Wednesday, 29 June 2016

WEDNESDAY, 29 JUNE 2016

WEDNESDAY, 29 JUNE 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Job Creation and Unemployment—Progress

1. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “a priority for this Government is to build a more productive and competitive economy that supports jobs and higher incomes”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which it was made. The Government does not create jobs; businesses do. Under this Government we have seen jobs, growth, and higher wages for New Zealand families. There were 200,000 more jobs in the last 3 years, and average annual wages are up $11,000 since 2008, to almost $58,000. That is a 24 percent increase in the average wage at a time when inflation went up 11 percent.

Jono Naylor: What recent reports has he seen on unemployment in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Statistics New Zealand today revised its household labour force data as a result of more accurate data-collection techniques. This provisionally reduced the current unemployment rate from 5.7 percent to 5.2 percent, although this will need to be confirmed at the next survey release. Unemployment of 5.2 percent would give New Zealand the 11th lowest rate in the OECD, compared with 5.7 percent in Australia. I would stress that this is a result of changes in measurement technique only.

Jono Naylor: What is the outlook for jobs and wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have mentioned, in the last 3 years there have been 200,000 new jobs added to the economy. Treasury is projecting a further 170,000 jobs by 2020. If the average wage follows the projections, it will rise from $58,000 to over $63,000 per year by 2020.

Jono Naylor: What specific steps is the Government taking to reinforce business confidence to invest another dollar and employ another person?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are any number, but I will mention just a few that are in the process of being implemented. We are reducing ACC levies to where they are now $2 billion lower per year than in 2012—that is $2 billion left in the hands of ACC levy payers—and we are spending, along with local government, $110 billion on infrastructure in the next 10 years, with particular success in the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband and the completion of the Rural Broadband Initiative project.

Grant Robertson: Does he agree with the statement of Pope Francis I that “Inequality is the root of social evil.”, given that inequality has risen in New Zealand on his watch, and is it not time he got back to confession?

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

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am bound to, because the Pope, of course, is infallible, unlike the member, who is wrong. There is no evidence that inequality in New Zealand is increasing. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do need a little more cooperation, particularly from members to my left.

Rt Hon John Key: Is it true that at confession you say sorry, and if that is the case, should Andrew Little not just say sorry?

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! No, that question—

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All members need to settle down. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. That question is ruled out of order. I am now going to deal—[Interruption] Order! I am now going to deal with a point of order from Andrew Little, if he still has one, and it will be heard in silence.

Andrew Little: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a growing track record on the part of the Prime Minister of raising questions, and sometimes points of order, that are clearly designed to lead to chaos and disorder in the House. It is a bit rich for that member, who has a track record of making things up and never acknowledging—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member—[Interruption] Order! The member was on solid ground with the first part of his point of order. It was not a point of order from the Prime Minister; it was a supplementary question. I cannot anticipate what that supplementary question is going to be until it is stated, and as soon as it was stated I then ruled it out of order. [Interruption] Order! Question—[Interruption] Order! My patience will run out very quickly today, and some members may be asked to leave the Chamber.

Inequality, Economic and Social—Government Measures to Address

2. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana korero, “I will lead a Government that will govern for all New Zealanders”?

[Does he stand by his statement, “I will lead a Government that will govern for all New Zealanders”?]

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and we are doing that.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister think he has been successful in governing for all New Zealanders, when the top 10 percent of households now control more than 50 percent of the country’s wealth, and while 40 percent—

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

Metiria Turei: —of families share just 3 percent between them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, that statistic has not changed—that around 50 percent of net worth is held by about 10 percent of households is the same as was reported in 2003-04. But also, as the report itself says—the member needs to look at a number of different reports, including income inequality, which has been quite static over the last decade.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister regret giving tax cuts to the wealthiest, cutting KiwiSaver for everybody else, and not building homes after the global financial crisis, given the effect has been a broken economy where 40 percent of families—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring it to a conclusion.

Metiria Turei: —now have to share 3 percent of the country’s wealth between them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I utterly reject the proposition in the member’s question. But also, if one looks at the tax switch, interestingly enough, of course, it raised GST, which is paid, in large part, by those who consume the most, and that is obviously high-income earners. It took away the impacts that were enjoyed by some of those who own properties, which, by definition, tend to be rental properties owned by higher-income New Zealanders and generated, I think, nearly a billion dollars annually for the Crown. And, of course, it was distributionally neutral across all different income cohorts.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My concern that I am raising with you is the length of the Prime Minister’s answers. Twice you have asked the questioner to truncate her question, and then let him ramble on with a tissue of lies and think it is adequate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member continues to raise points of order like that, I will be asking him to leave the Chamber. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet, Mr Brownlee, in case you had not observed. The problem is with these long supplementary questions, which are becoming, in themselves, statements. Upon receiving a very long and lengthy supplementary question, it obviously then gives whichever Minister is answering it the opportunity to give a longer answer. But as I have told Mr Peters on many occasions, I will be the sole determiner of when I think an answer has gone on for too long.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister understand that to most New Zealand families the fact that some people who own a lot of homes are doing well out of the housing crisis, while everyone else is finding it harder to get a decent home to live in, is just not fair?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, as I say, those numbers have not changed dramatically. Secondly, what I would say is that is why the Government is trying to support New Zealanders to move into their own homes, through things like KiwiSaver HomeStart.

David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister seen any other recent reports that 3 percent of income tax payers pay a quarter of all income tax?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen that report. I have also seen one that says that 11 percent of taxpayers pay 50 percent of all tax in New Zealand.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister understand that it is not just about data and graphs but about the kids who are growing up without a warm, dry, safe home to live in, parents who have to choose between paying the rent and putting food on the table, and elderly people who are shivering through this winter because they cannot afford to turn the heater on?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member, then, would be well versed to understand the changes to New Zealand superannuation. Under a National-led Government it has gone up, I think it is, $124 a fortnight for a married couple. The member would also then be well versed to explain to New Zealanders why she congratulates this Government on insulating 300,000 homes and why the Government is spending $10.4 billion annually supporting the most vulnerable New Zealanders.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister understand that this increasing gap between the haves and have-nots is also about people’s inability to build up wealth over time, to save for a rainy day, for young people to be able to save to buy a house, and for middle-aged people to save for their retirement—all of which have gotten harder under his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is wrong in the assertions she makes, but that is one of the reasons why the Government has been so focused on growing the economy. It is why we are proud of the fact that the economy generated 200,000 extra jobs over the last 3 years, and why we are confident that the economy will generate about another 170,000 jobs by 2020.

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for the fact that 40 percent of New Zealand families are struggling with a tiny percentage of the country’s resources, and that that gap is what is driving families to have to live in garages and cars, and their kids to be getting sick, in hospital, and at risk of dying? Take responsibility.

Mr SPEAKER: That is two supplementary questions. The Prime Minister can address one.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I certainly do take responsibility for the fact that we spend $10.4 billion supporting the most vulnerable New Zealanders. I take responsibility for the fact that we were the first Government in 43 years to raise benefits. I take responsibility for the fact that we have provided free doctors visits for under-13s. I take responsibility for the fact that we have run a breakfast in schools programme and that we have maintained Working for Families.

Inequality, Economic—Trends and Impact of Government Policy

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to new statistics showing increased wealth inequality under his Government that “it’s not surprising it’s getting a little bit more that way”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which focused on the impact of house prices, and that was: “I think it is largely consistent with what we have seen over the last 20 or 30 years. It is not surprising it is getting a little bit more that way because, in reality, better-off New Zealanders will own assets, particularly houses, and those house prices have been rising. So that’s what will be driving that.” But, as I said earlier on, the numbers have been pretty consistent with the last 10 years. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member may get a chance for supplementary questions later.

Andrew Little: Given the median individual’s net wealth has fallen by $16,000—that is 14 percent—since just after he took office, does this mean that middle New Zealand is going backwards under his watch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and I would refer the member to Bryan Perry’s income inequality work and statistics, and to the fact that if you look at the latest estimate that around 50 percent of the total net worth is held by 10 percent of households, that was the same as was reported when Labour was in Government in 2003 and 2004.

Andrew Little: Is the fading Kiwi Dream of homeownership, with just a quarter of adults under 40 now owning their own home, contributing to increased wealth inequality under his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We would need to check the facts from the member, because the member cannot even remember whether or not he was asked to say sorry.

Andrew Little: Have the five separate cuts that he has made to people’s KiwiSaver entitlements had a negative impact on middle New Zealand’s ability to save and grow their net wealth?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, what is certainly true is that the Government made adjustments to Working for Families. We accept that. That was all part of ensuring that the Government’s books got back in order. We are one of the few OECD countries that are in that position, and that certainly gives New Zealanders a much stronger platform for employment and growth.

Andrew Little: Will Treasury’s forecast of wages being outstripped by inflation in the coming 2 years mean that middle New Zealand gets wealthier, or poorer?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Under the National-led Government, middle New Zealand is getting wealthier. We have seen average wages rise by $11,000. Real wages have been rising faster than inflation under this Government, something that did not happen under the previous Government. Treasury’s estimates are that real wages will rise by another $5,000 over the next few years.

Tim Macindoe: What are some of the measures the current Government has taken over its term of office to support vulnerable families?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This year alone taxpayers will provide $10.4 billion of welfare support to vulnerable New Zealanders, and that excludes New Zealand superannuation. The Government has a strong track record—including being the first Government in 43 years to increase benefits for families and children, by $25 a week. We have increased Working for Families for very low-income working families by over $24 a week, and for other families by up to $12.50. We have increased childcare assistance for low-income working families. We have provided free GP visits and prescriptions for under-13s. We provide breakfast in schools—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —to all schools that want it. We have insulated over 300,000 homes across the country, and we have increased the minimum wage.

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am the person who asked that supplementary question and I am sitting directly behind the Prime Minister, but, because of the constant barrage of interjection from the other side, I could not hear most of the answer. While we are constantly hearing from the Opposition—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did hear the answer. I was listening very carefully. I can understand why Mr Macindoe had difficultly hearing it. There is simply too much interjection, particularly from the senior front bench. It was constant throughout that answer, making it difficult for people to hear the answer. I do not mind some interjection, but when it becomes so loud that other members who have asked a question do not get a chance to listen to the answer, then it is an unreasonable level of interjection.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the point of order?

Chris Hipkins: Yes. I think, on a day when members who have been asking longer questions have been asked to shorten their questions, that when a short question is asked and a very long answer is given, a level of disorder is then to be expected in the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a reasonable point, but, of course, when there is a level of interjection, then the Ministers are maybe also responding to the interjection, and I think that is also legitimate. So if the members to my left can keep their interjections down, I will certainly make sure that I keep the answers relevant. I will be the determiner of when they conclude.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you would care to consider the way that you intervened in what was a very long answer versus the way that you intervened in what was a relatively long question. You sat in your seat and asked through the microphone for the question to come to an end. You did not even attempt to do that for the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not right. [Interruption] Order! That is not correct, Mr Robertson. I was the one who stood to my feet and brought the answer to a conclusion.

Andrew Little: In light of that last answer, and the Prime Minister listing the highlights of the last Labour Government—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just keep the question short.

Andrew Little: —does he remember telling this House “We would prefer that we were a more equal society”; if so, does not his own Government’s data, showing increasing inequality, prove that he has failed?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there were two supplementary questions.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and we reject the last part of the question.

Andrew Little: When he is shrugging his shoulders at even more inequality and at the same time energetically defending tax dodgers, is he governing for middle New Zealand or just the wealthy few?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We govern for all New Zealanders, and that is why we enjoy widespread support.

Adult Literacy and Numeracy—OECD Report and Government Measures to Address

4. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent reports has he received on improvements in adult literacy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Overnight last night the OECD released its survey of adult skills, which showed New Zealand’s ranking in adult literacy has improved significantly to fourth out of 33 participating countries in the OECD, up from 12th in 1996. New Zealand is also amongst the world leaders in problem solving using technology, a skill that has been tested for the first time in the survey. We rank fifth of developed countries in this important skill and have the highest proportion of adults with moderate to high problem-solving skills using computers. These skills are increasingly called for in today’s working environments. Adult numeracy skills have remained steady since 2006, and in that category New Zealand is ranked 13th in the OECD, ahead of Australia, Canada, Singapore, and the overall OECD average.

Jacqui Dean: Why are literacy and numeracy skills crucial for adults?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government invests heavily in this area because literacy and numeracy skills are crucial for people to participate in everyday modern life and gain the skills they need to find sustainable employment, and improving those skills is one of the important priorities of the Government’s tertiary education strategy. These results are great news for our society and our economy. Our workforce needs world-class skills and knowledge that boost the productivity of the New Zealand economy. The progress we have made is a real tribute to the adult educators and all those involved in working hard to improve literacy in New Zealand.

Jacqui Dean: What is the Government doing to further lift adult numeracy and literacy skills?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The survey results follow years of intensive focus by this Government on improving adult literacy and numeracy, with the number of adults accessing help with their literacy and numeracy quadrupling between 2010 and 2013 to 175,000 people. We are also seeing earlier identification of problems though the adult literacy and numeracy assessment tool introduced by this Government. Improving skills is supported with significant investment of over $300 million in 2015 alone, and was further boosted in this last Budget with $14.6 million invested over 4 years so that foundation education at levels 1 and 2 on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework is now completely fee-free from 2017.

Overseas Investment—Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Properties and Consent Processing

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the statements he made at the Chinese Business Summit on 9 November 2015?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. Xiexie.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he reconcile his Overseas Investment Office statement that “the length of time it is taking to make a decision is far too long.” with a statement he made a month earlier that “we do not want to see excessive rural land sold to overseas buyers.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because both are correct. It is not about what is being purchased; it is about the amount of time investors are having to wait. I think if they had a speedier process, it would not affect the amount of land that is either approved or not approved, but it would be a more predictable process for people.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If his Government’s proposal for “less screening, less consent processing”, and a quicker turn-round is a direct result of consultation with foreign applicants, how is that working for all New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, if New Zealand wants to have higher levels of economic growth and job opportunities than we currently have—and, in fact, that we have had over the last decade or so—then we will need foreign investment to supplement that. Secondly, the changes that the Government is proposing have been quite clear when it comes to the Overseas Investment Office, and that has been an increase in resourcing to allow it to make its decisions in a faster manner, but also to make sure that those who make commitments to the Overseas Investment Office honour those commitments.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he does not want New Zealanders to become “tenants in their own country”, then why is he altering the laws of this country to serve the needs of wealthy foreign buyers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the 25 June report of an interview with him suggesting “Local government’s infrastructure-building monopoly could be removed and Chinese contractors could potentially take the lead.” really mean that he is utterly selling the country down the drain?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I know the member is trying to outdo Nigel Farage at the moment, but even his best attempts are going to have to improve, from what I saw on TV this morning. Simply having investment in horizontal infrastructure by others, rather than just local government, may well actually speed up developments and, therefore, the opportunity for New Zealanders to get houses. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Ron Mark!

Schools—Funding, Independent Schools Compared with Public Schools

6. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: How much do independent schools currently receive per student on average under the current funding model and how much would they receive per student if they received the cost to the Crown of fully funding a student in the State mainstream system?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I would like to give a somewhat longer answer than would be usual to be accurate for the House, if you would give me some latitude.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The normal course of events is the Minister’s office would advise me before question time. I will acknowledge it will be a slightly longer answer, but I expect two clear dollar figures to be given.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Current funding arrangements across the education system are complex, and do not easily translate into what differences in learning outcomes occurred for individual students, whatever option of schooling has been chosen. That is why we are having a comprehensive funding review; we are in the middle of that consultation process. In responding to questions yesterday, explaining the rationale for different proposals under consultation, I may have led others to believe that I was proposing that independent schools receive the same level of support as a student in the mainstream system. That was not my intention. As I stated in my answers, the proposal that independent school funding be linked to per-student funding—which itself is a proposal—is simply a further proposal. The focus is the mechanism, not the amount. Independent schools currently receive a capped amount of funding per year. An average can vary from year to year depending on how many children there are, and at which year levels. Equally, in the mainstream system, depending on what schooling option, how many children there are at each level, in which communities, and with what kind of property provision will drive an average at any given time. Averages for different purposes at different points in time could end up being very misleading. Independent schools receive $41.5 million per year, as well as the Aspire Scholarship fund, which is $4.1 million per year—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is the Minister’s intention to correct misinformation to the House yesterday, this is not the time to do it. She should have done it the moment the House sat this morning.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is making a very valid point. It seems to me that the longer answer certainly started earlier with an explanation, trying to give some context and meaning to an answer given in the House yesterday. I am still waiting for the answers to some dollar questions. If you cannot give them, then advise the House and I will deal with that matter afterwards. Bring the answer to a quick conclusion—it has been going on for long enough.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I was explaining in the introduction why there is not a reliable average, so I am giving the totals. Independent schools receive $41.5 million as well as $4.1 million per year for Aspire Scholarships. Total enrolments in 2015 were just under 26,900. Last year in primary and secondary schooling we spent over $5.1 billion on more than 728,000 kids. It would be misleading the House to state that there is a useful or reliable average, for all of the above reasons.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was indeed a very long answer and I listened very carefully to it. The question was quite specific. It was asking for averages based on current student numbers. The Minister has not actually answered the question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: No. I agree entirely with Mr Hipkins. There are some figures given, and if you have access to a calculator in the House you will be able to work it out for yourself. It is an answer that, I think, could have been given. I am not going to ask the question to be repeated, because we may find the answer will be repeated and we could be here for a very long time. The way forward is to grant the member two additional supplementary questions.

Chris Hipkins: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Why did she tell the House yesterday that her proposal was to give private schools funding “equivalent to how much the Crown would incur if those students were being fully funded in the State mainstream system.”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: And, as Hansard will reveal in my further answers, I said: “I am not proposing—and I want to confirm to the House that these are proposals and available for discussion—that the education system fund all of the costs. I am simply saying that the equitable approach would be to fund more closely to what it would cost the system if those students were fully educated in the publicly funded system.”

Chris Hipkins: How much more closely to what students are funded in the public school system is she proposing to fund private schools?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: That would be a matter that would be a consequence on deciding whether or not a per-student funding approach in the three components that are currently in the proposal actually are finalised.

Chris Hipkins: Would funding private schools equivalent to the level that State schools are funded on a per-student basis result in private kids’ school funding increasing from around $1,400 per student per year to nearly $7,000 per student per year—a total of around $150 million extra on a yearly basis?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, because we have different entitlements, for instance, for funding for kids in Māori-medium. We have different funding levels for kids in alternative education provision. We have different—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Average.

Hon Trevor Mallard: And averages don’t work.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, averages do not work. Thank you—that is exactly what I have been explaining to the House. So what I am saying is that we are doing a funding review precisely because it is so complex, precisely because we cannot have a line of sight to how much we are putting in and to the actual educational outcomes, and because they vary from year to year. So that is why we are in the middle of a review, and I welcome your submissions.

