Thursday, 16 June 2016

THURSDAY, 16 JUNE 2016

THURSDAY, 16 JUNE 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 28 June the Government will look to complete the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, the Imprest Supply (First for 2016/17) Bill, and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday will be a members’ day.

Bills

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

Financial Veto

Mr SPEAKER: The Government has delivered to the Clerk a certificate not concurring in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—[Interruption] Order—given under Standing Order 327. As a result of the issue of the financial veto certificate, the bill may still be debated, but the Speaker will not put a question on the third reading at the conclusion of the debate—Standing Order 328(3).

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 327(2). I have got possession of the certificate that you have just noted. What is required under Standing Order 327(2) are two things: the Government has to “state with some particularity the nature of the impact [of this] on the composition of the Vote and the reason why the Government does not concur in the change.” The veto certificate certainly does give some detail about the impact on the vote in terms of the amount spent. However, when it comes to the question of whether or not there is any particularity on the reason why, the Government simply states that it “does not concur”. I do not believe this fulfils the obligations under Standing Order 327(2). This is very unusual. It happens very, very rarely, and I would ask that consideration be given as to whether the certificate in fact breaches Standing Order 327(2).

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The certificate complies in every respect. I would respectfully suggest that you might encourage the member raising this point of order to simply look for the word “particularity” in a dictionary, to better understand what it means. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not something that happens frequently, so I have given the matter quite a lot of thought. The judgment about whether a bill has more than a minor impact on the fiscal aggregates is one for the Government to make. I have had a look at the certificate. It does not get officially tabled in the House because it is delivered to the Clerk. However, the Clerk has copies available for members who may want to look at what has been set out by the Minister within the certificate. I have certainly had a look at it, and I concur that it does comply with all Standing Orders. The Speaker has no role in evaluating the financial veto beyond ensuring that it complies with the Standing Orders. I have looked at it, and I concur that it does.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a further point of order?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, it is. In the comments you have made just now, you have referred to the question of fiscal aggregates, and I have in my original comments noted that although that is under Standing Order 327(1), I am raising my point of order under Standing Order 327(2). I have acknowledged in my original comments that I do believe that it has fulfilled the first of the two criteria in 327(2) about the nature of the impact on the composition of the vote. The second part of that is particularity on the reason why the Government does not concur with the change. All it has stated in the final paragraph of the veto is that it does not, and I do not believe that is sufficient for something that is so unique, where the will of Parliament is for the bill to be passed but the Government does not want to pass it. It should have to have particular reasons; it has failed to do that.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, but Standing Order 327(2) is actually about a vote. It is not about the bill. I have had a look at the certificate; I have ruled that it does comply. I accept the point that the member is making, but I do not think it is relevant in this case.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your ruling, you have outlined that the bill in question will have a third reading but no vote at the end of that. I wondered whether you could inform the House about what precedent you have used to derive that ruling from and whether that has occurred before.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member had listened to me, I gave that in my ruling—Standing Order 328(3).

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: We are not still arguing, I hope? Further point of order—fresh point of order.

SUE MORONEY: I seek leave to table a petition signed by 16,085 people asking for John Key and Bill English to respect Parliament’s will and the needs of children and their families and to not veto the bill extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that petition. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Sorry, leave is sought to table that petition. I am putting the leave. There is no objection. It can be tabled.

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

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Budget 2016—Primary Care, Rural Health Services, and Very Low Cost Access

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the statement from the Chair of the PHO Alliance who said of Budget 2016, “Primary care cannot deliver essential new models of care within existing and reducing financial resources”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): No; but I thought I had better go and read the full quote in context. It is from the Primary Health Alliance, in which it also welcomes the bowel screening investment and the increased Pharmac funding. It observes that we have a great primary-care system but it also wants more detail on the money. The increase in total primary-care funding in Budget 2016 is estimated to be around $30 million. This means funding is up $233 million under National, a 35 percent increase.

Hon Annette King: Is the $6 million increase in the primary-care strategy in Budget 2016 from $180 million to $186 million adequate in light of the chair of General Practice New Zealand Dr Jeff Lowe’s comments that primary care was hoping to hear of $20 million to $26 million more a year to address years of funding that has not kept up with inflation?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: And indeed, the funding increase is $30 million, which is greater than $26 million.

Hon Annette King: Is New Zealand Rural General Practice Network chief executive officer Dalton Kelly wrong when he said that apart from an increase in ambulance funding there is little else for rural health in Budget 2016?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I know Dalton Kelly well, and he thinks that this is a very good Budget. He would be very pleased, as are many, many New Zealanders, with the $2.2 billion going into health and the $1.6 billion going into district health boards—and many of those dollars, of course, will be spent in the rural sector. So I do not know; I wonder whether you are misrepresenting him.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot have a Minister say that I misrepresent him, and then, when I want to table the evidence that comes from a paywall document—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is now seeking to table a document, that is a different matter, but I just cannot pick what the point of order is that the member is trying to ask.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the page from New Zealand Doctor, which is a paywall document—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just keep the explanation simple and quick.

Hon Annette King: It is the New Zealand Doctor magazine, and it is dated 8 June, and I correctly quoted Mr Dalton Kelly.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On the basis that this information may not be readily available to members, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table an article from the New Zealand Doctor magazine, of June this year. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table an article, dated 15 June, entitled “King clutching at straws”.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need that at the moment. I need to know the source of the article.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is probably publicly available, to be honest with you.

Mr SPEAKER: It sounds like it is a newspaper article. I will not be putting the leave.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a document from the New Zealand Doctor—I am sorry; I do not have the date—where Dr Coleman is referred to as “Dr No”.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think that is not going to help to inform members at all.

Hon Annette King: When was the report of the Primary Care Working Group on General Practice Sustainability, which recommended changes to the Very Low Cost Access scheme, delivered to him for consideration?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Oh, a wee while ago.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that an adequate answer, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: I think in this case it is, when you look at where the primary question went. It is not a helpful answer but the member—

Hon Annette King: No, it is a smart-arse answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member may conclude it is a smart answer, but it is one that has addressed the question.

Hon Annette King: Does the chair of the New Zealand Medical Association’s General Practitioner Council, Kate Baddock, reflect his position when she said of his decision to not fund changes to the Very Low Cost Access scheme that “There is no new money. We are stuck with the status quo and with the inequities that represents unless”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I am not going to comment on whether or not Dr Baddock said that, but what I can say is the Very Low Cost Access scheme is only 6 percent of total primary-care money. As I can tell you, the money for primary care has gone up $233 million under this Government. That is 35 percent, and when you consider that the population has grown by 12 percent, that is well ahead of population growth, so there is plenty of money there—and plenty of good service as well.

Hon Annette King: Because there is no new funding to address the inequities in the Very Low Cost Access scheme, what will happen to the 600,000 high-need, low-income patients without affordable doctors visits, which he last week said: “is not something the general population is excited about.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Once again, the quote is out of context. But, look, there is plenty of money. The member knows there is $2.2 billion over the next 4 years for primary care. If you want to talk about supporting access to primary care, this Government has delivered to under-13s free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions, benefiting three-quarters of a million children and families—something that the member never bothered to do when she had the chance, which was a shame.

Hon Annette King: Has he given up on addressing the most pressing need in primary health care, which is the Very Low Cost Access scheme, when he said to the New Zealand Doctor last week: “It could form part of a future Budget, possibly under a new Minister of Health.”?—I am happy to do the job.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Actually, that is a complete misquote. Sorry, but it is.

Economic Growth—Reports and Forecasts

2. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): Earlier today Statistics New Zealand released the GDP for the March 2016 quarter, confirming New Zealand is heading in the right direction. You always have to be a bit careful with quarterly numbers because they can be unpredictably up or down. However, looking back over the year to March, the New Zealand economy has grown at 2.8 percent. The March quarter result was at the top end of market expectations. Growth was broad-based, with 12 of the 16 industry sectors growing in the March quarter, and 13 of the 16 industry sectors growing through the year, consistent with the ongoing diversification of the New Zealand economy.

Nuk Korako: What were the main drivers of growth in the economy in the year to March?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The main drivers include the construction sector. We are building more houses—in fact, a 3.9 percent increase for the year, way ahead of the average for GDP, with strong compound growth in the construction sector. Business services, retail trade, and accommodation also increased solidly; tourism was a major contributor—

Phil Twyford: You should start building more motels for the homeless to live in.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the GDP figures rebut the Opposition’s assertion that no new houses are being built. In fact there is a—by any measure—rapid increase in supply. Of course, supply needs to increase more rapidly.

Grant Robertson: Has the Minister seen any reports about the fact that the economy has delivered an increase in homelessness in the larger cities in New Zealand, and has delivered to an 11-year-old girl, who only wants to do her homework, the prospect of living in a car with six other people; and when will he stop being so arrogant—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is not necessary.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can assure the member that we will not be exploiting the complexity and vulnerability of that child and her family. And the member, before he raises that issue publicly, ought to go and consult with the family to ensure that this is what they want for their child. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Nuk Korako: How does New Zealand’s growth rate compare with other OECD countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The growth figure of 2.8 percent for the year is in the context of many developed countries struggling in a low-growth environment. New Zealand’s 2.8 percent puts New Zealand into the top 10 in the OECD, compared with 2 percent in the UK and the US, 1.7 percent in the Euro area, 1.1 percent in Canada, and zero growth in Japan. So our growth would be described as moderate, but it is better than a number of the large, developed economies.

Nuk Korako: What are the various forecasts he has seen for the economic outlook of the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Given global uncertainties, the highest profile of which, in the next few weeks, is the possibility of Britain exiting the European Union, we see reasonably consistent outlook. Treasury is forecasting 2.8 percent growth for the next 4 years, the Reserve Bank forecasts 2.8 percent for the next 3 years, The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research forecasts an average of 2.9 percent over the next 4 years, and the general consensus in the market showed growth of 2.7 percent over the next 3 years. What we are looking for, and what the economy is delivering, is moderate, consistent growth but, of course, it is at risk if global circumstances change.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the economy was going so well, why does he have to get up and try to convince his backbench of that, when we all know it is turning to crap?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not a matter of persuading our backbench; it is a matter of all those people stopping at the New Zealand First stand at the Fieldays, persuading that member that the economy is going OK. I suspect, actually, he was listening to the thousands of people at the Fieldays who were telling him it is going OK.

Teina Pora—Compensation

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements on the Teina Pora settlement; if so, why?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Yes; because I believe them to be true.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can she stand by her statement that Teina Pora has “suffered considerably” and that the compensation amount is “fair” when her Government ignored the recommendation of Rodney Hansen QC, retired High Court judge, that compensation should be inflation-adjusted to at least $4.5 million?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Mr Hansen’s recommendation was that Cabinet should consider the matter. We certainly did, but Cabinet was comfortable that that aspect of the compensation payment, which was only one of the three aspects, remained at an appropriate level when we considered a range of factors.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What persuades her that she knows more about the issue of fairness than the good, retired High Court judge or, for example, that she should hide behind her leader, who believes “the Crown doesn’t have to pay Teina Pora anything.”?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The Prime Minister would be correct, in that all payments are at the discretion of Cabinet. Cabinet is not obliged to make any payment. Cabinet and our Government make payments that are transparent and in a principled way, and that means following the guidelines that have been in place for some time and that have been used for the last eight people who have been compensated under them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is her Government being so blatantly mean-spirited not to give Teina Pora a fair go, which contrasts with its entitlement mentality towards its own friends, like South Canterbury Finance—$1.6 billion; hundreds of millions to Hollywood’s Warner Bros; and $42 million per year as benefits to Skycity Casino; what is fair about that?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In as far as there is ministerial responsibility for the first part of the question—the Hon Amy Adams.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Our Government, as I have said, believes in following transparent, consistently applied processes, which means following the guidelines put in place in 2001 and making sure that those goalposts are not moved mid-process and that we do not make ad hoc decisions, thinking we know better than following a clear-cut process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about South Canterbury Finance?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I have got nothing to do with South Canterbury Finance.

Economic Growth—Economic Growth Per Capita

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Grant Robertson: Does he stand by the statement in Budget 2016 that “growth in average income … per person (i.e. GDP per capita) is what matters for achieving higher material living standards”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, in the long run.

Grant Robertson: In the long run, we are all dead.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! You do not need to remind us. [Interruption] Can we just have the supplementary question.

Grant Robertson: Given the focus in the Budget documents on the importance of GDP per capita and given his answer, can he inform the House what the annual growth in GDP per capita is in the Statistics New Zealand figures released today?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot tell the member for sure. I think it is either—I think it is pretty low actually, somewhere between zero and 0.5 percent growth. I would point out to the member that in the world of low growth, even that number, which is a product of a drop in terms of trade and a surge in population, is a much better performance than the Australian economy, where a somewhat similar measure—real net national disposable income per capita—

Grant Robertson: You know the Australian one, but not the New Zealand one.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A somewhat similar measure—the member should listen. [Interruption] The member should listen.

Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister should hurry up and complete his answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —a somewhat similar measure has been dropping for 4 years.

Grant Robertson: How will higher living standards be delivered for New Zealanders after today’s GDP figures showed a 0.5 percent per capita increase in growth—and that is the New Zealand number?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: First, that number is better than most developed countries, for a start. As I said, in Australia it has been dropping for 4 years, and in New Zealand it has been rising for those 4 years instead of dropping. So the per capita income gap between Australia and New Zealand is closing. And the possibility that it might rise is indicated by the fact that in the last quarter it went up 1.6 percent. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 5—[Interruption] Order! Dr—[Interruption] Order! There is considerable interjection from both sides. I would be grateful if it could cease.

Space Industry—Government Support, Benefits, and East Coast Infrastructure

5. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What is the Government doing to help New Zealand companies be part of the global space economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): New Zealand is rapidly building a more diversified high-tech economy, and one of the companies at the very leading edge of technology is our own home-grown start-up Rocket Lab. Rocket Lab is planning its first launches later this year from the East Coast of the North Island. The Government is therefore putting in place a new regulatory environment to enable safe, secure, and responsible space launches from New Zealand. We are also signing a technology safeguards agreement with the US to allow for the use of US rocket technology by Rocket Lab in New Zealand. The space economy is becoming immensely important to the wider world and is growing and changing rapidly. These measures will ensure New Zealand is well placed to take advantage of that growth.

Dr Shane Reti: Why is it important that New Zealand puts a regulatory regime in place to assist the growth of the industry here?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand has a number of unique advantages when it comes to rocket launches and space activities, including a highly skilled workforce, a safe and secure environment, and relatively quiet skies surrounded by oceans, and that has attracted the likes of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Google here, to launch high-altitude balloons, for example. We also have a number of companies and innovators at the cutting edge of the industry, like Peter Beck from Rocket Lab, and others looking to break in, like two of the shortlisted regional research institute candidates, the Centre for Space Science Technology and Earth+Vantage. Putting in place a high-quality regulatory framework to permit launches is an important part of our involvement in this growing industry, and is yet another way in which we can encourage the development of an innovative, dynamic, and diverse economy.

Dr Shane Reti: What benefits can we expect from New Zealand involvement in the global space economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Quite a number. Rocket Lab, for example, currently employs around 100 highly paid engineers, which it expects will grow to several hundred over the next few years. All of its research and development is conducted in New Zealand, and most of its manufacturing. It works closely with the University of Canterbury, and that collaboration has led to an advanced engineering course specialising in aerospace engineering. With the Wairoa District Council consenting up to 120 launches per year from the Māhia Peninsula, there are likely to be spinoff economic benefits for the East Coast region, in terms of infrastructure and tourism opportunities.

Marama Fox: Will the infrastructure and benefits to the East Coast include the revitalisation of the Napier to Gisborne rail link?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can safely assume for the member that they will not be delivering their rocket technology by rail. The company plans to transfer its technology by air and by road freight. In terms of rail between Wairoa and the wider Hawke’s Bay, the interest in that form of transport is, unfortunately, very low, but there is still work continuing with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in terms of whether it wants to make an investment to re-establish that link.

Marama Fox: Thank you, Minister. Can we ask, then: will we see extra infrastructure include things such as broadband and roading fixtures to ensure that they can access the internet and have the infrastructure needed for Rocket Lab to be successful?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: For the member’s benefit, I do not think that is being driven by Rocket Lab’s presence but, certainly, as I have said to her previously, the investment in broadband infrastructure right along the East Coast is very significant, and the commitment is there to do more as part of ensuring the development and diversification of the East Coast regional economy.

Paris Agreement—Ratification

6. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does she agree with the UN Secretary-General that we need to bring the Paris Climate Agreement into force this year; if so, will she seek to ratify the agreement before the UN ratification event in September?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources) on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues: It is great that more than 170 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, and it certainly has a lot of momentum. It will come into force when at least 55 countries that make up at least 55 percent of emissions have ratified it. That may happen this year, but it is not essential that it does. The Government is yet to make a decision on when New Zealand will ratify the agreement.

