide them for what a house should be, and that is: a home for people. I think it is really important to see those protections there in clause 9(a).

Some of the other requirements, not only of the house but also of the development itself, are set out in this broader clause 9. We need fibre-optic broadband connections to be provided to all premises so that we are building in the 21st century. There is also, in clause 9(c), talk around being: “capable of satisfying the relevant regional and district planning requirements, including in relation to providing any infrastructure to service the development in the manner proposed by the scheme.” This is very important. This development, when it was first proposed, was proposed to be what was going to be known as an “exemplar” project in Christchurch—an exemplar project for specific planning instruments that were put in place to allow for expedited housing development in Christchurch. Unfortunately, we have only seen one of these exemplar developments take place in the city of Christchurch over this time. Not only is it the houses that matter; it is the kind of planning that we put around these housing developments that is going to be what the future of our city in Christchurch hangs on.

What are the transport planning requirements that we are putting in place? I have been on record at other stages of this legislation as saying that I do have some reservations that not enough thought has been given to that vital piece of infrastructure that is provided for in clause 9(c). Not enough thought has been given. If this had been done through the instrument of an exemplar development, we would have had the kind of integrated planning that will make for good urban development. That could have been possible. Anyone from Christchurch knows how congested Yaldhurst Road gets at peak time, and simply putting the traffic from 600 more homes on to that road, with no thought, is not going to work. What we need to be doing is thinking, in a progressive and long-term manner, about the kinds of transport requirements for the new shape that Christchurch has grown into. We know there are large developments to the north, in the Waimakariri District, and also there are large developments to the west of Christchurch City, but also through into the Selwyn District. We need to give some serious thought to the infrastructural requirements of how it is that we provide for those developments.

The other note I would make here is that in clause 9(e)—and it is repeated in clause 10—Ngāi Tahu are given the first right of refusal on this parcel of land. This is, after all, land that has been protected under a reserves status, and so, under the terms of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, it is only right that this be offered, first and foremost, to the local tangata whenua, who then, through Ngāi Tahu Property, one of their development companies, have the opportunity to develop this land. The legislation is littered with enough clues that this seems to be something that Ngāi Tahu Property, one of the holding companies of the Ngāi Tahu iwi, is going to take up. And I think that we have seen Ngāi Tahu undertake a number of developments around Christchurch in the post-earthquake era, and I know, in my own electorate, in Wigram, that this will not be their first rodeo—that there are a number of developments that have sprung up and have some good factors to them.

So Labour will be supporting this bill. I think that we do need to give some good and genuine thought to the kind of development we are doing, and I think that clause 9 of this legislation offers a good guide for that.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a real pleasure for me to follow my colleague Dr Megan Woods, MP for Wigram, and, obviously, the local member for the area that we are discussing in these two bills. I want first of all to reflect on the fact that I do not believe that we have seen this scenario before: where we have started off with the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill as a Government bill and we have had the Riccarton Racecourse Bill as a local bill. They have gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we have ended up with one bill, which is a Government bill—or two bills being debated as one bill, with all provisions in one part. It is very unusual to have that process, and I think that it is worthy of note, but it is also worthwhile noting that it has not been something that has been imposed on Parliament during this debate; it is something that Parliament has accepted. I think that that is a tribute to the way that the select committee has progressed the bills to this stage. So I want to put it on the record that the work that all members of the select committee appear to have done has made the original two bills better and also has enabled us to raise some of the concerns that we still have, regardless of the amendments that have been made—some of which have been referred to by Dr Woods.

The primary purpose of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill is to look at the powers of its board of trustees, and it looks at how the income from this proposed development can be used. That is important for Parliament to do. We have had a number of debates around pieces of legislation dealing with boards of trustees and whether that is appropriate in 2016, or whether, in fact, we should be looking at having such boards more properly act under the mandate of incorporated societies legislation or charities legislation—or whatever the generic legislation might be. But in this case, we have got yet another board, the Riccarton Racecourse Board of Trustees, being dealt with by specific legislation.

But it is good for Parliament to be debating the broader issues, because they, of course, go right to the heart of the lack of housing that we have for people in New Zealand generally. We are short of houses in a way that we have never been short of houses in our nation’s history. We are particularly changing the culture—the value, I suppose—of houses from the position where it certainly was when I grew up: that all of us knew that if we worked hard and saved hard, we would be able to put a deposit on a house and one day own that home. Whereas now, for many young New Zealanders, the idea of saving up and buying their own home is just completely off the agenda.

So that is something that it is important for Parliament to reflect on, because it does change a number of things. If a person is permanently in a rental, they are more vulnerable: they are more vulnerable to the whim of the landlord, they are more vulnerable to the rents going up, and they are more vulnerable to a situation where they become less connected with their community and their children might have to move not only home but also school as a result of those things. So the security—not just of an individual family in a home but of the broader community—is really important in the wider housing debate. Clause 6 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill touches on this very point, which is about the affordability of homes. I think it is debatable but quite sophisticated in the way that it has ended up in clause 6.

I want to move on to what happens if the affordable homes are not delivered; but, of course, there remains a debate that is certainly being held in Canterbury about whether $450,000 is a suitable determinant of a home that is affordable—that is the provision that is in this bill that we are debating. It goes on to say further on—after we have the requirement under clause 6 of the number of affordable homes within this housing development—what happens if they are not delivered. I actually think that is something that the select committee has not focused on enough. We go from a requirement in the bill to have this number of affordable homes to the compensation due to the Crown if that number of affordable homes is not delivered. What about some project-management in between? What about some accountability of the people who are going to be running this development back to the Crown and, indeed, to the city council, which has given some indication of support for the provision of housing in this area?

So I think there is a bit of a gap between the quite rigid and specified requirements for affordable housing in clause 6 and then the penalty for non-provision just three clauses later, in clause 9. So I would be interested to hear, perhaps from the Minister in the chair, Minister Lotu-Iiga—although I do not think he has any personal responsibility for housing provision in Christchurch under his portfolios—or perhaps from the chairman, Scott Simpson, or perhaps another member of the committee may well make a contribution about whether the in-between situation was considered.

I want to move on now to another concern—or gap, or requirement—that is in this legislation that, I think, does not fit comfortably with the way that the transition arrangements away from Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and the total powers of the Minister, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, have been revoked and disestablished by this Parliament, and we have now moved into much more local control of decision making and, finally, some drive for development and rebuilding in our city.

In clause 11 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill, there is a specific provision that reads: “Before making a recommendation under subsection (1),”—and subsection 1 is—“The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, approve a development scheme.” Clearly, this is the housing development scheme that this bill relates to. But in subclause (2) of clause 11, it says that before making such a recommendation, “the Minister must—(a) consult the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery;”, even though that authority—those wartime powers that were granted because we thought they were needed so soon after the September and February events—has all been taken away; CERA has been disestablished. But here we have the Minister, once again, having his fingers in the pie, looking for control. Fortunately, the relevant Minister also has to consult with the Christchurch City Council and has to be satisfied that the scheme meets the requirements of the development scheme, as outlined in the legislation—and also Ngāi Tahu has been given the first right of refusal; that is specified—and that it will result in quality residential development.

I just want to conclude my current contribution with a further word on that. Dr Megan Woods, in her contribution, mentioned the fact that when this development was originally proposed, it was described as being an “exemplar” housing development, and that since that date and today, the exemplary nature of the development has just disappeared. I think that that is an opportunity that has been given away by the Government. It is an opportunity that has been lost for Cantabrians, and one that I think people were genuinely excited about when the Minister made that announcement. People looked at him, believing he was telling the truth, and now we are seeing no such indication in the legislation.

There are a couple of other obvious shortcomings with this proposal—in the lack of integration with transport, particularly. This is a large number of houses that are being proposed. They are in a good spot. They are close to the university, they are close to the main traffic routes, they are close to very large shopping areas—all those things make them very attractive—schools etc., and the nearby facilities. They have an excellent member of Parliament, and I know that that is a very important thing when people decide where to live, where to buy or rent a house. But Parliament—and the Minister, certainly—has not taken the opportunity to talk to the Christchurch City Council about the infrastructure needs and how we could make sure that the requirements of this big housing development sit alongside the plans and ability of the Christchurch City Council to deliver. I do not want to see people causing more congestion because the opportunity for better planning has not been taken.

Overall, I think this is going to be a very good step forward for Christchurch. As I say, I think it could have been even better: if the exemplar nature of the proposal had been delivered by the Minister—and it was not; if the city council had been given the respect that it deserved for better integration of issues such as transport; and if the select committee had, perhaps, pushed the Minister a bit to deliver those things, we could have got even better legislation. But I will be very happy to support it.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to thank my colleagues for their contributions on this legislation, which we support. To start off this contribution, I want to talk a little bit about what has led us to having these two bills before the Committee. I guess I want to talk about the meeting Dr Megan Woods and I had fairly early on with members of the board of the Riccarton racing club around their desire to ensure that that facility—the racing club, the grounds, and the buildings, some of which are old and historic—actually could remain a vibrant and useful facility for Christchurch.

In taking the step that they have in order to allow part of the racecourse to be developed—to look at the Reserves Act and allow a portion of their land to be developed for housing—they are ensuring the facility does continue to go on and be used by the people of Christchurch. It is a beautiful facility. The grounds are lovely. The Hon Ruth Dyson often gets to speak at Japan Day, which is one of my favourite days at the course because the gardens look wonderful, the blossoms are in full bloom there—it is just a delightful place to be. And, of course, on Sunday they have the market, which encourages people from all over the city to head out—south, in my case—to participate in it.

I think it is interesting legislation in that in clause 6 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill the Government has chosen to actually put in a definition of affordability for housing. I think some of my Auckland colleagues would be quite envious that we in Christchurch actually have a determination of what affordable housing is in a piece of legislation designed for Christchurch. I would like to see affordability in Auckland being $450,000. Then we would not be in the situation we are in currently, where people are forced out of the city, they cannot afford to live in the city, and they certainly cannot afford to buy a home in the city. It has become a paradise—a haven—for investors to actually thrive. Houses potentially earn more than workers do. I think it is an appalling situation. This piece of legislation actually tells us what the cost of affordable housing should be in Christchurch, so that is a very interesting part of that bill.

The aspect that both my colleagues have touched on previously is the notion of “exemplar”—that this development was to be an exemplar development. Many of us were very excited about that. An exemplar development, as referred to in clause 9 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill, has to have some key elements as part of it. The homes have to be affordable—clause 6 clearly defines what affordable is. The development has to be close to amenities, and the area that is being developed is close to good shopping, good road links, and schools in the area, certainly. The development has to meet certain criteria around good urban design, and there has to be suitable infrastructure and transport planning in place.

I know that when the development was first mooted, the very good local MP attended and hosted public meetings because there was a real concern from members of the community that having 600 new dwellings within the area would cause all sorts of pressures on infrastructure, particularly on roading and transport infrastructure. It is a very, very busy part of Christchurch. It links the southern part of the city with the northern part of the city, and links through to the airport, so there is quite a lot of transport that goes through there—quite a lot of trucks. The local people were concerned that the volume of traffic that would be pushed out on to those roads without good planning would cause them further delays within their commute to work and school and the like. There were some very real concerns about that.

There were also some concerns about what kind of pressure that will place on the horizontal infrastructure as well. To hear that it was an exemplar project at the beginning really caused us to think that we did not have to have concerns about this, because they would be taken care of throughout the development of this. But then when we heard the project was not an exemplar project, we asked some of the developers about that. They said it actually meets most of the criteria. Well, clearly, it does not meet enough of the criteria to be an exemplar project, and that is a real shame. I am concerned that although this is going to be a great development, it does not meet the standards of “exemplar”. It is a loss for the people of that community.

It is interesting, too, that at the beginning there were some Christchurch city councillors who had some concerns about what was going to happen with this development. One of their biggest concerns, of course, was the rationale for rezoning when there were, potentially, other areas that could be rezoned for development. I think that in the course of the passage of the legislation and the submissions that were made, those fears—those concerns—were actually allayed and they are now fully supportive of this development.

One of the big advantages of this development is the relationship it has with Ngāi Tahu. Ngāi Tahu not only have the first right of refusal but are also very much involved in a partnership to ensure there is a significant input from them throughout this development, and it is a good development because of it. Ngāi Tahu are known throughout the city for having provided lots of different types of housing options, and this one will be no different.

The fact we are looking at adding 600 homes to the community is great. We certainly need more housing, because that, of course, is going to allow us to balance out affordability across the city. I know that the Government has been crowing recently about housing affordability in Christchurch and saying it is largely due to its measures around ensuring that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority got the right kind of policies in place. Well, actually, I do not think that is the case. I think that when you go through a major redevelopment where people are rebuilding homes, when there is all the insurance money that has come into the city—we did not necessarily have the issues around land costs that there are in places like Auckland, because, actually, the only place where we had any restrictions around our land was in the central business district, where we now find that development costs are escalating because of the cost of land and because that land had been restricted for so long.

I will make further contributions on this legislation. I am pleased to see we have put a benchmark—a line in the sand—around affordability. I am pleased to see the involvement and partnership that Ngāi Tahu play in this, and I am very pleased to see that Riccarton Racecourse and the racing board will get to preserve their fantastic grounds and facilities for the people of Christchurch.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the Riccarton Racecourse Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill.

I would just like to pick up the point of exemplar developments, because the Green Party also believes that this is a lost opportunity in terms of this development—Champion’s Mile, I think it is going to be called. If it has got a name like that, it should live up to that name. We have seen, under this Government, far too little commitment to sustainability principles in the rebuild in Christchurch, whether it is in housing or commercial buildings and standards for those. If we are going to have affordable housing, the houses not only need to be affordable to buy; they need to be affordable to operate. Where you get big houses that are not well insulated—yes, there are certain provisions in the building code, but you need houses that are energy efficient. That requires that they are oriented toward the sun. Exemplar developments would embrace those principles to ensure that we are building the most sustainable housing stock, which reduces the cost of operating it, in terms of energy. Exemplar houses would also be well situated so that they encourage a community to develop—they would have good play and communal spaces for people, and they would have good use of open space—yet this development, by not being an exemplar subdivision, is losing that opportunity.