Chris Hipkins: Why should private schools, which charge parents thousands of dollars per term and some of which currently make significant yearly profits, receive additional taxpayer funding when State schools are barely able to make ends meet?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, the member is making assertions for which there is no actual evidence at the moment. So we know that we are putting a lot of taxpayer funding into Vote Education, but we are not getting the equivalent lift in achievement for all children and young people, and that is why we are going through a funding review now. We are interested in every New Zealand kid being educationally successful.

Chris Hipkins: If providing additional resources and linking resourcing to students who are not achieving is the Government’s objective, how does increasing funding to students who attend private schools—who already do better, on average, than students attending State schools—contribute to that objective?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because that is not the objective. The objective is that we consider a per-student funding approach that begins from how much does it cost to deliver a year of the curriculum, how much more does it cost for those kids who are not being successful, and how much more in addition for those kids who are at isolated rural schools. The proposal is set out clearly. We do not do per-student funding in the way that the member is reaching for: it differs according to the schooling option. We are getting different outcomes and we are interested in—actually, we are committed to—how do we get the best outcomes for every kid in our education system.

David Seymour: Is sending one’s children to an independent school a legitimate choice for a parent to make?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It absolutely is a legitimate choice for parents to make, as it is to send them to partnership schools or to Māori-medium schools, to single-sex schools, and to coed schools.

Chris Hipkins: How does pumping millions of dollars more taxpayer funding into private schools increase choice for the vast majority of parents who cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars a term in tuition fees to send their kids to those schools?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that only certain parents send their children to independent schools. It is absolutely untrue. There are a range of parents who prioritise that as their choice and they make sacrifices to do that—these are New Zealand students—in the same way that parents choose to send their kids to total immersion Te Reo Māori schools.

Chris Hipkins: If the Government’s stated goal is to direct extra resources to the students who are the most disadvantaged and most at need, how many of the students attending private schools fit into that category?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: That is one of our objectives, and that is why I explained that the funding model that is up for consultation is a base unit cost for the curriculum, and then on top of that, for those kids who are disadvantaged. How do we pay more for that? I do not run the rolls of private schools—or indeed of mainstream schools—so I cannot give you those specific answers.

Road Safety—Funding and Improvements

7. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government’s commitment to funding improved road safety across New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Last week the Associate Minister of Transport and I announced a $600 million nationwide road safety programme to help bring down the country’s road toll. The programme of work will see safety improvements made to more than 90 high-risk sites on rural State highways, including nearly all high-risk roads where there have been five or more fatalities in the last 5 years. It is forecast that the Government’s investment will result in 900 fewer deaths and serious injuries on our roads over the next 10 years. This investment is a significant step up in road safety investment by the Government and reinforces our commitment to reducing death and serious injury crashes on New Zealand’s roads.

Matt Doocey: What road safety improvements are planned for State Highway 1 north of Christchurch?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Waimakariri is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country, and we know that many of those living there are commuting in and out of the area on a daily basis. However, the stretch of State Highway 1 between Ashley and Belfast, to the north of Christchurch, has been identified as one of the country’s 90 high-risk sites. That is why, as part of the Government’s safer roads and roadsides programme announced last week, we are going to make this stretch of road safer through a range of improvements. Planning for the project will start later this year, and construction is likely to begin next year.

Ian McKelvie: What road safety improvements are planned for the rural State highways of the lower North Island?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: There is a significant range of improvements that are going to be made to the State highway network in the lower North Island to make it safer for road users. One such project is the stretch of road between State Highway 1 and State Highway 57 in Shannon. Ten million dollars will be spent on a series of improvements that may include side barriers at high-risk spots along the road, as well as improved road markings and signage. These improvements will make the road more forgiving of human error, helping to reduce the occurrence of crashes in the first place and limiting the severity quite significantly when they do.

Corrections, Department—Electronic Monitoring Bracelets

8. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she stand by her statement in regards to corrections’ new electronic monitoring bracelets that they are almost impossible for offenders to remove without taking off their leg, “so they have a choice, leg or no leg”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Yes.

Kelvin Davis: Given her previous confidence in the new bracelets, saying that they would need a chainsaw to cut them off, how were they cut through on TV with blunt scissors by Billy Weepu?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As any competent teacher could tell that member, almost is not the same as definitely.

Kelvin Davis: Why will corrections still be using 1,000 of the new bracelets, rather than asking for a refund from the provider, given they have been shown to be a complete failure?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course they are not what the member has described. In fact Dan Parker, that very wiry reporter from NewsHub, could not cut through, and nor could I, but, instead, NewsHub brought in a brother of an All Black, and he eventually got it through.

Kelvin Davis: Given that answer, can the Minister then assure the public that no offender, many of whom have nothing to do in prison but work out, has the strength of the mighty Billy Weepu?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member might not realise that most people who go into prison or who have one of these community sentences do not, in fact, get any sort of electronic monitoring, and he should know that.

Kelvin Davis: How much has the Department of Corrections spent, to date, on the thousand new bracelets, and does she think that it is an appropriate amount, considering they failed to stand up to the ordinary kitchen scissors test.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure if that member really thought about it he would realise that these bracelets are simply one of the tools that corrections uses to monitor offenders in the community, and, in fact, the cost of these is significantly less than the cost of putting people in prison. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Kelvin Davis: So is the Minister saying that the choice New Zealand faces is (a) to acquire sturdier bracelets, or (b) for the Warehouse to sell blunt scissors?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, not at all.

Police, Minister—Statements on Crime Reduction Statistics

9. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes.

Darroch Ball: How can the Minister publicly claim that the Government has reduced crime by 16 percent when the complete data set simply does not exist to back this claim up?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because those are the statistics provided by Statistics New Zealand.

Darroch Ball: How can the Minister advise Bill English with any accuracy, credibility, or validity that crime is reduced by 16 percent when it is based on piecemeal, cherry-picked data and the Minister herself has admitted: “No single data source is able to provide a complete picture of offending in New Zealand.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sorry, but the member needs to go to the website for Statistics New Zealand.

Darroch Ball: Is the Minister aware that, of the three sources of data that she quoted to me in answer to a written question as needs for her “fuller picture of crime”, the Crime and Safety Survey was conducted in 2014 and is not scheduled again for another 2 more years; her recorded crime victim statistics actually show an increase in victims of crimes for the year ending April; and her recorded crime offender statistics also show an increase in offences for the year ending April?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As I think I have made pretty clear to that member, the official site for all statistics of this nature is Statistics New Zealand. In fact, if the member wants to ask me about information that we have, he is going to get those answers, which I have provided to him.

Darroch Ball: How can the Minister say that since 2012 crime has dropped by 16 percent when in 2014 the entire system of crime recording changed and offence and apprehension statistics were discontinued, meaning that the total number of criminal offences is now not recorded; resolution rates are now not recorded; victimisation data does not include every type of offence; and if an offender has not been identified at an incident, it is not even recorded as an offence?

Mr SPEAKER: A very long two questions—the Hon Judith Collins.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Speaker, I think there are probably about four in there somewhere. But I think that I have made this pretty clear: Statistics New Zealand is the official provider of statistics, and I suggest that that member finds its website. It is quite easy, really.

Offenders—Employment Support

10. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Corrections: What initiatives has corrections undertaken to support offenders into employment?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Oh, thanks for that excellent question. The department is partnering with Horticulture New Zealand in the lower north region to develop an industry-specific employment package for prisoners. This programme will see prisoners trained behind the wire in horticultural skills that will then lead directly to employment upon release. A number of Horticulture New Zealand members already employ prisoners released from Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison on a Release to Work scheme, and this kind of continuity that transitions prisoners from training behind the wire to employment on release has the potential to assist in offenders’ transition back into the community. This initiative will be piloted at Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison and expanded to other sites around the country if successful.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What else is the department doing to get offenders into work?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Corrections currently has signed 53 memoranda of understanding with employers, which provide 429 job placement opportunities to offenders annually. These jobs range from construction to traffic control to meat processing. The department also works with a number of employers informally who take on ex-offenders with suitable jobs post-release. Corrections is continually working with the private sector to expand the number and range of employment opportunities for ex-offenders. Programmes that provide prisoners with the kinds of skills that meet industry needs and target labour shortages in the community benefit both ex-offenders and the community.

Foreign Affairs, Minister—Consultants

11. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What part did he have in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s engagement of Alex Matheson or his consultancy company to work on Middle Eastern issues, and what other roles has Mr Matheson, or his consultancy companies, previously carried out for Hon Murray McCully or other entities he has been responsible for?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr Matheson was appointed special envoy for Government-commercial partnerships by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade after consultation with myself. He had previously served as director of the office of the chief executive at Industry New Zealand, as the New Zealand trade commissioner in Singapore, and as head of commercial partnerships for the Rugby World Cup in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Mr Matheson ceased to be a full-time employee of the ministry quite some time ago. He has undertaken a range of other tasks for public and private entities, but those are not necessarily within the responsibilities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Hon David Parker: Did he know that while Mr Matheson was working on the Rugby World Cup he was also being paid as a New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) employee, meaning he was being paid twice by the Government?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Any contractual or employment relationships that Mr Matheson had with Government departments or public entities at any time would have been subject to all of the normal rules associated with the Public Service, and I would be very confident that they would have ensured those rules were followed.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He was the Minister responsible for the Rugby World Cup; there is none now. I asked the Minister about whether he knew that fact. He does know, and he should be asked to answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of your point of order I cannot agree with. The Minister may well have been the Minister for the Rugby World Cup; he is not now. He is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This question is to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He can only answer from that perspective.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the second part of David Parker’s point of order is indeed very relevant, which was the question: “Did he know?”. He then went on to talk about Government department employment practices, but that was not the question. The question was: “Did he know?”.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not think that is the point, because—[Interruption] Order! The question confused the role of the Minister as to whether he was now Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and then there was a reference to payment for NZTE. I let the question stand, accepting that, I think, there is some ministerial responsibility as Minister of Foreign Affairs for NZTE. But there is no ministerial responsibility at all for a portfolio held previously by that Minister. The question—

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware from the answer to the primary question that the Minister has worn a number of hats, and under those various hats he has used the services of Mr Matheson on a number of occasions. How can the House get to the bottom of this if the Minister, having acknowledged those different hats, is not willing to answer the question that I asked in respect of those interconnections?

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order, the Minister, I think, gave a very full answer, in an attempt to be quite open with Parliament, etc., etc. What the member is now not accepting are the bounds of responsibility that any Minister has to this Parliament at any given time. I think the member over there knows that that is the case. It would perhaps be like if we could use question time—as you, Mr Speaker, have warned us not to in the past—to rake up all sorts of bad dealings by former Labour Ministers, for example. But that is not permissible. Time moves on; responsibilities change.

Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I need no further assistance from any member on this matter. I sympathise with the position that Mr Parker finds himself in. I am aware of the article that he used for authentication. To have this question raised today I spent some time with the Clerk discussing how the member could, perhaps, get the answers that he wants. Under the Standing Orders, Speakers’ rulings, and convention in this place, a Minister can be asked a question relating only to portfolios that he currently holds. The way forward, I think—in answer to the point raised by the Hon David Parker—is that he must potentially try a series of questions addressed to different Ministers who have responsibility. I know that uses some questions up for the Opposition, but I can see no other way forward, except perhaps to consider whether he could frame a question to the Prime Minister, who, clearly, has a wider responsibility for all his Ministers.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I—

Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a fresh point of order? Then I would be delighted to hear it.

Chris Hipkins: It is relevant to what the Speaker has ruled, but it is new. It is that although Ministers may not have ministerial responsibility for something, they may have awareness of other matters that relate to their ministerial responsibility. In the case of conflicts of interest, for example, where somebody is appointed and there may be a conflict, the conflict may not arise directly out of the appointment they have been given but from another role they have, for which the Minister is not responsible or may have been previously responsible. Ministers can be questioned on that in their current portfolio if it relates to a decision made in their current portfolio.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the first point was relevant. A Minister may well be aware because of previous portfolios they held, previous history of this place, etc. I think the final point the member made in his point of order is not right. Just because the Minister may be aware of a role that he held previously in another portfolio, he certainly does not have to answer questions about that when he no longer holds that portfolio.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, unless it is a fresh point of order. We are now getting to the stage where we are just debating.

Hon David Parker: It is a fresh point of order. I seek leave to put my next question to the Minister in his capacity as Minister for the Rugby World Cup.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no Minister for the Rugby World Cup.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How do I ever ask the Minister to answer a question that he has personal knowledge of in respect of this matter?

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order, there is the whole point here—and I want to bring up another matter with you when I have finished this. The point of question time is for Ministers holding warrants in the Government of the day to be questioned about them. This is not a Star Chamber, where anybody can bring up any old allegation and throw it around any old way they like. Mr Parker, who prides himself on being a reasonably respectful juror and a person who has a degree of standing in the law, should know that. My second point is that the problem here is that this question, frankly, should never have stood. You do need, I think, to have further discussions with the Clerk’s Office about the potential for questions lodged like this to get into this exact sort of quagmire. It is not clear, when there are two parts here, why on earth the question could be asked about “previously carried out for Hon Murray McCully”. That is a specific question about an individual member; it is not a question about a Minister or a Minister’s responsibilities, now or in the past.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. We are spending a lot of time on this, which is now unnecessary. Mr Brownlee, I do not accept your final point. There was a lot of time that went into this question. It was actually changed so that it was then accepted by the Clerk as being relevant. It is an acceptable question, asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond to any involvement he might have had in the appointment of this particular person to a job and then going on to ask whether there were other entities. Clearly, those entities would only relate to anything within the portfolio of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The question was accepted and, as indeed I think the member himself raised in an earlier point of order, the question was then addressed by the Minister—quite legitimately, too. I can—[Interruption] Order! I sense the difficulty that the member, the Hon David Parker, is expressing, and the frustration. I have suggested a couple of ways forward; he can take that advice. He can seek further advice from the Clerk as to how to word questions. But on this particular occasion, unless he asks a question that is relevant—and asking it to a former Minister for a portfolio that is not even held at the moment is not a satisfactory way forward.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order?

Chris Hipkins: Yes, it is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I hope so.

Chris Hipkins: When portfolios are disestablished completely, the accountability for the decisions that were made within that portfolio when it was in existence still remains with the Government, otherwise the Government could simply say “Right, we’re no longer going to have a Minister of Education or housing.”, and therefore not answer any questions based on decisions they have previously made in those portfolios. The fact that the position of Minister for the Rugby World Cup no longer exists does not mean that there is no longer Government accountability for decisions that they made when there was such a portfolio. If we allow that to stand, then question time could become a farce because Governments could just disestablish portfolios to avoid questions.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is very interesting. If Governments were enduring, then of course any Minister on any day could answer questions about previous Ministers of previous Governments’ activities. We would have a field day on questions about the Minister who was responsible for Auckland matters, for example. Mind you, it would be very hard to find any work ever done in that portfolio. But the point is that a Government stands for the period of its election only, not in an enduring way, as Mr Hipkins is trying to suggest.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the matter has been discussed enough. I do not accept the final point made by Mr Hipkins. If a Government at any time was going to subtly do away with the Minister of Education or the Minister of Health or any other portfolio simply because times were getting difficult—[Interruption] Order! I think the public of New Zealand would then notice it and react accordingly. Have we got further—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the three other times I have asked you that, you have then continued to relitigate. But I will take your word for it, Mr Hipkins.

Chris Hipkins: It is absolutely a fresh point of order, Mr Speaker. On that ruling, to whom does the Government direct questions relating to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, now that the portfolio position has been abolished?

Mr SPEAKER: I think the question could easily be reframed. There is still a Minister responsible for the earthquake issues of Christchurch.

Hon David Parker: Further to that point—

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear one more point, but that is it. We are now wasting members’ time.

Hon David Parker: The situation does not apply in respect of the Rugby World Cup, because there is no successive portfolio-holder.

Mr SPEAKER: Exactly right. We have moved now to the 51st Parliament. The Rugby World Cup was quite some time ago, Mr Parker. We are now getting ready, in fact, for the next Rugby World Cup.

Hon David Parker: When the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) appointed Alex Matheson on Middle Eastern issues, was the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware that Mr Matheson had previously been paid by two Government departments at the same time—one being NZTE, and the other the Rugby World Cup?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As I stated in my response to the primary question, Mr Matheson was appointed Special Envoy for Government Commercial Partnerships. He was given that appointment by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade after consultation with myself. In terms of the second part of the question, I can confirm, as I also said in my primary answer, that Mr Matheson was employed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in relation to the Rugby World Cup, and at other times had served with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. In respect of neither of those two appointments am I familiar with the detail of any contractual or employment relationships.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific and asked: at the time when the ministry made the appointment, was the Minister aware—not the ministry—that Mr Matheson had previously been paid—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I listened very carefully to the answer and I think that, if the member had listened, the question was definitely addressed. The answer was given to the member.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?

Hon David Parker: Yes. I still do not know the answer to the question I asked—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will be very lucky to stay. If he has any more supplementary questions, listen to the answers.

Hon David Parker: When Alex Matheson was appointed as the Middle Eastern representative of MFAT, did the Minister know that Mr Matheson had previously been paid twice by the Government for services delivered at the same time, for the Rugby World Cup and for NZTE?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As I indicated in both my primary answer and in answer to the recent supplementary question, Mr Matheson was never appointed to the role that the member describes. He was appointed Special Envoy for Government Commercial Partnerships, an appointment made by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade after consultation with myself. I have also been clear that I was aware at that time that Mr Matheson had, as I described in my primary answer, been employed by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and on another occasion by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. I do not know whether those were employment or contractual relationships, whether they were, at all stages, full time or part-time, or whether there was overlap between them. I simply did not have that command of detail.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister telling the House that he did not know that Mr Matheson was double-dipping?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am just going to respond very carefully to this, because Mr Matheson is somebody who has served in a range of roles, across a number of departments. I have thought highly of his work on behalf of the New Zealand Government, and I am not at all surprised to see that senior officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise have also thought sufficiently highly of Matheson to appoint him to significant roles. Can I suggest to the member that if he wants to make defamatory statements about individuals, he best make those outside the House, where he can face the full legal consequences of those statements.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was a very simple one, as to whether he knew, and he has not answered that question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no. I have now heard the question asked three ways, and three answers have been given—not to the satisfaction of the member, I accept. But the question, in my opinion, was addressed.

Hon David Parker: Did the Minister at the time of Mr Matheson’s appointment in his MFAT role know that Mr Matheson had been paid concurrently for two roles by the Government, one by NZTE and one by the Rugby World Cup?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have already been very clear about what I knew about the relationships that Mr Matheson had—

Hon Annette King: What about the payment?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: —with a range of Government departments. I have no idea about the payment relationships between him and those departments, whether they were full or part-time employment or contractual, or whether there was any concurrency between those payments.