Dr Kennedy Graham: When the defence Minister said last weekend that he is not sure whether “in a blanket sort of way we’re having more weather events than we have in the past”, does that give her confidence she will convince Cabinet to ratify in 2016?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Minister Brownlee is a very deep thinker and he thinks a lot about weather, but I do not think even he would claim that he is an expert in these matters.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that Paris signatories are invited to resubmit their climate targets at the time of ratification, and given that our target has been described as “grossly inadequate”, will the Minister increase our target this year rather than wait for the 2023 global review, which is 7 years away?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member should stop quoting himself. The truth is that we are working through these issues and we are yet to make a decision on ratification.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Can the Minister tell the House by what percentage our emissions are estimated to reduce between now and the target year of 2030 as a result of the domestic action on climate change, which she rather loosely described at the Local Government and Environment Committee yesterday with four bullet points?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is 30 percent on 2005 levels.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a target. The question was about what percentage emissions would reduce by as a result of policy.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the answer has been given. I will invite the member to ask the question again, but if that is the answer that is given by the Minister, that will be the answer. Dr Kennedy Graham, repeat the question.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Can the Minister tell the House by what percentage our emissions are estimated to reduce—not the target—between now and the target year of 2030 as a result of the domestic action on climate change, which she loosely described at the select committee yesterday?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We intend to meet our target. In terms of the precise question, I do not have a percentage off the top of my head, but, as I say, we intend to meet the target that we have set.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Can the Minister give the House a ballpark figure for how much emissions are forecast to reduce by 2030 as a result of the Government’s new electric vehicle policy?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No. What we are seeking to do is effect change—structural change—across the fleet by setting targets, by looking at procurement, and by having a series of funds that will encourage and accelerate electric vehicles. Good things take time, and I think this policy will, but I think it is certainly a more ambitious policy than we have seen from any other party in this Parliament.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table the analysis provided for my office from the Minister of Transport showing that electric vehicles would reduce transport emissions by only 2.8 percent by 2030.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I previously ruled that if the document is an analysis prepared by the member’s own office, it does not reach a standard of authentication where I would be putting the leave.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister think that New Zealanders might be a bit concerned that their Minister for Climate Change Issues does not even know how far she is falling short of meeting the climate agreement that she is about to ratify?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think what the member is failing to appreciate is that we have a considered process to go through here. We went to Paris, we have signed the declaration—the Minister did that in New York—and now we are embarking on a process assessing the pros and cons for early ratification. That is where we are. I appreciate the member’s impatience, but good process on this important matter—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is being asked as to whether or not something is known or not known. Thus far he has not addressed the question at all.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the question was hardly that specific: “Does he think New Zealanders might be a bit concerned …”. That gave a very wide chance for the Minister to address the question; on this occasion, he has.

Social Housing, Minister—Staff Member's Release of Personal Information

7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Social Housing: Yes, within the context in which they were given.

Phil Twyford: What was her motivation for briefing her staff on the police investigation into Hurimoana Dennis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Her motivation was that the staff should know what the Minister had been discussing, and the matter moved on from there.

Phil Twyford: Are the media reports correct that the three to four staff she said that she briefed on the police investigation included Lucy Bennett, Clark Hennessy, and her senior political adviser, Belinda Milnes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think those people are among her staff; that is likely. But, of course, Ministers are not constrained by any particular rules about briefing their staff, and that is because staff are a pretty important part of getting a lot of things done.

Phil Twyford: Was she surprised, given her reputation for leaking information about her critics, that her staff took the same approach with the information that she gave them about the police investigation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I refute the statements made by the member. I am surprised to see the Labour Party members outraged by what they call a leak to the media, which turns out to be discussion around the dinner table about something that apparently everyone already knew about but that the media had decided not to run until they could use it to attack Paula Bennett.

Phil Twyford: Why, after the Human Rights Commission told her that she had breached Natasha Fuller’s privacy by releasing her private information, did she say she might do it again, and “it would depend on the circumstances”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The two events are not connected in any way—[Interruption] Well, in this case, apparently, as I am advised, the person concerned told the Minister himself, and I am told that “everyone knew”.

Phil Twyford: Are the journalists correct who tell me that her office regularly releases this sort of information to discredit critics and shut down stories; if not, why does she believe they would make that up?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions—the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, those journalists are—well, I do not know exactly what they said to the member, because I would not want to rely on his description of it, but I think that if the member was familiar with how this story apparently became a story, it was a matter of about third-hand gossip, through a series of social events, that ended up as a story. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford and Mr English, the series of questions has now concluded. I am calling Tracey Martin. [Interruption] Order! Would both members, please—if they want to carry on the interchange, I suggest that they try it in the lobby.

Television New Zealand—Potential Merger with MediaWorks

8. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Has the Government had any involvement in the rumoured merger between TVNZ and MediaWorks; if so, why?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Broadcasting): No, because there is no merger between Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) and MediaWorks.

Tracey Martin: If the reported rumour about this union is unlikely to happen, according to the Prime Minister’s statements—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just having difficulty hearing because of the noise from my right-hand side. Would the member start the supplementary question again.

Tracey Martin: If this union is unlikely to happen, according to the Prime Minister’s statements, then why has her Government been informed of talks, again according to the Prime Minister’s statements, between TVNZ and MediaWorks about potentially merging?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, as I have confirmed to the member in my primary answer, there is no merger between TVNZ and MediaWorks.

Tracey Martin: Is it not a fact that the National Government has been grooming TVNZ to be sold since October 1997, when Jim Bolger stated that he would consider the sale of TVNZ because no one could tell him the advantages of the State owning a TV network that it has no control over other than to pay bills and collect profit?

Hon AMY ADAMS: No. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need a bit of assistance.

Tracey Martin: Why should the New Zealand public believe anything she says, when her Government prides itself on selling State assets and, as everybody knows, hates public broadcasting?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The member needs to get a grip. I have made it very clear that there is no plan to merge with MediaWorks, there is no plan to sell TVNZ, and continuing to cast around wild misrepresentations and inaccuracy does not change any of that.

Students with Special Needs—Teacher-aides and Other Funding

9. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to help schools make the best use of teacher aides?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Teacher-aides work alongside teachers in our classrooms to enable students with additional learning needs to become more independent and confident. We have created an online resource that draws together practical ideas and strategies from New Zealand and around the world. It will also help school teachers and leaders ensure that the role and responsibility of aides is clear and that there are good systems, support, and training in place. Additional resources will be added to the guide in the coming months. They will include online training modules, videos of effective practice, and a self-review tool, which might also be handy for other members of the House.

Todd Muller: What else is the Government doing to support students with special education needs?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The online resource complements the $15.3 million Budget increase in funding for teacher-aides over the next 4 years. As part of Budget 2016, we have invested an additional $42.1 million of operating funding over the next 4 years into services for students with special needs. Under this Government, spending on special education has increased 29 percent. This investment will help some of our most disadvantaged students get the qualifications they need and ensure that they get the opportunity to be included with their peers and study in their local schools.

Parent Support—Parents as First Teachers

10. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What is the estimated number of families who are recipients of the Parents as First Teachers programme who will no longer have access to support when the programme is cut in September 2016?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I expect that all families who are currently in the Parents as First Teachers Programme (PAFT) will still have access to some kind of support after September. We are reprioritising $7.3 million a year from PAFT into Family Start so that we can better target those at-risk families and children who need support the most. Family Start is an evidence-based, intensive home-visiting programme with proven results, and the changes will see an increase from 5,000 to 6,250 in the number of vulnerable families who can access Family Start at any one time. Parents as First Teachers is aimed at lower-risk families and has shown no evidence of effectively reducing child maltreatment, and families receiving PAFT will be able to access Family Start, if appropriate, and other resources such as SKIP, Incredible Years, Whānau Ora, Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters, and Mokopuna Ora right through to Well Child / Tāmāriki Ora, Plunket, Barnardos, Parents Inc., and Early Start. No one needs to miss out.

Jacinda Ardern: Is she aware that in many areas, especially those that are rural, Parents as First Teachers, or PAFT, is the only early intervention programme available, and even here in Wellington there will be more than 100 families enrolled in PAFT who will have nowhere to go in just 3 months’ time?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Actually, that is not right, because all areas currently offering Parents as First Teachers will be covered by Family Start. There will be new Family Start locations, which include Tauranga, Palmerston North, New Plymouth, and Timaru/Ashburton. I have made sure that the current PAFT contracts were extended through to September, instead of ending at the end of June, to allow providers to work with families to identify the most appropriate support for them.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table the list of providers for Family Start, which shows there is no service provision in Wellington and that PAFT is the only service here.

Mr SPEAKER: Where was the list being prepared from?

Jacinda Ardern: It is embedded deeply in the Ministry of Social Development website.

Mr SPEAKER: Then I will not bother to put the leave; members can find it. I thank the member.

Jacinda Ardern: Was the evaluation she used as the grounds to cut Parents as First Teachers the same evaluation that her own ministry conducted in 2011 that concluded: “We consider the current evidence strong enough to support continuing to fund PAFT …”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, but you selectively quote from a report that also says “to better meet criteria associated with child maltreatment”, PAFT “would need to be more intensively and flexibly delivered, and perhaps augmented by a case-management approach for dealing with more serious family concerns”. That is from the same report.

Jacinda Ardern: Did Child, Youth and Family (CYF) advise her, before she cut Parents as First Teachers, claiming that it did not work with the most vulnerable families, that CYF itself frequently refers high-needs and at-risk families to this programme?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The decision was finally made based on an evaluation by the Ministry of Social Development, and it was not able to determine whether families who were enrolled with PAFT had better outcomes than families who were not. As I say, the PAFT programme is being replaced by Family Start, which targets the most vulnerable children in communities, has shown proven results, and is well evaluated.

Jacinda Ardern: The 2011 evaluation?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, we are talking 2016.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek for the Minister to table the evaluation she has referred to. She has used it in an official supplementary response, and it is not an evaluation I have seen publicly available.

Mr SPEAKER: It is easily solved. Was the Minister, in giving her answer, quoting from an official document?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

Mr SPEAKER: She was not.

Jacinda Ardern: Has she seen reports from PAFT teachers who have listed a huge range of cases of women living with violence, suffering post-natal depression, struggling with premature birth or with English as a second language, or just living without support, who have all benefited from this programme, and will she commit to meeting with PAFT teachers and petitioners about her decision?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understand that there are many families and educators who believe that PAFT has value. What I have said is that this Government is also targeting the most vulnerable children and families, and Family Start is a well-researched, well-evaluated programme that shows good results in the reduction of maltreatment.

Sue Moroney: Why are parents and parenting under attack from her National Government, with both her cuts to Parents as First Teachers and the financial veto just issued against parents having 26 weeks’ paid parental leave?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I refute absolutely every assertion in that member’s question.

Emergency Housing—Loan Forgiveness

11. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development: When she said that emergency accommodation motel debt could be forgiven “where there’s a genuine reason that they’ve suddenly found themselves in a crisis situation”, what did she mean by that genuine reason or crisis situation?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Under the Social Security Act, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has the discretion to write off debt in exceptional circumstances. This may include when an error is made by the ministry, when a debtor has died and the estate is insolvent or already distributed, or in some cases when a debtor is declared bankrupt. It is also worth noting that for victims of family violence, a non-recoverable special-needs grant is available to cover the costs of immediate relocation. I would also point out to the member that when MSD lends people money it does not charge interest, and staff ensure that any repayments are affordable, starting from a few dollars a week.

Jan Logie: Will a family with a sick child, unable to afford to heat their house because they are repaying motel debt, have that debt forgiven?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have said, that would be a question for the chief executive. However, the important point to make is that when people do incur a debt, as I say, there is no interest, and repayments are set at an affordable level.

Jan Logie: Is it the Minister’s expectation that a family that has left a motel and moved into a garage—because that is all they can afford—will have that motel debt forgiven?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Under the Social Security Act it is a decision of the chief executive of MSD to make such decisions.

Jan Logie: Is it the Minister’s expectation that the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development will forgive the motel debt for families that are sleeping on a relative’s floor because they cannot afford rent?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is my expectation that the chief executive of MSD will follow the law.

Jan Logie: What kind of crisis will it take for the Minister to forgive the debt of desperate New Zealand families made homeless as a result of her Government’s failure to provide affordable housing?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As has been explained on many occasions to the member asking the question, the Minister for Social Housing announced that from 1 July—and we have brought that date forward from September—the special-needs grant for emergency housing of up to 7 days will be non-recoverable. However, where people have incurred a debt, it would be unfair on those who are repaying their debts to go back and pick and choose who is going to have to repay their debt and who is not.

Senior Citizens—World Elder Abuse Awareness Day

12. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for Seniors: How has World Elder Abuse Awareness Day drawn attention to the problem of elder abuse and social isolation in New Zealand?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Seniors): Yesterday’s World Elder Abuse Awareness Day and the week that it commemorates is an opportunity for all New Zealanders to show that all older people need to be respected and valued. There are more than 2,000 reported cases of elder abuse and neglect a year. The majority of them—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am afraid that a fair amount of conversation has broken out, which makes it difficult for the—[Interruption] The member might expect the same respect one day himself.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Shall I repeat the answer?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can. [Interruption] Order! I have given permission for the Minister to start the answer again. I do not want interjection to start from a particular quarter I am looking at.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is important to respect our elders, and that is one of the points of World Elder Abuse Awareness Day and the week that follows it. Social isolation and loneliness among our seniors is particularly concerning as it increases people’s vulnerability to elder abuse. There are more than 2,000 cases reported in New Zealand each year, and that is about neglect as well. The majority of them are caused by family members and can take the form of emotional and financial abuse, as well as physical. That is why, as the Minister for Seniors, I have championed initiatives like Community Connects, which is a particular programme that is leading towards age-friendly communities, of which there are three being piloted in New Zealand.

Paul Foster-Bell: What new initiatives has she announced regarding positive role models for seniors?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Unlike some members of this House, there are many seniors who are worthy of respect and are “super seniors” in their form. I announced three new champions yesterday: Dame Malvina Major, the Hon Margaret Austin, and the actor Peter Hayden. They join the Champions programme launched a few months ago with Precious McKenzie, Dame Kate Harcourt, and Lance Girling-Butcher. These are inspirational role models who provide a voice for seniors about the issues that matter to seniors. Their advocacy, insight, and enthusiasm are vital to making sure seniors’ voices are heard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the recent Trans Tasman report about how weak this Minister is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. That is not a point of order.

Paul Foster-Bell: What reports has she seen on attitudes towards older people?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: A new survey that was commissioned by the Office for Seniors, called Attitudes Towards Ageing, which I launched yesterday, reveals that a large number of New Zealanders respect and value older people, but there are problems that remain in tackling social isolation, which is one of the key factors in elder abuse. Positive attitudes towards older people—despite the fact that there are some very badly behaved older people not too far from where I am standing—are vital for the well-being and self-esteem of seniors. On a more serious note, the survey showed that 10 percent of people aged over 50 felt excluded and isolated because of their age. Most seniors deserve a lot of respect, and they have earned it, and they have made this great country the country it is today. I respect them, if others in this Chamber do not.

Bills

Coroners Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Coroners Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill improves the coronial system by making it more efficient and more responsive to the needs of grieving families. The coroner’s role is to establish the cause and the circumstances of a death, and to identify any lessons that can be drawn to prevent similar future deaths. In that role, coroners have been said to speak for the dead, to protect the living.

Coroners work with families when they are traumatised and vulnerable, and they do so with professionalism and sensitivity, as part of a coronial system that operates throughout New Zealand 24 hours a day. Our Chief Coroner, 16 coroners, and those who support them are well-respected participants in our legal system. Having myself experienced the death of a loved one where the coronial system was involved, I know that no one wants official processes associated with these deaths taking any longer than they need to.

The bill makes a range of amendments to the Coroners Act 2006 to ensure that coronial processes are more efficient, that bodies are returned to families as soon as possible, and that inquiries and inquests proceed without delays and duplication. Around 5,700 deaths are reported to coroners every year. Coroners accept jurisdiction in around 3,200 of these deaths. This tells us that there is a degree of unnecessary reporting, and that there is uncertainty about reporting obligations amongst those who must report deaths. The bill clarifies the requirements for reporting deaths to coroners, such as deaths that occur during medical procedures. The bill provides that such deaths have to be reported only if they would not reasonably have been expected by a medical practitioner competent to perform the procedure who was familiar with the deceased’s medical condition before the procedure began. The bill also clarifies and reduces the need to report deaths where it is unlikely that a coronial investigation will contribute to determining the cause and circumstance. This includes where historic remains are discovered, or when a body is returned to New Zealand following an overseas investigation.

Once a death has been reported and a coroner has accepted jurisdiction, the usual step is for the coroner to direct a pathologist to perform a post-mortem. New Zealand has a very high rate of coronial post-mortems, at about 90 percent. By comparison, in Victoria, which is a jurisdiction to which we look for examples of good practice, the rate is only about 50 percent. Post-mortems are costly, raise cultural and religious issues for some families, and delay the release of bodies back to loved ones. That is why this bill enables preliminary inspections of bodies using medical-imaging technology to ensure that unnecessary post-mortems are avoided.

At this point, I would like to acknowledge the pathologists who support the coronial system by performing both post-mortems and, soon, preliminary inspections. Their work provides crucial scientific evidence to coroners, who in New Zealand are lawyers, not medical experts.