One of our other concerns with the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill is with the 40 hectares of the Riccarton Racecourse reserve land being used to provide affordable housing. That is great, but there seems to be a philosophy of this Government—not only in this bill but also in the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill—where it is making it easier for recreation reserves and other reserves under the Reserves Act to potentially be built on and used for subdivision. That is very short-sighted if we are sacrificing the green areas and open spaces within our cities and towns for subdivision and housing development, because it reduces amenity values, because it has potential health effects if there is not open space where people can recreate, and because of the substantial benefits to mental well-being that being exposed to nature and green spaces provides. In sustainable cities, we have good green spaces. We do not want to see the changes in the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill that see those green spaces being compromised.

Here, the trade-off is that with this 40 hectares of Racecourse Reserve land having its reserve status revoked in order to build 600 new homes, 30 percent, or 180, of those homes will be affordable. But that leads us to the way in which “affordable” is defined in clause 6, and it is in relation to $450,000 being the maximum sale price. In New Zealand, where we have $450,000 houses being defined as affordable, that is well beyond the reach of many young people, and even of many two-income families. That we are setting it at such a high level in this bill—when the average house price in Christchurch is around $490,000—is a reflection that the Government has really failed to increase the supply of affordable housing by actually getting Housing New Zealand to build more homes.

This bill makes a small gesture, but it is not on the scale that is needed to increase the supply of affordable homes by having the Government, through Housing New Zealand, building those homes. That is another major issue. The Government might see this as part of its strategy to deal with the housing crisis, but the real answer to the housing crisis is for the Government to stop speculators, to restrict foreign buyers, to put in a capital gains tax except on the family home, and to build homes through Housing New Zealand for people who desperately need them.

The other issue I would like to talk about is in relation to clause 9, “Minimum requirements of development scheme”. In this clause, it says that as well as the affordable houses requirement, the development must “(c) be capable of satisfying the relevant regional and district planning requirements, including in relation to providing any infrastructure to service the development”. This is where the Green Party has very little confidence in Environment Canterbury being able to ensure that the transport infrastructure, in terms of bus services, is adequate, because it is that council that recently proposed, in its annual plan, to increase bus fares in Christchurch. If there is anything that is likely to reduce public patronage, it is a fare increase.

Where you have a council that even after the October elections will still have six commissioners on it, potentially—that council has really failed to pick up the ball, in terms of the changed configuration of Christchurch post-quake, to ensure that bus services are adequate so that people have easy access to public transport. Although there is this requirement in the bill, we do not have confidence that Environment Canterbury will provide the necessary services, so that people do not have to rely on private motor vehicles. This, again, is where, if this had been an exemplar development, it would have much better ensured that there were good walkways, cycleways, and integrated links with public transport. Here, public transport is relying on the city council and the regional council. The city council and the regional council, we hope, will rise to that opportunity, but we are not confident that Environment Canterbury actually will.

In relation to providing for the transfer of some land around Paparoa Stream, that is certainly a good part of the bill. The development does result in a number of the big trees that are on Riccarton Racecourse being felled to provide for sections and also road corridors. We would like to see the developers recognise that those open-space areas are being sacrificed for this development, and that they must therefore do their maximum to ensure that the remainder of the open space, which is not going to be covered with houses, is actually accessible to people and provides for the variety of recreation needs that people can currently have at the racecourse.

There are lost opportunities with this bill, with there not being an exemplar subdivision and with the fact that in the Local Government and Environment Committee there were suggestions from the Green Party that we tighten up the requirements around sustainability—for energy use in particular: passive solar and making sure the plan for the subdivision was well-designed—and I think that is disappointing. I think it is a bit of a lost opportunity, but we will be voting for the bill because it does provide for some more affordable homes.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): It is an interesting point that keeps being made in the Christchurch press, that when you look at the average house price in Canterbury for this year, in the last 4 months it has increased by about 2.6 percent to $482,000. Other speakers have commented in respect of the degree of affordability of that, but the point that is made in respect of Christchurch, which the Government may wish to take heed of, is that there has been a cooling and a slow reduction in the level of increase of average house prices across Christchurch and Canterbury. This is because, as has been reported over and over and over again, we have a flurry—and we will eventually, I suspect, if you look at forecasts, have a glut, or a surplus—of houses within the region. Hence, if you go back to good old School Certificate fifth form economics, when supply exceeds demand, you have a stabilisation, if not a decrease; a slowing of an increase in house prices.

The moral of that story, for Government members, is that you can achieve those economic goals by one thing: building more houses. It is an extremely simple proposition. It is one that is debated every night on the news and every day on the radio and that is commented upon every day in the newspapers, but it is something—I think that there is some sort of mental blockage for the Government or the Minister for Building and Housing in respect of this point. The only way you are going to deal with the housing crisis—right through the country, but especially Auckland—is to build more houses. The issuing of consents, the issuing of compliances, or, as we have heard, special housing areas—those things in themselves do not put roofs over people’s heads, certainly not in the short term.

The evidence in Christchurch and the evidence that is flowing through this bill is that the flurry of building, or the excessive building activity, that has happened has actually cooled those house prices to some extent. The question is well made by speakers, though, as to whether $450,000—when an average house price is $482,000 on latest figures—is affordable for many folks, many of whom have been through the earthquake crisis and are still trying to reconstruct their lives and move into new housing. I want to look at the regulatory impact statement—page 3, paragraphs 17 and 18—which talks about this very point and notes that, nationally, just 5 percent of new supply is targeted; that is, housing targeted at the lower quartile. One of the bonuses of this project is that the targeting in the lower quartile in affordable homes is around 30 percent, which is pretty positive given the 5 percent figure nationally.

It is worth congratulating, as I said in my first contribution on this bill, the Riccarton racing club and those members who brought this proposition to the House. As I said in my first contribution, this was not a proposition that found its genesis on the Government benches or in the Cabinet room of this Government; it was a proposition and an idea that found its genesis in the innovation of local community stakeholders, particularly the Riccarton racing club itself, and was brought to the Government as a positive idea and a positive contribution that will provide a substantial number of houses and affordable homes for those in Canterbury. But I have got to say that if you were to look at the debate as it happened last week, I think, and subsequently, you would think, from listening to those Government members who have spoken, that this was some sort of brainwave of Nick Smith or some sort of innovative strategy launched by the Crown. It was not. Credit should go where credit is due.

As other speakers have said and have referenced in respect of infrastructure, particularly the previous speaker, clause 9(c)—the requirements that the scheme contain its own infrastructure in respect of the development—is silent, and Government members have been silent. I am sure the Minister of Local Government, who is in the chair, will be interested in this point, as he is wont to focus very heavily on local authorities and the needs of local communities: there has been relative silence around the infrastructure requirements that will be required in this part of Christchurch.

As I said in my last contribution, I spent the early years of my life one block away, in Yaldhurst Road, across from the Riccarton Racecourse. In those days, it was a slippery, sleepy area. On Yaldhurst Road, you would struggle to get a traffic jam. Getting to Hornby was relatively easy. Going down Johns Road to the airport or heading to Belfast was a pretty simple proposition. That is no longer so, not simply because in the Johns Road area the four-laning is happening; it is simply because of the quantum of traffic, the industrial developments that have happened in Hornby that have necessitated further traffic. So it cannot be the case, as other speakers have said, that you plonk 600 houses in a residential area and nothing changes. Of course there will be changes. There will be issues around congestion. There will be issues around traffic flow. There will be issues for that local community. There are very small roads and small access ways around the racecourse, hotel, and the little businesses that are there. They are going in and accessing through to Hornby. These are needs that will have to be dealt with not only by the local and regional authorities but also, I would hope, with the assistance of Government.

It would be helpful if the Minister in the chair, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga—I am pleased he is in the chair given his portfolios—could perhaps assist us, with the aid of his officials, in giving us some assurance as to what infrastructural support the Government will provide around this project. What you have got here is a very positive project: Genesis Energy and the local community, the Riccarton racing club, bringing it to Parliament; Parliament giving it the stamp of approval; and the Government then, generally, being silent, apart from trying to take credit for many of the proposals in this legislation, on what its contribution may or may not be.

That area right through Avonhead, through Merrin, right out, as I said, to Johns Road, going right up to Church Corner; that whole area will be impacted by—what is it? It is about 2.5 people on average per house, according to the official statistics. So you are looking at a couple of thousand people, in theory, in that concentrated area. It is a very good proposal—something that I think Parliament should be proud of; something that local folks and local stakeholders have put a lot of time and effort into and have brought to Parliament. But that project will need support. I would hope that Minister Brownlee and other Ministers—the housing Minister, transport Minister, and other Ministers—are engaged with this very heavily so that we do not end up getting a really nice property development that meets multiple needs, including housing affordability needs, but, unfortunately, then has a knock-on effect through the local community because infrastructure does not follow development; that Government commitment does not follow that development.

So the local folks are doing their bit. They have consulted widely. Other colleagues have talked about the concern that there was initially, and I am sure that there are some residual concerns from many stakeholders in the community, but I know, having talked to many folks in that area, that it is the infrastructure issues that are of deep concern to them. I think many of the issues around the development itself have been put to bed, but what is the knock-on effect for that local community? I would ask the Minister whether he would mind taking a call perhaps or seeking some advice from his officials—or perhaps over the dinner break having a quick word to Minister Nick Smith and other Ministers, or whoever is going to be in the chair following the dinner break—to allay some of those concerns that people have raised.

The Riccarton racing club and that piece of dirt is an iconic piece, an iconic institution, in Christchurch, and it has been the scene, as other speakers have said, of some wonderful events, not just fantastic race days for the community but also its facilities and its grounds have been the focal point for a large number of community activities right throughout the year. There are none more successful, I suppose, than the Riccarton Market, which has become a real focus and a real focal point not just for those who run the market and those who produce the goods and services but also for the community as a whole.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted to have one more opportunity before the dinner break to speak on these two bills. I am really sorry that no Government member has chosen to make a contribution, given that it is an issue that, frankly, this side of the House has been praising Government members for—particularly the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Scott Simpson, for his role in leading the debate in a mature way. We do not always have an opportunity to praise National members of Parliament, and in the rare times that that opportunity arises I like to grasp it with both hands.

But I have to say that I am really disappointed that the chair of the select committee has not chosen to take a call on this, because it is worthwhile noting that although we are supporting this legislation, there have been some concerns expressed. This is a big step forward for the board of trustees. It is a big change for them. It is one that they are delighted to have contributed so strongly to, and they are very pleased with the outcome. But I think that the members do the board a disservice, actually, by not contributing to the debate. They could take just a brief call and acknowledge the hard work that the board members undertake and the fact that they have been driving this change so that they are able to proceed with this development.

As I said in my earlier contribution, I do think that it is also an unusual—I am hoping that somebody who follows Parliament very closely will say whether this is a unique—occurrence, where we have had a local bill and a Government bill, both on related topics, being referred to a committee and then, when they come back to the House, both bills being debated together as if they were one. That is a really unusual situation. I have been searching social media to see whether anybody has commented that this is indeed a unique situation, but we can check on that over the dinner break and report back to the Committee after 7.30 p.m.

The point of this bill is a housing development. The Riccarton Racecourse area is huge. It is 122 hectares of land—and that in itself is pretty unusual within the confines of a city—which is under the auspices of the Riccarton Racecourse. This housing development would take 40 hectares of those 122 hectares, obviously leaving a huge amount of space still for the other activities, including racing. My colleague Poto Williams mentioned the Riccarton Market. That has become one of the major attractions on that side of the city. It is not as good as the Lyttelton market or the Ōpawa market, I have to say, but it is certainly well worth supporting.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Kia ora mai tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa. Members, the House in Committee on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill is resumed. Before the dinner break, we were debating all provisions of these two bills together. Hon Ruth Dyson had the call. She has 2 minutes and 8 seconds remaining.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is indeed a great pleasure to be able to take my 2 minutes and 8 seconds that are remaining in my contribution on this bill. During the dinner break, I went outside for a while. I suppose it was partly as a result of us reflecting on the fact that this contribution of 600 homes is going to make a difference—not solve the problem; but will make a difference—to the housing crisis situation that we have, not just in Auckland and Christchurch but also slowly spreading out throughout the rest of the country. But it just struck me how cold it was outside, and I was reminded of the many people throughout our country who tonight, unlike us, will not be going home to a warm, dry bed but will be sleeping in a car or a garage—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): This is Riccarton Racecourse, is it not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: —or somewhere totally unsuitable. The expansion of houses that is allowed through the development of the Riccarton Racecourse will put a dent in that problem, but, unfortunately, it will not solve it. I was hoping that the Minister for Social Housing might take a call and enlighten us on that, but she has been far too busy cleaning up the mess that she made for herself today. Yet again another bad week for the Minister. It was very Chris Bishop - like behaviour. Actually, I did not think that I would see that from a Minister, but I did.

I also, prior to the dinner break, was encouraging the chair of the select committee to take a call because this is legislation that, I think, has got the support of all parties in Parliament. It has been well shepherded through the select committee by Scott Simpson, the chair, and I think that a contribution from him would be well in order. This will resolve the frustration—I guess that is not too big a word—that some members of the board of trustees have had about their inability to do things in the way they would like to. It is a pleasure to be able to acknowledge the work that the members of the board, not just the current ones—of course the current ones—but also previous board members as well, have made to the operation of the Riccarton Racecourse, an important facility in Canterbury. I support the progress of this bill.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I seek leave for the vote on the provisions of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill to be taken as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 not agreed to.

Carmel Sepuloni: Did Jami-Lee just vote from the table?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No. I put the motion again and there was a “no” on the lost. So I put the motion “All those in favour.”, and no one responded. Then I said “Those against?”, and somebody, thankfully, responded “No”.

Hon Ruth Dyson: We were trying to hear what Jami-Lee was saying. What was that motion?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): So the members will know from Supplementary Order Paper 180 that there was a technicality in drafting—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Sorry—microphone. We can’t hear you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We will have another go. There was a technicality in drafting. It is outlined in Supplementary Order Paper 180, where a clause needed to be—to delete clause 3, and that required then that the vote on clause 3 standing part be lost. So that is what has just happened on the vote that was taken. Members, we turn to the Riccarton Racecourse Bill.