Environmental Reporting—Confidence and Number of Public Servants Working on Climate Change

12. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he have confidence in the quality of the Government’s environmental reporting?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: Yes. The reporting programme draws from the scientific expertise of the Ministry for the Environment and the independence and statistical rigour of the Government Statistician. I also welcome the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s (PCE) response to Environment Aotearoa 2015 and the associated website and data service. The report has been enabled by the environmental reporting regime established by the Environmental Reporting Act. I value the PCE’s views, and note her comments that those who worked on Environment Aotearoa 2015 are to be commended for producing an entire synthesis report so soon under the new system.

Eugenie Sage: Why should New Zealanders trust the Government’s state of the environment report when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says it provides very little information about how good or bad aspects of the environment are in different parts of the country, and that it presents environmental statistics without context?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I totally reject that attack on the independence of Statistics New Zealand and the good work of the officials in the Ministry for the Environment. The original report is a joint report using the expertise of both those agencies and organisations to assist the Government. I do note that it is this Government that has probably done more for environmental reporting and taking action than that party over there forever speaks about.

Eugenie Sage: Can the Minister explain why his ministry has only 1.4 full-time staff working on responding to the impacts of climate change, when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment describes climate change as the most serious environmental issue we face?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: As other Ministers have answered and said in this House, we take climate change—and all things environmental—very, very seriously. We do not measure it by simple headcounts and blunt instruments such as that member is describing. I was quite happy to stand by this Government’s record in all things environmental than whatever that party claims to represent.

Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table the Ministry for the Environment’s answers to the select committee, which are not publicly available, that show only 1.4 full-time ministry—

Mr SPEAKER: No. No. Order! [Interruption] Order! The purpose of tabling that information is to make members more aware of it. It is available to all members.

Eugenie Sage: Why has the Minister still not produced an action plan, as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recommends, to fix the environmental issues that were identified in the state of the environment report released last October; and when can we expect to get such a plan?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: We welcome the report today, and we are looking forward to the further reports that are coming from our various reporting regimes. The original report builds on previous reports, and I am quite sure that the advice, or some of the recommendations, from the PCE, are taken seriously. In today’s report she commends the Ministry for the Environment, and its statistics, for the actions it has taken subsequent to her report on the earlier report.

Points of Order

Oral Questions—Ministerial Responsibility for Defunct Portfolios

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without wanting to relitigate an answer you gave earlier, it does raise a constitutional question—or something that might come up as a constitutional question. As Mr Brownlee said, the Government is not enduring. If a ministerial portfolio has been disestablished, and yet there have been actions taken under that portfolio and decisions made, for which the Government of the day took responsibility, surely the Crown has an ongoing responsibility, and Ministers who are appointed by the Crown inherit those responsibilities as each new Government comes in. So I am wondering, Mr Speaker, whether you could give some thought to the process that might be undertaken if the situation arises in the future—where a portfolio under a previous Government has been disestablished, yet there are matters pertaining to it that come up under a subsequent Government—so that there be some method by which the Crown addresses that through ministerial responsibility.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I have seen some precedent for this in the past, and the questions have gone to the Prime Minister if no one else is clearly responsible.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think there are two questions here. One is whether it is a change of ministerial portfolio or name and some additional responsibilities inside the term of a current Government. That would be one matter. But if it is to be, as Mr Prosser is, I think, suggesting, that we would look across actions taken in a ministerial portfolio by previous Governments that no longer are in authority, then that would be quite a different matter. For example, it would be just completely inappropriate to look back in history and start asking questions about the activities of the titular position, Treasurer.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am dealing with a point of order—the Hon David Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Speaking to the point raised by Mr Brownlee, which was not the one that was raised by Mr Prosser, I do not think that is correct, and I think that there are Speakers’ rulings—and if there are not, there should be—that a Government is responsible for its actions, including in periods prior to the last election. Otherwise the Government of the day, after the election, could refuse to answer questions for its conduct the day before an election. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: No, the next point of order is from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You were listening to a point of order, and then the person speaking to it, namely Mr Brownlee, decided to insult someone here. Frankly, I do not see why we should have to listen to a—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. There was no insult given that I saw or heard.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Mr Speaker, the flaw with Mr Parker’s argument is that Governments change. So under an MMP system consecutive Governments are unlikely to look the same as they did previously. So I think that does pose an interesting question for you to consider over a period of time, but I think it would be unfortunate if the conclusion was that the look-back in ministerial responsibility could go beyond the term of any particular elected Government—in other words, the 3 years.

Mr SPEAKER: In answer to Mr Prosser’s point, I will give the matter further thought because I think it is interesting, and, having gone through both Speakers’ Rulings and the Standing Orders prior to question time and anticipating there may be points of order raised, to be honest, I think that there are not a lot, particularly in Speakers’ Rulings, of previous rulings about this. I think the point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard is helpful to us, and it was mentioned in one of the responses I gave to Mr Parker. I think a good way forward for Mr Parker’s situation is to consider questions now to the Minister for innovation, business, and employment or to the Prime Minister. But once a particular portfolio has folded, if there are any fiscal attachments to it, that Budget would still be able to be tracked back through an alternative Minister. I will give further thought to it. It is an interesting question that has been raised, and it may require an adjustment to either the Standing Orders or Speakers’ Rulings.

General Debate

General Debate

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This National Government is dozing and denying—dozing and denying. Look at them; they are, basically, asleep. Look at that; they are sleeping on the job—on the most important issues that face this nation. They are dozing and denying. This Government is asleep at the wheel, and what is it doing? It is driving families up against the wall—families who are living in cars, and kids who are sick in hospital with avoidable diseases. Waterways are polluted, and the economy is designed to make the rich richer, Mr Woodhouse. That is National. That is what National has made of our beautiful country, Aotearoa New Zealand. National members certainly talk big. There is no doubt that they talk big, but they do bugger all.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

METIRIA TUREI: They spin the facts—yes, Mr Speaker—they deny the reality of pollution, and they rehash old social policy because they have no new ideas. They turn their gaze away from the families who need them the most. It is shameful, short-sighted, and an indictment on the Prime Minister and all of those who are in his Cabinet.

Far from governing for all New Zealanders, the Prime Minister and his Government are content to leave 150,000 children without the basics, but they need to live a decent life. This Government is content with 40 percent—40 percent—of New Zealand families sharing just 3 percent of the nation’s wealth between them. It is satisfied with a rate of chronic lung infections in children that is at seven times—seven times—the OECD average. It is happy to leave 50 percent of Pasifika children living in overcrowded homes, and it is ignorant of the growing rate of homelessness that is infecting our country. So much for the brighter future that National promised New Zealand. This National Government is entrenching hardship and insecurity. It has policies that make children sick and leave New Zealanders living on the street. The Government is dozing and denying while ordinary New Zealanders suffer the effects. Those members so not suffer the effects; they are part of the top 10 percent, who are doing quite well under this Government. The rest of New Zealand are the ones who are suffering.

We heard today, of course, from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We heard in her scathing report her criticism of the Government over the health of our environment. She has rightly criticised the Government for not providing New Zealanders with real information about how our natural environment is doing. National repeatedly cut funding to conservation, and that means we are losing the fight to protect the kea, the kiwi, and the pekapeka, and all of those natural environments and native species—iconic native wildlife, the birds, the bush, the rivers, and all of these things that are our children’s birthright. National is squandering our children’s birthright. National has shown that it is far more interested in spinning stories about New Zealand’s clean, green image rather than facing up to the reality of unswimmable rivers, declining native bird populations, and the major effects of climate change, which are hurting farmers, hurting our communities, and concerning coastal communities.

This Government is out of touch, uncaring, dozing, and denying. We must create a more equal, inclusive society in this country. Protecting our environment is fundamental to our future, and that is why we must change the Government. New Zealand deserves a Prime Minister and a Government that will build homes for New Zealand families, cut climate emissions, protect our environment, and end child poverty in this country. New Zealanders are compassionate, responsible, and trustworthy, and New Zealanders deserve a Government that is the same. We will change the Government, and the Green Party intends to deliver that new Government to this country. Thank you.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Seniors): Having heard from “Ms Denial” and “Mr Dozy”, who are the co-leaders of the Green Party, and looking at the intellectual lack of rigour and the absolute paucity of policies from Labour, the Greens, and the other malcontents, I feel certain that they will be destined to occupy the Opposition benches for a long time to come. But rather than dwell on their inadequacies—because that would take far more time than this House has at its disposal—I intend, instead, to focus in my call today on the excellent leadership and policies that John Key and this National-led Government have delivered to New Zealand.

Here on the National benches, we are all united behind our leader, unlike Labour over there with—what is it—five leaders in the past 8 years; so far, anyway. Across the Tasman, they have had six Prime Ministers, and will possibly have a seventh after this weekend. We really need to understand that strong leadership is at the heart of the stability of any Government. Many countries with far less political stability and poorly performing economies really are struggling to deal with the horrible situations that unfold internationally. Really, global economic uncertainty now seems to be the new normal, whether it is Brexit, the outlook for growth in China, interest rates in the United States, dairy price fluctuations, or even the act of terrorism that unfolded in Turkey today. Things happen internationally; Governments and leadership need to be flexible and need to be able to understand what they need to do to put things right.

The lessons that I think New Zealand learnt from the 1973 experience when Britain entered the European Economic Community are ones that still apply today as that country prepares to depart it. We actually have a situation in New Zealand where we know and understand that you cannot just put all your eggs in one basket and trade with only one nation. It is also important to understand that we will not get rich just from selling to ourselves, a market of 4 million people. New Zealand, under John Key and this National Government, understands that very well, and we are a far more diversified export economy than we were in the past. National’s focus is very much on making New Zealand an open, diversified trading nation, which means we are better equipped to deal with the global risks that are beyond our control. So although our relationship with the United Kingdom remains important, we now have a much more diverse range of trading partners. Australia and China take more of our exports than the European Union. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region make up our most valuable trading partners. These are the realities.

In the past 8 years this John Key - led National Government has worked hard to build a resilient economy, and we now have a very strong, broad foundation for future growth. When we look at tourism, for example, it has now overtaken dairy with export earnings worth more than $13.5 billion. Our books are back in the black. Treasury is forecasting rising surpluses and falling Crown debt. Our economy is expected to grow at around 3 percent on average over the next few years, and wages are continuing to rise. That is the thing that is going to make the difference to New Zealand families and to the New Zealand quality of life. When we look at the situation that we have improved on in the past 3 years, there are more than 200,000 more jobs. By 2020 the unemployment rate in New Zealand is predicted to drop to about 4.6 percent, with another 170,000 jobs, and the average wage is forecast to rise to $63,000—that is per year, and that is more than $16,000 more than was the case with the average wage when we took power.

As the Minister for Seniors, I would say I am very proud indeed of the fact that New Zealand superannuation has increased again, in April—it went up with the Budget. Overall, that means that in the past 8 years it has gone up 38 percent, and that is more than double the rate of consumer price inflation over the period. The weekly rate for a married couple on superannuation stands at $591.94 net a week. That is tangible, and those are the kinds of things that make a huge difference to the quality of people’s lives.

Our strong economy puts us in very good shape indeed to deal with the global uncertainty. Our total exports have increased—by almost $2 billion, in fact, last year, and that was on the back of solid performances from tourism, as I said, the beef sector as well, ICT, wine, and much of the manufacturing sector. Crisis—what crisis? The Opposition benches are wrong again around all of that. The international uncertainty has, in fact, brought out the best in New Zealanders—the resilience of New Zealand exporters who were forced to become very, very strong, and they have done that. Since 2008 we have grown, and we are equipped—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is hard not to feel like the world is in political turmoil at present—Brexit, and the rise in right-wing, extreme movements that I would describe as forms of fundamentalism, and I would include in that the rhetoric and the apparent popularity of Donald Trump in the United States. We are seeing a rallying cry that is, ultimately, born out of fear and is born out of anger, that has been fed half-truths and misinformation, and we should all be concerned about that. But none of us, even in this New Zealand Parliament, despite all of the differences between us and those other global counterparts, can afford to be complacent, particularly when you ask the question: “Where did all of this come from?”. Where did all of this international uncertainty—dissatisfaction—come from?

Well, in New Zealand, it will come from here—it will come from this graph. This crude graph is a representation of almost anything we need to know about what is wrong with New Zealand right now. It is a representation of the inequality that exists here in New Zealand. These are the numbers that were released by Statistics New Zealand just this week. They show what many of us in this House already know, but what the Minister of Finance today, right here, denied was even a problem.

Hon Maurice Williamson: What, that high-income people pay a lot more tax?

JACINDA ARDERN: It shows, Maurice Williamson, that 10 percent of the population in New Zealand owns 60 percent of the wealth—10 percent of the population in New Zealand owns 60 percent of the wealth. In contrast, the bottom 20 percent in New Zealand owe—they owe—more than what they own. And as far as distribution goes, if you want to put the final nail in the coffin for inequality in New Zealand, 40 percent of New Zealanders have 3 percent of the wealth—the bottom 40, of course.

I fear that “inequality” gets bounced around as a turn of phrase. It is used in political rhetoric, and it can sometimes lose its meaning. But behind those figures, behind that graph, sit people who, ultimately, have lost their hope. My point is that what we are seeing internationally absolutely has the ability to happen here in some other form—has absolutely the ability to rise up and be fed by political misinformation if the wrong lightning rod is given as to what the answer is to the questions: “How do we make change? How do we bring back that egalitarian society?”. The fact that this has even occurred in New Zealand is a marker of political failure. It is a failure to provide job security and decent wages. This is a result of a low-wage economy. It is a failure to provide secure, decent, affordable housing. This is the result of a Government that does not believe in State housing—does not believe that that is a fundamental human right. It is a failure to provide decent, free, accessible education, or at least just a place where you are able to afford to bring up your family off the back of a 40-hour-a-week job. These were all, at one time, fundamentals of New Zealand society.

But I do want to offer a message of hope. There is a reason New Zealand does not have to experience the political turmoil of other countries. And that is because we do have the ability—through politics, through what often seems like this ugly beast—to make change. Let me give you an example. Child poverty in New Zealand is disgraceful: 305,000 children living in poverty. There have been two times in New Zealand’s history when we have seen dramatic changes in those numbers. One was in the 1990s, when child poverty spiked horrifically, because the Government brought in a black Budget. The second time was when child poverty started to decline in New Zealand, and it was when Labour brought in Working for Families. Those two examples demonstrate that politics and policies and ideas matter. They make a difference for good or for evil, depending on what you choose.

The fact that we in this Parliament have the power to make change is a powerful tool. We should use it to give New Zealanders hope. We should use it to say to the next generation of voters and New Zealanders that, actually, some of those values that we in this Labour Party consider so dear—the fundamental idea of Norman Kirk that all anyone ever needs is something to do, somewhere to live, someone to love, and something to hope for rings as true today as it did then. And we should convince the members of the public that, in this place, we can use that power for good and turn this round.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): New Zealand is a stable, well-functioning, democratic country, with one of the longest continuing parliamentary processes in the world. We are consistently ranked as one of the most peaceful and one of the least corrupt countries in the world. I think we should be very proud of that. It means that we are not quick to anger, we are reasonable and rational in our thinking—most of the time—we respect the opinions of others, we respect the rule of law, and we respect our democratic history. We are an exception in this modern world.

So let us just reflect on the past decade. Internationally there has been a series of traumatic events: wars, uprisings, terror attacks, and, of course, the global financial crisis. All of these things have created huge disruption, huge uncertainty, and misery for many, many people around the world. And New Zealand has had its fair share of challenges during that time. We have had the Canterbury earthquakes, we have had the Pike River disaster, we have had the Rena wreck, and of course we too suffered from the global financial crisis. But I think we have managed to come together, we have managed to work hard together, and we have managed to get over those difficult events as well as possible.

The New Zealand economy was in recession in 2008, and it was later hit by the global financial crisis. A large spending increase by the Labour Government in the 2000s proved to be unaffordable when our revenues fell. If we look at the projections for the Budget of 2009, it showed that if the National Government had continued and maintained that lavish spending we would have faced never-ending deficits, and net debt would have exceeded 60 percent of GDP in the early 2020s. We would have had no buffer to manage international uncertainty.

The Government’s plan throughout the global financial crisis was to invest to support the economy. It was an approach that cushioned New Zealanders and their families from the worst effects of that recession, and we have worked hard to get on top of spending and to deliver better public services within tight financial constraints. We focused on getting better value for taxpayers’ money, and particularly supporting our vulnerable people. We even managed to increase benefits for the first time in 43 years.

National remains focused on managing the Government’s finances responsibly and sensibly. We continue to pay down debt. We are building a more productive, more competitive, and more resilient economy. But the rest of the world is not as prudent, nor as stable. The world is full of political unrest. During the time that John Key has been our Prime Minister, Australia has gone through four Prime Ministers, and one of them was a retread. Canada has moved from a Conservative Government to a high-spending Liberal Government. The US has moved from Republican to Democrat, and we now have the Hillary and Donald show. Some people are calling that “Trumpsit”, because it could be equally as disruptive as Brexit and equally as dangerous to us and the rest of the world.

But New Zealand maintains a stable, strong, consistent, fiscally responsible National-led Government, and we are being rewarded by solid economic growth. The latest GDP data shows New Zealand’s annual growth rate is 2.8 percent, which is in the top 10 of the OECD. I think it is important that we understand that being a stable, predictable democracy with a resilient and an inclusive population gives us a huge advantage on the global stage. We have done well, under the leadership of John Key and Bill English. We are in good shape to face an increasingly uncertain world. I am proud to be a New Zealander and proud of our track record. Thank you.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Nothing of what the Minister of Customs or her colleagues said means anything to the people and families who are struggling today. Nothing of what they have said in this House today is going to help an elderly couple—75 and 70 years old—who saw me on Monday, who are going to be evicted by Housing New Zealand and have been given 90 days’ notice without any support for other accommodation. Nothing of what that Minister or any of her colleagues said is going to help the growing number of people who are living in homeless situations, who are forced to live in a car.

I think it is time that we evaluate this Government, and seriously evaluate it, because when it came into power 8 years ago—and next year marks its third term—it promised a brighter future for all New Zealander, did it not?

Hon Member: For all New Zealanders.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: For all New Zealanders. It promised a brighter future for all New Zealanders. Let me ask the Government: why is it that Te Puea Marae is taking on people during the winter season? Why is that? Why is it that ordinary families who have never had to protest before are protesting in Park up for homes Māngere? Why is it that they are protesting in Māngere? Why is it that they are protesting in Ōtara? Why is it that on Saturday they protested here in Wellington? It is because they are not receiving the brighter future that this Government promised. We now have 42,000 people living in the pre-housing situation. That means that they are living in garages or cars. That does not include the thousands of people who are living in emergency homes. Those people are not receiving the brighter future. Garages were built for vehicles, not for families with children. Cars are a mode of transportation, not for people to live in. Those people are not receiving the brighter future that this Government promised them.

I have here a report released yesterday by the department of statistics, which, I have to say—

Hon Annette King: Shall we believe them?

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Well, this is the Government ministry that we charge, as a Parliament, to provide quality information for this House in order for us to make decisions. I feel like grabbing the Minister by the neck, in a theoretical way, and saying to him: “Look at this report. Look at this report and what it says.”