The bill also formally recognises forensic dentists, who play a crucial role in identifying bodies in mass casualty situations, as they did so commendably after the February 2011 Canterbury earthquake.

The Coroners Act currently requires coroners to investigate certain deaths regardless of the circumstances, including deaths that occur while the deceased was in official care or custody. Mandatory public inquests are held into such deaths, even if they were plainly due to natural causes and the facts would not have warranted an inquest. Most deaths in official care or custody, once investigated, turn out to have been from natural causes. The bill restores the discretion of coroners as independent judicial officers to decide whether such deaths require the cost and time of an inquest, or whether an inquiry on the papers is sufficient. Importantly, those with an interest in the death, including family members, will be able to ask the coroner to hold an inquest if one is necessary.

The bill provides that coroners should not investigate the deaths of New Zealand Defence Force personnel occurring overseas as a result of hostile action unless the Attorney-General directs them to. Coroners have not traditionally investigated such deaths. Quite apart from the potential for such investigations to stray into matters of both national security and tactical decision-making in the heat of battle, coroners are not well placed to inquire into military deaths on distant battlefields. Where investigations are needed they will occur. There will also be the option of using the court of inquiry process established by the Armed Forces Discipline Act. As I pointed out in my second reading speech, the requirement for the Attorney-General’s direction is modelled on the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act, which govern deaths in New Zealand of foreign service people.

Turning to the coroner’s recommendations, the bill does not require agencies that received them to respond to them, although I note that the evidence shows that most agencies already do so voluntarily. Such requirements are not common internationally, although some comparable jurisdictions require only Government agencies to respond. I do not consider that there is a good case for mandatory responses, especially as it is clear that agencies, both public and private, take coroner’s recommendations very seriously and respond to them if they can.

The bill also implements changes to make coroner’s recommendations more relevant, more closely linked to the evidence before the coroner, and better targeted at those with the ability and responsibility to implement them. The bill requires coroners to consult with the intended recipients of recommendations before finalising them, increasing the likelihood that the recommendations will be relevant, realistic, and implementable.

The bill deals with the difficult topic of suicides and their reporting in the media, including discussions by ordinary New Zealanders on social media. As we know, New Zealand has a tragically high rate of suicide, especially among our youth. Our country is also unique in restricting the publication of certain details of suicides in the media. This is based on the well-established evidence that certain kinds of media reporting of suicides can spur further suicides. I acknowledge concerns that the restrictions limit the right to freedom of expression that is enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I believe that this is a justified limitation, especially in light of the overseas experience of the kind of media reporting that can occur in the absence of restrictions. My officials have highlighted a recent example of media reporting of a 13-year-old schoolgirl’s tragic suicide in the UK. The reporting was not sensational and it appeared in a respected British broadsheet, but none the less there were detailed descriptions of the circumstances and the method as well as a prominent photograph of the site where the suicide occurred, which itself left no doubt as to the method. This is the kind of reporting that serves no purpose, and which the bill seeks to limit.

The bill clarifies and eases the current restrictions by focusing on preventing reporting of details that are most likely to spur copycat behaviour, these being the method and anything that implies the method. Media will, however, no longer need to use euphemisms such as “no suspicious circumstances”. They will be able to describe a suspected suicide as such, if the facts support this, before the coroner has made any finding. These changes will help foster responsible discussion and reporting of suicides by both the traditional media and the wider community, before and after any coronial investigation.

The bill reflects the outcomes of the Ministry of Justice’s review of the Coroner’s Act, which was completed by my predecessor as the Minister for Courts, the Hon Chester Borrows. The review found that the principal Act and the major reforms that it instituted were generally working well, overall. I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Justice and Electoral Committee, those who made submissions to the review, and those who have worked on developing the bill. I certainly believe that it will improve our coronial system, and I thoroughly commend it to the House. [Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is a strong convention in this House that Ministers giving third reading speeches are entitled to read their speeches. [Interruption] This is not a debate on that.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I think Minister Adams is absolutely fair to reflect on the amount of work that has clearly gone into this bill. The select committee process was a place for robust debate and discussion. After that robust debate and discussion and our attempts at the Committee stage to make a number of amendments, we have, unfortunately, had to make the decision that, on balance, there are elements of this bill that we simply cannot support.

But there are elements—and I would include in that the purpose of the bill generally—that we do support. If we come back to the point at which the bill was first introduced, it set out—as the commentary of the Justice and Electoral Committee states—that the primary aim of the bill is to seek to improve the timeliness and efficiency of the coronial system by amending the Coroner’s Act 2006. I think that is a point that we could all agree on. At the moment there are significant delays in our coronial system. The Minister spoke today at the select committee Estimates hearing about the fact that there has been a 20 percent reduction in the time that these cases are taking, but even then there is a significant backlog. During the course of this debate, I met a family member of someone who is the subject of a coroner’s case, who had waited more than 1,000 days. That is not unusual. That length of time is absolutely devastating if you are a family member waiting for closure of a case, so when it comes to the substance of the purpose of this bill, we certainly supported it.

We would also use this opportunity to just state a few concerns. Although we want the backlog of coroner’s cases to be dealt with, we do have concerns that there has been talk of contracting out and bringing in external legal services in order to facilitate the processing of coroners’ reports. Our worry with that is that it is a legislated function that a coroner holds, and it does muddy the waters somewhat to be having external legal services processing those inquiries and inquests.

If I could come to the areas where we still have concerns that we consider significant enough, on balance, to not support this bill, the first—which we did not submit an amendment on but which did stand out to us—sits under new section 57A in clause 30. That sets out what a coroner is able to make recommendations around. This bill used the opportunity to narrow that function.

The point that I would make is that if this bill was really about just trying to make the system more efficient, it is not really at the point that a coroner is writing recommendations that we are seeing a lag in processing. The point at which a coroner is sitting down at a desk, as it were, perhaps with an administrator, to say “Look, these are the things that I finally deciphered from this report.”—that is not the thing that is leading to a thousand days before a report is issued. So to argue that to narrow the ability of a coroner to write a recommendation is necessarily going to save time or efficiency is, I think, a stretch. I think it instead impedes on a coroner’s ability to speak to the points that they consider valuable.

The specific recommendation that the Chief Coroner spoke to, which they were concerned was a narrowing of their ability, is in this new section 57A(3)(a), which states that a recommendation must “be clearly linked to the factors that contributed to the death to which the inquiry relates;”. We have used a few examples previously, but I was just reading about one of many forestry deaths that have tragically occurred in recent years. One determined cause of one of those deaths was that there were high winds in the area when a tree came down on a forestry worker. In that circumstance a coroner may only feel able to make recommendations that relate to the fact that this was an accident, obviously, caused by high winds that caused that tree to come down. But to what extent are they able to speak to the wider context of fatigue, long hours, the effects of the way that contracting works within the industry, and other factors that may have led to the potential distraction of that worker—the pressure they may have felt to continue to work in those environments? This clause potentially limits a coroner’s ability to make those wider recommendations. We thought that was problematic.

The second area we have concerns with—and I would have to say that this is a real sticking point for us—is not what was included, but what was not included in the bill: the lost opportunity, as it were. We have spoken about this at great length. Most people in New Zealand might be surprised to learn that when a coroner makes a recommendation, there is no obligation on anyone who might be the subject of that recommendation to reply, to respond, or to give a written view on that recommendation. Their view may be that it is a ridiculous recommendation and should not be implemented, but, actually, there is nothing to say that they need to say anything at all. That seems to be a crazy situation, in that we are funding, at great expense to the taxpayer, a coronial system that can write a recommendation and a report that can go absolutely nowhere—nowhere except, perhaps, to the family. It seems ridiculous, and I am not the only one to have made that declaration.

The Law Foundation recently funded a student from Victoria University to conduct a piece of work—as you can see, a sizable piece of work—on the very question of whether or not coroners’ recommendations should be responded to on a mandatory basis. What they found, and this is of interest, is that there were 607 coronial inquiries over a 5-year period. That resulted in 1,644 recommendations. There were 309 recipients of those recommendations over 5 years—309 recipients. Government organisations received the highest proportion of recommendations. That is interesting. Those whom we protected in this House by refusing to accept a Supplementary Order Paper that made responding—not implementing; responding—to recommendations mandatory are Government departments. Surely, given that this legislature is the one requesting and guiding coroners in the work they do—we are telling them how we want them to operate, how we want them to be more efficient, how we want their recommendations to be more punchy. But, on the flip side, we are saying that if you issue recommendations, we are not going to make our Government departments do anything with them, which seems nonsensical.

The report then goes on to describe that the most frequent set of recommendations included transport accidents, drowning, intentional self-harm, and complications of medical or surgical care. This House has an interest in transport accidents. Government departments have a direct role in the way that we regulate in the prevention of transport accidents, so it is relevant to us and we should want to know. Drowning—if it is a regulation that relates to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, we should want to know. Intentional self-harm—of course, when it comes to mental health provision, we should want to know. I note that the Auditor-General has today issued a report on the reporting and gathering of information around self-harm. Surely, amongst that, we should be saying: “What is happening to our reporting of recommendations?”. Complications of medical or surgical care—again, very relevant.

The report rightly summarises that the Government review—that is, this bill—presents an opportunity to initiate much-needed reforms: “A review that includes few proposals to enhance preventative functions may mean that coroners’ recommendations are a ‘lost opportunity’ to save New Zealanders’ lives.” That is exactly how we see it.

To briefly summarise our remaining concerns, what has been well traversed by my colleague Phil Goff includes the Defence Force provisions that were requested in this bill—the reversing of onus so that deaths in hostile action will no longer be the subject of a coroner’s inquest. That will occur only if the Attorney-General orders that it occur. Our view is that that should be flipped—it should default to the coroner, to add transparency for those families.

Those concerns, in and of themselves, were enough for us to say that although we absolutely support narrowing the number of cases that coroners are having to deal with in order to make them more efficient and to get more timely responses, the mechanisms that have been used in this bill went too far. They went too far, in our view, and there was a lost opportunity, as well.

On that basis, Labour has reluctantly decided that it cannot support this bill. We will be keeping a close eye on the changes, though. We do support the general intent, but we must be the ones who try to preserve transparency in our system and the ability for coroners to make the recommendations that they feel are necessary for our safety.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am sad to hear that the Labour Opposition will not be supporting this bill.

I want to acknowledge all of those families in New Zealand who have suffered a sudden death in the family, whether it be by accident or by some other means. I want to acknowledge the bravery of those families who were prepared to come to Parliament to give witness in front of our committee, which helped inform our deliberations. I want to acknowledge their grief and I want to confirm to them that despite what is going to be a split vote on this bill, which I do regret very much, Parliament has listened.

I believe that today we will be passing a bill that for future families of victims of a sudden death who are subject to a coronial investigation, that coronial investigation will be more timely and it will be more efficient. The families will be kept better informed. The coroner’s comments will be directed more closely towards the matter at hand. I would like to think that the measures that this Government is proposing and will soon pass into law will have a small but none the less positive impact on those families.

I want also to thank members of the select committee, including the Opposition members who now find themselves opposing this bill, for their generally thoughtful contributions to what we finally have before us. Indeed, there are points of difference between the parties. But I think that those points of difference, which seem to mainly centre on sudden deaths in custody, deaths of personnel in times of conflict, and something as simple as requiring a response to coronial recommendations, I do not see as the basis for opposing this bill—I really do not. What I see in this bill is a piece of legislation that, as I have outlined, will make a number of beneficial changes to the way grieving families are able to respond to the findings in an unexplained or sudden death.

I will go through the main provisions of the bill. As I also said, coroners’ recommendations will now be required to be specific to the case and the evidence that is before the coroner, and to be very clear about how they could or would reduce the likelihood of future deaths in similar circumstances. I do know, from people who have approached me and others, that often the family of the person who is deceased just simply does not want it to happen again. They want a little bit of comfort in knowing that through the inquest process, changes will be made and lessons will be learnt. The bill will give better tools to—and will require the Chief Coroner to—improve timeliness, such as the requirement to report and monitor progress in older cases.

The legislation will reduce duplication with other investigating agencies by giving the Chief Coroner the ability to direct that a coronial investigation is not required, and that is when we come to deaths in custody, for example, or deaths while on active duty. The bill will clarify which deaths are reported to the coroner and, in particular, the jurisdiction to investigate overseas deaths and deaths of New Zealand Defence Force members caught in enemy action. That was a sticking point for the Opposition, but we always have to remember that it is not in New Zealand’s interests to disclose matters of national security. I do not know whether that point has been well enough regarded by the Opposition.

There are also new recommendations to improve and simplify the legislative restrictions on suicide reporting in the media. That is a very important part of the bill. It has not been contentious, but it has, I believe, a wide-ranging impact on suicide reporting. We do not want copycat suicides in New Zealand, and so these restrictions will go some way, I hope—there are penalties, and greater penalties, for breaches of this, but I believe that the new restrictions on suicide reporting are a very important and good part of this bill.

I am very pleased that this bill will be coming into force very soon. The reason I am pleased about this is that it will provide comfort to those people who have been bereaved. Thank you.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi māku, ka tukuna atu ngā poroporoaki ki te hunga mate, rātou kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō, rātou kua kapohia ake ai e Te Ringa Kaha o Aituā, hai tūere, hai tūkikini, hei tūtāmaki. Nāna i kōwhaki ai te kauwae o tērā e tangi mai rā, o tērā e tangi ake rā, o tātau e tangi atu nei. Nō reira koutou e te hunga wairua haere!

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou e te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

[And so, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The first thing for me is to accord farewell tributes to those who have passed away, who are lost to the void, who have been snatched up by the Mighty Hand of Calamity to be a blind eel, a kind of pincer in a kind of convulsion. He was the one who plucked off the jaw of that one wailing in our direction, that one wailing after us, and that one wailing coming towards us. Therefore, to you, the spirits, depart!

I bring my remarks back to you, the living, so acknowledgments, salutations, and greetings to you collectively and to us all.]

I thought it appropriate to farewell the departed. The reason I say that is throughout this entire Coroners Amendment Bill we have heard some very horrific stories, some sad stories from families who have shared their experiences and remembered their loved ones during their time of sharing that with the Justice and Electoral Committee. Now that we have come to this final stage, the third reading, of the Coroners Amendment Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your indulgence in allowing us to put that part behind us and to now address the living.

It is in that vein that I turn now to the Coroners Amendment Bill—thank you for allowing me this contribution. My colleague Jacinda Ardern has already made clear the position of this side of the House—or certainly of the Labour Party—about the thoughtful consideration given to the Coroners Amendment Bill. At some points in time throughout the process we were very close to supporting the bill. In fact, if I recall correctly, we were going to support this bill. However, on balance and upon reflection we have decided not to. She has detailed quite clearly the reasons for that, and I wish to touch on a few of those and also respond to some of the comments made by the chair of the select committee, the member Jacqui Dean, who has just finished her contribution today.

Jacqui Dean mentioned that the Labour Party did not consider or regard well enough the amendment in this particular bill with regard to those of our armed services who pass away or who die, tragically, during service. I take my lead on this matter from the Hon Phil Goff, who I thought represented his particular proposed amendment really well throughout this bill. He was very clear in his discussions with the select committee and, indeed, in the debates in this House. He put the family at the forefront. He put the family at the centre of all considerations with regard to his proposed amendment and this particular bill. But he also was quite, I thought, balanced in his view of it, with regard to the ability for the Attorney-General to be able to withhold some of the information, to be able to direct parts of the investigation should the coroner have to step in and investigate the passing of our armed service people while in military combat or military action. I take my lead from him because, like I say, I thought he delivered a very well-balanced proposed amendment. He fought hard for it, and we are disappointed, on this side of the House, that it did not come up and make it above the bar to be considered in this particular bill.

My colleague Jacinda Ardern also spoke about the need for recommendations by the coronial system to be considered seriously and, at the very least, to be given an appropriate response—at the very least. Recently, approximately 3 weeks ago, an uncle of mine passed away, tragically, on a farm up in Mōtatau in the far north. I understand the coronial process has kicked into gear, and I wonder whether or not some of the recommendations that may come from this report, hopefully, will save others who find themselves on the farm and find themselves in those situations. But what can we tell the New Zealand public to reassure them that that coronial process is: one, robust; two, well considered, and, three, that recommendations that it makes will keep New Zealanders safer, make processes better, and hold people accountable?

I am reminded of a particular saying that says “The first time is a tragedy, the second time is a farce”. If we do not allow the recommendations by the coroners’ office to be taken seriously or, at the very least, as I have mentioned, be given a response, then I am afraid we may find, moving forward into the future, that the unexplained deaths—the tragic deaths—of Kiwis will be an absolute farce. My colleague mentioned the forestry sector, which has experienced its fair share of tragic incidents over the past few years. They were highlighted in particular to the Labour caucus, if I recall, a year ago when we received some of the families who were dealing with the loss of a loved one from the forestry sector. They felt their voices were not being heard. They felt these kinds of deaths could have been avoided. I think about the stories they told to us when I look at the Coroners Amendment Bill, which we are debating right now. We hope that in the future there will be an opportunity whereby the recommendations made by a coroner can be taken seriously and can, at the very least, have a response.