Clauses 1 to 14, and schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill to be reported with amendment, and Riccarton Racecourse Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

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

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to the Social Security Act 1964

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): We have had much discussion about this bill since the second reading and have gone back and forth on it and reread the submissions, and we come to this Committee with the intention to oppose the bill in its current state. We have lodged three amendments that I feel would make the bill fairer and ensure that young people are provided with much needed support. I am going to give an overview of those proposed amendments, and then I am sure that my colleagues will go into further detail discussing those amendments.

This bill, as we know, amends the Social Security Act 1964 to extend the existing Youth Service to all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children and 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children considered at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency. We on this side of the House support young people having access to educational and employment opportunities and we support State support for services that are well placed to provide the type of educational and employment support that I just mentioned. However, we are concerned that the Government has taken such a deficit approach to young people with this bill in the type of service that it is offering, and is offering only to provide support if these young people tick all the boxes the Government has created through its predictive risk modelling in order to be considered at risk of long-term welfare dependency.

That base is really where the problems start with this bill and what the Government is intending to do, because it is a deficit base. It stigmatises the young person right from the very start, and the way that the bill is currently set up excludes anybody who is not, or has not been, identified as being at risk of long-term welfare dependency via the Government’s predictive risk modelling. We have no faith in the Government’s predictive risk modelling and are uncomfortable with the fact that that is being used to inform the Government department in respect of who should get further youth support or have access to youth services. We maintain concerns about the general success of youth services, given that it is a relatively new intervention and comprehensive analysis has yet to be completed.

The Government’s current approach gives work obligations priority over educational aspirations, and we cannot support that. Currently, the bill supports young people only to National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 or the equivalent. If these young people are going to have long-term success, then they should be equally supported on to NCEA level 3 and higher-level tertiary education, especially in light of the expected decrease in tertiary student numbers forecast in the Budget. We have no idea why the Government is adamant that it needs to always set the bar at NCEA level 2 and it is not really aspirational for people to go beyond that. In fact, as I said, it is the work obligations that then take precedence after NCEA level 2, and that is not being aspirational for these young people. Therefore, the amendment that I have put forward proposes amending the level of education supported in the bill to NCEA level 2 or equivalent by inserting “or higher” in new section 88I(6A)(b) in clause 16, in order to provide the opportunity for further education for young people.

I wonder how the Government could even possibly vote against that amendment, so I hope that it is seriously considering voting for that amendment, because why would the Government vote against a young person getting a level of qualification that is higher than the proposed NCEA level 2? For those youth who are looking for paid employment, there needs to be the jobs for them to go into, and that is what the Government fails to discuss. The Government has failed to take responsibility for the lack of job creation, and the Minister of Finance, unfortunately, has now resorted to blaming young Kiwis for being “pretty damned hopeless” to absolve himself of that responsibility to create the jobs. So it is all well and good setting up these work obligations, saying that work obligations are going to take precedence over high-level study, but, actually, if the jobs are not there, then we are going to encounter issues with trying to get these young people into work. If the Government does not have faith in, or have high expectations for, these young people to be able to actually go on and take on these jobs, then we are still going to struggle with our young people being able to get into employment.

Of further concern is the rising number of young persons aged 15 to 24 years not in education, training, or employment, and that number is now at 87,200. So when we are reflecting on the fact that the youth services have been in place for some time and that this bill is just an extension of that, we should all be a little bit concerned about how effective those youth services have been, given that there are 26,500 more young people not in employment or in education since National took office in 2008. So, as I said earlier, one of the concerns we have is that there is not the evidence to support whether or not the youth services to date have been successful, and when we look at that figure for young people who are not in education or employment or training, then we have to question whether or not it has been successful to date, and if it has not been successful to date or there is no evidence to support it, then why are we extending it?

There are rising concerns about the ability of the current Government services to support youth into quality, stable employment, given the failure of this Government to facilitate benefit-to-work transitions for main benefits, and we have harped on and on about this. It applies to all beneficiaries, but in this situation we are talking about youth who are on benefits—the fact that the Government is not accurately reporting on the number of people who are exiting benefit and then actually going into employment. In fact, when we look at the March 2016 figures, only 19,730 of the 49,907 benefit cancellations were actually for people going into work. So we should be concerned about the fact that people are seemingly being pushed off benefit, but the Government has no care or concern about what they are actually going on to do. We see that with the Better Public Services target of reducing welfare dependency. That is hardly the aspirational type of target that you would think a responsible Government would set, because it is not about ensuring that those people are better off; it is just about ensuring that they are off benefit.

Although this bill currently requires certain young people to access youth services—primarily those deemed at risk of long-term welfare dependency—we feel this needs to be extended to any young person who wants the extra assistance provided through youth services, and not just those whom the Government has identified as being at risk. In fact, if it was to apply this rule and allow those who were not necessarily identified as being at risk but who were unemployed and seeking to go on benefit—if it was to apply the rule that they could actually opt into this programme, it would take away that nasty deficit feeling that we currently have when we are looking at that programme.

So I have lodged an amendment that would allow all young persons—as in the definition in the bill—who are unemployed, not in training, and are either on or applying for a benefit to be eligible for the additional employment and educational services. So they are not just the ones the Government decides are at risk, but any young person who feels like they might benefit from this. It takes away the stigma, and the Government should support that.

Labour supports the amendment that came out of the Social Services Committee report requiring consultation with the 18 or 19-year-olds in question about their referral to youth services—we support that. We do have concerns about how this bill in some instances unduly discriminates against young parents by pushing them into work even sooner than is required for parents who are on sole parent support, and we see from the Human Rights Commission—and I am sure one of my colleagues is going to go into more detail about this—that there are concerns about the level of discrimination that exists within this bill.

Why should a young parent not have the same right to stay home for those first 3 years to care for their child that an older parent is able to have? In fact, I think one of the biggest flaws for the National Government in respect of social development is its complete and utter undervaluing of parenting. In this instance, if a young parent decides that for those first 3 years it is in their child’s best interest for them to stay home and look after them, then why would we not support that? In fact, why would we not support a young person to actually enjoy—enjoy—that role of being a parent? There are actually long-term pay-offs in respect of that child having their parent at home for a period of time to care for them. So we have put forward an amendment that amends this discriminatory regulation and, instead, aligns it with sole parent support.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts of this debate to be taken as one question and voted on separately.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First and my colleague Darroch Ball on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be opposing this bill. Up until this point New Zealand First has supported this bill with reservations, but we can no longer support it. I take on board the comments of Carmel Sepuloni, the speaker who just resumed her seat. New Zealand First is concerned about many of the same issues that the speaker from the Labour Party has just articulated.

We see the risk analysis, which is very interestingly wrapped up in what is called the investment approach, is predominantly just a narrowing of the circumstances by which a young person can actually gain assistance, and we do not see that as constructive. We would also point out that the Ministry of Social Development, in its own departmental disclosure statement, said: “The risk model for the youth services extension is still in development and will be finalised prior to the implementation of the Youth Service in August 2016.” So if it is still in development, we do not understand how success can be claimed. If it has not truly been used yet, we do not understand how the Government can go forward and say that this is an answer for this age group.

We have also already expressed our concerns—and it was in other legislation—about the use of the national student number to track “neets” numbers. This Government is putting in place more and more tracking devices for citizens of New Zealand, particularly young citizens of New Zealand, and using data from multi sources to create what it believes is the picture for this risk analysis.

It is not a transparent risk analysis. It is not something that, for example, under a privacy Act, under a file, you can actually request your file and say: “Excuse me, but that’s not right. My mother is not a drug addict.” Just because somebody wrote it down somewhere does not make it so. Unfortunately, this is not a transparent risk analysis that we are aware of. This is something that inter-agencies will cross-credit their data with and come up with a picture of a human being by tick-box. We find that distasteful.

We can appreciate that there needs to be an extension of support, probably through to age 24 or 25, for young New Zealanders trying to make their way in what is today’s employment and educational environment. We can appreciate that there certainly needs to be a change to some of the funding and modelling that is going on, but we cannot support the bill in its current form because we do not believe that it actually provides the answers for these young people.

We have just seen some positive reinforcement models—and the Minister was just there, actually—at the Vodafone World of Difference foundation. That is the sort of positive trust of young people, to come up with these solutions that with the right support and the right environment—just coming back from Careerforce, where they connect industry with young people and put through apprentices inside the health industry, having visited ETCO and looked at other models around there of creating apprentices, and so on. These are all positive ways to interact with young people, rather than assessing their family history and deciding that they are a risk of being a burden to us as a country.

Our young people can never be considered a burden to us as a country; they must be considered as what is possible for our future. So on that basis New Zealand First cannot support this bill.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I just want to make a couple of points in response to Tracey Martin, the speaker who has just resumed her seat. First of all, I think it is fair to point out that the Social Services Committee made what I consider to be a very sensible change in that those 18 and 19-year-olds are perfectly entitled to ask to have a look at their risk analysis and be consulted on it. It is not a tick box that is just putting a person into a category. As I say, I think the select committee made a very good change to the bill to ensure that these young people are consulted and that they have the ability to discuss that analysis and to correct anything that is wrong.

The second thing I would say is that I really would hate for the Committee to go on thinking that the liability model has anything to do with, in any way, labelling young people as a burden to the community. In fact, it is quite the opposite. This Government has high aspirations for all of our young people, and the young ones that this Youth Service is designed to—[Interruption] Well, you know, the trouble is that if you spray a whole lot of money around, what we know is that the ones who really need it are the ones who are least likely to access it, so the investment approach is actually about making sure that those who are most in need get the help that they need when they need it.

What we know from the liability valuation that was done is that if a young person under the age of 20 goes on to a benefit, their likelihood of staying on that benefit is much, much greater than if we had got them into work or kept them in education until they were beyond that age of 20. Why that is important is their life outcomes. We know that a life dependent on the taxpayers’ benevolence through the benefit system is not a great life for those young people or for their families. If you look at the outcomes for young people, it is not a pretty picture.

We have high aspirations for them because they have those talents, and they need some extra help in order to develop those talents. The Youth Service is designed to do that. It is a service that is based on relationship-building between the providers and the young people. We are trying all sorts of ways to engage those young people and keep them in training or in education, or get them into some form of sustainable employment. That is the aspiration that we want, but these young people do need that extra help, and if that means we have to do a risk analysis on them—as I say, they are perfectly able to have a look at that risk analysis and discuss it—we want to be putting those extra resources and services and support around those who need it. Most young people do not need that. They are quite capable of getting on with their own lives, with the support and resilience that they have in their own lives. But these are the most vulnerable young people in our communities, and these are the ones who very much deserve the best support that we can wrap around them.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): There were so many contradictions in what Minister Anne Tolley just presented to the Committee around this amendment bill. I want to go through some of them, because if this is genuinely about offering a service to those young people who need it and if it is genuinely about reducing their future liability—I hate that term; I would rather see us focusing on the potential of these young people—why not offer the service to any young people who wish to access it? If it is genuinely going to have that positive turn-round in that young person’s life, if it is genuinely going to reduce the liability and the cost to the State in the long term, why would we allow it to be only on the State’s terms? If the State determines that the young person is a risk, if the State decides the young person is going to cost the Crown money in the future, why, if this is as good a programme and an approach as the Minister has outlined, would we not want to open it up?

I have to hark back, because I was one of the critics of the Youth Service approach. I am very open about that. When we first debated this in the House, we had some real concerns. We had some concerns that we would change the relationship for youth workers, who might predominantly offer this programme, because they have some powers over the resources that young people would be able to access. That would usually be taken from a Work and Income perspective and it would be handed to someone who is actually meant to maintain a relationship, day to day. That was one of our concerns.

The other concern we had was that it took a deficit approach, and everyone, carte blanche, was put on payment cards, rather than the reverse approach of only those who need it most, at a point when it is identified they need it. I continue to maintain that I see young people—particularly young mothers—budget like no one else. I would really rival anyone to demonstrate how they could do what some of these young people do.

So we did have concerns—we did have concerns—but I went into conversations with Youth Service providers and Youth Service recipients of services with an open mind once it was implemented, and asked them what their view of those services was. In some areas there were young people who relayed to me that they were having a positive experience. They had qualms with the way the payment card operated, the limitations of it—all of those valid—but in terms of the one-on-one service they were receiving, some of them said: “Actually, we’d like a bit more time.” So on that front, I acknowledge, Minister, that this actually was a debate worth having, but what I wanted to hear was a really clear message on why we should default back to this risk-identifying model. I have fundamental issues with the fact the Government keeps leaning on it, because we are excluding young people as a result.

This started when we got rid of the Youth Transition Services. We used to have a service that said to any young person—roughly, under the age of 24, actually—that if you needed support and if you were not in employment, education, or training, regardless of your circumstances, regardless of where you lived, regardless of whether or you were on a benefit or not—you might have been being supported by friends, couch surfing, or whatever. We knew how difficult it was in those days—and it continues to be—to get the unsupported living benefit. It was terribly difficult. You could be in a violent situation and not be able to receive it.

No matter where your resource was coming from, you could access that service, and instead we got rid of it and we narrowed the focus into these high-risk, high-liability young people. Look at what the numbers have done since then. From that time, we are now in a situation where the number of young people not in education, training, or employment—as much as the Government says we are through the global financial crisis and we have got rosy times ahead—is at 87,200 young people. So, actually, it has not worked. We have got 26,500 more “neets” now than when National took office and fundamentally changed the environment of support for those young people.

Targeting in that manner has failed, Minister. It has failed. So why would we entrench it further if you believe, Minister, in the findings that were presented in 2014—so the very early days—in the Youth Service evaluation report, which found the Youth Service had a positive impact on assisting young people to increase their education levels and be independent of welfare and support? I am reading here from some of information provided to the select committee. It found that “Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of YP participants increased the number of NCEA credits they held in their first 12 months of participating …”. At the end of March 2014, 30 percent transitioned to a working-age benefit, whereas it was 38 percent of the comparison group—so a difference of about 8 percent.

If we were seeing outcomes in those other areas that were positive, why not allow anyone who wanted to access the service to access it? Why would you not? I still have not seen compelling evidence as to why that might be. I can see the rationale. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has set it out. Its argument has been that the extension includes only 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency because not all 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries need the wraparound support that the Youth Service provides.