Pita Paraone: Control yourself.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I am trying to control myself—because, as my colleague Jacinda Ardern said, 10 percent of New Zealanders are controlling 60 percent of the wealth.

Pita Paraone: How much?

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Ten percent of New Zealanders are controlling 60 percent of the wealth. Furthermore, if you look at this report you will see that the median wealth of a European family is $114,000—$114,000. But then we look underneath that and we see that for the Asian population, it is $33,000. That is the median wealth. For the Māori population, it is $23,000. For the Pasifika population, it is $12,000—$12,000—which is nine times lower than the European population is receiving.

I am not downing the European population. I think it is important, because it is not us and them; it is about what that Government promised. Every New Zealander should have a brighter future. That is not what we have received in the last 8 years, and I said today to the group of students who came from Southern Cross Campus that the consequence of what is happening here and what is happening to our communities—high unemployment, low incomes, unaffordable housing—is a direct consequence of this Government’s policy, and that the only way that we can change this is to change the Government. That is the message.

That is the message that I am saying to all of our young people, because the only way that we can truly have a brighter future is when this lot are no longer in power, no longer in control of policy, because the inequality that we now face today is a direct consequence of everything that they have done. They are not here for the rest of New Zealanders; they are here only for their friends and mates—that top 10 percent. I say to this Government here: “Get ready to leave because if you do not change policy now to address the inequality, we are going to get rid of you in 2017.”

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Last week the Ombudsman released his review of the Rebstock inquiry. He concluded that the inquiry contained numerous flaws. He has made four recommendations to the State Services Commission: a public apology to the diplomat criticised in the report, reimbursement for his expenses, compensation for damage to his reputation, and a review of the legislative guidance for future inquiries. It is just as well we once thought fit to emulate the Nordic model of Government in setting up the Ombudsman’s office, so that the corrosion of public standards of this kind can be halted and, hopefully, reversed.

The Rebstock review of 2013 was an example of the politicisation of New Zealand’s public system. I am not sure which is worse: the Henry report or the Rebstock report. One was referred to the Privileges Committee; one to the Ombudsman. Both revealed a hubris on the part of those close to Government. Both have been subjected to criticism and remediation. But the criticism in this case does not stop at the vindictiveness of the author and the truculence of the State Services Commissioner; it extends to ministerial cynicism and spin.

Yesterday the current Minister of State Services offered her view. “If you read [the report] carefully,” she thought, “what it says is that there were certainly some procedural matters that we should be learning from and that shouldn’t have happened in that way. But I actually think there’s been a misinterpretation of the report itself, in that it’s saying it made allegations against people that shouldn’t have been made, and that’s certainly not the way I read it.” I invite the Minister to have a more thorough read. The conclusions of the Ombudsman’s report, on page 3, are these: the Rebstock inquiry’s finding exceeded its terms of reference, the diplomat criticised in the report was not treated fairly in terms of natural justice, the manner in which the evidence was portrayed was skewed, the manner in which the diplomat’s actions had been addressed was disproportionate, and the publication of the final report was unjust. Specifically, Minister, read paragraphs 166 to 186 and 192 to 197.

Last week the Prime Minister viewed things from his end-of-the-day position of personal comfort. Paula Rebstock “made one mistake,” he said. “Clearly people need to take some learnings from it, but I don’t think it’s terminal in terms of her capacity to work for the government.” It may indeed not be terminal for her capacity to work for this Government. That is the political concern. This Government has hoisted “New Zealand Inc.” to the top of its flagpole. It has strengthened the role of the executive in relationship to the legislature. It has allowed political interests to intrude into the Public Service. It has thrown a business model at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It has vilified, sought to crucify, two top diplomats of unimpeachable integrity.

The first half of my career was in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The thought of applying a business model to the professional diplomatic method that prevailed in the institution back then would have drawn incredulity and revulsion, and it should do so today. I knew—still know—the two diplomats who have, with their families, been to hell and back as a result of the work of Paula Rebstock and Iain Rennie at the behest of this Government. There are no finer people, no finer New Zealanders, than Derek Leask and Nigel Fyfe.

What can we glean from this sorry affair that might improve our system of governance? Once the apology, the reimbursement, and the compensation are taken care of, we shall all need to focus on the fourth recommendation: a review of the guidance contained in the State Sector Act for future such inquiries. In the name of natural justice and good governance, we cannot allow this kind of thing to occur again.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Today we expose fraud involving our largest meat exporter, Silver Fern Farms. What happened at Silver Fern Farms is a disgrace because it involves unlawful covert behaviour and corruption, and the regulators—the so-called new sheriffs in town—are again failing to do their job. I have faced that sort of behaviour from officialdom in the past. They did not succeed back then and they will not succeed now.

We have an incompetent Financial Markets Authority (FMA), which finds no fault with Silver Fern Farms’ information package to shareholders recommending they sell majority ownership or face receivership or liquidation, when it contained outright lies—the profits were understated by 84 percent and the debt overstated by 24 percent. This is from a management lying to its ownership. How do we know that? The information given to the Chinese buyer was four times more substantial, and for a 4-year period, not a 1-year period. The information package for the Chinese utterly contradicts information given to the New Zealand farmer shareholders. The FMA and the Companies Office, with the Chinese buyer information available but apparently unread by them, find no sin in this sort of behaviour.

To summate, on 16 October 2015 the shareholders voted on a set of lies, which were revealed 24 days later when the annual results of the company became known. They had been given a totally false financial picture. Every chief executive officer (CEO) reads the monthly accounts, and every director sees the monthly management accounts. Yet Dean Hamilton, its claimed CEO, repeatedly lied to the media. He lied to journalist Allan Barber in early June when he said that an Overseas Investment Office decision before 30 June was an extremely serious event because Silver Fern Farms’ banking facilities would lapse. Two days ago, on The Country show, he said that 30 June was “not a problem”. He is a serial deceiver. Three weeks ago it was extremely serious; this week it is not.

The Silver Fern Farms board is either utterly incompetent or totally corrupt, with the number of people with their nose in the trough. I am asking the management and board these questions. Is CEO Dean Hamilton an employee, or a contractor billing Silver Ferns Farms over $100,000 a month? Is it true that Goldman Sachs, arranging the deal with Shanghai Maling, received $695,000 a month? The Companies Office and the FMA tell us that there is no wrong, and Silver Fern Farms CEO Dean Hamilton says they have been vindicated. Well, that is what Fay Richwhite said back then, but when we got behind the charade, we know what happened after that.

We in this country do not like corporate troughers and lazy, expensive bureaucrats protecting the establishment. So today we are exposing a racket at Silver Fern Farms for the bureaucrats to suck on. In 2009 Silver Fern Farms let a transport contract to a company called Livestock Logistics without a tender process. It was worth tens of millions of dollars. Livestock Logistics does not own trucks. Its challenge is to increase optimisation. In short, it is a ticket-clipping middleman. So why was there no written contract between Silver Fern Farms and Livestock Logistics? Well, I have got proof, which I want to table today, that Ernst and Young, seeking to see the contract, could not find a written contract.

It gets worse. Up until 15 September, the very day that the board recommended selling to the Chinese, one man, Brian William Bourke, held 100 percent of the shares in Livestock Logistics. The other director was none other than Silver Fern Farms’ chief operating officer, Kevin Winders. These two go back to the PGG Wrightson days. Only in New Zealand can you stuff up one merger and land a far better job. For farmers, their transport costs have gone up by over $16 million since 2007-08 to $66.6 million in 2015. There have been a million fewer lambs in 7 years, yet farmer transport costs increased by over 40 percent. This is not an honest transaction—from the same directors who failed to tell the shareholders the truth, and a management who had their fingers in the till.

There is more to come in the following weeks, but we are calling for an inquiry into Silver Fern Farms and Government agencies that have failed to protect small shareholders and, worse, set out to defraud them. Mr Barclay decided to call and try to get a meeting with Mr Hamilton. He was denied. All he got was a phone call. So over there is a backbench member who knows exactly what I am saying, because he was expressing concern about the interest of the shareholders. He got fobbed off, and he has not raised a finger in this House. That is a disgrace.

My warning to Silver Fern Farms management and its board members is that if you think you are going to get away with this, then look out for the court case that is coming, for further exposures over the next few weeks. You are not going to lie to New Zealand farmers and New Zealand workers and get away with it. The National Party might allow that—the National Party might be provincial New Zealand - based, and it has not raised a finger—but we are going to raise the roof until we get at the truth.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I was listening to the television last night, actually. It was a debate of Nigel—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I apologise. I seek leave to table the Ernst and Young report that sets out that it could not find the written contract it was seeking.

Mr SPEAKER: I need the date of the report and I need to be assured that it is not readily available to the members.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it is not readily available—it is most certainly not. This is from 10 November 2015. Here it is here.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that Ernst and Young report, dated 10 November 2015. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

SIMON O’CONNOR: I was going to have a crack at the member but because he apologised, which is quite unusual, I am actually going to be ultra-nice today and not have a crack at the United Kingdom Independence Party—I mean, New Zealand First.

Over the last few days anyone who is interested in politics, one way or another, has been talking about Brexit. Of course I have certainly found, as I have gone around the electorate, that although people are always interested in what the Government is doing, actually there has been a lot of conversation with me around Britain’s decision to leave the EU. I am not going to opine on that for two reasons. Firstly, I do not think my particular opinion on staying or leaving is all that relevant. Secondly, it is something that is already done.

But I thought that one of the things I wanted to actually touch on—and it will be somewhat academic, I’m afraid—is really what I think is one of the more disturbing aspects that has come out of the particular debate and how it reflects towards New Zealand and other countries, and that is, really, the changing public view of experts. Why I say that is that if you look at what was occurring around the debate in the United Kingdom, the views of experts were largely ignored. In fact, the debates took on a bit of an edge of deciding it was a wonderful thing to deliberately ignore experts. Why I raise this is because there is actually a bit of a disturbing rise, I would suggest to this House, in popularism. Often there are people on both sides of the House who will talk around what we see around the likes of the Nigel Farages, what we see in terms of, particularly, the likes of Donald Trump in the United States, and of those in other countries. What we see is that popularism is gaining a toehold—a foothold, if you want—and, again, expert opinions are being snubbed.

I think, unfortunately—I apologise if this is somewhat academic, but it is something I need to get off my chest—it is, ultimately, a dumbing down of the debate. It is an ignoring of the facts and a rejecting of study and experience. You hear—as we did through the Brexit debates and as we have seen in the American presidential election and across other countries, and, indeed, we hear it here at times—that simply being an expert is dismissed, and all it is going to be is an appeal to a sort of popular opinion, as if that in itself is of great value. This concerns me greatly. There is also a sort of sense that because someone has feelings about a topic that that is somehow important.

It may betray my philosophical background and training, but, actually, just feeling something is not enough. In fact, I was talking to a bunch of young students on Monday and I pointed out to them, as I am repeating here, that what you feel is largely irrelevant unless you can explain it reasonably. But the problem with this populist politics by Donald Trump and others is that somehow feelings are more important or that if someone has an opinion, then somehow that opinion is automatically and must always be valuable. I think that to some people in New Zealand in particular, again, simply having an opinion does not make it valid; it has to be tried and tested. I suppose I am suggesting that even though experts are not always right, we need to actually base our decision making on expertise and critique that accordingly, rather than on ideology or emotion—or, in fact, as we have seen, I think, through the UK, on spite.

So I just want to point out too that it is ironic in an age when we do have so much information—so much information—and in no way, therefore, could we ever know everything, that we are therefore less prepared to listen to experts. I think I actually want to turn to New Zealand as an example and what you see in some of the political discourse, often from smaller parties.

Fletcher Tabuteau: TPP, for example.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Actually, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a really good example of listening to experts and not popularism and, really importantly too, engaging. But the long and the short, take the science of climate change. Quite rightly, the Greens and others will point out that the majority of scientists agree that we have issues with climate change. We should—and rightly—listen to the experts. But the paradox develops, and why I talk about opinion and popularism is actually that scientists are also quite definitive around things like genetic engineering—I wonder whether Steffan Browning is here to hear that. Genetic engineering, Steffan—scientists are really clear on that. Scientists are really clear on fluoridation. Scientists are incredibly clear on immunisation. And, yet, opinion, feelings, populist sentiment oppose these things. I suppose—not only as a constituency MP, a person of my own training and background, but also as the chair of the Health Committee—I think it is really important that we engage with experts and not necessarily follow the lead that we have seen in America, the UK, and elsewhere.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call in this general debate. Can I first start by acknowledging a great achievement in my electorate—Karanga Mai Young Parents’ College and Early Learning Centre. Recently, a few weeks ago in Auckland, I was fortunate to be there, in attendance, at the Prime Minister’s Education Excellence Awards, where it won the Education Focus 2016 Prize. So well done to that school—well done to the students and well done to the teachers. Let us not forget that it would be only a few years ago that with teen parents we would have put them on a benefit and just sent them on their way. Now they are engaging in flexible, 21st century education systems, so that they can go on and be productive members of New Zealand’s society, and, of course, their kids can go on and be productive members of the community as well. That school—Karanga Mai—is based in Kaiapoi High School. What is significant there is that Kaiapoi, a town in my electorate, was very hard hit in the first earthquakes. We call them the Christchurch earthquakes, but, of course, they are the Canterbury earthquakes. In the first earthquake in September 2010, Kaiapoi lost about a thousand residential houses; the whole town centre was decimated. So what a great achievement for that community to celebrate.

We had the Prime Minister come in recently to open the new Enterprise North Canterbury building in Kaiapoi. He is a proud born and bred Cantabrian who loves coming down and checking in to Canterbury on the rebuild. That new building is a key anchor project for that town’s recovery, and now they have another achievement to celebrate with Karanga Mai Young Parents College and Early Learning Centre winning at the Prime Minister’s Education Excellence Awards. On this side of the House, this Government knows that we need to support education, and we need to get our young people educated for a globalised world, because our educated young people will be navigating their way in a globalised world, competing for jobs, competing for incomes, and competing for investment.

I just want to take a moment—it is the first time that I have spoken since the Budget. I just want to acknowledge the support Waimakariri schools got in the Budget. We are the third-fastest growing electorate, the third-biggest district by population in the South Island now—just taken over from Invercargill. We have received some great investment into our schools. When I look at the schools lined up for classrooms: Oxford Area School, Rangiora High School, Kaiapoi High School, Rangiora Borough School, Southbrook School, Ashgrove School, Swannanoa School, Kaiapoi North School, and Kaiapoi Borough School that is great news for those students, great news for those parents, and great news for the teachers, and education in the Waimakariri.

What we know is that the world is a competitive place. In a globalised system countries compete and develop their economies. We know New Zealand is a fantastic place. New Zealanders are voting with their feet; a lot of New Zealanders are staying, and there are a lot of Kiwis coming home. But let us not forget there will be thousands of Kiwis every year, this year and next year, who will be going off on that great Kiwi tradition, the OE. A lot of our young people will head off on their OEs, they will base themselves in London, Europe, and further afield. With all their travelling they will travel to various countries. They will understand and gain their world view that in a globalised world some countries choose to be competitive and through a developed economy they improve the well-being of their people, they protect their economy—and some countries are not competitive. It is as stark as that; it is a choice.

It is great to be in a country that has a strong and stable economy, a strong and stable Government—and it is a strong and stable Government to charter through a global world where there are a lot of uncertainties at this time, whether that be economic uncertainties, political uncertainties, or a range of security concerns. What we know when we look at the track record of this Government going forward—GDP growth rate at 3 percent, the envy of other OECD countries—is that it is to do with the hard-working Kiwis getting up early and working hard for this country. This Government is backing hard-working Kiwis: 200,000 jobs created in the last 3 years, another 170,000 jobs forecast for the next 3 years; that is because we are backing New Zealand businesses on a domestic and international stage. We are backing them to spend an extra dollar and to employ an extra staff member. What we are doing is returning the books back to surplus and paying off debt. In a complex, globalised world we need security, stability, and strength, and that is what this Government provides.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I would like to draw the House’s attention to something I have spotted on TradeMe. There is a moral compass, formerly owned by National, up for auction. It is in perfect working order because it has never been used. That is what we have got from this National Government—its internal compass is locked on the 10 percent. It is locked on the well-to-do and those at the top, and that is where it is stuck, and that is where it has stayed for the last 8 years. How do we have proof of that? Well, look at the appalling figures around the rising inequality that our country has these days. It is absolutely appalling. Ten percent of the population control 60 percent of the country’s wealth. That is absolutely appalling. The bottom 40 percent have 3 percent of the country’s wealth.

Those are really sobering figures, so I would just like to call on John Key and his pantomime characters in National to take a bow. Take a bow—take a bow for making 10 percent of the population control 60 percent of our wealth. Why do they not take another bow at this: once upon a time New Zealand was one of the most egalitarian countries in the world, and now we are famous—what for? For inequality. So I say: “Take a bow, members of the National Government.” They are a bunch of poor actors, led by the chief of the cast John Key. They are very poor actors.

How can Kiwis expect equality from such an unbalanced group of politicians? It is the Government of smoke and mirrors, and its Ministers are well known for telling half-truths—they are well known for it. Look who we saw today—Maggie Barry. I call her “Poison Ivy”—much like the 1080 that she is sprinkling on all of our lands down in the deep south, to protect our birds. That is right; she is “Poison Ivy”. There she is, there she is—“Poison Ivy”. Let us go into the Disney comparison. I would call her the evil queen, the wicked queen from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. That is right. This is the cast of Disney characters that make up this National Government.

Who do we have next? Dear old Nicky Wagner. What Disney movie would she come out of? I would say she is Cruella de Vil from 101 Dalmatians. It is a very appropriate characterisation for that very poor Minister. If this National Government was a Disney film, what would it be? It would be Pinocchio. It would be Pinocchio because all of the half-truths that are coming—and the untruths—from its very poor Ministers. Or maybe it could be the new one—maybe it could be “Finding Tory”. That is right, that is the new Disney movie for this poor cast of poor pantomime characters from this atrocious National Government—absolutely.

Those members can continue to take a bow, because what are we seeing? We see, and I think, in all seriousness, that when New Zealanders sit down to watch the 6 o’clock news they are getting sick of watching the stories of whānau sleeping in cars and being crammed in garages. They are sick of seeing whānau in homeless situations. That has all happened under this Government’s watch in the past 8 years. So take a bow for that—take a bow for what you have caused for all of those whānau out there.