My colleague mentioned earlier that despite the amendments presented by the Labour Party—by Jacinda Ardern, by the Hon Phil Goff, and by Kelvin Davis—not being considered in this particular bill and being voted down, we will be continually looking at the coronial process to make sure that, well, one, it meets the intent that is described in this bill and, two, we will be keeping a close eye on it to make sure that if at any time in the future we have the opportunity to come back in here to make this particular piece of legislation more robust and make sure the coronial process is more robust, then we will be right at the forefront of that. We want to reassure the New Zealand public that despite our opposition to the bill at this particular point in time, in its third reading, we do take it seriously. We thought long and hard about it. We considered the bill and its detail for some time, and debated amongst ourselves about whether or not to support it, and, sadly, we feel that at this point in time we cannot support it.

Just to my point around the recommendations, which Jacinda Ardern mentioned briefly, in the particular study we considered, the New Zealand Coroners’ Recommendations 2007 to 2012—the results of those recommendations were over a 5-year period. There were 607 coronial inquiries that resulted in 1,644 recommendations. There were 309 recipients of coroners’ recommendations. Government organisations received the highest proportion of recommendations—the highest proportion. The evidence is right there that all of these recommendations, we believe, given the robust process the coroners go through, need to be considered seriously. They need to be considered seriously.

In conclusion, once again, we, reluctantly, cannot support this bill. We hope that the coroners’ office, going forward into the future, will receive the support and the capacity from this Government to fulfil its duties to the best of its abilities. Just in conclusion, can I echo the words of the chair of the select committee in thanking the families, the officials, and those who came in and made submissions on this particular bill. I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution just how hard it was for some of us to hear the evidence and the submissions from the families. Once again, on this side of the House, we, reluctantly, cannot support the bill.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Certainly, as we have gone through this Coroners Amendment Bill, it has been a very interesting process, and, as other speakers have already alluded to, a very challenging one. We have had to confront some issues that I guess we usually try to avoid often in life and, certainly, experiences we do not necessarily want to have to go through ourselves. I too want to just acknowledge the number of submitters who came and shared their personal stories with us in a public setting. That is a big thing to do, and I just want to again acknowledge their bravery and their commitment to wanting to see things improve. It was a privilege for us to be able to share that time with them and also to hear from them with regard to those issues they wanted to raise.

This is a bill that is designed to improve people’s interaction with the coronial service. It is also designed to introduce and bring in some more pragmatic approaches for the coronial service to be able to deliver a better service to the people who interact with it and also, basically, to deliver a better result for all of New Zealand. First—and I think it is a critical part of this—is the desire through this bill to be able to reduce the length of time that people wait for an outcome from a coroner’s report. For families who are grieving and who are wanting to bring closure, having that as an outstanding matter can just make the grieving process that much more difficult. Waiting 400 or 700 days for that report to come out really just is not acceptable if we are wanting to deliver a service that is going to have a level of sympathy and empathy for those people who are suffering and who have been through the difficulty of experiencing the sudden loss of a loved one. If we can, through what we are doing as legislators, improve that for them, then it is absolutely beholden on us to do that, and so I support that.

There is a practicality in this bill, also, about making it not mandatory for there to be coronial inquests into certain matters. For example, if somebody dies of obviously natural causes—perhaps they have had a long-term illness that has led to their death—while they are incarcerated, if there is nothing pointing to a suspicious death it seems absurd that at the moment a coroner is mandated and has to do a full inquest rather than just an inquiry. So this is a practical step that has been taken. Of course, there is nothing to stop a coroner from actually doing an inquest. If they have got concerns, then they can still follow through with that.

Just in response to what we have heard with regard to the now non-mandatory inquest for service people who die in the service of their country overseas, if the Auditor-General perceives that there is a need to have a coroner’s inquest or inquiry, then the Auditor-General can still do that. We are not prohibiting the coroners from being involved at all in those overseas deaths of service people, but we are actually ensuring that it is not mandatory—it does not have to happen. The bill does not prevent it from happening, and so I believe that the concerns that the Labour Party members have raised can be addressed. If the Auditor-General believes that the family does need to have that coronial input, not just the service inquiry, then he or she—whoever is holding that office—can make that happen.

In summary, this is a balanced bill, it is a pragmatic bill, and I hope that it will go some way to alleviating the suffering of New Zealanders who have suffered the sudden loss of a loved one, going forward. It is a pleasure to endorse it to the House.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Like others, I am pleased to be speaking to this bill for the final time, in this third reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill. I was feeling that this bill had been around a long time. I actually looked and, indeed, it has been around for quite some time. It was introduced in August 2014, so almost 2 years ago. I acknowledge, of course, there was an election that intervened, but the bill has been with us a while and it will be good to see it progress and to finally pass.

Having said that, the Greens are supporting this legislation, but I would acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed by the Labour speakers. For us, it was also something of a line call. We fell down on the side of saying “Well, this bill does a number of very good things and for that reason we’ll support it.”, but, certainly, it is far from complete. I am sure we will have no problems supporting the changes that Labour will make next year when, from Government, we are all in a position to do that.

Part of the purpose of this bill is to streamline, to make more efficient, some of the coronial processes and procedures. That is a good thing, clearly, and we hope it will achieve some of that to reduce the workload. But, to speak on behalf of the coroners, I do think the workload will not be sufficiently relieved, and I do think that there is a case to be made to increase the number of coroners and to increase the level of support for those judicial officers.

Those of us on the Justice and Electoral Committee, who have followed this bill all the way through, have had, in a sense, a privileged position. We have had a very close, firsthand look at the work of the coroners in their office without having to be in the very unfortunate situation of being close to a tragedy—the reason, normally, people would get to know what the coroners do.

We have discovered, in my view anyway, that the coroners’ workload is unreasonable. I have seen their roster and it is brutal. It is a 24/7 call on their time and expertise. It is a very difficult task. It is a judicial role, but, nevertheless, they are also required to be grief counsellors and psychologists as well as practitioners of the law. So I do think there is a very strong argument, and we regret the fact this current Budget does not actually recognise that and assist the coroners in clearing some of the backlog of cases that does exist. We are told that there has been about a 20 percent reduction in that backlog. I think that really is not sufficient, and we would like to see more provision to enable them to do their job even better than they do. They are people of considerable integrity, and I think we should support them better.

One of the more fraught parts of the select committee process was entering into the issues around suicides, the reporting of suicides, and the provisions of this bill that do deal with that. The Auditor-General’s report that has come out just today notes that in 2013 suicide was the third-leading cause of premature death in New Zealand, after heart disease and lung cancer. No doubt the numbers have changed marginally in the last few years, but it just highlights the tragedy and prevalence of suicide in New Zealand. It is something I am sure across the House we would all seek to redress—youth suicide in particular. Sadly, we are seeing more instances of suicide in the rural areas as the reality of the rural downturn kicks in and for some people, they do not see a way out except, sadly, through that.

I think it is incumbent on us to do everything we can to reduce the incidence of suicide, and one of those things is around the reporting of it. I think this bill has come down in the right place. It enables sober and sensible reporting of incidents when it is presumed that a death has been caused by suicide. It does not allow anyone, without the coroner’s approval, to say anything about the method or the location, when that might indicate what the method was, and I think that is appropriate. The bill puts in place a process where a coroner might allow for an exemption to allow that detail to be released to the public through the media, but only after there has been a panel established including a person with expertise in suicide prevention, a person with expertise in tikanga Māori, and a person with expertise in the media and its processes. I think it creates some fairly robust means to balance out the undoubted commitment we all have to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, but it also puts some reasonable constraints in place.

We had a fairly robust, dare I call it, submission from an organisation called the media freedom committee, speaking on behalf of the media. The thrust of that submission was that the media should be allowed to report—that it should be left to their discretion and good judgment—and, frankly, I do not think that that submission got much traction with the members of the committee. There are too many instances when the media undoubtedly would be tempted to overstep the boundaries of good taste and of protecting other people who might be moved to emulate or copycat suicide. I think we found about the right balance. We acknowledge all the arguments that in this day and age with social media and the internet, sadly, some of this information will get out in a way that it ought not to, but we just do what we can do to manage at least the mainstream media. I do think we have got to a good place with that.

I think it is important that we do talk about suicides. Suppressing information and conversation in the wider populace—particularly with our young people, who are most vulnerable—and suppressing debate is not the solution. We need to have an informed debate, but a carefully managed debate—a carefully presented debate. I actually went along to a couple of—what is the organisation? Riders Against Teenage Suicide is a group of people active in Northland. I must acknowledge Arthur Harawira, who suffered the ultimate tragedy as a parent of losing a son to suicide, and yet is still able and strong enough to stand in front of audiences of young people, talking about what the cost to his family was, and to him personally, of losing that young man. I think that is an admirable formula, if you like: the context is such that we can address young people, and explain to them why they ought never to consider that that is a choice they should ever make. But it needs to be a very careful, managed, and structured conversation, and the media is not the place to do that.

One of our initial objections to this bill was that in the current situation, when deaths occur in custody—particularly deaths in prisons—it must trigger a full inquest and that is mandatory. There is now discretion for the coroners to choose, in some instances, not to undertake a full inquest. There must still be an inquiry, but not a full inquest, and we think that balance is about right. I have personally been persuaded by personal conversations with coroners and by the submission from the Chief Coroner, which said in this present-day reality of more people getting older in our prisons, there are situations when deaths in prisons are entirely predictable, given the ill health of inmates, and the like. So I do think that we can put a level of trust in the coroners to make those calls.

Personally, I do not have confidence in the culture of the Department of Corrections to be transparent and to be open and honest about deaths in custody. So I think we have hit a good spot with the current language, or the new language of the bill as it is now presented in its final form: talking about deaths of the medically unexpected, or when a medical officer would not have expected a person to pass away based on their previous history; the medical notes; and the like. Obviously, it is something we will need to continue to monitor, but for the moment we think there is adequate protection to ensure there is a very rigorous application of inquiry and, if necessary, inquest when deaths do occur in custody. There have been too many examples, sadly, when people have died in custody in prison, and it has been the result of negligence, inadequate health-care, and inadequate monitoring. Preventable deaths have occurred in custody. We have got to be very sure, when they do occur, that there is a spotlight shone on them and that we seek to ensure that those circumstances do not recur.

The final point that I would like to make is that the new bill puts in place some provisions in situations when a body is returned to the family, but some body parts or samples are retained by the coroner—or the pathologist, more accurately. It is a requirement, effectively, that families need to be informed of that and that they can request that those parts be returned to them at the appropriate time. That is important not least of all to Māoridom but to people more generally.

With those few comments, we do continue to support this bill.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First has always supported this bill. We recognise that the Coroners Act has needed revision for quite a long time, and we think that overall this bill makes a pretty good job of doing that. I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee also, which I think did a very good job in refining the bill and bringing it back to the House in the state that it is now in.

In essence, what the legislation needs to do is to balance some public and private interests, especially to avoid unnecessary inquests, on the one hand, but to ensure full transparency on the other. That is really what the coronial system is all about. It needs to balance the freedom of the media to report deaths and their circumstances against sensationalising those sorts of circumstances, because they can, of course, encourage other suicides. It is actually relatively easy to do that, even though it may be unintended, so there needs to be a balance there.

There also needs to be a balance in terms of inquiry into deaths in State custody, because that is a particularly important area for coronial jurisdiction because of the possibility of abuse of people in State custody. But, on the other hand, the balance needs to be against pointless inquiries where they are really not needed. So I do think it is appropriate that the Chief Coroner should have the discretion that they will now have to decide whether an inquiry is needed or not.

The last area that I want to mention, where I think this balance is particularly important, is the need for a balance between an independent inquiry for deaths of defence personnel—especially where the deceased was killed in a hostile action—on the one hand, and, on the other, the need for national security considerations to be taken into account and for national security to be protected. That is another very difficult area where the balance is needed.

So I think that this bill actually does achieve—largely achieves—those balances, and that is why New Zealand First is going to continue to support it. Nevertheless, we are disappointed with a couple of things. There were two amendments that we feel should have been adopted and incorporated into the bill. I am a little bit sad that the Government has not done that and has not given good reasons for not doing so.

The first related to a proposed new section 57C in clause 30 and the question of whether it should be mandatory for Government agencies to respond to coronial recommendations. There is not much point in having a system that spends a lot of money and effort in producing those recommendations if they can simply be ignored or brushed off by Government agencies. To be fair, most of them do not do that, but on the other hand it is perfectly clear that on some occasions that is exactly what happens. So the proposal had been to require a response and to make it mandatory within 60 days, and we in New Zealand First feel that that would have been the right way to go. It is disappointing that that has not been adopted. I cannot see what the harm would have been in requiring that. It would have achieved something positive and worthwhile.

The second proposed amendment concerned deaths in hostile action. The position currently is that coronial jurisdiction covers deaths for Defence Force personnel regardless of circumstances, and that is in addition to court of inquiry processes. That process itself has a safeguard in that it is subject to external legal review panel considerations, and that would be conducted by a Queen’s Counsel. So that is the current situation. This bill would change that so that coronial jurisdiction will continue where death does not happen during hostile action, and new section 59A(2) and (3) would instead operate to protect the national interest by preventing an inquiry where the coroner determines the death is caused exclusively by hostilities during a hostile action and not otherwise.

The current section allows coronial inquiry into death during hostile action too, but only if the Attorney-General directs it, and that is stated the wrong way round. Instead, the section should allow such an inquiry unless the Attorney-General takes action to prevent it. It may seem like a fine point, but it is actually quite important, in particular because new section 59A(4A) would still apply, even if what is in the current legislation continues, by putting coronial authority and transparency first, and new section 59A(4A) provides for the criteria that the Attorney-General has to consider.

I want to quote those criteria because I think they are important: “(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 …”, and so on. So those are the sorts of criteria that would have to be considered and, therefore, I feel that it would have been better for what is in the current legislation to continue or for the amendment that had been proposed by Phil Goff to be adopted, because those considerations would apply.

The amendment would have better reflected the balance I spoke of by putting the primary need for coronial inquiry as the primary consideration, and to have the need for national security considerations to, effectively, be secondary because they can be taken into account only if those criteria that I listed were met. So that would have been the better way to proceed, and it is a bit disappointing that the Government did not, in fact, adopt the proposal for amendment that had been put forward. It is a disappointment, but it would not itself be enough for New Zealand First to vote against the bill.

The only other thing I did want to mention was that other area of significant difficulties—and I have already mentioned them at the beginning of my speech—concerning the reporting of suicides. I do believe that new section 71 does achieve the right balance because it says that if a death is self-inflicted, or if it may have been, the method or the place where the death occurred—if that place suggested the method—or a description of the death as a suicide may not be published. But there is a balance there in that the Chief Coroner may grant an exemption if satisfied that in doing so, it would not present an undue risk that other people would attempt copycat behaviour, and that any risk that people would attempt copycat behaviour is outweighed by other considerations that make it desirable in the public interest to allow the publication. So I think there we have a good demonstration of the balance that I spoke of, and so we in New Zealand First do think that in that very important area, section 71 is appropriate.

Finally, overall, we in New Zealand First do think that the bill is a significant improvement over the current Act, that it does achieve the balances that I spoke of, and that it will work better for a robust coronial system. So we will be voting in favour of it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): This has been a good bill and, I have got to say, the process that we went through on the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill was also a good process, and Jacqui Dean, the chair, did a great job. It was a real pleasure, actually, to work with the Government members and also the Opposition members. Denis O’Rourke, the speaker who has just resumed his seat, has played a very constructive role in relation to this bill and also another knotty issue that we are working through on the committee at the moment, as well. I think we have come to a good space on this bill. We have got into a good position and we have made some useful amendments, which have come through the select committee process.

I want to briefly talk about suicide reporting, which is, obviously, covered by the bill and is a topic that I took a particular interest in. It was something I had been interested in before I came into Parliament. I think everyone has acknowledged that the current law under the current Coroners Act 2006 around what the media can and cannot report or say about suspected or actual suicides is deficient. You see that the law is widely flouted, and, actually, just yesterday a news media organisation ran a story that was definitely a breach of the law because it described in the headline that a particular incident was a suspected suicide. Well, that is a breach of the law. You are not allowed to do that. It will be legal once we have passed this bill and the legislation comes into force, but it is not legal at the moment. That is just a small example of how the current law is ignored.

It is a very vexed issue because the pure libertarian view is that everything should be able to be published. There are some people who make that argument—that you should be able to publish anything you like about suicide. There is another school of thought—and I have heard people express this view as well—which is that there should be absolutely no reporting on any type of suicide in New Zealand, and that the risks are just so great from that reporting. It is a very, very tricky issue, and, actually, I think the Government did a good thing in 2013 by getting the Law Commission to do a first-principles review of this and actually go away and look at the evidence. The experts at the Law Commission did that, and I think the recommendations that they came up with, which have largely—and particularly in this instance, wholly—been endorsed by the Government and made their way into this amendment bill, are good ones.

The conclusion that they reached after studying the international evidence from overseas is that some forms of reporting are strongly associated with the risk of further suicides. That is why after we have passed this bill into force you will not be able to publish the method of death, or the place where that death took place, if publishing the place would suggest the method of death—I am sure people can think about how that might come about. This is because the international evidence suggests that the publication of those details is very risky in potentially perpetuating further suicides—copycat suicides. The evidence tends to suggest that.