Where is the evidence to demonstrate that? If you are an 18-year-old or a 19-year-old and you are not in employment, education, or training, I would say that you deserve some support. I would say they deserve some support. So what is the difference here that we have identified that says they do not need that support, and that, actually, they are just fine-transitioning back into the usual humdrum motions of Work and Income when they may choose to opt into a Youth Service approach?

Then I think we come to the real reason. The report states “because the Youth Service is a costly and intensive service.”—it is costly and intensive. So here we suddenly see the real reason why we are taking such a narrow focus. How many people are we actually talking about? Well, according to what I have seen from MSD, we are talking about a targeted approach, which is, roughly, going to mean about 2,000 young people—2,000 young people—when we have 87,000 who are not in employment, education, or training. Roughly 2,000 in that 18 to 19-year-old cohort will be eligible under this risk criterion that the Government has created. Those are the only ones who will be eligible for the intensive, wraparound support.

Well, actually, there is a pile of contradictions—and the Minister even articulated them—around the cost of this programme versus the cost savings. Again, here we see this really narrow view that says: “We’re spending too much on this, so we can offer it for only a narrow number of people. Yet, on the other hand, we’ll justify it by saying how much money we’ll save.”, so it cannot be both.

I found in the regulatory impact statement that it looks like around 14,000 young people are involved with the Youth Service and it costs $148 million over 4 years. There is not any discussion there about what element of that would have otherwise been offered by Work and Income, so it is hard to know whether that, on its own, is its own line item or whether, actually, that is a cost we would otherwise just have had within a Work and Income context. So we know that is the cost of it, but flip over to the other page of the regulatory impact statement and it states: “A very preliminary estimate is that for every dollar spent on the Youth Service, the liability”—again the world “liability”—“reduces by $2.53.” So for every dollar that we spend, apparently—remembering that we are talking about humans—in regard to the liability of those humans and the cost of them to us, we will save $2.53.

Putting aside the language, the argument, therefore, seems to be that if we spend $148 million, we then end up saving $374 million, based on that calculation. If that is true, why would we not open this up to more young people? You cannot have both. Either it is too expensive and does not work very well and so we will only do it for 2,000 people, or it is great—it is “Boy Wonder”, as it were—and we should actually be extending it to everyone.

Well, look, we are going to test the mantel on this one by putting up an amendment that does just that. That is what I want to just finish on. Carmel Sepuloni has an amendment in her name that would allow services to be extended to a greater range of young people, basically on an opt-in basis. We think that extension is right, because it was what we had with the old Youth Transition Services model. It was what the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs recommended through its youth connections model—the provision of service for any young person who needs it. In fact, I would say they should not have to be on a benefit, because we know how difficult it is to reach eligibility.

I want to finish on this reflection. When we did have the independent youth benefit, there was a one-tick box that could exclude you from accessing that benefit, and that was whether you answered the question in the positive. When asked “Could you live at home?”, if you said “Yes”, then you were out. Tick boxes exclude young people.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party in the Committee stage of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by responding to some of the points that were made by the Minister for Social Development, Anne Tolley. She made several points. Her first was in response to the New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin’s concerns about the predictive risk modelling aspect of this bill, where the Government is going to be taking Child, Youth and Family data, school-exiting information data, educational outcomes data, and information about the sex of young people and putting all of that information together to decide whether a young person is going to have a long-term financial liability on the State—not whether that person may have additional needs, but whether there is long-term financial liability on the State—as a result of those factors.

The Minister’s response to those concerns from that member was that “The select committee made a great change to the bill. Yes, it was a bit tough that the young person was never going to find out about that risk modelling, so the committee’s recommended that the young person can get that information and they are able to correct any inaccuracies.” We are talking about 18 and 19-year-olds. I need to restate that: we are talking about adults in this legislation. Although the Social Services Committee did make the recommendation to change the bill so that the young person will find out why they are considered to be such a risk, they will not have the ability to say: “Actually, that is your analysis. That does not match how I see myself, and I do not think that service that you are offering me will be useful.” So 18 and 19-year-olds—adults—will be given a phone call. The Ministry of Social Development officials did tell us that, yes, they did recognise that this would be a difficult phone call, and they had not quite worked out how they were going to have the conversation yet, but we should feel OK that they would work that out.

So I am imagining that I am an 18-year-old and I have been made unemployed from my workplace along with another mate who is the same age. We have gone into Work and Income together—or applied online, as we may be encouraged to do now—and I get this phone call. My mate does not. Work and Income says: “So your family had dealings with Child, Youth and Family, and you didn’t do so well at school. We think that you are a risk, so we want to offer you this service where you are going to be given a money card. You will have, maybe, $50 cash that you have control over; the rest we will have control over. You will have to tell us about all your financial data, any debts that you have, your rents, and all of those details of your life, and you are going to have to report to us often and regularly.”

I might come back to them and say: “Oh well, actually, despite the situation in my family, I had a really awesome auntie. Although things sucked at home and Child, Youth and Family got involved, I had this really strong relationship. I have already been in a job, and, actually, I do not think that you are describing me as who I am. I think that I have got some strengths to offer here.” That person on the other end of the phone might say “Oh, OK. Fair enough. You can go through the usual channels.”, but they might not. They might say: “Well, too bad.” That is the bill that we are passing here. It is legislation to remove the control of our young adults to be able to define themselves.

If we have this concern for our young people, then what we know in terms of all of the research around youth development is that what will make a difference to a young person who is disconnected or struggling is to connect with them on a human level, to focus on their strengths, and to help them develop their strengths. And the more you focus on their risks, or the things that have gone wrong in the past, the more present that becomes in their life, the more they are defined by that, and the more they are unable to escape that. The pathway for young people to be successful in life, and to be resilient and overcome challenges in their lives, is to focus on their strengths and build strong relationships with other people who can support them.

This piece of legislation has some fundamental flaws. Firstly, it focuses on risk. Secondly, it infantilises those young people and takes away their control. Thirdly, it just does not focus on what is possible. The Minister, previously, in her second point of rebuttal, was saying that this is not about a burden, this is not about being negative, and this is about having high aspirations. Well, the test of that is whether the Minister will support Carmel Sepuloni’s amendment to have this to National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 equivalent or higher, because this Government that is telling us it has aspirations is the same Government that got rid of the training incentive allowance, which actually enabled sole parents to be able to have a pathway into higher-paid jobs.

Carmel Sepuloni: Pulling up the ladder.

JAN LOGIE: Absolutely—keeping people stuck and, in fact, putting barriers in front of them being able to achieve more in their lives and support their families. That is not having higher aspirations. This legislation and the entire tenor of it are set on a level that just does not have confidence in people’s abilities for themselves and keeps putting barriers in their way, preventing them from being able to take control of their lives.

One of the other parts that I did want to mention again—in terms of that relationship building for young people, and what helps them if they are in a bad place—is a relationship of trust. This legislation also fundamentally alters that relationship of trust between the young person and the people in the community whom they previously could go to to be their sounding boards, the people whom they could rely on and process everything with. Those people have been turned into people who are given the role of reporting back to Work and Income. If the young person is not meeting their obligations, Work and Income has the ability to sanction their income, which threatens their entire ability to put a roof over their head. That is not a trust-based relationship.

I know some organisations are doing some great work within this model, despite it. I will acknowledge that. But we have heard from some young people in a service that we went to—where they closed the door so that the people running the service could not hear the conversation that they were having with us, because they did not think that that was safe—who quietly told us about people being sanctioned and whom they had never seen coming back to the course. For tangi or for very understandable reasons, people were absent, and then they were sanctioned. So this is not this perfect model. It was raised by the National Beneficiaries Advocacy Consultative Group, which had concerns that the lack of transparency in this model means that there are not the communication channels to people outside for those young people to know what their appeals right are—where, actually, they may be able to challenge things—and there is not the transparency for us to be able to find out what is happening in there, either.

One of the other points that the Minister made was that she was saying: “We care about the life outcomes of these young people, and it is not just about the money. It is not—really.” Well then, again, my challenge back to the Minister is to change the Better Public Services targets to make them about the well-being of young people—about proven earning potential, or just well-being, mental health, or any of those things that actually matter—rather than a reduction in the financial liability for welfare. That is not having aspirations for our young people. If you say you care, and you care about their life outcomes, then change your Better Public Services target and we might believe you. This legislation sits within a context of investing in a whole lot of bureaucracy rather than what I see in terms of the day-to-day life of these young people. That is money that could otherwise have been spent in our communities, building relationships with those people that would last for an entire lifetime, that would be strength-based, and that would enable them to have the skills themselves.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I take the call on this bill, the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services Remedias Matters) Amendment Bill, in the Committee stage.

Carmel Sepuloni: Remedial.

ALFRED NGARO: Well, it is good hear that you are listening—remedial matters. The joy of being in Opposition is that it is all risk, no responsibility. That is what it is. It is easy for those members to turn round and say, almost like the ad about the moss removal: “Spray and walk away.” In other words, how about we just pay and walk away? You have heard Opposition members in regard to this bill. What they want to say is: “Let’s just pay and walk away.” When they turn round and talk about the responsibility of this Government, they only need to look back at the 9 years of a Labour-Greens Government. Let us talk about your track record. Let us talk about paid parental leave. Did it happen when the opportunity was there? No, it did not. Let us talk about housing—warm and dry. Did it happen under a Labour-Greens Government? No. That is right.

Hon Member: Yes, it did.

ALFRED NGARO: Fifty thousand houses in 9 years? Come on. That is not exactly a track record you can be proud of. Why? Because you supposedly took responsibility, so it is a bit rich to turn round, to be sanctimonious, and to say: “Guess what? It’s not about the cost.” When you are in Opposition, it is all risk, no responsibility—pay and walk away.

Fletcher Tabuteau: This is Committee stage.

ALFRED NGARO: These guys want to hear about the Committee stage, so let us do a bit of research. Let us see if these people have done their homework. The Productivity Commission in 2011 talked about the social investment approach. I guarantee there would not be many who have read that report. If you take the time to read the report, what does it say? This is what it talks about. There are four things that are really important that it talks about that are high risk for those who are inside our welfare system. In that report it says this: “No. 1, intervention needs to happen early.” That is right—we would all agree with that, right? The second thing it said was: “You need to target your approach.”

So what is this bill doing? No. 1, the intervention is early. It is extending the age of eligibility to 18 and 19-year-olds. Why? It is doing that because the Productivity Commission said that if you want to make the greatest difference, go early, not late. That is what this Government is doing. The second thing the Productivity Commission said in its report was this: “Target your focus and your resources to make the greatest difference.” You will not know that because you have not read it, but that is exactly what it is saying.

If we, as the Government, were to say that to be responsible for the resources that we have we go early and we target where it is most needed—that is what is making the difference. For 18 and 19-year-olds who are vulnerable, who are at risk, why would we not turn round and say that we are going to be responsible for this? I will tell you the reasons why. In the 9 years of the Labour Government, when I was working in the community and had experience, this is what it did: pay and walk away. In other words, it did not take responsibility to ask the hard questions. This Government is doing this. We are not afraid to face up to ask the hard questions.

Carmel Sepuloni: It’s worse under National.

ALFRED NGARO: That is right—you are going to get up and you are going to say: “This is what we have done.” This is what this Government is doing: it is asking the hard questions, and this is what we are doing.

When we are talking about predictive profiling, it is asking questions like this: if you are at risk, if you are a young teenager and a young parent, what does the research show us? It shows us this: if you go early, you stay longer. In other words, the question is this: on average, if you are an 18-year-old and you are a young teenage parent and you go into the welfare system, how long do you stay in it? Oh, that is right—you do not know. It is 13 years—that is, on average. If you are 20 years old and you go into the welfare system, how long does the research say? That is right—you have not read the research. It is 20 years.

Jacinda Ardern: I have read it.

ALFRED NGARO: If you had read it, if you had understood it, you would be able to stand up and give a reasonable rebuttal.

Peeni Henare: Hey, I lived it—I lived it.

ALFRED NGARO: OK, well, then stand up and let us hear the speech, because guaranteed you have not done your homework. You stand up, sanctimonious about what we are doing, but guess what—guess what? We are making a difference. Work really counts for these young 18 and 19-year-olds. If they are vulnerable, they deserve to get the support that they need to make sure that, No. 1, they go into eligibility for work opportunities and for training. This is what this bill is doing. It is interesting that those members can stand up, they can talk about all of this, but what this Government is doing is investing in the right places for young people. There is a little bit of—

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand it is a wide-ranging and robust debate, but the member has not spoken once about anything substantive in the bill during his contribution.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The Committee stage is to review the evidence that was brought before the select committee. The member has referred several times to papers that were brought before the select committee. [Interruption] Do not talk while I am on my feet. You know the rules. The member is actually doing exactly what he is called to do within the Committee stage, and actually he sat through a number of speeches where a number of allegations were made. I am not surprised that the member quite vociferously hits the ball back over the net. I also notice that members on the other side of the Chamber are not giving to the Government member the courtesy that was extended to them. So, you know, he has got another 33 seconds—unless he wants another call.

ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, as I have said about the bill, eligibility for 18 and 19-year-olds—if the member was listening, she would realise that too.

What is important is the wraparound support of a youth coach, parenting and budgeting services, and support to engage in education and training. How many teen parent units have those members been to? How many young people have they walked alongside, to see that they would make a difference? I will tell you what. I guarantee that if you put your hand on heart, I am not sure there would be many. Why? This is what this Government is doing. We are the party for the people.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill at the Committee stage. What a lot of bluff and bluster we have just heard from that previous speaker, Alfred Ngaro.

On this side of the Chamber, particularly the Labour Party members, we like to base our decisions on the research and the evidence. We are not like the Government—not like that party opposite—which is now going to extend a programme that demonstrably does not work. It demonstrably does not work because the number of young people not in education, employment, or training has risen, under that Government. So its plans demonstrably have not worked. Furthermore, this programme is so new that it has not been evaluated. Mr Ngaro—he has gone quiet now, has he not? What he knows is that what I have just said is absolutely true.

Alfred Ngaro: What research have you got?