The overseas experience that we are seeing is that people are rising up around the world. We have seen it with Brexit. People are marching in the streets. They are revolting against inequality—social and income related. I will just say “Kia mataara! Watch out!” to this Government because it is time to go. It is time to go, and I know the perfect way to do it. The way to do that—[Interruption] I would visit a beautiful place on the Māhia Peninsula called Tawapata. Go there, you have set up Rocket Lab and that is the perfect way for you to absolutely blast off and get out of Government; get out of running this country. New Zealand needs a change. We need a change. We need to get rid of this cast.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand and rise and follow “Noddy” and his diatribe. Amidst the growing economic global uncertainty around the world, this is a fantastic time to be a Kiwi. While most of our friends in the UK and in Europe face uncertain times, we here can take comfort in the fact that the innovation, passion, and creativity of Kiwis is driving the economic prosperity of this country. One of the key focuses of this National Government is to grow the economy, and we do this well because we have the stewardship of the world’s best Minister of Finance, Bill English. Managing the finances of the country is not unlike managing the budget in your own household: the more income you earn, the more things that you can spend it on. And so it is with Government. The more avenues that we open up to increase our income, the more that the Government can invest in our country, our communities, individuals, businesses, and the environment, but without an ever-increasing income stream this is simply not possible. Our ongoing success can be confidently attributed to the free-trade agreements that we have negotiated with our trading partners, and, of course, the best of those is yet to come with the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA).

I am from a region with a vast and very diverse range of industries: horticulture, dairying, mining, tourism, and forestry. All of these industries stand to benefit from the TPPA. As to the value to New Zealand of these export markets, one, for example, is fruit and vegetables, and this is worth $1.2 billion to New Zealand. Kiwifruit alone is worth $18.4 million, and dairy exports to our Trans-Pacific Partnership partners are worth a massive $4.3 billion—and not forgetting wine, of course, which is worth $839 million. All of these stand to benefit from massive tariff reductions. Our goal in the National Party and in this Government is to reduce debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020.

Compared with other countries, New Zealand is doing extremely well under this Government, reining in its costs while maintaining spending on new assets and investing very heavily in our future. To bring you some comparisons with net debt in other countries, at the end of 2015 the USA had 104 percent debt to GDP, Australia had 34 percent, Japan had 229 percent, and the UK had 89 percent. New Zealand is doing extremely well under this National Government.

This ongoing economic success has meant that we can invest in regions like mine. Grey Base Hospital received $97 million to replace an aged and outdated facility. Recently we announced, with the Hon Nikki Kaye, an investment of $1 million into Motueka High School to cater to its growing population. This Government has formed a partnership between the Buller District and the Ministry of Social Development to help workers to hold those positions in that district while they develop opportunities, and a new bridge is planned over the Taramakau River so that cars and trucks do not have to share with trains. Despite scaremongering by some of the Opposition members, road funding to the West Coast has increased by nearly $10 million since 2008. When the economy does well, we all do well.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I want to just reply to some of the statements from the previous speaker from across the House there, Maureen Pugh, and address some of the statements that she made. I think what the member across the House needs to do is to listen to the presidential candidates in the US—both sides of the spectrum. Whether you respect one or disrespect the other, both sides of the conversation in the US right now tell every New Zealander that New Zealand First has been saying exactly the same thing: that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will carve the heart out of middle New Zealand. It will compromise jobs in New Zealand.

Mr Simon O’Connor spoke about listening to experts—the expert analysis on the TPP. The only independent one that we could make reference to spoke of job losses in the thousands in New Zealand alone. That is the expert analysis that the National Party has chosen to ignore and instead go with its feelings on international trade. If it was a conversation about just trade and tariff removals, New Zealand First would be on board, but the TPP is an example of this Government’s deliberate ignorance, if I do so say. It is an example of how it chooses to hear experts when they support its case, but on the TPP it did not want to hear from the experts there.

Speaking about experts and jobs, one week after the Budget was released in New Zealand the new books came out. They actually pointed out—no one noticed and the Government was not going to talk about it—that the Government surplus that it is so desperately trying to fund was $1 billion less than what the Budget told New Zealand it was. We were told about a $1.6 billion surplus—sorry, I am trying to find my notes; here they are—and then a week later we were told that, actually, the surplus was less than it was in the Budget before. So it just keeps going backwards for this National Government.

I have got the 10-month Financial Statements of the Government here in front of me—just a little bit of light reading. I wish New Zealanders could see it, because looking at core Crown expenses—there are about 15 entries here—every single one of them, when compared with the financial year before, is a negative number; every single Government entry, in terms of core Crown expenses. Social security and welfare, down $479 million; health down $453 million. Where is another one? Primary services, down $83 million.

It is just a litany of a story that this National Government wants the public of New Zealand to believe about how the Minister of Finance is this wonderful manager of our money, and yet the Government is cutting money from every core Crown service. Bear that in mind: it is cutting money from every aspect of the Budget and at the same time this Government’s debt is spiralling out of control. The National Government inherited either zero or $8 billion debt from the Labour Party 8 or 9 years ago when it came in. Now we are talking in excess of $80 billion to $90 billion of debt. That is the legacy of this National Party. That is what it is achieving.

I say to the New Zealanders listening today that you are getting everything that the National Party promised: the policy settings and the legislation that it chooses to pass or it chooses to ignore—say, taxing multinational corporates that are avoiding their obligations in this country, ignoring the pressures of the housing market, painting a picture of GDP growing in New Zealand when, in fact, per-person, it is decreasing. I want to end on the note that as the Government quotes OECD figures on GDP growth it ignores OECD reports that say that New Zealand’s overall wealth has declined because of the growing inequality gap in New Zealand. That is the legacy of this National Government and it absolutely must change. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill

Second Reading

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I move, That the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time. In the last 126 years the Blind Foundation and some of its previous iterations have been looking after low-vision and blind New Zealanders very, very successfully. Originally, it was the Jubilee Institute for the Blind, which was followed by the New Zealand Foundation for the Blind and then the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. They have all done invaluable work supporting blind and low-vision New Zealanders.

It was in the late 1800s that the first formal service began. It was established as a school and a residence in Parnell. It was originally a wooden building, but it developed over a long time and the new brick, gracious buildings that are still there today were built in 1909-10. During that time it developed its services. It offered sheltered employment, a workshop, and residential programmes. Through the work of the foundation over nearly 100 years, it managed to change the attitude of people and the perceptions of blind people and made it more possible for them to be fully integrated into New Zealand life. As we went on and as the 20th century came, it gave up the workshops, it closed the schools, and other institutional activities were wound up.

Today the foundation’s aim is to provide services and to support blind people and people with low vision to be self-reliant, to live in the community, to let them have more choice about their lives, and to help them reach their full potential. In anticipation of the Helen Keller Communication Day, the foundation recently put out a press release, and this is what it said: “The Blind Foundation is New Zealand’s main provider of practical and emotional support for the thousands of Kiwis who are affected by sight loss, enabling them to face the future with confidence. It provides practical support in living independently, help with technology, ways to continue reading, and advice on staying in or looking for work”.

The Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002 signalled a major turning point in the organisation’s history. The Act provided the foundation with an option to register as an incorporated society, and it was structured in such a way as to become spent if the foundation chose to exercise that option. The foundation registered as an incorporated society on 10 January 2012, and accordingly that Act is now spent. When the foundation approached me later last year seeking advice on repealing the 2002 Act I was really pleased to be able to assist it, because we know it wants to journey towards more independence. The foundation seeks to repeal the Act for two main reasons. The first is that it is concerned that keeping the Act on the statute book causes confusion, and suggests that the foundation is still a statutory body, which, of course, it is not. Secondly, the repeal of the Act will emphasise the foundation’s status as an entity that is completely independent from Parliament.

I know that the Blind Foundation was very grateful for the supportive approach the members of the Health Committee took as they worked their way through this bill. It also appreciated the opportunity to be able to inform the committee about the work that it has been doing for 126 years. I would like to thank Simon O’Connor, who was the chair of that select committee; the Health Committee; and all the members of that committee for the service that they did and for working so well together. The support offered through the foundation ensures that all low-vision or blind New Zealanders are empowered to live independent lives, and I am sure all members in the House will join me in thanking the foundation for delivering such an invaluable service for 126 years. I commend this bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I am pleased to rise to take a call on the second reading of the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. As the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, has noted, it has two main functions. I do want to commend the Blind Foundation, as it is now known, for its advocacy and support and the work that it does for New Zealanders who have low vision or vision impaired by blindness. The bill does two main things. The first thing it does is repeal the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002. This Act on the statute book is no longer consistent with the way the modern Blind Foundation needs to provide services to people with vision impairment. The Blind Foundation has set up as an incorporated society because it has wanted to really become an organisation that is far more membership based and accountable to its members. It is an important aspect of ensuring that it can continue to do the work for its members.

Why become an incorporated society? The Blind Foundation has made it really clear that in the passage of the last 126 years it has ensured that it has taken advantage of new ways of doing things, new ways of providing services. As technology has come along, it has needed to keep up with the pace of those changes to ensure that it is delivering the best types of services to its members. Its membership is very important, and it takes the role of accountability to its membership very seriously. It ensures that the governance group that supports the work of the Blind Foundation is made up of people who have vision impairment, who are blind, or who have low vision. So it is very much accountable to the members and the people who require its services.

What are some of its services? The Blind Foundation does a whole range of things, from adaptive communications, recreation, and peer support, to things such as helping people with low vision be able to orient and get on with normal types of work through the use of guide dogs, special equipment, and access to information through its library and through its advice services. It also provides some really specialist services to children and young people, to the deafblind community, and to Māori and Pacific people.

The other part of this bill looks at the aspect of making amendments in respect of copyright to section 69 of the Copyright Act 1994, which provides “persons who have a print disability with copies that are in Braille or otherwise modified for their special needs, without infringing copyright in those literary or dramatic works.” In that regard I want to talk about the Marrakesh VIP Treaty. The Marrakesh VIP Treaty is a treaty that has been signed by 16 other countries. It has two main obligations. The first obligation is to provide a limitation on or exception to copyright. Of the several million books that are provided and published worldwide each year, only between 1 and 7 percent are available to people who have low vision or people who are blind. The Marrakesh VIP Treaty seeks to remedy that by allowing an exception to copyright so that those publications can then be turned into Braille so that they can be accessed by people who are blind.

The second part of the Marrakesh VIP Treaty allows the exchange across borders. This is important because New Zealand has yet to ratify the treaty. It is something that the Blind Foundation has advocated for, for some time. I understand that the Government is considering signing the treaty, and once 20 countries have signed, the treaty will be enacted and come into force. It is currently at 16 countries, so I am encouraging the New Zealand Government not only to sign that treaty but also to encourage those other countries that have yet to ratify it to sign.

The other aspect of this issue that I want to talk about is the Blind Foundation’s work on ensuring that we have access to audio description for people who have got vision impairment. Audio description, much like captioning for the Deaf community, allows our blind community to be able to have the ability to have programmes on television described to them, so that they can fully enjoy things such as the Olympics, which is coming up in about 30 days, and also test match rugby. Currently in New Zealand we provide audio description on TV ONE and TV2 only. The Blind Foundation has been very, very influential in supporting that to happen, and it would be encouraging broadcasters to look further to ensure that people who have vision impairment could get access to programmes on the Olympics and rugby, to name just a couple.

This is a bill that is useful in ensuring that the Blind Foundation can continue to adapt, evolve, and change for the people whom it supports, and I commend it to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call on this Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. I want to start by acknowledging the Minister, in two capacities—obviously as a person who takes great interest in this area, but also for personally taking charge of this bill. So, thanks to Nicky Wagner for that. Importantly, this is a private bill. Often we talk in this House about private members’ bills; in fact, there is no such thing. There are members’ bills and there are private bills, and this is one of the latter.

The bill itself is incredibly simple. It is ultimately taking the Blind Foundation out from the governance of statute, and allowing it to basically be what it is and wants to be today, which is an incorporated society. I want to commend the foundation for that. As I say, it was relatively simple. The bill came to the Health Committee, and we appreciated the opportunity to go through it and to return that report to the House a few weeks back. As I like to do, as chair, I want to thank the various members of the select committee, across all parties, for their cooperation. I suppose a bill of this nature, being relatively, if not completely, uncontroversial, makes that quite easy. But, importantly, it provided us with a welcome opportunity to hear people from the foundation talk us through the services they are providing and the vision they have for the future, so I would like to thank all of those who came in.

It did not take us very long as a select committee to hear, effectively, the endorsement for the bill. There is no surprise in that—the foundation put it forward—but, as I say, it became a welcome opportunity to hear a little bit more about what the Blind Foundation has in mind for New Zealanders; what it sees as its current opportunities, but also its challenges. So, again, my thanks to the team that came down, and, on behalf of the committee, I thank them for that opportunity.

I personally am looking forward to engaging with the foundation next week. I believe I am visiting its facilities in Auckland to have a little bit of a chat around the work of the select committee and engaging as a constituent MP. I see that as continuing the conversation, if you will, that this bill has delivered.

At this point I am looking forward to it progressing to the Committee stage. I do not expect that to be overly controversial—again, partly because it is a pretty simple bill and also because the select committee was very happy to report it back with no amendments. I commend this bill, at its second reading, to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is—I call Jan Logie.

JAN LOGIE (Green): That was rather quick, far more quick than I expected—ha, ha! Moving along, I guess that is not too surprising, considering the rather straightforward nature of this legislation, but I would like to add a voice from the Green Party and put our support on record again, at this stage.

This is a bill that has been brought to the House by the Hon Nicky Wagner, as a private bill, in support of the Blind Foundation. This is, as has already been stated, the final step in the evolution of the independence of the foundation. The foundation has existed for 126 years and was made a statutory body by legislation in 1963. As we have seen over time, our attitudes are changing towards our understanding of people who are in our community who have disabilities. Rather than them being seen as people whom we need to take care of, they are seen as people for whom we need to remove the barriers that are getting in the way of their full participation. We have moved from a charity model to an empowerment model, and so it is completely right that the next step should be the full independence of the foundation as the representative body of people who are blind or have low vision. This is the last step in that process.

In the 2002 legislation there was the change in the name of the foundation, from the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind—those taking care of those people who are blind—to the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, which is an organisation made up of people working in solidarity to ensure people’s participation. It was also shifted to a model that looked a lot like an incorporated society, so it was not so Government-associated; it was actually membership-driven.

In that 2002 legislation there was the provision for the foundation to go to that next step, to formally become an incorporated society, and that is what it has done. Within the legislation at that stage there was an acknowledgment that there would be the need to repeal the legislation—that 2002 Act. This is what this bill does. The foundation has said that that is important because it removes the confusion that people may have, that perhaps it is still a statutory body. When there is an Act about it on the books, you can understand any potential confusion around that. So this removes that confusion and it asserts, again, the foundation’s independence.

These are two very simple and important things to do, and the Green Party is happy to support this legislation.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It was with great pleasure that we had representatives of the Blind Foundation give evidence to our committee during the consideration of this bill. It was very interesting to me to hear of their activities around the country and the services that they provide for the vision-impaired folk by looking after their well-being and providing a range of services that have been, over time, adapted to the modern world. It really highlighted for me, first of all, the reach that they have into our communities and into our towns, but also the fact that the delivery of the Blind Foundation has evolved and changed over the years, to reflect the needs of the people at the time.

This bill does exactly that. As other members have said, it is a simple bill. We returned the bill without amendment. Really, the foundation sought the repeal bill because keeping the Act as a statute on the statute book was contrary to what it was about and caused confusion. The suggestion really, in that case, is that the Blind Foundation is a statutory body. It is not, and so the repeal of this Act will emphasise the foundation’s status as being completely independent from Parliament and serving the people who seek it out for its services. It is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This is a particularly straightforward, simple, sensible, and very much necessary bill so far as the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind is concerned. For those reasons New Zealand First will, of course, like other parties, have no hesitation in supporting it. The Foundation of the Blind does very wonderful work throughout New Zealand, and has done so for a very, very long time. It has extremely widespread community support for the work that it does.

I had some early insight into this, firstly in my early professional career as a lawyer when I worked for the Public Trust Office. I did many wills—in fact, hundreds—and other testamentary trusts in favour of the Foundation of the Blind and, in fact, many, many inter vivos trusts as well in favour of the Foundation of the Blind, simply because it is such a popular charity. In fact, it is one of the most popular charities, if not the most popular charity, in New Zealand. It is good that that is the case because it is a charity that really needs the funding that it gets, and it is that funding that enables it to do things for the blind that would not otherwise be possible.

In fact, even earlier than that, when I was a very young person, a toddler in fact, there was a blind lady who lived next to us in Christchurch. I have a very enduring memory of that woman. She was quite an old woman even then, but she was a very determined and very independent woman. She could not see at all. I remember that she would toddle off in the early morning down to the shops and do her shopping and come back—blind and alone. How she did that, I am not really sure, but she managed it. I do remember, on one occasion, looking out the window one frosty morning and seeing her on our front lawn. The lawn was totally white with frost, and there she was, groping around. She had gone into the wrong driveway and ended up on our front lawn. So I remember vividly, as a young kid in my pyjamas and in bare feet, going out on to the frosty lawn, crunching through the frost, and taking her by the arm and leading her next door, back to her home. But I learnt from that the resilience that blind people have, and the sort of dignity that they have in the way that they live their lives. It was a very great lesson to me about human nature. It has left me with a long—lifelong, I should say—desire to see that the blind are well cared for.

I know that almost everybody in this country would want the same thing. It also left me with what I would call an appreciation for the courage and positivity that people with that degree of disability have towards their lives. Also, I learnt that they have a lot to teach us—that is, the rest of us who do not live with such disabilities. They have a lot to teach us about how we should treat each other, because you never hear of blind people saying bad words about other people. I do not know why it is, but they always have a very positive, courageous, and kindly outlook on the world. They can teach us a lot.

I want to just say that I think that those people and the foundation that has committed—for so long—so much time, effort, and money to looking after those people, deserve all the support that they can get, however we may give it, in assisting them to raise the funds they need to do their very valuable work. I note that in 2012 the foundation decided that it should become an independent incorporated society under the Incorporated Societies Act, and therefore it obviously no longer needs a special Act of Parliament. From its point of view that is a very good idea. As other speakers have said, it shows the public that this is not a Government organisation, that it needs public support, and that it needs public donations in order to continue to do its work. So there is a very good reason behind the repeal of this particular Act. We all are supporting it, and it does need support.

But it needs, more than that, an appreciation by the people of New Zealand that they do need to continue their support, as they always have, whether it be in wills or in donations or otherwise; to continue to support this very excellent organisation and the work it does. So it only remains for me to say on behalf of New Zealand First that we wish the foundation well in continuing its work. It is good to see it flourishing in doing that work, and I hope that it will continue to receive all the public support and funding that it needs to have. For all those reasons, New Zealand First will be very happy indeed to continue to vote in favour of this bill.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I also rise in support of this bill. If you look at the history of the Blind Foundation—125 years of history—you can see that the foundation continues to adapt and evolve over time. Currently it is in a situation where there is no need for it to be governed by an Act. In fact, an incorporated society is the most appropriate means to govern the foundation. It gives the foundation a greater ownership and more flexibility. In the changing times that we are in, that flexibility is absolutely required—whether it is through technology changes or ways to raise funds—to satisfy the needs of the 11,500-odd people whom the foundation serves. The repealing of the Act, which this bill does, is an excellent progression. I support this bill.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): It is great when we have members’ bills, in particular, from different sides of the House that we can support. I just want to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner for this private bill, the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. I just want to say, as has been said earlier, that Labour does support this bill. There is not much really to say, except, in general, just to talk a little bit, I guess, about the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind.