In some ways the new law will be a liberalisation, but it will also be a toughening-up. The penalties for breaches of the law have been raised, but we are going to allow the media to report that something is a suspected suicide. If something is a suspected suicide, that will be allowed to be published, but it is only in the event that the coroner finds that something is a suicide after the investigation has happened that the media will be able to say that. I think that is appropriate. After a death happens, if it is a suspected suicide, the media can say that. This will avoid the media having to use the sorts of code words and euphemisms that they use at the moment, which everyone in the know knows about and some people do not. We will end that farcical situation. But if you are in the media, you will be able to call something a suicide only if the coroner says that, and, as I say, you will not be able to publish the method of death, or the place, where publishing the place would suggest the method, unless the coroner grants an exemption.

I think this strikes the right balance. What we are trying to do is encourage responsible reporting. It is important to have a conversation about suicide, I think, in New Zealand. We want responsible reporting, but we do not want irresponsible reporting, and that is what the bill seeks to prevent. I thought long and hard about this issue on the committee, and I did quite a lot of reading about it. I think we have struck the right balance, and it is good that this bill is going to become law. I commend it to the House.

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

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this, the debate on the third reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill, for the Green Party. The Green Party, as previously stated by my colleague David Clendon, will be supporting this bill.

I would like to spend the time in my contribution, firstly, as with other members, acknowledging the people who shared their personal experiences with the Justice and Electoral Committee. Grief is a very significant thing to share, and I think when people make that effort and the effort is in the hopes of helping produce good public policy we should acknowledge them for that effort. I would like to talk mostly on the points about deaths within prison and youth suicide reporting, and to acknowledge the work of the select committee in making the improvements to the bill specifically relating to deaths in prison.

My understanding of the bill as it was first introduced is that it would have meant that the coroner could demand an inquiry for a death in prison only if the coroner was satisfied that there had been some negligence or misconduct, which really presupposes the outcome of the inquiry at the beginning of the process. It was really good to see that the committee has worked through that problem and shifted the presumption to the other way round. Now the coroner is enabled to use their judgment to decide whether they could have reasonably expected the death, given the knowledge that they have of that person’s health status and health records.

Initially, obviously, we had concerns about the change. My colleague Dave Clendon spoke with several coroners, it is my understanding, and they spoke to him about the changing demographics in our prisons and the fact that we have an increasingly ageing population in our prisons, so as a result people are more likely to be dying of natural causes. That should not take up the resources of the coroner, whose time should not be spent on inquiring into natural deaths. It does for me raise a question that is a bit of a sad indictment on us as a society, though, I do have to acknowledge. The thought of somebody dying of age-related diseases while in prison, or dying of cancer while in prison, when we have known that that is going to happen does seem to me to be an extra level of punishment that is not necessary in terms of ensuring the security of our society.

The other point I would like to speak on, which has been widely canvassed, is the consideration of the reporting of youth suicide. I know that there has been a call from a lot of parents, as well as the media, about wanting more liberalisation. There is a sense that at times we are stifling an acknowledgment of how big a problem this is in our society. When we do have one of the highest rates of youth suicide in the world, and very high rates of suicide generally, I can understand that feeling from people who want this to be dealt with publicly. However, I have worked in youth health and have a background of seeing that impact on young people where suicides are covered in our media, in a fictional sense as well as being reported—and I know that that has actually directly contributed to an exacerbation of some young people’s mental health issues, to a point where they have attempted suicide on the basis of that trigger.

I even think of my experience as a young person, spending many years feeling suicidal. Part of that was as a result of how commonly it was talked about, and it was only when I became an adult working in the area that I realised that, actually, feeling suicidal was not normal. That is not a situation we would ever want to see encouraged in our society, so the restrictions to reporting on—recognising that suicide could be a cause but not naming the place if it could identify the method or naming the method seems a sensible place to land on. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Poto Williams—5 minutes.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to confine my contribution at this time to the impacts of this piece of legislation on family, or the role that family would actually like to play with regard to coronial inquests and inquiries into deaths of loved ones. The reason I put family at the centre of my contribution is that I believe that the coroner’s role has three prime responsibilities. One of the prime reasons that we would want the coroner’s work to continue is in order to find cause of death, so that we may put in place measures that could prevent future deaths of that nature. The second reason would be so that if the death is as a result of a crime, adequate information and evidence is produced in order for that crime to be prosecuted appropriately and accordingly. The third reason, and, for me, one of the prime reasons, is so that the family of the deceased person feels that the manner in which that person lost their life has been adequately investigated and that due measures are put in place to prevent it happening to any other family.

There are parts of this piece of legislation that speak specifically to the role of families in the process. I speak specifically, as I did during the Committee stage, on the handling of deceased bodies and what may happen when an investigation happens to that body and some of the parts, particularly tissue, are not returned to family. There are huge cultural implications around the treatment of deceased persons. In my own culture, it would be unusual for a dead body of our loved one, when they are deceased, to be on their own at any point in time. We go to great pains to ensure that a family member is with that body at all times until they are interred. So for families who submitted, like the Still family, whose daughter was killed as a result of the Wairarapa balloon crash, to anguish over not being able to see their daughter’s body and not being able to be in touch with her tūpāpaku—that is, in our culture, hugely distressing, and their distress came through in their submission.

It would be one thing that we would really encourage future examinations of the coroner’s process to really hold in high regard—that families at this time are in distress. There is no doubt that the process has improved over time, but there is also no doubt that there are improvements still to be made. The examination of this piece of legislation has led to the Māori Affairs Committee launching an inquiry into the handling of tūpāpaku, because it is an important cultural aspect. It is an important cultural part of our lives—the rituals and the rites that must occur when someone has died. So in that regard I want to encourage that the coroner’s process does take family wishes into full regard.

When the body is not returned to the family completely whole there is also an implication from that. The family should be notified when and if that process can occur, to ensure that the body can be interred completely. Sometimes that cannot occur, so the family must be consulted fully as to how they would like the treatment of the body to occur.

Just in conclusion, I do want to touch on the amendments in the name of Phil Goff, because, again, I feel it is really important that the role of families of members of the Defence Force, when their loved ones are killed overseas, should be considered in the process. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Coroners Amendment Bill. This bill will support coroners in their important and difficult roles by making their system more efficient. That, in turn, supports grieving families and is another example of this Government delivering Better Public Services.

The Justice and Electoral Committee has considered this bill and during the process it received a number of submissions, the most significant, of course, being from the Law Commission, which made 17 recommendations. Of those 17 recommendations, 14 were accepted in full and three were accepted generally around reporting standards—so, all in all, a very constructive process.

One of the main provisions of the bill is to reduce duplication with other agencies, and this will be done by giving the Chief Coroner the ability to direct that a coronial investigation not be required. The Act currently lists 13 different authorities with investigative responsibilities, such as the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and a royal commission of inquiry, so it is obvious that there are overlaps possible in some cases. Under the current legislation the relationship between coroners and other investigative authorities has not always been clear, and that has led to uncertainty about their respective roles.

The Chief Coroner, after the passing of this bill, will have an oversight role, and that will allow him to direct that an inquiry not be opened or may not resume, or that it be a postponed or adjourned inquiry. On average, cases involving an inquest or hearing take over 400 days, or over 700 days if the coroner is required to wait for another investigation to be completed. This is far too long for grieving families, so providing the ability to reduce this duplication will go a long way towards supporting those families and providing closure.

This is a very pragmatic bill, and I am very happy to commend it to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to speak on this, the third reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill. I am going to outline why the Labour Party is not supporting this piece of legislation.

After going on the coroners’ website and looking at what coroners do, I really want to start by taking time to mihi to our coroners. They do an incredibly important job. What they do is they help to determine when, where, how, and why a death has happened in Aotearoa New Zealand. What they also try to do is work out whether anything can be done differently that might prevent similar deaths in the future, so I want to emphasise that. They want to identify whether there is anything that we could have done to have prevented a death. In fact, I think that is one of the most significant roles of the coroner, in addition to ensuring that families have the information and know what has happened to their loved ones.

It is very much about an individual good, I suppose you would call it—the understanding of individuals’ families of what has happened to their loved one—but coroners also have a responsibility in terms of our collective or public good. Those reasons, essentially, are why coroners make recommendations. So I would like to highlight the Supplementary Order Papers of my colleague Jacinda Ardern, which were actually rejected in the Committee stage of the debate in this House. They were Supplementary Order Paper 145 and Supplementary Order Paper 146. Essentially, what they said was that persons or organisations or Government agencies must respond to coroners’ recommendations.

Where did that come from? Actually, the Law Commission wanted to support it too. I want to note some particular University of Otago research by Dr Jennifer Moore and Professor Mark Henaghan. Dr Moore actually has a public health degree as well as a law degree. Her piece of research focused on the effectiveness of New Zealand’s coroner’s court. Her rationale was that the coroners’ work is extremely important and the recommendations save lives and guide policy. What she did was investigate coroners’ cases and recommendations—remember that this Act started in 2006—and her research was from 2007 to 2012. When she attempted to ascertain what happened to those recommendations, she was actually mystified—“mystified” is probably the best word—because what she found was that the coroner’s court does not report annual law reports. She found that intriguing, and so she spent months travelling around the country going to different courts and gathering data herself.

What she found in that 5-year period was that there were 607 cases and 1,644 recommendations that involved 309 parties, and of those 309 parties, 121 were Government organisations. What did she do? She contacted them. Of those 309 parties, she contacted 200 of them, and of those contacted, 79 agreed to be interviewed and a further 42 completed a questionnaire. Essentially, the key finding of her piece of research was that a mandatory response regime should be put in place to ensure that organisations responded to coronial recommendations—sounds pretty simple—and what Dr Moore has continued to do is to engage with coroners and to work with them, because one of the other findings of the research was that some of the recommendations were not targeted enough. They were not specific enough about who should actually do something to prevent deaths in the future. That has become an ongoing piece of work that she is engaged with. In fact, the coroners themselves said that sometimes they made recommendations in a vacuum. So this two-way process that she wanted to create, and that my colleague Jacinda Ardern suggested, has been rejected by this House, and that is a sad thing.

The other part of the process that we have gone through that I want to highlight is the proposed amendment of my colleague the Hon Phil Goff. Essentially, what his proposed amendment would have done was continue the presumption that coroners would investigate military deaths unless the Attorney-General directed the coroner not to, as opposed to what this legislation will create in the future, which is that coroners cannot investigate military deaths unless they are directed to by the Attorney-General.

The rationale for coroners continuing to investigate military deaths was actually highlighted in a Stuff article that was titled “Secret death panel planned”. Within that particular article, former army medic Sarah Erb, who was the partner of Corporal Luke Tamatea, was quoted. Corporal Luke Tamatea was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2012. I want to highlight Corporal Tamatea’s situation, because in that instance there was a coronial inquiry, and there was also a court of inquiry because it was a military death. What we know from what Corporal Tamatea’s whānau have said is that because of the coronial report—the whānau actually received a copy of that report. Having read that report, they got the answers that they were looking for.

There was a particular emphasis in this article about Corporal Tamatea’s mother receiving the answers that she needed in order to get some closure because her son died not in Aotearoa but in Afghanistan in the line of duty, and she was mamae because she did not know what happened to her son. I think all of us would agree that it is incredibly important for families to be able to understand what has happened to their loved ones so that they can answer all the questions they may have, and then they can actually process that and have closure, mourn, and grieve, and then get on with their lives. I think a number of us would agree that unless you get closure, it is very difficult to move on because you have a whole lot of unanswered questions.

I want to contrast that, however, with the court of inquiry and the record of proceedings. There was also involvement of the military, because in any military death there is a court of inquiry, and I spoke about this in the Committee stage. I wanted to look at putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper, actually, but because the governance of military deaths—courts of inquiry—are actually enabled through the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, I could not. One of the things that I wanted to ensure was that family members have access to the record of proceedings when there is a court of inquiry because of a military death.

The reason I want to particularly focus on this is that I asked at the Committee stage for the Minister in the chair to confirm that if there is a military death and if the only inquiry into that death is a military court of inquiry, families have automatic access to the record of proceedings. No Minister got up to refute my assertion and, in fact, I want to highlight that the chair of our select committee, Jacqui Dean, was in the Chamber at that time, and she said that I was wrong. So I am taking her on her word. I want it recorded in Hansard that it is the expectation of this House that if a military court of inquiry is the only inquiry undertaken, the family has automatic access to that record of proceeding so that whānau can have those questions answered, they can get the closure that they need, and that they can move on with their lives. Other than that, I hope that I have clearly outlined why Labour is not supporting this legislation.

Finally, I really enjoy my membership of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I think we have incredibly robust discussions, but we do so because we are talking about law, and we are talking about matters of principle and matters of policy. So I hope that the people of Aotearoa New Zealand understand now why the Labour Party does not support the Coroner’s Amendment Bill. Thank you.

That the Coroners Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

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.

Bill read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question,

Bills

Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill

Riccarton Racecourse Bill

Third Readings

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I move, That the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill be now read a third time. These two bills are part of the Government’s post-earthquake contribution to rebuilding the city of Christchurch, as well as supporting the Government’s broader programme of increasing the supply of housing around New Zealand. Together, these two bills will enable some 40 hectares of Riccarton Racecourse land in Christchurch to be developed into more than 600 homes. They are bills that are going to enable $300 million of development, and they are bills that are going to enable the Government to require that 180, or at least 30 percent of these homes, are in the bracket to complement the Government’s KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme.

The Government and the Christchurch City Council made a joint commitment to increase the supply of homes in Christchurch. We entered into the Christchurch Housing Accord in April 2004 with the aim of both increasing the immediate and the long-term supply and affordability of homes in Christchurch. In the debate around Auckland housing it is noteworthy that the Government’s programme with Christchurch has been successful, and the same approach will work with the city of Auckland. I recently attended the opening of the first homes that were completed from part of the accord programme at Awatea, and I was hugely impressed with both the quality and the affordability of these houses that are coming on stream, and, in the context of the broader debate around housing, I would bring those initiatives to the House’s attention, because they do paint the picture of where the solution lies.

Back in 2014 the trustees who govern the racecourse reserve approached me, seeking to convert part of the very large Riccarton Racecourse into housing. The trustees were seeking opportunities to make better use of the underutilised land at the racecourse, to ensure that the rest of the racecourse would be able to continue functioning. These bills break the barrier that the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act 1878 and the Reserves Act 1977 were creating for the utilisation of that Riccarton Racecourse land for housing development. This is robust legislation that ensures the land will be developed with a quality residential development. Once the bills receive the Royal assent, the board of trustees has a period of 1 year to submit a development plan to me and to receive approval.

The Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill sets out the requirements for the development scheme, including meeting that minimum of 180 affordable houses on the developed land, and to have the code of compliance certificate for those homes issued within 5 years of that development scheme being approved. Before recommending the development scheme to the Governor-General for approval, I am appropriately required to consult with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Christchurch City Council.

These bills have been carefully crafted to ensure that they respect both the intent and the deed of the Ngāi Tahu settlement in Canterbury, with more than 180 homes to be at the affordable price point. These bills will also contribute to the need to replace the affordable homes that were destroyed through the Christchurch earthquakes. I think there is an acknowledgment that the area of Christchurch most affected by the earthquakes, in the east, tended to provide that city with a greater range of its affordable homes and that there is a need, not just for more homes but for more homes than are in that affordable range.

The Government has deliberately linked the bill and the development plan with the Government’s KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme. This is the most generous support that the Government has provided in a generation for first-home buyers. It enables grants of up to $20,000 to be provided for purchasing a home, in the Christchurch scenario, below $450,000, and for the scheme to work we want to both support the homebuyers but also make sure that there are new homes coming on stream within that price range. The legislation ensures that if I am not satisfied that the development scheme will meet those requirements and will not result in the quality residential development within 1 year of the passage of this legislation, then the legal basis for converting that racecourse land no longer becomes available.

I have to note this bill in the context of the broader debate on housing. I keep hearing from the Opposition that the Government is not doing anything around housing, and then every time we bring a bill to the House, pragmatic bills like these ones, Opposition parties vote for it. This legislation is just further evidence of this Government’s pragmatic and comprehensive approach around the challenge that New Zealand has around housing. The public understands that there is not some single silver bullet or that there is an instant solution. It is about taking every opportunity to grow the supply of housing.

The housing development at Riccarton is one on four sites in Christchurch—including in Colombo Street, in Awatea, and in Welles Street—that in total will provide over 1,000 additional homes for Christchurch. It sits alongside a very identical programme that we have initiated in Auckland. It sits alongside initiatives like the special housing areas, the housing accords, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, the HomeStart scheme, and the large bill before Parliament to reform the Resource Management Act. I note the GDP data out today, showing that the New Zealand construction industry is at an all-time boom, with the fastest rate of both residential and commercial construction ever in our history. We have seen, since we signed the housing accords with councils like the Christchurch City Council, the rate of house build in New Zealand more than doubling, from 13,000 homes a year. The latest statistics are now showing that over 28,000 homes are being built.