SUE MORONEY: I am talking about the research and the evidence, Mr Ngaro. Can you please table—I invite the member to table the analysis and the evaluation of the Youth Service and that programme. I invite him to table it right now—the research and the evaluation that shows us that it works. Well, there is silence. There is silence. The programme has not been evaluated, it has not been researched, and yet there is Alfred Ngaro having the cheek to get up in this Chamber and say that it is all based on research and evidence. Well, that is demonstrably untrue.

The outcome for our young people under this Government is that the numbers not in employment, education, or training keep growing. That is the outcome of the Government’s lack of ability to actually connect with young people, to work with them, and to make them feel like a really valued part of our community, so that they can engage and participate and be educated and be employed and be involved in training. Under that Government they just get told that they are pretty damned hopeless. That is what they get told. The Minister of Finance has told every single young person in this country that they are pretty damned hopeless. It is no wonder—

Jono Naylor: The member is making it up.

SUE MORONEY: The member is not making it up.

Alfred Ngaro: Yes she is.

SUE MORONEY: The member is not making it up because I can table, if the Chair would indulge me, the evidence of Bill English saying that about young people. [Interruption] They have got noisy again, have they not? The truth is that the Government’s programmes are not working, because if they were working we would see a reduction in the number of young people not in employment, education, or training. The opposite, in fact, is happening.

The member opposite brought into this debate the issue of paid parental leave. I need to respond on that issue because, in fact, Labour introduced—increased paid parental leave by 14 weeks while it was in Government, and, in fact, extended the coverage of paid parental leave on three occasions while it was in Government. The latest extension to paid parental leave was in 2007. In 2008 we were no longer the Government—and I say that as if we left voluntarily; we, of course, did not—but the truth is that since 2007 that Government has done nothing about extending paid parental leave that it was not put under pressure to from this side of this House. If that member is genuine about early intervention, then he will be voting for extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks when it comes before the House in a few weeks’ time.

Back to the bill. I want to talk about the sanctions part of this bill. I want to address the issue about what sort of a callous Government it would be that would introduce a tough measure like sanctions and not evaluate or do any research into what happens to the young people who have those sanctions taken out against them. As the member Jan Logie said before, it might sound like they are getting a little bit of a telling off, with this idea of sanctions. In fact, what a sanction is doing is taking away their livelihood. A sanction takes away their incomes.

Is it any wonder that we have increasing numbers of families sleeping in cars? Is it any wonder that we have increasing numbers of families and their children sleeping in garages? Is it any wonder that we have more than one family living in two- and three-bedroom homes, when this Government has prided itself on taking sanctions out against some of the most vulnerable people in our community? Not only has the Government undertaken that measure to put in these sanctions against these people, to take their livelihoods away from them for sometimes quite minor misdemeanours, but it does not care enough to even find out what is happening to those people whom sanctions have been taken out against.

Under this bill, that Minister in the chair, Anne Tolley, will not be able to tell us what happens to people after they have had sanctions taken out against them. She will refuse to tell the House, and refuse to tell the country, what happens to these young people if they have these sanctions taken out against them. Why do I raise this? It is because it is important to know, when that Government makes these substantial policy changes, what the impact is on our community. What is the impact on children? I want to say to the Minister that for the Labour Party, the key question here, in this bill, is what the impact is on children. What is the impact on children of these sanctions? We know that far too many of them are ending up in inadequate housing and accommodation, partially due to the impact of this bill, but also partially due to the inability of that Government to actually address the housing crisis or even admit that one exists.

What is the impact on the child when the teen parent is required to go into full-time work or full-time education when that child is just 6 months old? What is the impact on children when their teen parent is required to go to a teen parent unit, when they do not really want to be there? What is the impact on those children when at the age of 6 months, they are required to be in early childhood education, rather than being at home, developing that close bond and development with their parent? That is the key question—the key policy question that needs to be asked here.

The previous speaker talked about sanctimony. Well, I just want to put that one right back in the Government’s court, because the sanctimony of putting these measures in without any desire to find out what the impact of those measures is, is the ultimate sanctimony. That is the ultimate sanctimony. It is creating social problems for our country—the sorts of social problems that I hoped never to see in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is these types of measures, these types of bills that are unmeasured, that are not researched, and that have no evidence base that sits behind them, that create the sort of social problem that we should not see here in the land of plenty. But we are seeing it.

The final point that I want to raise here in this debate is about the teen parent units. Yes, they were created and put in place by a Labour Government, and, yes, they are a wonderful way of empowering young parents. Rather than being punitive, they are empowering them. They are not sanctions, but they offer the opportunity of education. Under this bill, that offer of the opportunity for education becomes an obligation. It becomes something that is a requirement. It becomes something that the State is going to come and do to you if you do something not right in your life—the State is going to require you to undertake education. One of the reasons why these teen parent units work so well—having visited a number of them and as the teachers in those teen parent units tell me—is that the young parents who are in those units are motivated. They want to be there. They have chosen—because of this new little person in their life; it has motivated them—to improve themselves and to seek more education.

So I want to urge the Government to adopt and vote for the proposed amendment that has been put forward by Carmel Sepuloni, which asks to please not limit them and their ambitions to just level 2 National Certificate of Educational Achievement. Please allow them to dream. Please allow them to see education as an opportunity and as something that is going to improve their lives. For many of these young people, having a child at a young age is the very motivation that turns their lives round and makes them understand that they are now responsible for another life, and they want to improve themselves.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I thought I would take just a short call and just correct a few things. I think it is important to remember that this bill is actually seeking to increase the youth services, which currently are focused on 16 and 17-year-olds, to be able to work with 18 and 19-year-olds. So we have not got a whole lot of people with families; these are mainly young, 18 and 19-year-old New Zealanders without children who are deemed to be at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency. That is the purpose of this bill, and how we got on to sleeping in cars and children, etc., is another wonder of the Opposition, but however.

I think it is important, when we are talking about numbers of young people, to get our facts right. It is actually 82,000, I think, that the latest household labour force survey talked about, in that range from 15 to 24, who are described as “neets”.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does that make it better?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That actually describes—and that has increased, I admit that. I accept that. But that actually describes what people are not doing; it does not describe what they are doing. Of course, we know that in that age group people are doing a whole lot of things—they might be on a gap year, they could be travelling, they could be living with their parents quite happily, they could have a partner who is supporting them—and, for whatever reason, they are not in employment, not in education, and not in training. More importantly, we should be focusing on the number of young people in that age group who are on a benefit. Those numbers are dropping, and that is as a result of greater economic activity and the growth in jobs. In some part, we are working with the Youth Service to enable young people to get the education and skills that they need by extending it through to 18 and 19-year-olds to help them to develop some of those employable skills and go on into employment. It is really important that we do not confuse this with the many, many thousands of young people who are perfectly capable of looking after themselves—and are doing so, but they just do not happen to be in education, employment, or training—and focus on those who are reliant on a benefit in order to survive. So that is the first point.

In actual fact, we are seeing the lowest number of what we describe, from an education point of view, as “neets”—that is, those 15 and 16-year-olds. We are seeing the lowest number of those that we have seen in decades. It is really important that we understand what is going on. They are staying at school longer, actually. They are staying in school longer, and the youth services are picking up those who are falling out of the school system or who are at risk of falling out of the school system, developing the relationship—it is all about relationships. So the conversation—the member talking about a telephone call laying all this out was just stupid, because no one would form a relationship in that form with a young person who has very difficult life anyway. I am sure that none of our providers are doing that.

The other thing that was mentioned was the consequences of sanctions. I ask you to think about what the consequences are of saying to a young person that if you are receiving support from the taxpayer at a time in your life when you need it, then we want you, if you are a young parent, to have your child enrolled with a GP, we want you to have your immunisation up to date, and either we want your child in early childhood education, of which we provide 20 hours—the taxpayer subsidises—or we want to be sure that your young child is attending school. They are not difficult obligations to ask of someone whom the taxpayer is supporting. You have to have a process of consequence if people are taking on the one hand but not keeping up with their obligations on the other. However, I have to say the process that our providers go through have sanctions as a very last resort, for the very reasons that the member who resumed her seat before me, Sue Moroney, outlined—that without the benefit they have no way to support themselves. So it has to be an absolutely last resort. In fact, the providers that I have talked to do everything in their power to ensure that they keep those young people compliant.

Finally, I just want to make the point that when we announced this policy one of the supporters for it was Dr Lance O’Sullivan. I remember the comments that he had to make—he was New Zealander of the Year. One of the comments that he made was that the children of some of these young parents—because of their youth, because of their inexperience, their children are probably the ones who would benefit the most from time in early childhood centres. They are the ones who would benefit from the social development, cognitive development, and emotional development that high-quality early childhood services provide. The evidence is very clear to back this sort of policy.

The other thing that I would say in closing is that I think that the Opposition is making a reasonable point that this is a fairly new policy and it is still in the process of being evaluated, and it will be some time—I am as frustrated as anyone else that we do not have a better evaluation earlier. But this is a long process with these young people, and we are constantly adjusting, with the providers, the ways of addressing and developing those relationships. But these young people are worth that investment over a long period of time. We know—the evidence tells us—that you cannot go in once, do a job, and then walk away. These are not the young people whom you can leave to try to support themselves. They are going to need a lot of support over a long period of time, and the full evaluation could take 4 to 5 years before we get a really good picture—and I am probably even cutting it short from the research scientists, who would like to see it out over a longer period of time. But we do know, from the providers and from the young people, that both in the young parents and for some of those 16 and 17-year-olds currently in the service, to have an artificial line of age, when they are receiving good support and they are starting to succeed, is a stupid thing to do, and we should not cut them off from that support when they need it.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this Committee stage debate of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. I specifically want to speak to my colleague Carmel Sepuloni’s proposed amendment, which wants to amend section 170 through proposed new clause 27A to, essentially, ensure that parents are able to stay at home with their child until that child is 3 years of age. Currently when a young person is receiving the youth support payment the obligation for that young person is to be enrolled in, or available for, a full-time course of secondary or tertiary or approved work-based learning from when their child is 6 months old. So the proposition my colleague Carmel Sepuloni is bringing to the Committee is that, actually, that requirement should be on that young person receiving a youth support payment only when their baby is 3 years old.

Our rationale for that particular age is, actually, really clear and based on evidence. That evidence comes from Unicef, where research was clear about under 3-year-olds benefiting from being looked after at home. Why is it important for our babies to be looked after at home? Well, it is really important for our babies to form an attachment with a particular person. That particular person is, normally, the mum. What that attachment does for that young child is it enables them to manage their emotions, their feelings, their bodies, and it also enables them to cope with stress, which enables them to manage themselves and actually form the resiliency that that young child needs to take throughout life.

The irony of this particular piece of legislation is that this is all about young parents, but in the process of forcing young parents back into further education, training, or work, we are actually disadvantaging their children. What we should be looking at is how best to look after our most vulnerable, smallest, and most tender members of society, and they are actually the children of young people who find themselves in a circumstance where they need the support of the State.

I am asking the Minister for Social Development to specifically address the issue in the current Social Security Act that says that when your child is 6 months old you have to look for a full-time course of secondary, tertiary, or approved work-based learning. Where is the evidence that, actually, that is going to benefit the child of the young person? From our perspective, that should be one of the critical factors in this legislation.

If we really want to help that young person, it is to help that young person to get into the best position possible to look after their children. We would contend that the best support we should be giving that young parent is to be the best parent they can be. To be the best parent you can be means actually staying at home with your child until they are 3 years of age so they are taught skills about how to be a good parent. A lot of people do not know. This is not just teenaged parents; actually, this is all parents. How do you become a good parent? How do you read to your children? How do you interact with your child? How do you bathe them? It is, we believe, those skills and opportunities this Government and our Government should be facilitating for our young parents, as opposed to forcing them back into education away from their child. I think it is really narrow-minded and punitive to force those young parents into a situation where they are not with their children and actually doing what we believe they should be doing, which is bonding with their children.

This is reinforced by a piece of research titled Children’s elevated cortisol levels at daycare: A review and meta-analysis. It is a piece of research that came out in 2006 by Vermeer and van IJzendoorn. This is another piece of research where they collected research from a whole lot of people who had looked at the cost-benefit to the child of children being in a day care setting and not with their parent. The context of this research actually speaks to modern living. There are a lot of parents today who, for a number of reasons, actually do have to go back to work. We understand that—that ultimately it then becomes a choice for parents, in certain circumstances, to use day care as a means for them to integrate back into the workforce.

The interesting thing, if we look at some from research from the UK is that in 1981 24 percent of women were back at work within a year of childbirth. In 2001 that figure had increased to 67 percent of women who were back at work within a year. That increased to 76 percent of women who were back at work when the child was aged between 12 and 18 months. Day care does have a place in our society, but I guess the context of the research has highlighted that the effect of day care attendance on cortisol excretion was especially notable in children younger than 36 months. It actually said, because of their stressful interactions in a group setting—which makes it all the more vital to ensure that our children, our most precious babies, the building blocks of any society, actually have an opportunity to spend the first 3 years of their lives bonding with their primary caregiver, their parent.

I would ask the Minister to seriously consider this amendment by my colleague Carmel Sepuloni. I think it is based around an age where there is very good evidence about how we best support young mothers from disadvantaged backgrounds. The other part of the evidence from the research I quoted earlier was that, actually, children from middle-class families do benefit from going to day care. We are not talking about children from middle-class families; we are talking about children of parents who are receiving the youth support payment and the obligations the State wants to place on those young parents—to go back to education full-time and I believe it is at the expense of their children. I would have thought we should be prioritising those children and doing as much as possible to ensure, as the Minister said, that they are enrolled with a primary health organisation, that they are enrolled or on a pathway to ensuring that they are meeting all the developmental steps through Plunket, and that we are supporting those parents to be the best parents they can be. What I see from this piece of legislation is that is incredibly narrow-minded and is not even looking at the next generation of New Zealand children.

I would hope the debate we are having in the Committee is not actually falling on deaf ears; that it is actually falling on ears that want to do what is best not only for the young people who find themselves as parents early in life, but also the children of those young parents. We would do everything in our power to make sure that they are not going to be the next generation of beneficiaries. I implore this Committee to further debate the merits of my colleague Carmel Sepuloni’s amendment. I think a lot of thought was put into the amendment. The ages have not been plucked out of nowhere. I think the evidence is really clear, and I think this is a real test of the commitment this Government has to young people. Otherwise, it just ends up being about, like everyone else has said previously, the money, about saving money—about, I guess, limiting the liability on the State.