The foundation was originally constituted under the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind Act 1963, under the name Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind. In 2002 the foundation wished to change its name to the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind—so “of the Blind” rather than “for the Blind”—to clarify its status as a body controlled primarily by, and for the benefit of, people who are blind and vision impaired. The foundation also wished to modernise its structure, giving it the characteristics of an incorporated society, and to provide for the possible future registration of the foundation as a society incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. To that end, the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002 was enacted. The Act was structured in such a way as to become spent if the foundation chose to exercise the option to register as an incorporated society. The foundation registered as an incorporated society on 10 January 2012. Accordingly, the Act is now spent. The foundation considers it desirable that the Act be repealed, for two reasons: (1) keeping the Act on the statute book causes confusion, as it suggests that the foundation is still a statutory body when it is not; and (2) the repeal of the Act will emphasise the foundation’s status as completely independent from Parliament. The foundation’s members and associated parties regard—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member. She cannot just read out the front page of the bill. It is not debating.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. So it is good to be in the House today supporting this bill, supporting the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, and supporting our blind community. I will again just acknowledge the Minister for bringing this private bill to the House. It is good to be able to positively acknowledge a National Minister sometimes—it happens on the very rare occasion. I am pretty sure it will not happen again for a very, very long time after this. Thank you very much.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure, as a member of the Health Committee, to take a call on this private bill, which is in the name of my friend and colleague the Hon Nicky Wagner. I was really impressed with the submission made by the foundation at the select committee. It is an organisation that, as New Zealanders, we have all grown up knowing about—what its purpose and what its history has been. Most of us, however, who are not involved with the blind community probably do not really fully understand the nitty-gritty of the good work that it does; we understand the guide dogs and we understand the support that it gives to blind and vision-impaired people, but we do not really understand the nitty-gritty of all the good work that it has done over so many years.

What most New Zealanders probably, also, do not understand is that the foundation has been bound—for what were initially really good reasons—by parliamentary statute. This bill seeks to remove those binds. It enables the foundation to take full incorporated society status under that piece of legislation. It will give the foundation the freedom and the governance structures that are needed to ensure that its good work is continued for many, many years to come. I think that this little piece of legislation—and as the chairman of the Health Committee made clear in his presentation, it is a very small, relatively simple bill—is endorsed and supported across the House. I am very pleased to add my support to the bill, and I commend it to the House.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I spoke in the debate on the first reading of this bill, and mentioned some of the personal connections that I had to the work of the Blind Foundation through my father-in-law, Jim Newcombe, who is blind. He uses the services of the foundation extensively—he uses the talking book service, he achieves internet access through services provided by the foundation, his globe is one that he bought from the Blind Foundation shop. My mother-in-law, his wife, Joan Newcombe, is a very active fund-raiser for the foundation. So I have a strong association with the foundation, and indeed I have noticed how it has grown and changed over the years. It is that changing role of the foundation over time, its seeing itself in a different way, that is at the heart of this bill. I am a member of the Health Committee and I want to, in the second reading, take the normal role of thanking members of the committee, the officials who assisted the committee with its work, and the foundation itself. The foundation’s submission and supplementary material were very interesting indeed.

Members have spoken in this debate about the importance of clarifying the legal status of the foundation through repealing a superfluous law that might otherwise be confusing. But it is the other purpose for this bill that I think is more important and more interesting. It reflects a journey that many organisations in civil society have been on, and the Minister, the Hon Nicky Wagner, in her remarks referred to the 19th century origins of this organisation. That was at a time when the prevailing model for social assistance, for supporting members of our community who required support, was very much a charity model—the model of doing good works—but the good works were being done to the people who had needs: to blind people and to people with low vision. We have moved away from that model, and yet that is the model that has been enshrined in statute.

I worked for 10 years for the New Zealand AIDS Foundation. The AIDS Foundation, as some members of this House will know, had its origins in the 1980s at a time when it became extremely clear that if we as a society were to take effective action against the HIV epidemic that was hitting our shores, we needed to empower the communities that were most affected. So both Labour- and National-led Governments at that time in fact saw the wisdom of empowering organisations from those communities rather than running programmes from the Ministry of Health for people at risk from HIV. Actually, if we were trying to deal with a community of men who had sex with men, or communities of injecting drug users, or communities of sex workers, the only source for messages that those communities would trust would not be the Ministry of Health—it would be sources from within their own communities. So it is very much a model of empowerment of those communities.

It has been great to see in the subsequent years that model being replicated and rolled out to other community-based organisations. So the model is very much now one of community-based organisations reflecting that empowerment. That empowerment results in better outcomes for, in this case, blind people and people with low vision. It is great to see that purpose being honoured in this bill, and I look forward to better outcomes for blind New Zealanders as a result of this bill passing. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I just want to make a few comments about this bill before the House this evening, the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. It is a relatively simple bill and it is a “cleaning up the statute book” kind of bill, and we support it. But I just want to make a couple of wider comments around the context for vision-impaired people in New Zealand, and I will draw on some of the comments made by my colleague Poto Williams, particularly around audio-captioning and participation—the ability to participate.

This bill is basically just cleaning up a change that has already occurred. It ensures that legislation that is no longer relevant does not remain on our statute book, and that is good and sensible. But if we come to the 2016 context for the 70,000 vision-impaired people in New Zealand, there are pressing issues around participation—their ability to fully participate in society—and in particular, one of those ways is audio-captioning of television. There is a lack of audio-captioning. I note that New Zealand On Air provides funding through Able for TV ONE, TV2, Prime, TV3, and Channel 4 for some audio-captioning for the hearing-impaired and some audio description on selected programming on TV ONE and TV2.

There is no doubt, though, that the small nature of that captioning has an impact in terms of how people with vision impairment, and hearing impairment as well, obviously, have the ability—or the lack of ability—to properly participate. The point I am making is that perhaps this bill could have gone a little bit further as to spelling out the wider context for people with vision impairment in New Zealand. Seventy-thousand is a significant number of people who have difficulty participating in New Zealand society and receiving information and the same sorts of entertainment and news that able-bodied people do.

So I just want to put on the record tonight that a bill that tidies up the statute book, removes confusion that suggests that the foundation is still a statutory body when it is not, and repeals an Act that emphasises the foundation’s status as completely independent from Parliament has some value. But there are some significant other measures that Parliament and individual members who want to put bills forward could be doing—things that have inordinate value for people with vision impairment. Thanks.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

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

Third Reading

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. On any other occasion in this Parliament, speaking those words would mean that the bill gets passed into law and families would be able to look forward to 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. But not under this miserable National Government—that is not what is going to happen. For the first time in this Parliament’s history a bill is about to have a third reading debate and there will be no vote put at the end of it. Why is that? It is because that National Government does not prioritise children and their families enough to care, and it has taken this extreme measure that has never happened in our Parliament before.

I think it is a shameful day for democracy, and for the future of this country under this National Government, that this is taking place. It is an extreme measure that those members are taking, and what is it that they are taking an extreme measure against—the ability for parents to spend time with their children. Family time is what this Government is vetoing. It is vetoing family time and the ability for every child to get the best start in life. That makes it a shameful day for this National Government.

But I want New Zealanders to know this: that democracy has not failed them, that the Labour Party has not failed them, that the majority of this Parliament has not failed them; it is the National Party that has failed them. Democracy and MMP have actually worked in this instance, because we know that the majority of the public do support this measure. They understand the benefits of it, and that has been reflected in their Parliament. So MMP has not failed the public or New Zealand children. Democracy has not failed New Zealand children. The National Party has failed New Zealand children.

Those members are soon going to get up and try to convince those families that their needs are not a priority. They are going to stand up and say that this bill is unaffordable. It is demonstrably untrue, and it is demonstrably untrue because—how is this for irony—the same day that this bill was last debated in Parliament at its Committee stage, that same Government announced $20 billion worth of spending in defence. It plucked that figure out of thin air—no costings done on that; no scrutiny done on that figure whatsoever. Suddenly, the Government can magic $20 billion up for war toys, but it cannot afford a much smaller amount of money for children and their families.

I want to remind this Parliament and the public that this bill has faced the scrutiny of a select committee process and its full costing regime not once but twice, and yet the Government members refuse to acknowledge what is plainly in front of them, what all the research and evidence tell them, what the public wants to see, and what the majority of this Parliament wants to see as well. We also know it is demonstrably untrue because John Key keeps saying he wants $3 billion worth of tax cuts—that is where his priority lies: John Key wants his $3 billion worth of tax cuts. I do not know how many times more that is than the cost of this bill—I think we worked out that 0.3 percent of those tax cuts would actually fund this bill and this measure for New Zealand families.

Way back in 2012 I started my first reading speech with these words: “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.” “What is most important of all? It is people, it is people, it is people.” As with most of those wise proverbs—all of them, actually—these words stand the test of time. They are as true now as they were in 2012, and still that Government is not listening. Instead, it has been focusing on playing politics with children’s lives. It has spent the last 4 years playing politics with children’s lives, and that is shameful.

It is not the only shameful record that this Government has when it comes to children, because it is just one of a range of measures where it has acted against the interests of families and children. One of the first things this Government did when it came into office was to cut funding to early childhood education—

Todd Barclay: Not true.

SUE MORONEY: —so that children did not get the best-qualified teachers in front of them in early childhood education—and those members know it is true.

We now have 305,000 children living in poverty under that Government because of its failed policies—well, I would say, actually, its deliberate policies that do not respect and prioritise children. So there are 95,000 more children living in poverty, living in cars and living in garages up and down this nation than there were before this Government took over Treasury—took over the books. Recently, it has also cut Parents as First Teachers Funding. That is undervaluing parenting yet again from that Government. It has labelled children as failures at school with its national standards regime. Under the Government’s watch, the notifications of child abuse have increased, and it has allowed bargaining pleas to reduce child murder to manslaughter. Last night those members were at it again. They were stripping family time away from families on Easter Sunday because they were bargaining away—trading away—Easter Sunday as an important day for families to spend together. The list of this Government’s shameful record when it comes to children goes on and on.

What is it that is so controversial about this bill? It actually responds to the research and evidence that tell us that if parents and babies get bonding and attachment right between them in those early months, the outcome of that child’s life is going to be substantially improved. For the rest of us, that means that we get to save a lot of money on the potential bad outcomes that that child would have otherwise. For the rest of us, it means we get to live alongside really well-balanced children, and is that not what we would all want? We want to have well-balanced, well-nurtured people in our community, whom we are living beside. Also, the research and evidence tell us that if we get this right, and if we can support exclusive breastfeeding to 26 weeks, then we know that hospital admissions will drop and that we will save money in that field as well.

The cost of this bill—and let us clarify this, because the Minister of Finance has been caught out telling porkies about the cost on a number of occasions; not just once, but on a number of occasions—is $100 million net a year at full implementation. But wait, there is more. The officials have costed $28 million in savings—some of the savings that I outlined before. These are immediate savings—and that is before we even get to the long-term savings, which are the ones that all the experts say are the ones that really matter.

At the select committee there were 6,821 submissions—that is a large number of submissions—and 99.94 percent of them were in favour. I want to thank the huge number of New Zealanders who came in and supported this. I want to particularly thank the 26 for Babies coalition. Organisations like Plunket, Barnardos, and a range of trade unions came together to express their views on this, and they have kept this issue alive for 4 years. I want to thank the thousands of New Zealanders who sent postcards, attended meetings, signed a petition, made submissions, and those who have made personal contact with me and told me their stories.

But none of this debate would have been able to happen if it was not for the political parties that supported this, and I want to acknowledge my Labour colleagues, who gave me the great honour of being the guardian of this Labour Party policy—this very important Labour Party policy—and I hope that I have carried out my guardianship appropriately. I also want to thank the Green Party, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, and United Future, which all held tough and held strong in favour of children around this issue. I know there was a lot of political pressure put on those parties to change their votes. We saw it all play out in the Chamber from time to time, but they never wavered and every single one of those votes has counted on this journey, so I thank you all. We must remember that for all of that support, there has been some progress made. We on this side of the House have forced the Government to increase paid parental leave to 18 weeks and, importantly, we have forced it to ensure that parents of babies who are born prematurely get even more leave than that.

Finally, I want to thank the many staff who have worked on this over the course of the last 4 years. I want to thank my family who are present in the Chamber today, particularly my two boys—this is how long this bill has been going for. My children were young boys when this started; they are now wonderful young men of whom I am so proud, and my husband, Shane, as well. There is a way forward on this still. The Government is never going to stop this debate from happening. The way forward is for a Labour-led Government to be elected to put this right next year. People have asked me how I feel about what is about to happen; I am more determined than ever to make that come about. Thank you.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): First of all, I do want to acknowledge the member Sue Moroney, the sponsor of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, in this, the third reading. There are a couple of issues that she raised. I do not have time to address all of them, but I just want to say that, actually, it is true that this Government does feel that responsible fiscal management and balancing the books are important. Decisions should be driven—and that should be taken into consideration for any decisions that are made by a responsible Government. When we look around the world at the moment, we are watching more and more political and economic instability, and so it is even more important for us, as a small trading nation, to remain focused on some political stability, some economic stability, and some good decisions for us as a nation.

In relation to the comments that were made around the National Party and the National Government not doing anything for families, there is a whole raft of policies that have been implemented under this Government. It would take me an hour to go through them all, but one thing that I will say is that, for the first time since 1972—the first time since 1972, so even in 9 years of the previous Labour Government you did not make the decision to do this or implement a policy like this—we increased benefit rates by $25 a week for families—

Jan Logie: No, you didn’t.

MARK MITCHELL: —so when we talk about what we are doing for children—yes, we did—that is going to have a tangible, positive impact on an estimated 108,000 families. They will benefit directly from that increase, and, again, I will highlight the fact that it is the first time that increase has been made since 1972—I will challenge any speaker to get up and try to rebut that. It is going to affect 194,000 children, and they are going to benefit from that increase. Two-thirds of children in material hardship live in a benefit-supported family, so that is a significant policy that this National Government has implemented in support of families.

The National Government believes in, and has increased, paid parental leave. We have increased it in two increments, from 14 weeks to 16 weeks and then to 18 weeks. We have been very clear about the fact that, when we are able to—when the money is available—then, of course, we would look at increasing paid parental leave again. But we are going to continue to be responsible around the way we manage the Government’s finances. It is not our money; it is the taxpayers’ money, so we have got a responsibility to use that prudently.

The other thing that I would highlight is that I could never buy into the argument that, just because a parent has got 18 weeks instead of 26 weeks, for whatever reason they are not able to bond with their child.

Hon Ruth Dyson: We never said that. We never said that, and you know it.

MARK MITCHELL: Well, that is the argument that keeps getting put up. The argument is that because we are not supporting this bill, parents are somehow not able to bond with their children or they are somehow not going to be able to look after their children as well as they could if they had an extension of paid parental leave. That is your argument, not mine. I am just saying that I do not buy into that. I believe that probably most of us in this House bonded pretty well with our parents, and that they did a very good job of raising us. And, actually, they did not have paid parental leave available to them. I did not have that available to me with my daughter, but we seem to somehow have managed. But it is nice that we are in a position now where we are focused on being able to provide that type of support to parents.

It was interesting, in my time overseas. You know, I just think that we are very lucky in New Zealand, because I have observed, in my time overseas, mothers from Third World countries who had to leave their infant children to actually go away overseas and work, sometimes for 12 months, which was pretty tough to witness. [Interruption] You might laugh and think it is funny—this is the real world. This is the real world. They have to go overseas and work for 12 months away from their families, to send money back to support them—and often their parents, as well. I think we are lucky that we live in a country where we are actually able to have access to the types of support that we do have, so I would like to—like I said, there is a lot more that I would like to say. I have to take a reasonably short call, but, of course, we do not support this bill. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): There is not a lot in what Mark Mitchell just said that I could possibly agree with, but I am going to start with the tiny little bit that I do agree with, and that is that Governments must run the books responsibly. There were none more responsible than the Clark Government—9 years of surpluses. [Interruption] If you would be quiet for a little while, Brett Hudson, and listen. There were 9 years of surpluses. New Zealand’s net Government debt was down to zero—the first Government ever to do that. And, at the same time, that Government introduced paid parental leave, extended it once, extended it twice, introduced Working for Families, introduced interest-free student loans—all at the same time as running surpluses and paying down New Zealand’s Government debt. That is what a responsible Government looks like.

All Governments have to decide where their priorities sit, and Labour has always made a priority of working families. It was Labour that introduced paid parental leave; the National Party voted against it. It was Labour that extended paid parental leave; the National Party voted against it. It was Labour that extended paid parental leave again; the National Party voted against it. It was Labour that introduced Working for Families, and John Key called it communism by stealth. It was Labour that introduced KiwiSaver, and National voted against it. For people out there who—I can understand, on a night like this—are feeling disillusioned with politics as usual and think that all political parties are the same, they are not. There are clear differences between this side of the House, this side of politics, and that side of politics. We put families first, we put working people first, and we are prepared to make a priority of that. We do not go out and tell untruths about policies that we are uncomfortable about opposing.

The finance Minister—the numbers guy; the one who is supposed to understand how the numbers on the books work—has repeatedly gone and told blatant untruths about what this policy would cost. It costs less than half of what Bill English has been claiming it would cost. When he was found out, when he was caught out, he just said: “Oh, I made a mistake.” “I made a mistake.”, said Bill English, the numbers guy, the one who knows what the numbers are supposed to be about. We know that Bill English is actually on top of his job. He is not like the Prime Minister—he does not float from cloud to cloud. He does actually know what the numbers are, and he knew what the numbers were when he went out and gave New Zealand the wrong numbers. He knew he was on the wrong side of public opinion, he knew his priorities were in the wrong place, and so he had to go and tell untruths about what this policy would cost.

This does, ultimately, come down to priorities. Can New Zealand afford it? Of course we can afford it. The Prime Minister says that we have got $3 billion for tax cuts. The cost of this legislation is such an infinitesimally small proportion of that—I think we figured out that it is something like 0.03 percent of the $3 billion that the Prime Minister wants to spend annually on tax cuts. That the Prime Minister could actually, effectively, have his tax cuts unchanged and still implement this policy—it simply comes down to priorities, and for more than a decade the National Party has repeatedly proven that it does not believe in providing paid parental leave. OK, it increased it by 4 weeks once, and that was a direct consequence of the lobbying from not just Opposition parties but the organisations that Sue Moroney has already recognised, the organisations that backed 26 for Babies. That was true democracy in action.

It can be frustrating sitting on the Opposition benches. There are so many times when we put up the good arguments and we put up the good ideas but we get defeated, because that is democracy. We are in Opposition at the moment, but our democratic system actually gave us a Parliament that is quite finely balanced, and the people voted for a Parliament that is prepared to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. That is the will of Parliament, that is the will of the people of New Zealand. This Government, in its arrogance, is stopping the people of New Zealand getting what they voted for, and that does more damage to our reputation as politicians than almost anything else.