I would like to conclude by taking this opportunity to thank the trustees of the Riccarton Racecourse, Ngāi Tahu Property and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and the Christchurch City Council, which have all worked hard to ensure the progress of these bills opening the door for this development. The Riccarton Racecourse is an ideal site for new housing. It is a neighbourhood with lovely surroundings, and good access to community schools, to public transport, and to community facilities. The development of these 600 homes that are in this attractive part of Christchurch is an important part of the rebuild plan for that city, but also of the wider challenge across New Zealand of ensuring that our housing supply keeps progress with our population growth. I look forward to seeing the first homes built on this site, as we bring the development plan together. I commend both bills to the House and move they be read a third time.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a pleasure for me to take a call in these third readings of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. As was made obvious during the early stages of the debate, Labour supports these bills. But I have to say, it is a bit rich, actually, even for the Minister for Building and Housing—even for that Minister—to have him claim credit for the development of 600 houses in Canterbury, which were entirely instigated by the board of the Riccarton Racecourse. I do not think that Minister is a member of the board. That Minister was asked to shepherd this legislation, or part of this legislation, through the House, and good on him for doing that. Good on him for getting the support of so many members of this House. But for him to claim credit for the development as if it were a State housing or social housing proposal just beggars belief.

But they have got to be desperate for any glimpse of light, any silver lining, on the dark cloud of the few weeks that they have had. Usually, after a Budget the Government sort of bounces around the place. Well, the only place this Government has been bouncing since the Budget is down. It has been showing its true colours—increasingly arrogant and out of touch with the wishes of everyday New Zealanders. It has been totally ignoring the big issues. The big issues that people are concerned about do not seem to be anywhere near this Government’s agenda. It has totally ignored the housing crisis—arguing about whether or not it is a crisis does not help a single person move into a warm, dry, affordable home. It totally ignores the jobs issue, it totally ignores the wages issue, and now it is ignoring the increasing cost that families in New Zealand have to face when sending their children to their local school. Education costs, jobs, housing, and health underfunding are all issues that are totally ignored by this Government.

Under these two bills, 600 houses will be built on what is currently Riccarton Racecourse land, and 30 percent of those houses are going to be sold for less than $450,000. That figure has been described as affordable. I certainly hope it is, because we know that unlike when we were young, when we grew up and knew that if we worked hard and saved hard that we would be able to put a deposit on a home and call it our own—many members in this House have had the opportunity to do that, to buy a home. Sadly, for many New Zealanders now, even $450,000 in Christchurch is well out of their range of affordability. I hope that a lot of people who currently cannot afford to buy a home are able to buy one of those affordable homes. But I am sure that despite that we are still seeing the Kiwi dream of owning your own home being totally off the agenda for many New Zealand families, and particularly for young people.

So 40 hectares of the current entire Riccarton Racecourse area is going to be turned over for housing. As I said earlier, this is a move that was entirely instigated by the board of trustees of Riccarton Racecourse, and I want to pay tribute not just to the current trustees but to former trustees as well. They have had a huge responsibility since the instigation of the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act of 1878 to provide this public racecourse for the benefit not just of Cantabrians but of all New Zealanders, and, more recently, from the Reserves Act of 1977. So those two pieces of legislation are what is being changed by these two bills—the Reserves Act and the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act of 1878. We had a Government bill and a local bill, initially. I queried during the Committee stage about whether it was the first time that we had had a Government bill and a local bill being heard in tandem, and I want to return to the answer to that question. I had hoped that the Minister would have been able to answer it during the Committee stage. I hoped even more that he would have been able to address it in his third reading speech, but he did not.

I guess, for many in the National Government, and particularly the Ministers of the National Government, they will be hoping that the passing of these bills—and I certainly support their passing—will quieten down the noise around housing issues. But what it will actually do in reality is put an even stronger spotlight on who is doing what to address the housing crisis in New Zealand. We know one of the organisations that really put its hand up and said: “We can see our people in trouble with nowhere decent to sleep at night—including children sleeping in cars and garages, for heaven’s sake—in New Zealand in 2016.” Te Puea Marae put their hand up and said: “We will help.” I want to pay a special tribute to them. I think that was a courageous thing that they did. They did it for the right reasons. They did it with the help of hundreds of other community organisations and individuals who donated goods and services to Te Puea Marae.

What we saw this week was a blight on the integrity of our Parliament. We saw private information—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! That is not in the bill—that is not in the bill.

Hon RUTH DYSON: —about an individual from Te Puea Marae, who are providing housing in the same way as is being provided under these two Riccarton Racecourse pieces of legislation that we are debating. We saw the chairman of that marae being undermined and slighted—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Hon RUTH DYSON: —because he had put his hand up to address the housing situation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Look, I have allowed quite a wide range on the overall housing stuff, but you are getting into specifics in Auckland, and I asked you to come back to this bill.

Hon Simon Bridges: Ruth Dyson.

Hon RUTH DYSON: As I—Mr Bridges. As I noted earlier in my contribution, during the Committee stage I did talk about whether or not somebody who followed Parliament closely would be able to advise us in the House about whether this was the first time that both a private local bill and a Government bill had been heard together at the Committee stage. As I said, I was disappointed that the Minister did not answer me and no other member of the House was able to provide that information. But I am now able to advise the House that the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill, which was a Government bill, and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill, which was a private bill, were cognate throughout their passage through the House, but that neither of those bills had a Committee stage. So we have set a new precedent. We have set a precedent—of course it is new—in this House with the debating of these two bills, one a private local bill and one a Government bill, being held at the same time during the Committee stage. Of course it was sensible to do that, because both bills are needed in order to change those two pieces of legislation that control the ability of the Riccarton Racecourse board of trustees to alter its legislative mandate and enable it to turn those 40 hectares into a housing development.

I want to make some concluding comments, not in any criticism of the legislation, because we are supportive of it, but just to raise the concerns that were raised right at the original first reading—actually, that were raised by my colleague Dr Megan Woods following her discussion with surrounding residents of this area. This was not concern about the housing development in itself, but concern about the increased traffic pressure. We know how bad the traffic is around that part of Christchurch. It is not Auckland—it does move—but it is pretty congested. It is one of the peak traffic points. There was no engagement with either the city council or the regional council in terms of what additional transport opportunities might be opened up as a result of this significant increase in housing. I would like to see the Minister for Building and Housing now take an additional step and work with the city council and the regional council to see how we can ensure that during the development of the site we do not end up with unpleasant road congestion as a result of these additional homes.

The surrounding area, as the Minister pointed out, is magnificent. It is close to the university, it is close to schools, and it is close to parks. There is lots of activity in this area. They have an excellent member of Parliament. Dr Megan Woods is the member of Parliament for Wigram. Riccarton is actually divided between two electorates, and the people who live on this side of Riccarton are very grateful they are in the Wigram electorate—Dr Megan Wood’s electorate—rather than the others.

Can I just say, in conclusion, that a lot of people who contributed to this deserve to be thanked, particularly the board of trustees and the city council, and, of course, the Local Government and Environment Committee and its officials. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a real privilege to stand to support these two bills in their third reading. The select committee that I chair, the Local Government and Environment Committee, paid a lot of attention to these two bills. In fact, we had an opportunity to visit the actual racecourse and have a tour around the site of the proposed development. For those of us who are not Cantabrians, it was a real eye-opener and an opportunity to see just what a great development this is going to be. The original legislation that created the racecourse and its trustees dates back to 1878, and, as somebody mentioned in an earlier debate at one of the earlier readings of these two bills, that actually pre-dated the invention of the motor car. So it gives some idea about what was in the minds of the people who set this up back in 1878 and the foresight they had to set aside 112 hectares of Canterbury land that in those days was actually a long way out from the centre of Christchurch.

These days, of course, the Riccarton Racecourse is right and central in the city of Christchurch. As part of the Government’s plan to help the regeneration of Christchurch, it has been a real pleasure to work with the trustees, to work with Ngāi Tahu, and to work with the city council in developing this practical, sensible plan to create a really high-quality property development that will help ease the housing requirements of Christchurch and at the same time go a long way to supporting the regeneration of Christchurch. A significant proportion of the land, of these 40 hectares, is going to be designated for affordable housing. The Minister for Building and Housing in his speech made it clear that that has been designed specifically to meet the HomeStart cap of $450,000. A minimum of 180 of the 600 homes that will be developed on this site will meet that criteria, and I think that is a very, very good step. Christchurch is expected to grow by about 80,000 residents between 2013 and 2043, and so there does need to be further opportunity for residential growth and residential development in a city that not only is growing generically, but also is in a regrowth and a regeneration phase.

These bills could not have come to the House and be at their third reading today if it had not been for the cooperation and support of a really good collaboration of stakeholders that have been working very hard to ensure that we are at the point we are at today. I particularly want to thank the board of trustees at the Riccarton Racecourse for its help and assistance in nurturing this through, for working its way through it, and for its hospitality on the day when the trustees showed us around. But we should not underestimate the input of the Christchurch City Council for its role in helping bring this about, and, of course, Ngāi Tahu and Ngāi Tahu Property, which will be the developer of the site.

I want to also mention, as I have done in previous contributions in the House, the submitters who came to us and gave us the benefit of their insight and their wisdom on this development. Naturally, some of them were a little bit concerned about some of the impacts in the neighbourhood. This is an area of Christchurch that has great social facilities and great community facilities, and this development will add to that. But they wanted to express their views, and the committee, I think, listened carefully and respectfully to them. I also want to thank the officials who were working on the bills.

Just in terms of the contribution of the Hon Ruth Dyson, I absolutely think it is a bit rich for that member to stand in the House and complain, as the Labour Opposition so frequently does, that the Government is not doing anything about housing when in fact, in relation to Christchurch, both the AMP and the Massey index research show that housing in Christchurch is actually 40 percent more affordable than it was when Labour was in power. Those are facts that Labour members conveniently forget. They also forget that interest rates are now at about 4.5 percent—very low indeed—but when they were in power interest rates were about 10 percent. Rents have dropped 5 percent last year in Christchurch, and in Christchurch housing values increased only 2 percent in the last year. All those indicators point to the fact that the Government’s approach is working.

These are pragmatic, sensible pieces of legislation. These two bills go a long way to helping reinforce a need for a growing Christchurch, a regenerating Christchurch, and it is a good, practical, sensible step that the Government is very happy to support. I commend the bills to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): That was a far more generous speech from Scott Simpson than that from the Minister for Building and Housing. In fact, I suppose if we were to use a racing parlance, after the Minister’s speech we could say he well and truly scratched himself. You would think that this proposition, as Ruth Dyson said, had all been the work and the idea of the Government. I went on to punters.com.au to look up a couple of definitions. I thought: “What would fit the Minister’s contribution?”. I thought for a while, and then I found it, and it is a quintessential Australian punting term. Mr Smith, I think, could be described as a “coat-tugger”. The definition of a coat tugger is “someone who offers a punter a tip and demands a percentage of the winnings”. And after that speech, he fits the description and the definition of a coat-tugger absolutely clearly—absolutely. This is a Minister who got up—I counted how many times he said “the Government” and I think it was about 22: “The Government did this. The Government’s responsible for this. They’ve got to come to me to consult.”

Hon Member: All his own work.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: All his own work, of course, when we actually know that this idea had nothing to do with the coat-tugging Minister—it had nothing to do with him. The genesis of this idea was the Riccarton racing club. People like Rodger Finlay, an eminent business person, and his fellow board members and trustees of the Riccarton racing club thought long and hard about how they could utilise their asset, and they engendered this idea. They planned it, they thought it through, and they went to the Government and said: “We’ve got an idea that could help us as a club but also help a lot of people in Christchurch who have lost their homes via the earthquake.” And they came up with the 600-house plan. Yes, this Parliament—and this is a Government bill, a local bill—is responsible for facilitating that through the legislative process, as is normal. But you have to say—and I return to Scott Simpson, who I think made a far more measured and generous speech than the Minister did—that this was the archetypal definition of coat tugging by that Minister. A guy who gives you a tip and demands a percentage of the winnings—that sums him up.

But we should celebrate the passage of this legislation.

Nuk Korako: Hey, good. Now you’re talking—now you’re talking.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: We should celebrate it, and credit to that member back there—credit should go where credit is due. Yes—to the racing club, to the city council, to Ngāi Tahu, and to the other stakeholders who assisted in this; credit should go where credit is due. Six hundred houses, 30 percent of which will be affordable homes—the ceiling is, what, $450,000? That will still be a struggle for many in the Canterbury and Christchurch community, but it is an excellent initiative. If I were Dr Nick Smith, I would actually look at that and say “Well, the way to deal with a housing crisis”—even though he will not admit there is one—“is to do what the Riccarton racing club has proposed, and that is build more houses.” It is actually a pretty simple proposition; pretty basic, even for some of the less sharp tools in the box in this Chamber. It is a pretty simple concept.

Actually, what will happen—what is starting to happen, and what will ultimately happen—in Christchurch, according to projections, is that we will end up in that region of Canterbury with a surplus of housing. You can see in some of the figures that house prices have plateaued a little in certain places as the construction has come on stream, as those houses have been built, and as people have gone out of their old, munted properties into viable new homes. It is a pretty simple proposition: “supply and demand”, when I did fifth form economics. It adds up, and it could be replicated around the entire country, and especially Auckland, if the Government had a mind to become involved in that proposition.

The Ministers want to get up and talk about consents and lovely little bits of paper like that, but, as others have said in this Chamber, you cannot live in a consent: a consent is permission to build on a piece of land.

Kris Faafoi: Consent-warming party.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, that is a very interesting point, actually. Maybe Dr Smith could have, as my colleague said, a consent-warming party.

Grant Robertson: A party of one.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: A party of one, yes—and a bit of a punt at the same time.

The Riccarton racing club, its facilities, and the Riccarton Market—and we have said these things before as Canterbury colleagues, and we cannot say it enough—are iconic parts of our city. Not only have many people in our region gained much pleasure in participating in the racing club activities—often they have lost a bit dough—but many community organisations and private sector organisations have utilised those facilities for many, many events, and many of them charitable. Many of the members of Parliament have been invited. The Riccarton Market is a staple in the weekend calendar of most Cantabrians when they want to go and participate, and we are pleased that that will be preserved. The club itself will be far stronger financially, and far more secure in its future thanks to its own good idea, its own initiative, and its own innovation. It would be nice if the Government could actually show a similar set of skills in respect of innovative ideas, and if it could give credit where credit is due.

I think that this is a shining example of what can be achieved with collaboration—smart people in Canterbury getting together, doing a deal, coming to the Government with a sound proposition that will meet a whole series of needs, and none more important than housing people who are in great need. Equally, this is an example of where political cooperation—putting aside the lack of generosity of some speeches—can lead to a very viable outcome.

But there are other issues, as Ruth Dyson and others have raised. I know the area very well. As I have said in other speeches, in the early years of my life I grew up about a block away, across the road—across Yaldhurst Road. I know it well, and, as I said in other speeches, in those days it was a pretty sleepy area, you did not have traffic jams.

Kris Faafoi: What, in 1878?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: You did not have—thank you for that. You did not have—

Hon Member: Did you have traffic? Were there cars?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: You can pick your enemies, but not your friends.

As I say, it was a pretty subdued area. It is a nice area. It will change with 600 houses there. There will be infrastructure difficulties; traffic will be a huge one. I think what the Riccarton racing club, the city council, and the other stakeholders will look to is for some Government leadership—not Government telling them what to do—some Government involvement and partnership to deal with some of those infrastructure problems, the most stressful being the traffic. Look at what is happening down Johns Road by the airport—the widening, the four-laning—that is a good thing. Access from Hornby into that Yaldhurst area is huge now, the traffic volumes are immense; they will only get worse. If planning and infrastructure and resources do not follow, then what is a fantastic project for that part of town and for our city could, and will, experience some difficulties. And, of course, those people who are already resident in that area of Avonhead—Nortons Road, and the racecourse area around there—and Hornby, they can be impacted as well. So what we look forward to is, hopefully, some indications from the Government that it will be a participant and partner in this in respect of the infrastructure requirements.

The Labour Party, as other colleagues have said, has much pleasure in supporting the legislation. Again, congratulations to the Riccarton racing club. Credit where credit is due: to it, and its board, its trustees, and the other stakeholders. It would be great if, off the back of this—once we have passed this legislation—the Government could use this as an excellent example of what can be achieved to deal with housing difficulties. There should be no reason, where there is political will, that these sorts of schemes and arrangements could not be replicated, say, in Auckland or other parts of New Zealand, if the land is available. So I would say, in closing, congratulations to the select committee, and the chairman, who, I am told, did an excellent job in respect of this legislation. We look forward to those houses being built, and especially, we look forward to people moving into the 30 percent of affordable homes, and getting on with their lives.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Just before I get into my contribution, I just want to make it very clear that the Riccarton racing club came to the Minister for Building and Housing to discuss the lands that we are discussing today in the House. It came, and it actually proposed that property be leasehold property. After some discussions with the Minister, and to-ing and fro-ing, it was the Minister who discussed with the Riccarton racing club the idea of turning that land not into leasehold but into a housing area. And that is what the true story is. That is how the Riccarton racing club ended up with the 40 hectares of land to build these 600 homes on. It is true.