It is not about investment, which we have heard so much about, particularly from my colleague Alfred Ngaro tonight. I would have thought an investment approach would have ensured that we are concerned about the children of young parents and we would be doing everything we can to make sure they have a secure attachment with their parent and that their parent is in the best position to be the best parent they can be.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): There is nothing that attracts more robust debate than when we are debating issues around social welfare, social development, and our children. Today’s Committee stage of this particular bill has been no exception. We have heard some very interesting calls come from across the other side of the Chamber.

There are a couple of points I want to make, particularly with regard to evaluation and evidence. We have heard that the Youth Service has had no significant evaluation. We do know that young people, particularly young people who have had difficult backgrounds and need some intervention to ensure that they can become better parents and much more fully contributory to society in general, do need some help. With regard to this particular bill and this particular service, what we have not heard is the evidence that this bill—that this plan—is actually going to make the kind of difference that the Minister for Social Development claims it is going to make. That is where we do not have sufficient evidence, because there has been no evaluation, and yet we are going down the line of more resource and more support into a service. We have no idea that it actually makes the kind of difference that the Minister is claiming.

Pilot programmes, we know, are resourced to succeed. And this is one such case—where this programme has been resourced to succeed. When we get to fully rolling out this programme—when the resources actually do fall away—that is when the wheels start falling off these types of things. When a pilot programme has been resourced to succeed and we have done no evaluation around whether it will continue to succeed when it is fully implemented, why are we subjecting our young people to this?

My colleagues have made some very useful contributions on this. How does it impact on the children? For me particularly, one of the most abhorrent aspects of our current social welfare system is the process of sanctions where money is taken out of the households of parents of young children. We have had lots of discussion—Mr Ngaro was quite vociferous about this point—but I challenge Mr Ngaro to go into a house where a beneficiary has been sanctioned and watch the impacts of halving that person’s income on their children. I challenge any member on the other side of the Chamber to actually look at the impacts that sanctions have on our children. It is completely abhorrent that we would use that as a mechanism to try to “encourage young people to be better parents”—where they watch their children actually having to starve. I do not normally get emotional about things, but this policy is wrong, it is bad, and it should never happen.

There is a lack of evidence around why it is that we are requiring young parents in the Youth Service to have work obligations when their youngest child is 1 year old, or—if there is a teen parenting programme—when that child is 6 months old. That is completely at odds with any other obligations for any other parent who has a benefit. Looking at the Support for Children in Hardship Bill, which was recently debated, the discussion was around reducing the age from 5 to 3—when your youngest was 3 years old, that would be when your work obligations would kick in if you were a beneficiary. When we heard the officials at the select committee, when that bill was being heard, there was no evidence provided to justify the age of 3. There was no evidence provided, except to say that that was the age where most parents returned to work—when their youngest child was aged 3. The obligation on most parents is a financial obligation; they need to go back to work so they can continue to pay their bills. There was no evidence provided by the Minister in that regard. There is no evidence provided by the Minister in this regard that forcing young parents—

JONO NAYLOR (National): Louisa Wall earlier this evening said she hoped that there are people listening across the Chamber. I have been listening intently to what has been said here this evening at this Committee stage of this bill, and, I have got to say, I have really been somewhat taken aback by what I have heard from the other side of the Chamber. If you follow through the logic of what has been said, there is almost a judgment on parents who would go back to work before their children have turned 3. Actually, there are parents who do that all the time and their children cope OK, but those people over there have, basically, said that that is a bad thing to do. “You shouldn’t go back to work until your child’s 3 because, developmentally, that’s not good for them.”—I have been quite surprised, I have got to say, to hear that coming from the other side of the Chamber. Personally, in our own household, that is exactly what we did do. We went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that one of us would be home with our kids when they were young. I spent a fair bit of time at home myself with our kids when they were little. That was what we valued doing.

But there are some absolutely definite reasons why, in this legislation, this policy is a beneficial thing for these young parents. Yes—guess what—there are some expectations that we are putting on some people. Yes, there are some requirements of things that we expect them to do. We want them to actually take some responsibility, and so there are some requirements for them to get back into learning and otherwise.

What has been asked by other members opposite me this evening is how it is going to benefit the children if a young mother is going back to school full-time. Well, I will tell you how it benefits the children. It benefits the children because if that parent is getting an education, their chances of providing for those children further down the track—spending less time simply relying on a Government benefit to get them through—will mean that those kids are going to be better off in the long term.

The beauty about the teen parent units—and the ones I have visited and had the opportunity to go and speak with young parents at—is that the parents are not just sitting at home isolated with their small young child, which they potentially will be if they are not involved in education, but are actually there mixing with other mothers. They are there mixing with their teachers, and have the opportunities, as the day goes through, to still actually have some connection with their children. The teen parenting unit, and the model for education that is being provided there, is not simply about a mother leaving their child behind, going away, and ignoring them. No—in what I have seen, in what I have experienced, and in the conversations that I have had with those mums who are there, they like the opportunity to be able to learn. They have aspirations for themselves, and I support them in that. The ones I have talked to want to go further, they want to do more, and they really appreciate the fact that, more often than not, their child is in a room just next door or a couple of doors down. They have the opportunity to see them, and to do feeds if they are still at the stage of feeding them. They can actually catch up with them at morning teatime, lunchtime, or whatever, and they are supported in that.

The other thing that has been questioned is where the proof is that this is working. I want to just make mention of what the main benefit client numbers for 18 to 24-year-olds are doing. In March of 2016 the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who were on the main benefit was 45,493. In March of 2014 that number was 50,000. There are roughly 5,000 fewer—or 10 percent less—young people aged 18 to 24 on benefits. Getting people off benefits and into work, into education, is going to be beneficial to them—absolutely beneficial to them—in the long term.

The other thing that has been said from across the Chamber tonight is that we are putting labels on, that we are painting young people into a corner, that we are not being aspirational for them. I have just got to say that that shows a complete lack of understanding of what it is to work with young people. To work with young people, you have got to identify which ones to start with, and there have to be assessment criteria. When I was working in the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service—it was a tertiary mental health service—we did not have our doors wide open for everybody to come along. No, you had to be referred there either by a GP, a guidance counsellor, or by somebody else, and that was the form of assessment. Somebody had to meet certain criteria before that service would actually intervene.

Then, of course—as anybody who works with a young person knows—you do not stay in that place. You do not stay with identifying them and saying: “You’re a high-risk person, now I’m going to treat you like this.” No, you work with them on their strengths. A good mentor—and we have got some great mentors who are working through our youth services right now who are doing great work with our young people, working with them, identifying their strengths, and believing in them. But guess what—we are aspiring for them more. We are suggesting to them that they can actually take some responsibility in their own lives. We are giving that to them bit by bit, as they prove that they can manage on their own.

This is a good bill. It is going to ensure that more young people are going to go further, that more young parents are going to do better with their families, and that those children within those families will have a better shot at a better life within Aotearoa New Zealand. I am delighted to support this. I think it has been really well thought through. It is evidence-based. It is not about just sitting back and saying: “Actually, you know what? This is acceptable. We’re just going to leave things how they were.” It is really interesting—I have heard people say: “You know what? It’s getting worse. It’s getting worse, let’s do nothing.” Well, actually, we are not going to do nothing. We are going to do something. We are going to invest in these young people. We are going to provide them with good services, we are going to provide them with good support, and we are going to see great young New Zealanders come through as a result of this intervention.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I make the next call, I am just going to make a brief explanation for my reasoning behind making the call. Carmel Sepuloni took the initial two calls before leave was given to take Parts 1 and 2 together. I am ruling that since that leave was given, there is a new question, and therefore Ms Sepuloni’s earlier calls do not count against this question.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I just want to refer to what the previous member, Jono Naylor, was just saying, and that was that the Government is measuring success by the number of young people it can get off benefits. Well, that is not, and should not be, a measure of success. The actual success is where these young people go on to, but we are not getting the information from the Government to tell us that, actually, these people are going on to anything better.

I was talking to my colleague Peeni Henare earlier tonight. We were having discussions about the fact that we were both teen parents—or perhaps I had mine at 20, pregnant at 19. We cannot even imagine the conditions that this Government is trying to impose on young people having been imposed on us. We were just talking about the fact that we do not even know any young people who, around our age group, stayed on a benefit for a long period of time after having a child as a teenager. In fact, we heard Alfred Ngaro say that if a person has a child as a teenager, they are more likely to stay on the benefit for something like 13 years. Bill English said the other day that if a young person goes on a benefit, they are likely to stay on a benefit for an average of 18 years. Where is the Government getting these figures from? I put parliamentary questions in to try to find out where Bill English got that number from, and that answer is now delayed. We have no response from that side of the House, because the Government does not have any evidence to support the statements it is making, and that is the problem.

Going back to myself and Peeni and other people who had children when they were young and other people who had to rely on a benefit for a certain period of time—actually, most of us have aspirations and most of us went on to get jobs. Most of us went on to continue studying or to get further education, and we were not the exception, actually, National Government; we were the rule. So that side of the House is creating legislation around a very, very small group of people, and is saying that youth services should be available only to the very, very, very at-risk group that it has identified through its predictive risk modelling. That deficit base sets that programme up to fail, and we know that. We know that in the classroom when you are teaching—with anything that you do—if you have a deficit base then you are setting it up to fail. So we do not support the model that that Government has come up with.

It is not just us who do not support it, because I do want to refer to some of the submissions that came through and the concerns that they expressed about this bill. The first one that I am going to refer to is the submission made by the Salvation Army. Quoting the Salvation Army, “In general The Salvation Army opposes the intent and much of the content of the Bill. The principle reason for this opposition is that the Army believes that it is [both] paternalistic and somewhat contradictory to treat 18 and 19 year olds in the same way as 16 and 17 year olds. The Army believes that it is important to respect individuals’ legal and civil rights ahead of particular policy objectives which may in themselves be of questionable value. It is the Army’s opinion that the proposed extension of ‘young persons services’ and the associated obligations and sanctions to 18 and 19 year olds is a clear example of the State placing its policy objectives ahead of the legitimate rights of citizens and that as a practice this is unwise and unfair.” I value what the Salvation Army has to say, actually. The Salvation Army has a lot to say of substance in this area, so it is such a pity that the National Government has ignored what it has to say.

It did mention the issue around sanctions here. I want to speak a little bit to that. There was a submission made by Kay Brereton on behalf of the National Beneficiary Advocacy Consultation Group, and that speaks a little bit about the consequences of sanctions in this context. As a person who not only was a young parent, and not only was on a benefit for a period of time—but did not stay on it for 18 years like Bill English said we do—I also worked with youth for a period of time. Jono Naylor says that he worked with young people, and thinks he is the only one in the Chamber who has.

The concern that I have as a person who worked for a youth service is that, actually, I think that the ability to sanction by these youth services compromises their ability to do the job properly. How can you form a trusting relationship with a young person, when you, at any time, can contact Work and Income and have their benefit cancelled, have them sanctioned in some way? What kind of motivation is it? What kind of motivation are you instilling in the young person when the only motivation that you are giving to them for actually staying in line, doing the things they are supposed to be doing, is actually that otherwise you will cut their benefit?

What happens to the importance of a youth service and youth workers actually being about instilling in this young person a passion for getting out and getting further education, a passion for getting into work that they are interested in? What about instilling life skills in a young person and walking alongside them so that actually you can give them hope that there may be something better out there for them? That should be the motivation, not the motivation being “I will pull your benefit if you do not do what I tell you to do.” We have got real issues with the fact that the Government is making the youth services do that. We have to remember that, actually, this really is, in so many ways, just a matter of the Government contracting out the case management of these clients. It is not really about trying to create decent youth service provisions. It is about the Government devolving responsibility for these young people to these service providers. So we have got issues with that.

I have brought up earlier, and my colleagues have brought up earlier, that there were concerns raised by the Human Rights Commission in its submission that this discriminates against young people. Just because these are young people who find themselves in an undesirable situation, where they have had to come for support to the State to go on a benefit and to get support through welfare, that does not mean that they should have their rights—their human rights—taken away, but that is what this bill does. It does that, as a colleague of mine said earlier, in the way of making a young parent return to work earlier than we would expect of any other parent. It is saying that, actually, if you are a young parent, you have to go back to work or study when your child is 1 year old or 6 months old.

Peeni Henare and I were talking about this—we actually did go straight back to study and to work. We did not stay home, but we chose that. Actually, in hindsight, thinking about it, one of my biggest regrets, having been a young parent, is not taking the time to enjoy being a parent. That is the pressure that gets put on people, as if “You must do all of these things, you must get back into study, you must get into work straight away.” If you want to, that is great. But we have got to remember that the most important job any of us will do in our lifetime is parenting. As my colleague Louisa said—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

CARMEL SEPULONI: —it is important to remember that that bonding goes on—Louisa Wall said that that bonding in those first 3 years is so important. If we want to make sure that moving forward into the future we have a generation of citizens who are able to make a valuable contribution, then we will make sure that we support their parents to be able to support them well now.

I am going to leave it at that for now. Hopefully, I will get an opportunity to take another call, but there are so many reasons that we are not supporting this bill. Of course we support young people to go on and get education, to go on into employment, but the way in which the National Government is trying to do it will not be successful, has not been successful, and actually it is detrimental to our young people.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): It is all very well to come into this Chamber and make fine speeches and sanctimonious—in fact, to take personal objections to what members on the other side of the Chamber have said; but, actually, the role of the Opposition is to do a bit of work. If the member cares to go into the Ministry of Social Development website, she will find her way to all the explanations of how the liability is worked out. It is all there; you just have to do a bit of homework.

The other thing I would say to the member who has just resumed her seat, Carmel Sepuloni, is that there is plenty of research—again, if she does her homework. I refer her to the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study—actually, she does not even have to go and do very much; there is a television programme currently showing that will actually tell you about some of the research that we are basing our work on that is well worthwhile having a look at—and to the Christchurch Health and Development Study that is freely available on the internet. That actual study found that teen parents, relative to a comparison group who were not mothers at age 21, were nine times more likely to have no qualifications and three times more likely to be receiving a benefit.