We are a democracy. We pride ourselves on being one of the most open, most transparent, and most democratic systems in the world, where one person, one vote really does count—that is what it really means—and we get a Parliament that genuinely reflects the will of the people. This Parliament wants to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks, and the National Government, which is in a minority on this, says no. That crushes the will of the New Zealand people and it crushes people’s faith in our democratic system. It is no wonder that people say politicians are out of touch, that we just do not get it, and that we are not listening.

But I want to say to people that it is not all of us who are not listening. It is that Government that is not listening, because even when it is in the minority in this Parliament, it is prepared to put down the democratic will of people and use its veto to stop something that costs such a small amount in Government terms. It is not that we cannot afford it; it is simply that this Government does not make a priority of paid parental leave, and it certainly does not make a priority of working families. Do we need more evidence of that? People are living in cars, for goodness’ sake. That is the New Zealand that the National Government has crafted over the last 8 years: people are living in cars. In my electorate on Friday there will be a crisis meeting to figure out where to house people, because for the people who have been forced into motels by this Government’s policy—whom the Ministry of Social Development and Housing New Zealand cannot find somewhere for and so they have put them into a motel—those motel rooms are going to become unavailable. There is nowhere left for those people. That is the consequence of this Government’s policy.

So there is a difference between the National Party and the Labour Party. There is a difference between the centre-right Government and the centre-left Opposition, which will be in Government soon. There is a difference, and the difference is that we put families first, we put people first, we put workers first, and we will build houses, not tear them down. We will support people to save for their superannuation, to save for their retirement. We will support people to raise their children. We will support people to have higher incomes so that they can have the choices that that Government talks about. We will not squeeze people harder and harder and harder so that those at the very top can get more from this Government, at the expense of everybody else. This Government is talking about giving more money to private schools, for goodness’ sake. I went to a private school. I can tell those members that those schools do not need more taxpayer funding. What we need is for the majority of people, who send their kids to public schools, to not have to pay the highest fees that they have ever had to in history, and for our public schools to be properly funded so that every child has the opportunity to get a proper education and get ahead.

But that is not the way of this Government. Tonight, with this legislation, it demonstrates where its priorities lie, and they are not with working New Zealanders, they are not with New Zealand families, and they are not with New Zealand babies. There could not be a more clear example of that than this Government’s application of the veto and its failure to actually act in a democratic fashion tonight. It is time for a change, and the only way we are going to change these things is by changing the Government.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in opposition to this bill. This Government’s position on this bill has always been that the effects of it will have more than a small impact on the country’s finances. Some members opposite appear to take their facts from listening to the radio during the morning, but a select committee, instead, seeks advice from those who have the means to gather the facts. Ms Moroney sat on the select committee for this piece of business—the Government Administration Committee, which I sit on as a permanent member—and the advice we got from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment was very clear that when fully implemented, the Moroney bill would add an additional $120 million a year on top of what the Government has already done.

Hon Member: Get your figures right.

BRETT HUDSON: That is the information from the advisers. It is tabled. I would love to table that information in this House for the benefit of members, but I cannot because it is publicly available. I would encourage them, and New Zealanders, to go to the Parliament website and read the advice that the committee members received from the ministry, because this has a significant impact on Government finances and the Government has said that in that case it would exercise a financial veto, and here it is, doing it. Mr Lees-Galloway and Ms Moroney have tried to say that exercising a financial veto was somehow undermining democracy. Ms Moroney said this Parliament has never done it before. Well, for their edification, if it is undermining democracy, their last Government with Michael Cullen did it 15 times—15 times it exercised the veto over parts of a bill. So it is clearly another case—

Hon Members: Lies. They’re lying again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We will not use those phrases in this debate. There are other words to express your concerns. We will not use those words “lying” or “a liar”.

BRETT HUDSON: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Yet another—

Hon Members: Tell the truth.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! “Tell the truth.” is another phrase that is unparliamentary. We will not have it.

BRETT HUDSON: Yet another case from that side of the House of “Do as we say, not as we do”. This bill is unaffordable. The Government has already taken measures to extend support for families. I oppose it. I call on the House for everyone to oppose it.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will appreciate that we are in somewhat uncharted territory this evening because the Government has issued its veto certificate for the first time for an entire bill. I wanted to seek your guidance on whether or not, under Standing Order 327(1), the issuer of the veto has any role or responsibility in coming to the House to speak to that veto and make clear the reasons why the Government does not concur with the bill, as outlined under Standing Order 327(1)—the signator of that veto being Bill English. I just wondered whether there is any guidance you could give us on whether or not the person responsible for a veto has to speak.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, there is no requirement on the person issuing the veto. I have a copy here. It spells out the requirements under Standing Order 327. It has been tabled. It is on the Table for any member to look at, and that is the requirement. There is nothing specific that requires the Minister to come into the House and speak to it.

The next speaker—[Interruption] Order! I am calling Denise Roche.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I would like to put it on the record that the Greens are heartily—heartily—disappointed that the Minister of Finance is not turning up to speak on this bill and giving his reasons—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I thought I made it clear earlier, but I will make it very clear now: you cannot refer to the absence of a member. I understand the point that you are making, but do not refer to the absence of a member. All right?

DENISE ROCHE: OK. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will rephrase that. I am disappointed that the Minister is not speaking on this bill and giving his reasons for the veto.

It is with deep regret that I rise to speak for the first time for the Greens on the third and final reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, and it is with deep regret that I will not be able to exercise my right to vote in the House. I want to note for the record that the Government’s decision to veto this bill is a huge insult to the thousands of people who submitted on it and the thousands and thousands of people who signed petitions calling on the Government not to veto this bill. It is an insult to all of those people who prepared and gave clear, compelling submissions on this bill—and, actually, on the others before it. The veto that this Government is issuing, that the Minister of Finance is issuing, is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face for democracy, and all New Zealanders need to be worried about that.

The decision, apparently, was made—and should be made—for sound financial reasons, but, frankly, this Government and the Ministers are not financial managers. They have mismanaged this entire country and our economy so badly that there can be no definitive proof that the introduction of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, an increase of only 8 weeks more than what it is now, is financially unsustainable. We have heard constant fudging of the numbers from the Government Ministers on this issue. Although we have seen them fudging the numbers around it, saying that it is going to cost millions more than what it is estimated to cost, we have also seen the spending of $26 million on a vanity project that was a referendum for the flag.

We are seeing a huge increase in inequality, and the data yesterday from the survey on household wealth, from Statistics New Zealand, actually showed that 3 percent of the wealth is owned by the lowest 40 percent of households. What that means is that at the top there are 10 percent of the households that have over 50 percent of the wealth in the country. Where you have got those disparities, you cannot be pointing to sound economic management from this Government.

The Green Party has always said that we would support and we would envisage 13 months’ paid parental leave as the standard that we should be aspiring to for families in this country—13 months’ paid parental leave. We have supported this bill by Sue Moroney because 26 weeks is a huge step towards that and an 8-week jump from where we are now.

We would say that this Government has not done the proper cost-benefit analysis. We have heard from speakers on this side of the House talk about the savings further down the track if you invest now in the future of our children, and one way to invest is by extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks. One of the things that we heard from the ministry officials was that although it would cost about $100 million for the full implementation of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, on the same day there would be a $30 million saving. Further down the track there are the savings, the education outcomes, the health outcomes, and the family bonding and health that come with having a substantial amount of time in the beginning weeks of a child’s life, in the beginning weeks of a family unit finding its way. So this Government has traded a very short-term view. It would rather spend $3 billion promising tax cuts than invest in our kids, and we really do need to.

We need to have an economy that works for everyone, not just the 10 percent. We need it to work for our kids. We need to be thinking in a much longer term. From the Greens’ point of view, we would not just extend that investment to the kids of people who are working but also extend the Working for Families tax credit to those families that are most poor—those who are not in the paid workforce—because our kids are vulnerable. We have heard during the debate and we have heard from other speakers on this side of the House as well about how our kids are suffering—how there are 150,000 of them who do not have the basic necessities to get to school. We have heard how there are 40,000 visits to hospitals every year from kids in our country because their living conditions are so poor—damp, cold housing—and we are not seeing a Government on track to fixing that. And why not? I suggest it is because kids do not vote.

This Government is out of touch. It is really out of touch with what families want and what employers want, which is better provisions. We heard from employers that it would be easier for them to have 26 weeks’ paid parental leave because it is an easier amount of time to actually get in a temp replacement. We have heard from them, but this Government is not listening to them either. So this Government is out of touch and out of step with employers, with families, and with the economy as well, because paid parental leave has always been good for the economy and this Government has never recognised that. What you get is a more productive workforce and reduced costs in training, because women, particularly, who are taking parental leave are able to come back to work and be productive workers.

This paid parental leave is also good for babies, and it is good for families, and this Government is ignoring that. We have to change the short-sighted, short-term thinking. It is not good for the country. This Government is mismanaging the economy. It is totally mismanaging the economy, and we need to change it. We will do that at the next election.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Although I rise in opposition to this bill, I think it is no secret, given my contributions in the first and second readings of this bill, that I am definitely in support of the concept of paid parental leave, as is this Government. We are the Government that has already extended paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. We have extended the eligibility of those receiving paid parental leave, and extended the entitlements of those people who have pre-term babies, which, of course, is a very good help to those families. Where we sit as a Government is we remain prudent managers of the economy.

We maintain that paid parental leave has its benefits, and I have spoken about those at length, with regard to bonding with baby and encouraging breastfeeding, but also for those women who cannot breastfeed—the bonding in respect of bottle-feeding should not be underestimated; that time with baby should not be underestimated—and also overcoming the isolation of new parents in a new community or an existing community to bond with other families who have babies and to share in those milestones.

Although we support paid parental leave, on this side of the House, it is about providing a suite of measures for the best start for baby in life, the best start for families, and supporting our families in life to achieve their hopes and dreams. I am very proud of this Government’s record. To name a few things, there are free doctors visits and prescriptions for under-13-year-olds; a doubling investment in early childhood education, with almost 98 percent engagement rates; and, of course, our HomeStart packages to get more people into their own home. So we have a suite of measures that are helping families, and the extension of paid parental leave is one of those. I am very proud of this Government’s record, but in this instance, because of our prudent management of the economy, we cannot support this bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I would like to start New Zealand First’s contribution today by just saying how disappointed New Zealand First is at the stance that this Government is taking, particularly over this financial veto. This speech that I will be giving this evening is on three things: it is about democracy; the so-called unaffordability of the bill; and, of course, it is all about families, which is what Sue Moroney has put forward with the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

I started off in the second reading by saying that this was divine intervention, because, of course, there have been three cracks at getting this across the line and I thought, by the will of the gods, that this was clearly going to be the time that we were going to see some sense come through. We have got democracy in the House when the majority of this House are in support of looking after their families, our families, others’ families, and New Zealand families by extending that paid parental leave, which actually puts us—well, still behind the eight ball when we compare ourselves with other OECD countries around the world. The Minister, when he speaks about it, says you cannot just cherry-pick information from the OECD. But whenever he gets asked a question—in fact today in the House he was asked a question about employment—he goes back to using those OECD figures that he likes, to put his hat on and say that we are doing very well. The reality is, the stark reality is, we are doing abysmally: we are right at the bottom of the OECD figures when it comes to the amount of money that is paid to families, and the amount of time that we give our families. In fact, we are in the four bottom countries in the OECD when it comes to looking after families.

In 1943 a very, very great leader gave a fantastic quote. Winston Churchill famously said: “There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies.” The year 1943 was a very, very hard time and finances were very, very tight, because we were, of course, in the precipice of war and going through war times. That quote there is a very, very important one because it demonstrates cost versus value. When the priority of that Government was to make sure that it could fight a war and stand up for democracy, it was putting the priorities of its families first, making sure that those families and those communities were being looked after. It put the cost of a war aside for a moment for the values of families and children. It was not talking about fuelling aeroplanes—it was talking about putting milk into babies. This Government says that we cannot afford this bill. We say we cannot afford not to implement and support this bill.

At a time that this country is seeing more and more disenfranchised families—disenfranchised youth who turn into disenfranchised adults who become dependent, one way or another, on the State, or, even worse, can go on to commit horrible, violent crimes—we need to get to the grassroots of this problem. This is a step in the right direction for a Government to understand that families need to come first. They need to come first, before you put $10 billion into your war fund. They need to come first, when we talk about the money that is not being collected when we are talking about corporate taxation. The Minister of Finance made a one-line mention of it in his Budget this year, saying more needs to be done in this area. When you talk about affordability, what about the billion dollars that you gave to your South Canterbury Finance mates—that money was found. We found $10 billion to go into our war coffers to make sure that that could be afforded. We could find $26 million for a flag referendum. I can carry on—$16 million to a Saudi businessman to build an abattoir in the Middle East. What about the $540 million out of our Future Investment Fund that is going into infrastructure in China?

You can find the money when you want to, but you are not prioritising it for our families. What about the reserve? What about the $7.5 billion that is not currently being collected by corporate tax—the one area that would make it affordable—you are not even putting any resources or energies into it. The point has already been made that $110 million to $115 million—I am going to read out this financial veto in a moment, which will give you those numbers. [Interruption] The last time we had Mr Hudson in the House, he was banging off all sorts of crazy figures. This Government can afford to pledge to the people that next year you can expect to see $3 billion in tax cuts, which is 0.03 percent of the $110 million that we are proposing to put into this family bill—

Brett Hudson: It’s per year, by the way.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: It is 0.03 percent per year. Do the maths; I can tell you right now that there are a lot of years supported by the $3 billion that you are talking in a 1-year tax cut. I would like to just take a moment to read out—for the people back home who do not have the ability to get it easily—the impact of the veto from the certificate of financial veto under Standing Order 327: “The proposed Bill extends the duration of paid parental leave to a maximum of 22 weeks on 1 April 2017, and a maximum of 26 weeks on 1 April 2018. The proposed Bill would impact on the Crown’s fiscal aggregates by increasing the Crown’s total operating expenses by approximately $14 million in 2016/17, $72 million in 2017/18, $116 million in 2018/19 and $119 million in 2019/20”—

Brett Hudson: You’re not going to stop it then.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: This is just because you have not read it, Mr Hudson. “This amounts to $321 million over the forecast period. These figures are gross before tax, and therefore it is correct to note that the government will receive tax revenue back on a portion of this expenditure of approximately $43 million. This results in an overall net increase to the Crown’s total operating expenses of approximately $278 million over the forecast period.”

When the Minister was asked yesterday in the House by Sue Moroney about this very question—why he put the financial veto on this bill—he said that, actually, at first, he thought it was $280 million per year—that is what he said. He said his initial thought was it was unaffordable because it was $280 million per year. Well, we are four times better off from his first prediction. And that would be enough time, surely, to actually reconsider your position and support this bill, because it is more than affordable as we speak about the $278 million over that 4-year period. Now they go dumb and silent, they hang their heads in shame. I feel very, very sorry for those members of the National Party who actually, genuinely would like to support this bill, but cannot do it because they are held over the barrel and they have to toe the party line. I do feel sorry for you, and I know there are a number of you over there.

We heard and we saw and we read over 6,800 submissions leading into this bill through the select committee. Ninety-nine percent of those people were in full support of it because it makes sense, it is about putting our families first, and it is about ensuring families can bond together. We talk about mums because they are extremely important. In fact, the last time I spoke, I spoke about Mother’s Day and what a great day that was, and how important every single one of us make our mothers feel—because they are so precious to us. But dads play an equal role, and we are seeing more and more dads getting more and more involved with their families. I have to say that the people in this room, in this House, are the lucky ones because they are in a position to actually take some time out with your families. But what about those families that are in financial hardship, that do not get the same ability? This would enable that bond to be made tight with those family members, with those dads and those mums with their babies, to make sure that we can break down the cycle of neglect that starts at the root of the problem, which we are seeing like a festering sore in this country when it comes to family violence and domestic violence. We need to be doing more to help our families out.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Myself and, I think, actually, a good number of my constituents in Tāmaki oppose this bill. One of the reasons I would put forward—actually, if you were listening to the last contribution, particularly at the end, it was all about money and so forth. I said in my maiden speech that love is not an economic commodity, and it is fascinating that, listening to most of these speeches, paying money in this area or extending it is somehow going to solve all the problems. There is a great naivety there. I think, actually, there is a great lack of rigour as well, particularly when we start hearing talks about democracy and so forth. It is funny—the Opposition believes in democracy only when it suits its end, which is a contradiction to the very nature of what democracy is. The other side is that—you often hear it from me when I talk here about context and consistency—actually, this Government has extended paid parental leave, prudently, up to 18 weeks.

We do manage the books carefully. We also understand that money does not grow on trees, to be paid out on every next project and to be spent two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight times over, as the Opposition is wont to do. We are the party that has increased benefit rates. We are the party that has introduced free health care for under-13-year-olds. We are the party that introduced free pharmaceuticals—again, for young people. We are the ones who have the green card—again, in health spaces. There is an enormous amount of good work that is going on, and so I am happy that we are not supporting this bill. I will certainly be reporting that back strongly to my electorate, when I return in a few days.

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

JAN LOGIE (Green): As the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, said, love is not an economic commodity. I want to start by saying that we agree with that, and that, actually, we believe that parents should be able to be there when their children first laugh; that parents should be able to be there when their baby first crawls. That is ultimately what this piece of legislation is about. It is about ensuring that working parents are able to be there when their babies first laugh or when their babies first crawl, and that for those momentous times that will never ever be repeated, the parent is able to be there for those moments.

Love is definitely not an economic commodity, but we need to protect working people’s rights to be there with their families, and that requires legislation, as we have heard in the submissions to the multiple bills that have been in front of this Parliament. I do at this moment want to pay tribute to Sue Moroney for her tenacity. I think you are an amazing battler for our babies and women and workplaces, and you have just kept going in the belief that this is the right legislation for our families and our people. That is a view that was shared by 99.4 percent of the 6,755 submitters who submitted on this piece of legislation, as well as the many thousands who submitted in support of it in the last round of the legislation.

It is a huge disappointment to me today that the people whom I am representing, the people who submitted on this legislation and the people whom the majority of members in this House are representing will be unable to represent their intent in our votes in this House because the National Government has chosen to put a financial veto on this bill to prevent us from representing them. That, to me, is just a perversion of justice. It is a perversion of the democratic process and it is a real shame.

When the Government says that this is unaffordable, I just want to take it back to a family context of imagining my budget and thinking about what would be important to me. I have got to say that buying a new warship would not come before having time with my baby. I have got to say that I think most New Zealanders would choose spending time with their baby before they would some flash new warship.

Grant Robertson: A warship is a luxury.