The racecourse will continue to operate; the Riccarton Market will continue to operate. There were a lot of community groups in Christchurch watching on with interest as to what would happen to the Riccarton Market, and all of them were very happy that, even though there is all this development happening, they will get to keep their Riccarton Market.

I just want to quote from a submission from the New Zealand Racing Board about these bills. It said: “These Bills are an excellent example of where racing is able to develop both its own industry as well as making a meaningful and substantial contribution to the local community.” That is why it fully supports this bill. Ngāi Tahu Property said that “The passing of these bills into law will mark a great milestone for both the Trustees and NTP, enabling the realisation of a vision” that has been around for several years. Ngāi Tahu Property also commented that it was a real privilege for it to be part and parcel of the whole process of the development of the Riccarton Racecourse land.

This Government is committed to the 13,000 brand new homes that are being built in Christchurch. We will continue to strive to do that. This is one of many projects that are happening within Christchurch. As a new Cantabrian in Christchurch East, I believe that a lot of great things will actually come from this. Yes, Christchurch East has lost a lot of its houses through the earthquake, but this is a step towards making sure that those homes, even though they are being built somewhere else—some may even come back to Christchurch East—are actually going to be made affordable for couples. Some may say that $450,000 is very expensive. It may be, but it is what the market price is. It is what affordable homes are being sold for in Christchurch. These people will also be able to access their KiwiSaver to be able to put forward towards a deposit or to help pay for these homes.

As my colleagues have said, this is a pragmatic bill. It is a good bill, and I have no problems in commending it to the House. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Riccarton Racecourse Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill. These bills have proceeded through Parliament relatively quickly. They were introduced in October last year. They attracted only a few submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we are pleased that the bills are going through their final reading today.

But we have a little concern about the Minister for Building and Housing’s comments that this is really part of the Government’s strategy to help with the Christchurch rebuild, and to help provide affordable housing. The 180-odd affordable homes are to be provided as part of the quid pro quo for a quarter of the racecourse having its reserve status uplifted and the trust board for the racecourse being able to sell that land and develop it, or have it developed with Ngāi Tahu Property—the quid pro quo is the provision of these affordable homes.

But that is not going to be able to tackle the crisis. It is not nearly enough, because we have hundreds of people tonight sleeping in their cars in Māngere. So many ordinary Kiwis recognise that we have a homelessness crisis, we have a housing crisis, and this Government is not doing enough to address that. We have seen that over and over again in the House when questions have been asked of Ministers and we have not seen them acknowledge that there is a crisis. Instead, they talk about there being a supply challenge. The first step towards solving the problem is recognising that it exists, and the Government has actually failed to do that in terms of the housing crisis. Instead, we are seeing denial, excuses, distractions, and now talk that this legislation is a contribution to dealing with that crisis.

These homes that will be built in Champions Mile, even though some of them will be affordable homes—i.e., they have got a sale price of less than $450,000—are not going to be affordable to the people in Christchurch who are sleeping on the streets, in their cars, in garages, or are dossing down on the floor of a family member or friend. We need more emergency accommodation for people like that, who are struggling even to provide themselves with basic accommodation, and these bills are a solution to that. The Green Party says we need the Government to invest much more in building emergency accommodation and in building more State homes, instead of having the Government sell off State houses and allow the waiting lists for them to get longer and longer. I want to live in a country where the Government cares that people are sleeping on the streets, and does not just stand by and watch and deny that there is a problem.

One of the other things that the Minister said in the second reading was that these bills are unlocking land that is not being well-used at the moment, and that is a concern if that is going to be part of the Government’s strategy of providing more homes through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, which was released recently. That policy statement has some objectives of enabling people to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being, but it fails to mention environmental well-being, and we heard from the few submitters on this legislation that they really valued the open space that the racecourse provides as a place to recreate, as a place to practise their golf skills, and as a place to walk the dog.

We cannot see the housing crisis being tackled simply by using reserve land in centres around New Zealand to increase subdivision and residential development. We want healthy cities, and those are cities that have got adequate green spaces in them. So it is very disappointing that in this new National Policy Statement on Urban Development there is a reference only to social, economic, and cultural well-being and not to environmental well-being, because we will not have healthy cities and we will not have a healthy economy unless we sustain the environment, which is the basis of that. Nevertheless, because this legislation does provide for an extra 180 “affordable” homes, and because the land is actually situated in what is now part of the centre of Christchurch—it is not on the outskirts, as it once was; it is close to schools, shopping facilities, and the industrial area further to the south in Riccarton—it is a good place for development to occur because it is not promoting urban sprawl.

But we think that the Riccarton Racecourse trust board will get a substantial financial benefit from these bills. It is well aware of the amenity values of the racecourse. It has said that the revenue that the bills will allow it to generate will be used to promote racing and to enhance the amenity of the racecourse, and that is all well and good. It also needs to be cognisant when it is working with Ngāi Tahu to actually ensure that we do not get some of the rabbit hutch developments that we have seen elsewhere in Christchurch, where houses are placed cheek by jowl with no consideration of passive solar design, limited consideration of energy efficiency, and little consideration of how the homes interact with public transport links.

One of the problems here is that although there are criteria in the bill that the subdivision has to meet, they are quite limited, and that is a problem because the district plan in Christchurch is currently being reviewed. The final form of that is not yet known and it is that plan that will determine what conditions the Christchurch City Council can put on the development to ensure that the subdivision does provide for good interaction and links with public transport infrastructure, good walking and cycling links, and good protection of reserve areas, open space, and smaller places for children to play and for people to walk. So there is still quite a lot of uncertainty about the actual form that this development will take and quite a lot of responsibility on Christchurch City Council to actually get that right.

So we are pleased that the bills are going through, but we have some qualifiers on the type of urban development that this Government looks to be promoting if it is keen on using reserve land in other areas for subdivision, given that its national policy statement does not recognise the importance of environmental well-being.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I was very surprised that the Minister for Building and Housing, when he spoke, took so much of his speech to pat himself on the back because of this particular proposal, this particular development. [Interruption] He did. He spent a good part of his speech patting himself on the back as though he was entitled to take credit for it, and nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, I was quite offended by his comments, because this proposal has never formed any part of the Government’s housing plans in any respect whatsoever. In fact, what actually happened was that the Riccarton Racecourse board initiated the discussions—and no doubt had discussions with various parties, including the Minister—and yet Joanne Hayes gets up to say to us: “Well, because of that, it was Nick Smith’s idea.” That is simply not true. It is not true. It was not Nick Smith’s idea. He had to be involved simply because legislation was necessary. The truth is that the Riccarton Racecourse board initiated this and then went to the Christchurch City Council to develop a local bill.

To prove that, I was written to—as other MPs would have been—by the city council. The letter was dated 9 September 2015, and it said this: “I write formally to notify you under clause 4(1) of Appendix C of the Standing Orders of Parliament of the intention of the Christchurch City Council to promote a local bill into Parliament called the Riccarton Racecourse Bill (the Bill). (2) The objectives of this Bill are to (a) identify part of Riccarton Racecourse to be available for housing development …”. That is the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is that it was not the Minister’s idea at all; it was the idea that came from the Riccarton Racecourse itself. It had discussions with various parties, but it was actually the Christchurch City Council that proposed and has put this piece of legislation forward. Yes, the Minister had to get involved because the legislation was necessary, and that is why we are now looking at these two bills.

The point I do want to make is that while he was inaccurately claiming credit for this particular piece of legislation and this particular proposal for the development of that racecourse, at the same time his Government has failed to actually provide anything like an adequate plan for housing in New Zealand; nor has it done anything about immigration, which has greatly exacerbated that situation. It has built only half of the houses required, especially in Auckland, and we are, therefore, finding people living in cars and garages and being provided with motels at great expense to the taxpayer.

As far as Christchurch is concerned, the reality there for most of the new housing that has gone up in Christchurch in recent times is that the spending has come from two places. One is from insurance, which is the lion’s share of the funding and the projects for housing in Christchurch, and the other is the Earthquake Commission (EQC), which is a Government fund for disaster relief and replacement of infrastructure, and so on—nothing to do with this Minister or the Government’s housing plans.

Now that I have got that off my chest, I can move on to the bills themselves. I did want to say this in particular: New Zealand First is particularly pleased with these bills, and we want to thank the Riccarton Racecourse board and also the Christchurch City Council for promoting the bills. They will make a valuable—small, but valuable—contribution to housing in Christchurch. Riccarton Racecourse is a very important piece of land. In fact, it is an institution in Christchurch and in Canterbury, but the land that is required for racing will still be there, and people will still be able to enjoy that. There are over 120 hectares, and only 40 hectares of that will actually be developed for housing—as I have said, a very welcome, relatively small, but very important contribution to the need for housing in Christchurch, where new homes are certainly in demand. There will also be a significant area of the land set aside for green, open space, and that is also very important. So you get three advantages: retention of the racecourse, new housing, and some open space. Given that, it is a pretty positive proposal, and a very positive development.

The key purpose of these bills is to provide for both affordable and market housing in Christchurch. For those houses that are to be set aside for affordable housing, the price is to be a base of $450,000. That is affordable in today’s markets, and that is going to be very welcome indeed. Of those 600 homes, 30 percent will be targeted to be in the affordable home category. As I have said in previous speeches on this, New Zealand First would have liked to see that at 50 percent, as a minimum, but, having said that, 30 percent is still a valuable contribution, and is entirely supportable as far as we are concerned. The methodology is that the Riccarton Racecourse board will provide a development scheme meeting all of the minimum specified requirements in the bills, and that will be submitted to the Minister for final approval. It will mean at least 180 affordable homes, and they will be very, very welcome in Christchurch city.

I also wanted to say this about that situation in Christchurch. Immediately after the initial earthquakes in 2010 and, especially, 2011 there was an exodus of people away from Christchurch. In fact, 16,600 people left in those years immediately after the worst of the earthquakes occurred, simply because their houses had been damaged or were red-zoned or uninhabitable, and there were not enough houses for all of the people in Christchurch to live in. So it is no surprise that that number of people left. That situation in more recent years has been reversed, and we are still seeing an increase of about 5,000 people per year in the Christchurch population. That is because, as I said, of the effect of the investment from insurance moneys and from EQC in building homes.

Very little, if any, of that was actually due to any Government policy as far as housing development is concerned, so it is most inappropriate that the Government should use these bills to say it has done such a wonderful job. The opposite is the case. The Government has done next to nothing. In fact, after the earthquakes it even refused to put a cap on rents, so they skyrocketed. They skyrocketed, and yet Scott Simpson had the temerity to tell us in this House a few minutes ago that in recent years there has been a 5 percent reduction in rents. Well, big deal. Before that there had been years and years of huge increases in rents because the Government did not do anything about it. That is the truth of that situation, Mr Simpson.

Finally, I would like to say this. The influx of people now beginning to occur in Christchurch, and, actually, in other places, is driven not only by the history that I have just outlined but also as a result of Government inaction about housing across the country—especially, of course, in Auckland, because of the chronic housing crisis that has now developed there because of the utter mess this Government has made of housing policy in New Zealand. These houses spoken of in these bills are needed, but many, many more will be needed as well because of the flight from Auckland, because of house prices there, because of the whole situation concerning the deficit of houses in New Zealand, and especially because of the gross neglect by this Government, not only of housing development but also of social housing in New Zealand.

With those facts specifically in mind, it is very important that somebody does something about housing in this country, and this small but important project will make a contribution that is valued. It will be valued by Christchurch people, and is certainly valued by New Zealand First. For that reason we will have no hesitation in supporting these bills.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call a member, I would just like to make a quick ruling. Early in Mr O’Rourke’s speech, members on both sides looked to me when he indicated that he felt that members—one member in particular, and possibly one earlier—were not telling the truth. Members looked to me to intervene at that stage.

I do want to make it clear that if a member thought that someone was deliberately not telling the truth, it would be a contempt of Parliament and a breach of privilege under Standing Order 410(b). The member Denis O’Rourke did not use the word “deliberately”. I will say this carefully: he did not indicate that the members knew what they were saying was actually untrue, or that the action was deliberate. If it was not deliberate, and someone was mistakenly indicating something and the member was pointing out that what they were saying is not true, that is not a breach of privilege and it is not something that should be interrupted. It is a debating matter.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. It is my pleasure to take a call on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill.

As someone who is quite new in this House, it is really interesting to watch the dynamics on both sides. You have got an agreement here, it seems, that we are all agreeing to pass these bills. On the Opposition side, it is all about that, but the interesting dynamic there is that it is not actually acknowledging a lot of the really good things about these bills and the journey that the bills have taken to get to this particular point. I know everyone has a job to do, in Opposition and also in Government, but here on this side of the House, I would say, compared with the other side—the other side is where, after all was said and done, there was more said than done, whereas on this side of the House there are, indeed, a lot of things that have actually happened, particularly around the Christchurch rebuild. When we look at the emergency, the recovery, the rebuild, and then what we are in now, which is the regeneration phase, and when we look at the incredible amount of money that has been dedicated to the Christchurch rebuild—we are talking $17 billion. In thinking about that, it is indeed this type of legislation that has been the catalyst to actually address so much around the rebuild of Christchurch.

When we come to this legislation, the interesting thing, the important thing, about it is that it really does pave the way—it really does pave the way—for a really exciting and a really dynamic housing development. The dynamics within this one were actually about the fact that we had collaboration here and we had goodwill. That collaboration was between the Government, it was between the Christchurch City Council, it was between Ngāi Tahu as well, and it was also between the Riccarton Racecourse. When we look at the goodwill factor, it is about Ngāi Tahu in a lot of ways, because it was their goodwill in the fact of the right of first refusal (RFR). When we look at the right of first refusal, they waive it in this particular case, and the reason for that is that they could see the immense opportunity that this would bring.

In these bills we talk about land trapped in ancient history—actually not so ancient, I suppose; in 1878. This was an opportunity for Ngāi Tahu to look at this and say: “Look, here’s a great opportunity.” When you look at our land, Māori freehold land—Māori land—that is ancient history, but when Ngāi Tahu saw the opportunity for this incredible development to happen, well then, they took it. I can remember the Hon Nick Smith coming to Ngāi Tahu back in 2009, and there was talk then of how we could actually use our RFR to be able to instigate some better use of our land through the laws that were available. This legislation actually really does it, and the thing about it is that it is unique in the fact that it is probably one of the first developments that we have had the opportunity to have really true partnership in, but it is also legislation where it is unique because we can actually include in this, as the legislation is saying, affordable housing. This is the beginning of affordable housing—the use of land that was tied up in legislation. It releases all of that so that everyone can actually utilise this type of land for the benefit of the people. When we look at this, it is about the benefit of the people of Christchurch, it is about the benefit of the iwi, and it is about the benefit of racegoers, and all of that.

Just to conclude, these bills here are very principled. They are pragmatic and they are progressive, but the bills reflect the great work that the National Government is doing in the regeneration of Christchurch. There is going to be a lot more of this, particularly when we look at the template, because iwi who are actually getting towards or already have settled in Treaty settlements are looking at this and thinking: “Good old Ngāi Tahu again—look, they are actually leading the way, because we have another opportunity here to use our RFR.” On that note, kia ora, and I commend these bills to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased to take a short—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry, I am going to start the member again. I think that comment was probably directed at the previous speaker, but it was pretty rude to the current speaker, who was just starting. So we will restart the clock.

JAN LOGIE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party on the Riccarton Racecourse Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill.

For the Green Party it is critical, in terms of its policy, to recognise that the design of our towns and cities affects how we live, work, and play. We believe that warm, dry, affordable homes set in some smart urban planning can improve the livability of our communities for all New Zealanders. Building location, design processes, and materials have a major impact on the environment, on our transport options, on our health, and on our quality of life, and housing is fundamental to the health and well-being of individuals, whānau, families, and communities. We see this, sadly, in a negative sense in deaths as a result of poor housing every week, and in the hospital admissions in this country. But if we get it right, we can support well-being and health.

The Green Party believes that all people are entitled to secure tenure of sustainable and affordable housing, so it is happy to support this legislation because, in so far as it goes, it is going to provide land within the city limits of Christchurch to enable the building of 600 homes, 180 of which have been designated “affordable”. We do have a bit of a quibble with the definition of “affordable” being set at $450,000, which, sadly, for many New Zealanders, is still well out of the range of affordability—and it is, particularly when you think that the average price of housing in Christchurch is $490,000. To be setting the level of affordability at only $40,000 below that average is, I think, doing a disservice to the real need of communities and families within Christchurch. But, that said, it is a start, and we certainly know that there is real need.

I have heard some of the debate around whether there is still an affordability issue in Christchurch. The member on that side, Scott Simpson, was saying that affordability has actually improved under this Government in recent years, forgetting how massively out of control things got after the earthquake because the Government chose not to intervene and put some controls around rental prices, in particular, as well as building prices. We definitely know and will acknowledge that there have been a lot of new building consents happening in Christchurch and that some new houses have been built, but, as we are seeing in Auckland and other parts of country, most of those builds are targeted at the higher end of the market, and the market is not delivering for most New Zealanders. The market is delivering for speculators and those who want to make a profit off housing, and it is leaving families and the vulnerable behind—on the streets, in people’s garages, or sleeping on the floor in family members’ houses. There is a clear, clear call for the Government to be more interventionist to make the market work.