You see, the difficulty is that the member who has just resumed her seat does not understand what average means. Average means that there are some above and there are some below. So she may well have been a teen parent who went back to school. Unfortunately, the evidence that we have looking back at what has happened to teen parents is that if we do not get them back into education within 1 or 2 years of their leaving it their chances of not returning to education are many, many more times greater. That is why we want to get them back into education, in a supported manner, as quickly as possible.

I just have to say that it is pretty rich the Labour members taking credit for teen parent units because I, as Minister of Education, came in at the start of the global financial crisis to find a long list of teen parent unit applications that, despite years of massive surpluses, the previous Labour Government never funded—never funded. This National Government, even when times were really tough and money was really short, funded them, it supported them, and it expanded them. Those are the facts, and you know you are wrong. This Government understands that teen parent units support young mums back into education at the same time as they are able to give them parenting education; they get the socialisation, they have close contact with their children, and they are able to bond and continue breastfeeding. Those are the facts.

JAN LOGIE (Green): There are a few different points I would like to make in this contribution. I would like to go back to the Minister’s previous contribution, when she started her speech by saying “I don’t know what the Opposition are talking about when they are talking about children and families and cars. This has got nothing to do with sole parents.”, I think I remember her saying. Well, if you look at the front page of the bill and you look at the main purpose of it, that being to extend the Youth Service, “This bill would extend the existing Youth Service to: all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children; 18- and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency.”

Hon Anne Tolley: That’s what I said.

JAN LOGIE: Ha, ha! No, Minister, that is not what came across in your speech. You were saying it was not about children, and so the concerns of people talking about children and families were irrelevant to this. But, actually, when it covers all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children, I think talking about families is relevant. When we talk about cars, that is relevant because this is extending the sanction regime, there are extended obligations, and there are more opportunities for sanctions to a larger group of people. So, therefore, when people have the ability for their income to be cut, it makes it harder to pay your rent and it makes it harder to keep a roof over your head. So it is not a long stretch to be talking about families and to be talking about cars.

The Minister also talked about how it was more important to focus on the benefit rates rather than “neets” because, for those young people who are not in employment, education, or training, well, that is just irrelevant because they might just be happy not to be in employment, education, or training. I still have not heard the argument about why the unemployment rates are more important than engaged young people who are either setting themselves up to further their education in order to participate in life, or to do so through employment. Why—why—is the unemployed receiving a benefit the critical factor? I still have not heard the argument for that.

Hon Hekia Parata: Because they cost money.

JAN LOGIE: Because—pardon? I just heard some mumbling over there. I could not quite work that out.

We also heard that the evidence is clear that this is the way to go forward, except, actually, the evidence is deeply contested. It is not clear. What we know is that what the Government has conceptualised as an investment approach is actually predictive risk modelling. The quality of the information that you put into that model will affect the outcome—sorry, Mr Chair, not you. The quality of the information that the Government puts in will affect the outcome, as well as the quality of the programme, as well as what you are driving all of this towards.

We know that the data that the Government is talking about at the moment, that it is going to put into this, is Child, Youth and Family contact, educational outcomes, and gender. We know that that data shows 58 percent of young people who are in contact on a care and protection basis with Child, Youth and Family are Māori. We heard very disturbing comments from officials regarding whether this may have significant consequences for Māori in terms of their alienation from the system, and whether it may be perceived that you could not put in race as one of those factors because that would be perceived as racist—fairly—but whether, actually, you may have the same result because of that sway through Child, Youth and Family, in terms of the data. Their response was “Don’t worry, we’ll get them anyway.” That is of concern to the Green Party.

There are so many stories that have been told in this House, and all of us know of people, in their experience at school, in their experiences with the police, and in their experiences with Child, Youth and Family who recognise racism is a problem in our country. If we are putting data into this model that is reliant on the results of institutionalised racism, then we are at risk of exacerbating the harm of that. We cannot allow that to happen. This legislation will do that.

Also, we do not have evidence that the programme, which is the middle stage of this whole process, is working. As we know, the number of young people not in education and training is increasing. The analysis of the success of this scheme is not comprehensive. We do not have comprehensive data for that yet. This Government, which continually tells us it is being data driven and it is all about the data, is not giving us the data to be able to prove and justify this. It has been happening and available for this group of people, and it is extending it to adults. That has been widely criticised by the Salvation Army, by the Family Violence Clearinghouse, and by other organisations that are very worried about this, and rightly so. We do not have the evidence as yet that this approach, and the programmes being provided, work.

I have given the critique already about where this is driving. There is no explicit target about improving the well-being, opportunities, or life outcomes of our young people. It is solely about reducing welfare financial liability. That drives the work. That is not for the benefit of us in this society.

I also just want to pick up on the Government’s Supplementary Order Papers, and there is a fair stack of them that have been added, I think, in the last couple of days, that have not actually been considered by the select committee. A significant number of them are technical but not all of them. Some of them actually have substantive impact, and I would like to recognise the proposed new clause 27A on Supplementary Order Paper 182, which amends section 170 to require young people to provide details of accommodation costs, service costs, lawful debt, and liabilities. I recognise that they are already required to provide that information, but by moving that provision after section 170(1)(e), it clarifies that a failure to provide that information within 20 working days is an obligation failure and it may attract sanctions.

There are two points I want to make about this amendment, which has not been considered by the public and has not been considered by the Social Services Committee. I would suggest that the fact that the Government is moving this provision into the place that enables it to apply sanctions, and that time frame of 20 days, means that some young people are resisting providing that information. So these young people are not necessarily—despite what the Government would seem to suggest to us—loving this service and finding it fabulous and supportive and strength-based. Actually, some of these young people who have been put into this service are resisting it, and I can understand why they might, and further sanctions have been put in place to force them to provide very personal details to these people who are supposed to be changing their lives. I suggest that this is actually an indication of the failure of the system.

Another aspect that has been brought in in terms of these amendments, which have been brought to this House very late in the day, is a new provision extending the new sanctions regime to all young people on money management, effectively. It also provides that if a young spouse or partner of a specified beneficiary, who is not subject to money management, fails to comply with an obligation placed on the young person under that same section, that failure is, again, treated as failure to comply with the work test or with work preparation obligations, and it attracts relevant sanctions.

I think it is dodgy to bring amendments to the House that further extend the ability to apply sanctions without public scrutiny, without proper process, and without the consideration of the select committee. I really am quite concerned about what the Minister has brought to this House and I think people should be questioning the Government on that.

I would also like to bring up another point, which is not central—oh no, actually, I would like to go back to another point, when the Minister was talking about how great this is, and there was mention made of youth development. In our society we have an issue with violence. Many of these young people will have experienced violence in their childhood, and what that does—

BRETT HUDSON (National): I move, That the question be now put.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Given that this piece of legislation is going to have a great impact on a number of young Māori children—that, in fact, the majority of the people whom this is targeting will be Māori—you would like to think that a Government support party that is the Māori Party, which represents the aspirations of Māori people, would also support this legislation, and I wish I could say that that was the case. I truly do wish that that was the case because the intent of the bill we absolutely support. The intent of the investment model, we absolutely support. If this is to reduce the number of young people who are going to be long-term beneficiaries, we have no issue with that whatsoever, because we do want to have an aspiration where our people are not co-dependent on the Government.

But we are talking about the most at-risk group of young people. What we have done was we spoke with officials today to get some satisfaction around some of these sanctions, and I have to say I was happy with the majority of the answers, given that we were able to make a couple of suggestions, like having face-to-face contact. There is a remarkable idea—having face-to-face contact before someone is actually removed from the benefit. That would be good because prior to that it was three strikes, a phone call, and a letter. Well, I know that if I get a phone call to my cellphone that has an undisclosed number on it, I am not answering it any time soon because it probably means that there is something going on—some sort of trouble that I do not want to know about. I put it over there in a box. I know that that is what our young people do. And a letter, which may or may not go to the right address, which they may or may not see any time soon, and which they may or may not read, is how they are going to be notified that they are off benefit.

Then we asked what the follow-up was. So you kick someone off, and then what—nothing? “No. Actually, we will go and see them in 6 weeks.”—6 weeks when they have had no benefit. What are they going to do there? Well, they will fall into some more criminal behaviour, or into potentially criminal behaviour, to try and sustain themselves. If these are the most—most—at-risk people, I would think that it does not stop, and, in fact, we have now been given some satisfaction that within the 5 days we have asked for, that will be followed up, face to face, yet again.

So, actually, there are a number of things here that I support, but I cannot support the fact that we will hold a different yardstick up to these most at-risk, vulnerable people from the one we do to a 20-year-old who has a child. A 20-year-old does not have obligations to go back to work or into training until their child is 3 years old. Yes, Mr Jono Naylor has pointed out that he and his wife did everything they could to have one of the parents stay home with their children because they realised that that was important. Well, what a luxury that is. What a luxury that is. It is a luxury, but, actually, it is an investment, is it not? Mr Naylor would say that that was an investment in their children’s future to ensure that they had the best start. Well, why are we not offering these most at-risk young people the same opportunity to put that emotional investment of bonding into their child and give them the choice, not the yardstick, or not the beating stick that we will threaten them with—threaten them into compliance? Give them the choice. Have some real belief in their own aspirations. They may want to do that. But if they do not, why are we forcing them to go back to training at 6 months?

Some of the most hideous crimes committed against children in this country have been carried out by people who did not form a bond with their babies—who did not form a bond—and were under stress because of the impoverished conditions that they may have been in, from drug and alcohol abuse, or from a number of things. But when you have a young person who is already struggling and you add more struggle on top of them by forcing them to take their baby at 6 months old and do all the things they need to do, by themselves—to get to their course or to get to their job—it is hard and it hurts, and we struggle with that. The young people who are the most vulnerable in this country—we are holding them to a different standard, of more control and of more pressure.

I understand that the Youth Service wants to try to make the change in these young people’s lives, but if you are putting those young people, with those young children, under stress, the pressure will be heaped upon these young people, who now have to have a whole other standard, which they have to live up to or they will have portions of their benefit taken away from them. That is a threat and a stick, and it is not the way we raise our young people to ensure that they can care for and nurture their children and grow a bond where, in a moment of stress or a moment of panic, they do not turn round and inflict harm and violence on these young babies. We all know what it is like to go through sleepless nights while we raise and feed our children, and what if those mothers are feeding their children? Are they now going to have to go to the school toilet or somewhere else to express? Are they now going to have to do that in a public toilet if they are working? Or shall we just not bother to let them have the luxury—the luxury—of continuing to feed those children as they grow and strengthen and continue to build that bond?

We are missing something in this country when our young people are being slaughtered through child abuse, when our young children’s lives are being taken. We are missing something, and that is not about separating our children from their parents; it is about strengthening that relationship together. I understand that there are parenting courses and all of those sorts of things, but it is not just the parent who raises our children. For Māori communities, it has to be extended whānau who are involved. We need to think about the family unit as a whole and not the parent in isolation, yet that is what we are doing.

I wish—I do—that I could stand and support this bill, but for that reason alone, despite a number of other concerns that we have, I simply cannot. I find that quite distressing, considering that this is going to impact young Māori people more than any other group, that this is going to be targeted to young Māori parents more than any other group, and that these young Māori babies are going to be subjected to the stress of being hauled around from pillar to post. I know what that is like, like many of the others. It is hard, it is stressful, and I do not believe that this bill alleviates that stress. I believe that it is adding to that stress, and that reason, beyond a whole raft of others, is the simple reason why we cannot support this today. It goes against the very human rights of our country. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I just say that I would normally go across the aisle to Jan Logie, but she has had four calls.

JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is—well, is there any point? No one else went for the call. Do people mind if I just go on to putting the questions? OK. The normal thing is that no one else goes for the call, but I did see that one of her colleagues was—OK.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 182 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley, and the following amendments in her name to clause 5 and clause 33(2) be agreed to:

in clause 5, replace “Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Act 2014” with “Social Security Amendment Act (No 2) 2015”.

in clause 5, in the table item, replace “Part 4” with “Part 5”.

in clause 33(2), replace “Part 3” with “Part 4”.

in clause 33(2), heading to new Part 4 of schedule 32, replace “Part 4” with “Part 5”.

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

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

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

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Carmel Sepuloni to clause 16, clause 17, clause 27, and clause 42 be agreed to:

in clause 16, section 88I(6A)(b), after “NCEA level 2 or an equivalent”, insert “or higher”.

in clause 17, after new section 123E(2), insert:

(3) Any young person is entitled to receive services referred to in subsection (1)(a) if they are:

(a) not in full-time employment; and

(b) not a full-time student; and

(c) a beneficiary, or have applied to be a beneficiary.

After clause 27, insert

27A Section 170 amended (Youth support payments: obligations)

replace section 170(4) with:

(4) Where a young person receiving a young parent payment is the principal caregiver of his or her youngest dependent child the obligation in subsection (1)(a) begins to apply (in relation to the young person) only on the day on which the child becomes 3 years old.

in clause 42, regulation 3A(2)(g)(iii), after “NCEA level 2 or an equivalent”, insert “or higher”.

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

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.

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2, schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

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

Parts 1 and 2, schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Coroners Amendment Bill with amendment, the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill with amendment, the Riccarton Racecourse Bill without amendment, and the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

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

Procedure

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I seek leave to move the third reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill forthwith.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17, Closely Held Companies, and Remedial Matters) Bill

First Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17, Closely Held Companies, and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. This large and wide-ranging tax bill proposes several suites of largely technical changes to the tax rules. The principal purpose of the proposals is to improve, strengthen, and update our tax rules so they continue to work well for taxpayers and for the Government. Changes in the economic environment, business practices, or the way that the law is interpreted can result in unintended consequences for taxpayers. These consequences may include unfairness, inefficiencies, complexities, or uncertainty, all of which affect the integrity of the tax system. Maintaining the tax rules to ensure that they continue to be responsive to change, that they work well in practice, and that compliance costs are minimised is vital for all taxpayers and for our economy to prosper and grow. The bill, therefore, continues the Government’s work in making sure that our tax system remains fit for purpose.

As I mentioned, this is a very large bill. Many of the measures that it proposes are complex and technical in nature. They are, however, generally taxpayer-friendly and will be welcomed as such by the private sector. For the sake of convenience, the bill can be viewed as comprising four main suites of measures.