Back to this bill, Mr Assistant Speaker, as you have so nicely prompted me, one of the points that I would like to acknowledge we do have some concern about is from Minister Smith’s initial speech on this bill, when he spoke about the land, in effect, as wasted space. There were submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee from residents living in the area, who talked about how much they used the space for recreation. Part of our vision for those sustainable, healthy developments is for there to be a good balance between green space, transport, and homes, and that the homes are sustainably built. We are disappointed to see that there is not very much guidance within this bill to ensure that that is the end result for the community of Christchurch. It is a missed opportunity, particularly when we know that the Christchurch district plan is still under review. There are a lot of questions about what is going to result. But, all in all, we are happy to support this small measure in support of the people of Christchurch.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to be able to speak on both the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. Can I first open with some comment, and I think other members have made it during this debate, around some of the comments from the Minister for Building and Housing in his speech in this third reading. I have a brother. I love him very much, so I will not name him, but Jason’s worst trait as a youngster was turning up when the dishes were almost done and then taking credit for it, and taking undue credit for the work that had been done. That is, essentially, what the Minister did today in his third reading speech. You would have thought that the Minister had come up with this idea himself, will actually go out and build the homes himself—everything about his speech was taking credit for something that has actually got very little to do with a Minister at all.

Credit where credit is due: the Canterbury Jockey Club has seen a need for housing in Christchurch post the earthquake and has taken steps to look to change the legislation that binds it to keep hold of the land that we are talking about here. But you would not have thought that it was a Canterbury Jockey Club issue or maybe Ngāi Tahu’s issue that they had brought to this House to get the caveat around that land changed; it sounded like it was the idea of Nick Smith.

I want to also comment on some of what Jan Logie said and what the Minister said—this land was wasted space—and just take a moment to reflect on the fact that Nick Smith, our building and housing Minister, said the words “wasted space”, because I think there is a certain irony in there at the moment. At a time when we have a housing crisis that the doctor says does not exist, and when we have got banks taking action because of what is happening with foreign-based buyers but he says there is diddly-squat there, our “wasted space” Minister says that there is nothing to do here. And he has the audacity to take credit for this piece of legislation when it is the people of Christchurch who have seen a need for housing and some affordable housing and have brought this piece of legislation to the House.

So let us give credit where the credit is actually due: to Ngāi Tahu, and to the Canterbury Jockey Club, which has said that we need these 40 hectares of land in order to have a housing development of around 600 homes. But, importantly, it has said that 30 percent of that must be affordable. The benchmark for that has been set at $450,000, and a number of my colleagues have already questioned whether or not that is, in fact, affordable, given the housing situation in Christchurch. Regardless of that, we think that the fact it has have decided to put 30 percent of that towards affordable housing is a good thing.

This piece of legislation is necessary because there is a piece of legislation that I believe was passed in 1878, which landlocks this land with the racing club and gives first right of refusal to the Crown and also to Ngāi Tahu, and this allows this piece of land to be developed. I would also like to acknowledge my colleague Clayton Cosgrove who harked back to 1878, when he lived close to the Riccarton Racecourse, I believe. He said that it is very different from 1878, now. Back then, in 1878, the Riccarton Racecourse was well beyond the fringes of what the Christchurch City was—

Hon David Parker: Connected by rail.

KRIS FAAFOI: Connected by rail, I hear from the Hon David Parker, and Clayton Cosgrove can remember this. The land itself was rural, and protected for the purpose of the racecourse itself. But now we find ourselves in different times. The land is needed for housing development, some of it affordable. This brings two issues that I—as our racing spokesperson—hold dear, housing and racing, and brings them closer together.

This Government has been useless on housing, and I think this week the Minister for Social Housing has found herself in serious danger of being scratched—taken out of the equation, no longer useful to the Government in terms—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member and ask him now to stop the analogies and get back to the bill. It is a pretty specific bill.

KRIS FAAFOI: Back to those 600 homes. The fact that the Government has taken little or no action on social housing or on building affordable housing is why we are here. It is why Christchurch needs more housing, and we have got three housing Ministers who have failed to take any desk action to ensure that there is affordable housing for New Zealanders. Whether you are living in a car, or you are looking to buy your first home, this Government has been hopeless. But credit where credit is due. It is not with Nick Smith, our Minister for Building and Housing, not with Paula Bennett, our Minister for Social Housing, not with Bill English, our Minister responsible for HNZC—responsible for something else—none of them have been able to do that job. But hats off to the Canterbury Jockey Club and to Ngāi Tahu for actually doing something to build some houses—something that this Government has been completely incompetent at.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. In following on from that rather mean-spirited contribution on this third reading of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill, I just want to say that this is a very pragmatic and sensible measure. I do agree with one part of what the member Kris Faafoi said, which is that this is necessary. It is necessary because there were 13,000 homes lost during the earthquakes in Christchurch in 2010 and 2011. It is very necessary to ensure that there is both a mix of higher-end but also, most importantly, affordable housing available to the residents of Christchurch. It represents—“wasted” is a strong term, and the member who has just resumed his seat is somewhat wasted on this debate, I feel.

I had the benefit of going down and having a look at the Riccarton Racecourse as part of the committee hearing process. There was land there that was not best used. There was considerable land dedicated to what can only be described as a Third World - style, ramshackle flea market. It is quite popular among people on one day of the week when they go in to these tents and marquees, and so forth, to buy and sell, and deal in products, but it could be much, much better used in housing. Having that partnership with Ngāi Tahu, and having the city council, as it does, backing the use of one third of the Riccarton Racecourse reserves—that is only 40 out of the 122 hectares that will be dedicated towards this housing development—I think is a very sensible measure.

It is a fine bill. It has been put to the House by the very competent and capable Minister for Building and Housing, the Hon Nick Smith, and for those reasons I commend it fully to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I just want to correct the previous speaker, Paul Foster-Bell, on a couple of points. The first point is that, in all those many, many years when people were struggling to find affordable housing in the city, which was hugely damaged by earthquakes, when 11,000 to 13,000 homes were damaged by the earthquakes, the Government did not step in. There were calls for the Government to regulate rents, which sky-rocketed. There were rents in parts of New Brighton where $1,200 a week was not unusual. That member who spoke previously has the audacity to say that the Government stepped in. Well, it did not. I can assure you it did not.

The other thing I want to say is that the Riccarton Market is not ramshackle; it is actually a well-supported, well-loved institution. The people who attend that market will be hugely offended to know that the member on that side of the House thinks that it is ramshackle. When this bill was first proposed there were many people, many markets, and many community organisations that said: “We would love the Riccarton Market to come to our site.” That is how much it is loved in Christchurch. So it is not ramshackle.

I want to also correct one of the statements about how involved the Government is in promoting this bill. When the Riccarton racing club was promoting the idea of having 40 hectares developed into housing, some of the Christchurch city councillors were questioning the rationale about why that should happen. Their fears and concerns were allayed to the point that they actually became the formal promoters of the bill. For the members on that side of the House to say that the Government has been the key driver and the key institution, particularly in supporting the development of housing in this area, is blatantly not correct—it is not correct. I do want to say that I do commend the Riccarton racing club members for their foresight and their forward-thinking in wanting to do this.

Some of the reasons that they have gone down this path have been traversed, but one of them has not been expressed in this House tonight, and that is the fact that the Riccarton racing club really wants to preserve its racing club—the facilities, the track, the buildings that make up the Riccarton racing club—for perpetuity, for the people of Christchurch. In order to do that, this development will help them to achieve certain things, and one of the most important things is actually the ongoing maintenance of some of those buildings at the club, which are old. They need maintenance, and ongoing maintenance, and, because of their age, they need specialist care. So that is one of the reasons that this is happening.

The other reason is they saw an opportunity to support the people of Christchurch and Canterbury to actually be able to have some housing. For such a long time the redevelopment and the rebuild of our homes has taken a significant period of time, and adding 600 homes to the mix actually really does alleviate a lot of that pressure. So we are really looking forward to the development going ahead.

I do want to commend and acknowledge the hard work of Dr Megan Woods, the local MP. When the local residents were concerned about what would happen to their much-loved park area, she made sure that there was lots of good information. She had public meetings. She got members of the racing club to attend these meetings and really talk through some of the big issues that they were concerned about. I think that a lot of the work that she did up front has allowed for a really succinct and really well-crafted process. This is because of a lot of the work that she did to ensure that the voice of her community was heard. Some of the issues that the community raised were around the significant increase in traffic that would happen. Yaldhurst Road is a significant thoroughfare. It leads from the southern part of the city, right through to the airport and beyond. It also leads on to the main highway that heads out west and on to the West Coast. So it is quite a significant arterial route and it will be impacted by 600 new homes in the area—all those people, at rush hour, wanting to get out to work and school, and then coming home at the end of the day.

This development was originally going to be an exemplar. An exemplar project has to have certain criteria within it—affordability, a percentage of affordability, which this development assures us it will have; it has to have particular amenities; good urban design; and infrastructure and transport planning. Well, in that regard I think that perhaps there may be some problems. But this development is not an exemplar. Clause 9, in Part 2 of the bill, talks about the requirements, which include relevant regional and district planning, that the interests of Ngāi Tahu are fully considered, and that—and this is an interesting provision—fibre-optic broadband connections are provided to all premises. I thought that was really interesting. What it does not include, which I think is really short-sighted, is the ability to have good design that means that the homes are accessible, whether you are 3 years old or 100 years old, or whether you have a disability or not. They have missed an opportunity to build accessibility options into the requirements, which I think is really short-sighted.

So we are looking at 600 homes—a third of which will be priced at $450,000 or below. It is in the legislation that affordability is $450,000. I have said in previous readings of this legislation that I think Aucklanders would love to have a bill that determined what affordability was. However, I suspect that in the Auckland market we would be coming back to the House, week after week after week, to change the level of affordability. There is one thing that is for sure—affordability and the Auckland housing market do not go together. They are not synonymous at all. But in this piece of legislation we have got a definition of affordability at $450,000. Some of my colleagues have questioned whether that is actually affordable, when the average price of a home in Canterbury sits at around $490,000. I too would question that definition of affordability. It may be that we, at some point, have to come back and redefine what affordable is, in terms of the Christchurch housing market.

To end my contribution I just want to say that housing is a major concern across our country. I want to just acknowledge what is going to happen tonight at Park Up For Homes Māngere, where 1,200 people have indicated that they are going to sleep in cars, in solidarity with all the New Zealanders who are forced to sleep in cars. Twelve-hundred people are going to volunteer to sleep in cars tonight, including Labour MPs. I just want to acknowledge that they are making a stand for those people who cannot afford housing in this country.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I support these bills and commend these bills to the House. Thank you.

Bills read a third time.

Bills

Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The question of whether to allow shop trading over the Easter period is a contentious one, considered by this House on numerous occasions. Those in support of Easter Sunday trading emphasise economic opportunities and the freedom of shoppers to choose, while those against it focus on the need for shops to be closed to mark a day of significance and for workers to be able to spend time with their families. The Government is eager to resolve this perennial issue.

The inconsistency in the present law is pretty well known, with shops in Queenstown and Taupō able to open on Easter Sunday but those in Wānaka and Rotorua not able to. Actually, it is not as clear as that; with the Pembroke Mall in Wānaka only stage one of that mall is actually able to open. Picton shops are able to open, but only if there is a cruise ship in town, as if that is the only centre that gets cruise ships these days. In my home city of Dunedin, the Carnegie Centre in Moray Place is able to open, but only for arts, crafts, and children’s toys—but books and toys can be sold only while performances are happening on the mezzanine floor. It is a ludicrous artefact of the law, when, to the best of my knowledge, the Carnegie Centre does not even open for retail trading any more.

The point is this: the law is a complete muddle. Although there have been successive attempts to change it, these have been defeated on personal votes that oppose such a change on the grounds of religious or union beliefs. I myself have opposed such a bill, but supported one in the name of the Hon Todd McClay, on whose bill this bill is modelled. It simply gives choice to the local community, through its territorial authority, to decide whether its retail stores should be able to open. The vote on this bill is likely to be deemed a personal vote, but the National caucus has agreed to vote in support of it at this and remaining readings. I want to thank members of the Commerce Committee, well-led by its chair, Melissa Lee, for their hard work, and also the submitters, who made thoughtful submissions on the bill.

The Commerce Committee spent a significant amount of time considering it, and heard from a range of submitters. Unfortunately, it has not been able to reach agreement on amendments that could be reported back to the House for consideration. That is a shame, because there were some useful improvements that could have been presented to members in order for them to decide in their conscience whether to support it. The role of the select committee in considering a bill that will the subject of a conscience vote is, in my view, to present the bill in the best shape for that vote, not to impose its will on the House. But Opposition members have voted against any amendments, and that course of action caused the vote on the amendments for consideration to be tied and, therefore, lost. I think that is a great shame.

It is a great shame that not only does the House not even get to choose what it should do and be the architect of its own destiny with a personal vote, but also the Opposition members cannot bring themselves even to support that very simple concept of democracy, which is the freedom to choose—the essence that is in this bill. I think that is a terrible shame. The amendments to the bill that were the subject of the committee’s deliberations were very good; I thought they had merit. So I have introduced Supplementary Order Paper 179 for the Committee’s consideration at the Committee stage. Supplementary Order Paper 179 proposes to change the mechanism by which territorial authorities permit shop trading on Easter Sunday from a by-law to a local policy. It also further strengthens the protections for shop employees who refuse to work on Easter Sunday.

The bill makes two key changes to the shop trading restrictions regime. First, it allows communities to have a choice to determine whether shop trading can take place on Easter Sunday and, second, it grants employment protections to employees, ensuring they have the right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday.

Dr David Clark: Yeah, right!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Local communities will have the ability to choose whether shop trading—see, there is the “Yeah, right!”. Labour members do not even believe employees have a right to choose. They do not even believe that they should be able to choose to say no, to choose whether they want to earn income on that day. They just shut it down. I think that is a terrible reflection on the Opposition. Territorial authorities will be required to consult with their communities. Their communities will choose—another choice the Opposition does not want the public to have—on any proposal to permit shop trading on Easter Sunday.

Some had suggested the bill will further confuse and complicate shop trading restrictions, but, given the descriptions I made earlier in my speech, I think the only way, really, is a pathway of clarity. It is simply a yes or no to the opening of retail stores on Easter Sunday. Authorities cannot impose any additional shop trading rules under this amendment. Territorial authorities, in consultation with their communities, can determine whether shop trading should be enabled and whether it should occur in an entire district or in parts of it. It is a pragmatic solution to an issue that has been constantly debated in this House.

The bill provides shop employees the right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday. Shop employees can refuse to work on Easter Sunday without providing a reason. An employer cannot compel them to work. If a shop employee is compelled to work or is disadvantaged for refusing to work, the employee can take a personal grievance against the employer in accordance with the Employment Relations Act 2000. The personal grievance mechanism is the appropriate recourse. This is in line with the dispute resolution mechanisms in place for other issues concerning unjustifiable actions by employers. The Employment Relations Act 2000 provides for free mediation and low-cost dispute resolution via the Employment Relations Authority, and the authority could send the parties to mediation first, as they do with other employment relationship issues.

The bill clearly requires employers to ask employees to work on each Easter Sunday, and sets out the employer obligations relating to this. This agreement must be sought each year; it cannot be part of an employment agreement. Any such provision in an employment agreement would be unenforceable. The right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday will be extended to all shop employees on Easter Sunday under the bill. This includes employees who currently work in garden centres, petrol stations, dairies, and so on. It is a pragmatic and well-balanced approach that provides choice for local communities on whether or not to allow shop trading on Easter Sunday while also giving protections to all shop employees on that day. I commend it to the House.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): This is a crap bill. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has failed to ram zero hours down people’s throats, and here he is trying to undermine the rights of working people once more. He says that people could get on the phone, get their lawyer involved, and take a personal grievance. Well, not everyone has Ken Whitney on speed dial. Many people feel they are under pressure from their employers, and they do not have the luxury of a Panama Papers lawyer to give a quick bell to sort things out and to make a bit more money.

People in New Zealand are feeling the pressure. The Government has produced very little for middle New Zealand in the Budget. They are feeling the strain. They are working, they are trying to keep their employers onside, and this makes it a little bit harder for them to spend time with their friends and families. This is one more step down the road to a complete squashing of the rights of working people in New Zealand. That is why I will be standing to oppose this bill. I do not think it is in the long-term interest of New Zealand to continue to squeeze the rights of working people.

The Commerce Committee received a letter from Caritas during the proceedings when we heard submissions, inviting members of the committee to attend a meeting on Easter Sunday morning. Its staff kindly said to us that the meeting would be at 10.30 on Easter Sunday morning at Hill Street in Thorndon, Wellington, and although they themselves had plans to be with family, the community, and church on that day, they were willing to sacrifice that to help members of the committee understand the impact of having to work on Easter Sunday. As best I am aware, not one member of the select committee wished to take them up on that offer. I think that illustrates the point. We have, in this House, people willing to make rules that they themselves are not interested in following.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.