The first suite proposes changes to the look-through company rules and the dividend rules as they applied to closely held companies. Although closely held companies typically have just a few shareholders, they are also a significant proportion of the total number of companies in New Zealand. Look-through companies are, in the same way as partnerships of individuals, looked though for tax purposes: income and expenditure is attributed back to owners, and they are taxed at their personal tax rates rather than at the company tax rate. It is important that the tax rules apply as intended and that the decision to convert a small business to a company is not driven by tax considerations. The proposed measures aim to simplify the current rules to reduce compliance costs and to ensure that the rules remain robust and true to their intended purpose. They include proposals addressing a number of complexities raised through consultation with the private sector, as well as proposals to tighten the eligibility rules for an entity electing to become a look-through company. The result will be a much more workable set of rules for taxpayers.

The second suite of proposed measures is intended to bolster the rules around the tax treatment of interest earned in New Zealand by foreign lenders. Changes are, therefore, proposed to the non-resident withholding tax and for approved issuer levy rules. They ensure that these taxes apply consistently to transactions that are similar in economic substance. They include changes to the non-resident withholding tax rules to ensure they apply as intended to related party debt or arrangements that are equivalent to related party debt; changes to the approved issuer levy registration process, to reduce the risk that the levy is paid on related party debt instead of the higher rate under the non-resident withholding tax rules; and correcting anomalies related to branch structures, which can be used to remove the requirement to withhold non-resident withholding tax or to pay the approved issuer levy.

The third suite of measures in the bill proposes various amendments to fine-tune the GST rules and ensure that they continue to work as intended. They include taxpayer-friendly changes, such as enabling businesses to deduct GST associated with the costs of raising capital, and allowing partially exempt businesses to use an alternative apportionment method. There are also changes to clarify the rules around the zero-rating of services provided in connection with land in New Zealand.

Finally, the fourth suite of changes contains a large number of mainly technical amendments. Although they are mostly remedial in nature, these measures are considered by the private sector to be of major importance in making sure that the tax rules work well in practice. They are part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure that the tax rules are clear and apply as intended, and that they do not impose unnecessary compliance costs on taxpayers. Measures proposed to clarify the deduction and timing rules for aircraft engine and overhaul expenses, including those incurred by commercial aircraft operators—

Fletcher Tabuteau: Bring back Todd.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —for example, will better align the timing of deductions with income arising from the use of the aircraft and will better reflect the economic basis for the overhaul process. It is certainly getting the aircraft industry excited, Mr Tabuteau.

The bill also includes a number of taxpayer-friendly measures to promote greater fairness and certainty in the tax rules. Proposed changes to the debt remission rules, for example, address a problem that can arise under the current debt remission rules when a debt is remitted between associate parties. Debt remission refers to the extinguishing of the debtor’s liability by a creditor. The reduction of the liability is treated as taxable income because it increases the wealth of the debtor. When the creditor is associated with the debtor, the creditor is denied a bad-debt reduction, resulting in income to the borrower but not a deduction to the creditor. The bill proposes to correct this asymmetric result by treating the debt as being fully repaid when a debt is remitted between related or associated parties. The proposed changes follow consultation with the private sector in February last year and are part of the Government’s efforts to ensure fairness across the tax system. This will be welcome news for group companies in corporate New Zealand, as well as smaller mum-and-dad partnerships or businesses.

Other changes proposed in the bill include amendments to improve the consistency of income tax legislation with insolvency law, correct an overreach of the current land tainting rules affecting council-controlled organisations, ensure that the tax pooling and life insurance business rules work as intended, and ensure that the Working for Families tax credit rules work correctly. The bill also adds 14 charities to the list of donee organisations with overseas purposes in schedule 32 of the Income Tax Act 2007. They are not donee organisations. As a result, donors to those charities will be eligible for tax benefits on their donations, effective from 1 April 2016. Finally, of course, the bill sets the annual rates of income tax for the 2016-17 tax year.

Many of the measures proposed in the bill have been developed through open consultation with the general public and with private sector groups. This is a particular strength of our tax system, and it helps to ensure that tax and social policy changes are well thought through. As I mentioned earlier, we live in dynamic social and economic times. It is important that our tax system remains current and in tune with change but, at the same time, that it remains fair, coherent, and unambiguous. The proposals in this bill will help to achieve those objectives and are part of the Government’s ongoing governance of the tax system. I commend the bill to the House.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Minister Woodhouse is right. It is a large tax bill. It is a remedial matters bill. Therefore, there are a number of—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Remedial matters.

STUART NASH: —matters, yes—

Fletcher Tabuteau: But it’s not sexual.

STUART NASH: —remedial matters in it. Ha, ha! It is fixing up a lot of legislation. But, you know, the thing about this tax bill—and there have been a number through the House this year—is that it is just not dealing with the really substantive issues facing our tax system. I mean, it is great that the aircraft overhaul reserves are being dealt with. I am sure those in the airline industry will be really happy about this, because, no doubt, it is something that they have petitioned the Government for for a long time. But we have a number of very serious issues in our tax system at the moment that have hit not only national headlines but also international media and have impacted upon our global reputation—things like the ability to avoid paying tax in this country, things like inequity in our whole tax system, and things like income that can be earned without any tax being paid on it. These are the really big issues—or just a couple of the really big issues—that are impacting upon the fairness, coherence, and ambitious nature of our tax system, as the Minister over there said.

If the Minister really meant what he said when he talked about a fair tax system, then it would not be this sort of bill that we would be conducting a first reading of; it would truly be an ambitious bill that really worked to deal with the inequities in the tax system that really benefit those who can afford your fancy tax lawyers to engage in a whole lot of aggressive tax planning, while those in the middle and the bottom—certainly middle New Zealand—pay their fair share and feel as if they are getting reamed day after day.

One thing I would like to talk about a little more than most—and I must say to start, and I should have said this at the beginning: we will support this bill because Labour supports every single tax bill to the select committee so that we can hear the experts’ opinions on this, so that we can get submitters in, and so that we can get a very robust debate. I must admit that in select committee we find that all parties work together to ensure that any tax legislation that comes before the House is very robust. Let me talk about look-through companies. The Minister of Revenue very briefly alluded to this. This is quite a complex area, but it is something I think is worth expanding on.

Generally, the company tax regime treats companies and shareholders as separate taxable entities. Companies are taxed at the company rate, which is 28 percent, and dividends are taxed at the shareholder rate of, say, 33 percent. It is part of the imputed dividend system. What this means is that if a company is taxed at 28 percent and hands out its dividend, if the person receiving it is on the top tax rate, then they have got to pay an extra 5 percent to bring it up to their marginal tax rate. It is fair because it is all about taxing income at the marginal rate. You would think that is what the tax system should be based around, but only some income is taxed at a taxpayer’s marginal rate; some income is tax free—for example, capital gains.

One consequence of company tax law is that capital gains are tax free to a company but are taxed when paid out as a dividend. The company can distribute capital gains tax free if that company is liquidated. Company losses are not available to offset against income of shareholders. If I invest in a company and that company makes a whole lot of loss but I also get a wage in salary, then I cannot write off that company loss against my personal income. If you want individual tax treatment, then taxpayers can use a partnership or joint venture, but it is difficult to use in a number of situations. So many investors want the advantage of a company that is limited liability, and therefore has legal protection, but the advantages of non-corporate tax treatment: i.e. capital gains, tax free, without needing to liquidate the company and access the losses.

What happened was that in 1990—and this is quite important because this is a vehicle for the vast majority of people who are accessing capital gains for free. Mr Bennett, as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, you are well aware that a decent chunk of this bill is about look-through companies. I think that if I just rambled on about this, like the Minister did, then the people listening would have no idea what we are talking about. I think it is only fair that we let people understand the sorts of issues we are dealing with. What happened in the 1990s was that the Government introduced something called a loss attributing qualifying company. What this did was it taxed at the company tax rate, capital gains were distributable tax free, and in some cases shareholders could write off the loss attributing qualifying company losses against their own personal income.

It was used a lot in the forestry industry, for example, where a forest made losses for the first 24 years and made a gain only when it was harvested. So what happened was that if an investor invested in the forestry industry, he or she could write all those losses off, for 24 years, against their income. But it was, primarily, set up for the purchase of investment properties. For example, as mentioned, it affords the protection of limited liability, but if negatively geared, a shareholder can write off the losses against personal income. How this basically works is that negative gearing is a practice where an investor borrows money to buy a property, which is an investment property, and expects the gross income generated by that investment, at least in the short term, to be less than the cost of owning the property. So they are making a loss—they can write it off against their income—but then when they sell it and make a capital gain, they pay no tax on that. So it was primarily set up for this.

Mr Assistant Speaker, you may ask why I am talking about this. The reason I am is that a very decent chunk of this bill is reviewing and changing the look-through company tax regime. What happened in Budget 2010—[Interruption] It is a fair question. It proposed to change the qualifying company regime with a look-through company—very similar. Whereas qualifying companies were taxed like a partnership, with corporate form, shareholders were taxed at the personal rate and not at 28 percent of the company rate. Capital gains were tax free, and shareholders could access losses. But there was opposition to those who wanted an even better deal. These were the guys who could afford the tax lawyers who understood aggressive tax planning. What they wanted was a company tax rate and access to tax-free capital gains. The result of this was the look-through company regime. But they kept their existing qualifying companies—i.e. you could not start a new qualifying company, but if a qualifying company existed, you did not have to fold it and replace it with a look-through company. What the Government did promise in December 2010 was a review of the system and what this bill is is the result of that review.

What is a look-through company? A look-through company is a company that elects—so it has to be elected by the shareholders—to be treated as transparent for income tax purposes. It is like a partnership. It does not pay income tax in its own right, rather its income and expenses flow through to shareholders and are taxed at its marginal tax rates, and losses can be offset against other income. There are many advantages of a look-through company. What I am very interested in, and what we will be looking at very, very closely in the review of this legislation and the review of the look-through company regime, is to make sure that investors are actually paying their fair share. What this bill does not do is legislate for tax-free capital gains, which, in effect, is what they are. There is something called a tainted capital gain, and I will not go into the detail of that because I have probably got only about 30 seconds left. But what we are saying is that we are going to take out the tainted capital gain and it will apply only to asset sales between companies that have at least 85 percent common ownership.

I guess what I am saying is that this bill does deliver on the promised review of the look-through company regime, but what it does not deal with is the capital gains tax issue. So what is happening is that investors can still get tax-free capital gains on assets if they invest in them, and buy them and sell them through the look-through company, without having to liquidate that company. I do not think that is particularly equitable when the vast majority of good, hard-working—or middle—New Zealanders are actually paying tax on every single cent they earn. You invest in a look-through company, you earn capital gains, and no tax is paid on that. So this is why I am looking forward to this. I am looking forward to hearing what the submitters say, and I am certainly looking forward to hearing what the Inland Revenue Department says on this rather important issue. Thank you very much.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is a pleasure to speak on this taxation bill, another taxation bill for our very fine committee, the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I would like to thank the Minister of Revenue for his introduction to this bill. The last speaker who spoke on it, Stuart Nash, gave us a bit of an introduction into closely held companies and look-through companies and other parts of the tax system, and the main thing that the last member talked about was a capital gains tax and the inability he sees so far in this regime for capital gains taxes to follow through—

Fletcher Tabuteau: Too late, you’ve already got one.

DAVID BENNETT: —to the shareholders. I will come to the other party that is yelling out in a minute. When we look at that, in New Zealand we do have a capital gains tax in the sense that if you sell with the intention—or if a company sells with the intention—within 10 years, then it is taxable; and it does work. Many people find that they are taxable under that regime. In fact, we have actually clarified that so that, effectively, there is no choice within 2 years, because it is deemed to be taxable regardless of intention, because of that time frame. So what Mr—the last speaker was talking about—

Stuart Nash: Nash. Short-term memory.

DAVID BENNETT: Whatever his name may have been, from Napier—Mr Nash—is that he wants a capital gains tax, obviously. And that is the clear message, because to change the policy would involve having a capital gains tax. We have heard that time after time from the Opposition spokesperson on tax. We see this in this House every time we have a tax bill—they say: “We want a capital gains tax.” We stand up on this side and tell the public what they have just said, and then they deny it. They deny, deny, deny. Just accept that you want a capital gains tax—that it is a policy of the Labour Party. Just be honest with the public of New Zealand. Go out there and tell them that the Labour Party intends to bring in a capital gains tax. [Interruption] And now we are getting interruptions from the despicable party in this House—after the speech of their leader this afternoon. That was a disgrace to this Parliament, and we all know that. We do not need members like that in this Parliament representing—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

DAVID BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is good to hear that those members over there are going to be quiet now.

This tax bill is important, and it brings about four parts that the Minister talked about. The first is around the look-through companies, and we look forward to that debate going through the select committee and to the Labour Party’s intention of bringing capital gains taxes into that section of it. The second suite of measures is around the interest earned by foreign lenders. That is another part of our tax system that just needs a little bit of tightening up. And there will be changes to the non-resident withholding tax rules, changes to the approved issuer levy registration process, and correcting anomalies relating to branch structures. So that is the second part of the legislation. The third part has various amendments around GST rules. And the fourth part looks at some, mainly technical, amendments to our tax system. The other part of this legislation is that it actually brings in the tax rates for the 2016-17 income tax year. So that is important as well.

So this bill is an important part of the tax process, of making sure that we have strong legislation there. This is an ongoing process—that is, continuous legislation; it is not a one-off piece of legislation, and it really highlights the difference between the parties, and the Labour Party’s intention to bring in a capital gains tax at its earliest convenience. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): There we go—that was Hamilton’s finest export in the House tonight. They want to export—

David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Stephen Donald would actually be the greatest export.

GRANT ROBERTSON: You see, the point is that Hamilton still wants Stephen Donald; he is there tonight, doing very well. David Bennett is here because Hamilton wanted to export him. They wanted him out; they did not want him there. If David Bennett had actually even been in Hamilton tonight, I suspect that the Chiefs would have lost. But he was here—thank God—and the Chiefs managed to win. So the benefit of Mr Bennett’s deep understanding of tax law in New Zealand has shone through tonight.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.