JAN LOGIE: I do think that a warship is a luxury—a new flash warship that we are not exactly sure how much is going to cost. I think that is a luxury, and I do not believe that seeing your child crawl for the first time should be a luxury. That is what this Government is telling the people of New Zealand: that it is unaffordable and is a luxury. Well, I do not believe it. It is not a difficult thing. When we are being told by this Government that $69.5 million a year over 4 years is unaffordable when it is putting more money into private schools, when it is talking about warships, and when it is talking about $3 billion of tax cuts, over people being protected to be able to see their baby crawl for the first time, then we know that the priorities are off. I would normally say: “Well, people get a choice: you get to vote to be able to change that.”. Well, actually, the tragedy in this situation is that people did vote for that, and even then this Government is overruling the will of people, and it is a bloody sad day.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call David Seymour—5 minutes.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I think we saw in that speech everything that is wrong with the Opposition parties’ argument on this bill. I oppose this bill on behalf of the ACT Party—because if Jan Logie had done an ounce of research, the first thing she would know is that babies generally crawl between 7 and 10 months, so 6 months of paid parental leave is not going to achieve what she thinks it is going to achieve. That is the fundamental problem between members on that side of the House, who live in a la-la land of ideology, and members on this side of the House, who live in the real world.

I listened to the speech of Iain Lees-Galloway, and he betrayed another flaw in the argument that the Opposition makes on this bill. For the Labour Party, paid parental leave has always been an exercise in political branding with taxpayer money. Let us have a look at the history. In 2002 paid parental leave for 12 weeks was introduced, with a $9 billion surplus in an election year. When was paid parental leave next extended again, with a $6 billion surplus? It was in 2004, when the polls dramatically changed and the National Party gained 20 points on Labour. That is when the Labour Government next extended it: when it was politically expedient. What do we hear from Sue Moroney, when she is asked? Well, Ms Moroney, if it is so important to have paid parental leave, why do you not make it, say, 1 year instead of 6 months? She says: “Because this is what is politically possible right now.” This has always been nothing but an exercise in political branding, paid for by the taxpayer on behalf of the Labour Party.

If it was really so critical and essential that people could not bring up their children without an extra 6 or 4 or 10 weeks of paid parental leave, then you just have to ask yourself what the Labour Party’s attitude is towards the majority of those who will have children in New Zealand this year, who will not take up paid parental leave. Let me say that again: for the majority of the 60,000 children born in each year, their parents do not take up paid parental leave, for a variety of reasons. Even if it was the case that in real life parents could not bring up children without paid parental leave, then what do we make of the many developmental stages that children go through over 20 years? Because on this side of the House, where we live in the real, practical world and where we know that babies crawl between 7 to 10 months and not between 4 months and 6 months, we know that bringing up children is a 20-year enterprise. The idea that the only block between children growing up healthy and well-adjusted in New Zealand is simply the problem that parents do not have funding for an extra 6 weeks while their children are very small is simply not true.

Those members can howl and howl and howl, but the reality is that the Opposition has been found out. This has been an exercise in collecting emails from petitions, of trying to brand the Labour Party as the party that cares more. Did that not come out in Iain Lees-Galloway’s speech? Iain Lees-Galloway’s speech—if people want to go back to watch it—was 90 percent about the Labour Party and 10 percent about the children whom he purports his speech to be about. You only have to look at the way that Iain Lees-Galloway spent his time during his speech to see that, really, it was not about the children or the policy whatsoever.

In conclusion, I am actually proud to oppose this bill, because I am in favour of sound public policy and using taxpayer money to the maximum value to make New Zealanders’ lives better—not the kind of political grandstanding and showboating that the Labour Party has used paid parental leave as, for 14 years and counting. Thank you.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): The National Government’s position is that it is affordable to increase paid parental leave, but in a measured fashion, and it has done that by increasing paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. The National Government also took the view that it is important to balance the way in which it puts money towards families. Although it has not increased paid parental leave to the extent that Sue Moroney wants, it has been able to deliver a package of measures that has led to 200,000 children getting targeted support through the benefit system.

I just want to say that we reject the argument that this is undemocratic. Sure, a majority of the House wants an increase in paid parental leave, but a majority of the House also supports the Budget that the Government has put forward. The Government has the confidence and supply of the House, and that includes the budgetary measures we put before the Parliament—

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

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

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I would like to say that it was my pleasure to speak on this third reading. Usually you have some sense of satisfaction that you might be at the point where your bill is about to pass but, sadly, this is a highly unusual situation that the Parliament finds itself in today. In fact, I was reflecting on this as I went to speak to a school group today—these were intermediate-aged children—where one of the questions from a student was: “What has been your most memorable moment in Parliament?”. I have to say that two things sprung to mind: one was a protest here in Parliament and another was standing next to my colleague Louisa Wall when marriage equality passed in this House. Moments like that stay in your mind as a member of Parliament. I have to say that when you are an Opposition member of Parliament, those memories are even more acute.

We should have been having one of those memories here today because we have, as a Parliament, as a collective, voted in favour of a bill that will now not pass through this House. That will seem extraordinary to people who are listening here this evening—that we could have a convention where a majority have shared their will and still not had a bill pass through their House. Now, I might wish that that would happen, for instance, for a Brexit vote or something like that in the UK, but that is not the way that democracy works—unless you are the National Party and you have got the power of veto. That is what we are seeing enacted in this House tonight, and that is a tragedy.

Before I go any further I do want to—as other speakers have done, and rightly so—acknowledge the work of Sue Moroney. Earlier today I was appalled to hear David Seymour question the motives of Sue Moroney in bringing this bill to Parliament. I have known Sue for years. Anyone who knows Sue well knows that her motivation not only through her entire time in this Parliament but also for this bill has been about the best interest of families and babies. She has been absolutely unwavering in that goal, and so to hear that questioned in that way I found really appalling. If nothing else, this third reading at least gives us the ability to show our support and thanks to Sue and to right the record in a couple of areas, because right up until last week we have seen complete misinformation shared in this debate—not that it mattered, because, actually, the majority of Parliament supported it anyway—but misinformation none the less. I want to cover off a few of those points.

The first point was actually from David Seymour. It was a new argument that I had not heard consistently through this debate, but an argument none the less, and it was, why focus on the first 6 months, what about 20 years of development? It was an extraordinary point to raise. I think we have probably been quite consistent in this House in talking about the importance of the first 6 months of a child’s life. In fact, as a party we often talk about the first 3 years, but, obviously, when it comes to the research and evidence around breastfeeding and how important those first early months are, we honed in on the first 6 months as the step that we wanted to see pass in this Parliament. So of course we want people to have time to parent, and that does go beyond 6 months. In fact, Mr Seymour, if he chooses to look at our children’s policy, will see that, actually, we have been targeting those first 3 years through things like Best Start. As for the first 20 years, I would have to point out that, actually, for the male brain, Mr Seymour, it is 24, but I doubt many parents would want to advocate a policy that enables them to be at home parenting a child right up until that point. There are different ages and stages and you only need to look at the likes of the Brainwave Trust to know about that.

The second question that has been raised in this House is: why not a year? Well, actually, we have asked that question ourselves. We know that in an ideal world a year would be fantastic, but we drew a line in the sand. We drew a line in the sand and said: “Look, we have got progression over time that we want to aim to. This is our trajectory; this is where we want to be, but, in the here and now, this is where we believe it is possible to go now.”. We made that call. We demonstrated to this House and to the country that we were able to weigh up what was in the best interests of families, what was fiscally possible, and what we hope to do in the future.

On the one hand, those Government members are saying “Why not a year?”, and on the other hand they are saying that 26 weeks is not affordable. Well, we have so many examples of alternative spending that the Government has decided is affordable, I almost do not know where to start. But what I think probably puts it into perspective is that when you compare the costings for the bill that we are debating here tonight with the next spend budgeted for 2016-17, it basically represents 0.7 percent of the additional net spending for that Budget—that is 0.7 percent. I would challenge members on that side of the House to show us their hierarchy of the most important things that we are able to spend on as a collective. Show me your hierarchy. Where is Defence Force spending in that hierarchy? Where are all the other things that the Government has decided are absolutely priorities, and how do they beat the needs of babies and their families?

We have seen other spending decisions that, I have to say, really lead me to question the priorities of the Government. A couple of weeks ago the Minister announced that she was cutting a programme called Parents as First Teachers. It has been running since 1992—that will tell you that it is curious that it has been cancelled by this Government. Plunket is one of the agencies that offer it, so do the kindergarten associations. It is also offered by educators, health providers, and social services. After a baby is born a programme provider goes into the home and the programme helps low-income families, sole parent families, young families, and families without support—the very people whom you think we would want to be focusing on as a Parliament. That is where it goes.

Tim Macindoe: The money will now go to Family Start.

JACINDA ARDERN: Correction—correction. That member just yelled out that it is going to Family Start. No, it is not. There has been $7.2 million cut and roughly $3 million is going to Family Start. Where is the rest going? I can tell you it is going into a bureaucracy. As much as I support establishing a Ministry for Children, I do not support doing it at the expense of on-the-ground support for family and whānau, and that is exactly what this Government is doing. So show me your hierarchy of needs and I and the Labour Party will show those Government members and this House that paid parental leave can be done.

We have also heard it said in this House that the support for this bill was not real. I was astounded when I heard one of the members of this House, Alfred Ngaro, stand up and say that because there were form submissions, the number of people who supported this bill was somehow not represented by those submissions. Well, I can tell you that a form submission still takes an individual to sit at their device, to read the petition, to enter in their name and their details, and to proactively support something: an idea, a movement. Now, what is wrong with emphasising your view using that tool? What is wrong? And how does that lessen it? On this side of the House we never questioned that every single one of those 6,817 submissions in support of this bill was real. In fact, they represented only the tip of the iceberg when it came to the strength of feeling behind this bill.

I have spoken before in this House about a friend of mine who was desperately hoping that this Government would change its mind. She is having a baby soon. She wanted to see the Government show support for the experience that she is about to have with her partner. She never filled in a form submission, but she was watching, and she got a clear message when this Government decided to veto a bill that Parliament ultimately wanted to support.

I do not believe that all members of the National Party actually oppose this bill. I would like to advocate that we give them the ability to vote on whether or not this veto should go ahead, and whether this bill should in fact be enacted along with the will of Parliament. I think they should have their say. I have heard speeches in this House that have led me to believe that, actually, some of them would like the chance to vote—particularly those who are parents themselves. I genuinely believe that not all of them are on board with what is happening, so let us give them that democratic right and allow them to exercise it.

Ultimately, I would love to see history made here tonight. I would love this to be my next memorable parliamentary moment, and I know there are a lot of families who would want that too. You may roll your eyes at me, Mr Bennett, but for a lot of people this is important and it is a mark of what matters to this Government, and so why do you not put it to the vote? Let us make this a memorable day.

JOANNE HAYES (National): It is my pleasure to take the final call on this bill. Before I do carry on, I just want to correct the speaker before me, Jacinda Ardern. The Minister for Social Development recently announced that $7.3 million a year will be reallocated from low-intensity home visitation programmes and Parents as First Teachers, or PAFT, to support more vulnerable children and their families through the more intensive home-visiting programme of Family Start. I just wanted to correct that and make sure that that message got through.

I want to thank all the speakers tonight for their contributions on this bill. I want to thank you very much.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I waited until the conclusion of the Government members’ speeches on this bill to make this point of order, and I have two related points.

A financial veto certificate has been issued to the House. At no point in any of the Government members’ speeches did they speak to that financial veto certificate. That means that you, Mr Assistant Speaker, in your role as Speaker, do have to make some judgments here. McGee quite clearly states that the Speaker does have the ability to say whether or not a financial veto certificate complies with all of the procedures that need to be followed. I refer you to Standing Order 327(1). The financial veto certificate has to have two elements. It has to state with due particularity the impact on the fiscal aggregates, and the reason why the Government does not concur with the bill. On both of those counts the financial veto certificate must have due particularity.

It is fair to say that the financial veto certificate has due particularity on the impact on the aggregates. As an aside, I would say that it is very difficult to justify that they constitute more than minor aspects, but that is what the Government is trying to tell us. But what the financial veto certificate does not do with due particularity is state the reason why the Government does not concur. In fact, all the financial veto certificate does is state that the reason is the financial aggregates. There are two parts to this financial veto certificate. No member of the Government has come to the House tonight to explain this, and, as the House sits here now, we have never had the financial veto certificate explained to us. I believe, Mr Assistant Speaker, that there is a place for you to rule on whether or not this certificate is adequate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for his comments. Members, the Speaker has accepted the veto and it has been tabled. You bring up two points under Standing Order 327(1). You made the point about what the concern was, and what the Government’s reaction to it was, and that is in the certificate. It is mentioned quite clearly. You also mentioned that some members never mentioned the certificate. I have sat through the whole of this debate, and it has been mentioned in the course of the debate—

Grant Robertson: Not by the Government.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): —I am on my feet—maybe not to the extent to which members would wish it to be, but it has been mentioned. That is the end of the matter, because it is a financial veto that has been put in place by the Government under the Standing Orders. My determination is that the Government has issued a financial veto certificate for this bill, so, in accordance with Standing Order 328(3), there will be no question put on the bill being read a third time.

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have actually ruled now, so there is no debate.

GRANT ROBERTSON: It is a new point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Grant Robertson—but there is no debate on this.

GRANT ROBERTSON: No, Mr Assistant Speaker. I seek leave of the House for there to be a personal vote held on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, we cannot. Because this debate has concluded, there is no opportunity—[Interruption] Order! This debate has concluded. There is no provision for a vote, so leave cannot be accepted. I have actually given the ruling; I will read it out again, so that it is very, very clear. The Government has issued a financial veto certificate for this bill, so, in accordance with Standing Order 328(3), there will be no question put on the bill being read a third time.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am not entering into any further debate, because there is no debate. There is no question to be put, so there are no points of order that can be considered.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is it a new point of order?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It is a new point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If you are going to trifle with my decision, that is a very serious matter.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: My point of order is in reference to members’ ability to seek leave. The House has the right to determine whatever course of action it wishes to, by leave. My colleague Grant Robertson sought leave for a vote to be taken. Certainly it is not the way the Standing Orders are laid out, but—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): All right, I hear the point the member is making. There is no opportunity for a vote to be taken, by leave or otherwise. This is very clear. This is the matter under the financial veto. That is it—there will be no vote put on the third reading, so that is the end of the matter. You cannot seek leave for something to have a vote put when there is no provision for a vote to be put on the third reading. So that is the end of the matter.

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): A new point of order, I hope, Mr Robertson.

GRANT ROBERTSON: It is indeed. I seek leave for the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill to be recommitted to the House for the third reading.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If you are trifling with the Chair, that is a very serious matter.

SUE MORONEY: It is a new point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sue Moroney—a new point of order.

SUE MORONEY: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Labour whips’ office, dated today, with the number of votes that the Labour Party wished to cast on the third reading of this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is trifling with the Chair. I have already ruled, and that is the end of the matter. We will not have any more of that.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on this matter. The member will sit. Is it a new point of order?

DENISE ROCHE: Yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If it is trifling with the Chair, then the member will be leaving.

DENISE ROCHE: I seek leave to table a document that lists the names of the MPs from this party who would like to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is trifling with the Chair.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is within the rights of members of this House to seek leave to table documents. You can put the leave and members opposite can deny us leave if they wish, but it is well within our rights to seek leave to table documents.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The—[Interruption] Order! I do not need any assistance. I have made it very clear what the provisions of the Standing Orders are. I read them out twice. There is no opportunity to take this debate any further; nor is there to be a vote. So anything that goes beyond that, by seeking leave and just trifling with the Chair, is out of order, and I have ruled that way. That is the end of the matter, so we are moving on.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, that is a non sequitur. Members are not seeking leave for anything to do with a vote. Members are seeking leave to table documents, something that is well within our rights.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to seek some advice. As I have already ruled, I have the discretion as to whether I accept the leave or not, and I have declined it. We are moving on.

The Government having issued a financial veto certificate for this bill, in accordance with Standing Order 328(3) no question was put on the bill being read a third time.

Motion lapsed.

Bills

Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I move, That the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke o ngā kōrero, kua tae mai ki tēnei pire hōhonu ki Te Motu nei.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Despite the ups and downs of the contributions, we have come to this esoteric bill for this nation.]

I am very happy that we have arrived at the third reading of the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill. The Official Information Act is one of the few mechanisms of democratic accountability: it gives taxpayers and voters the confidence that decisions are made on their behalf, and that they are right and proper. The purposes section of the principal Act that this bill wishes to amend leads off with the following words: “The purposes of this Act are, consistently with the principle of the Executive Government’s responsibility to Parliament,”. It then goes on to talk about the availability of official information. It talks about effective participation in the making and administration of laws and policy. It talks about the accountability of Ministers of the Crown and officials. It talks about respect for the law. It talks about promoting good government, and proper access to official information. It talks, also, about the protection of official information.

As a Parliament, we expect to have in place robust mechanisms to hold the executive to account, and the Official Information Act is one of them. That is why this bill is before the House. The executive Government is at the forefront of the purpose of the Official Information Act 1982, and as the Government Administration Committee was advised by the New Zealand Law Society, parliamentary under-secretaries are part of that executive. Therefore, there is an anomaly in how parliamentary under-secretaries are treated in respect of the Official Information Act, and my bill will correct that anomaly.

To do this, clause 4 of the bill inserts “Minister of the Crown includes a Parliamentary Under-Secretary”, to amend Section 2(1) of the Act. This simplifies the bill and gives it the flexibility to accommodate continued evolution of the executive roles and functions. This amendment refers only to official information held by parliamentary under-secretaries in their official capacity subject to the Official Information Act 1982. In its report to the Government Administration Committee, the Ministry of Justice considered that this bill is consistent with the purposes of the Official Information Act, with the constitutional position of parliamentary under-secretaries as part of the executive with the ability to exercise delegated ministerial powers. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice recommended that this bill should proceed.

I would like to make some acknowledgments. I want to acknowledge all of the submitters who made submissions, and there were only a few. But I want to acknowledge, in particular, the submissions from the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Law Commission. I reflect back to the first reading of this bill, and there was some substantial opposition to this bill. Since then I think that the weight of evidence provided by the New Zealand Law Society and the Law Commission, as well as the report from the Ministry of Justice, has, at the very least, persuaded—but I would go so far as to say, has kind of forced the hand of—the Government parties to reconsider their positions.

As we saw in the second reading and at the Committee stage, that reconsideration has been forthcoming, albeit with some elements of discussion—some of which I thought were quite irrelevant. I reflect on some of the questions asked at Committee stage, and I would have to say that where I come from we have a saying. It is only four words, but it goes: “Good kaupapa, wrong hui”. That basically means that some people have brought up good topics within the discussion, but it is at the wrong meeting or at the wrong process. So I wanted to just let people know that despite calling this bill a “silly” bill, you must surely have to be beyond silly to vote for something that you think is silly. I will let the general public make their own decision about the ability of someone to be able to make that kind of statement in this House. But I do want to acknowledge the Government and the National Party members for reconsidering their position. As I said, I think the weight of evidence from both the New Zealand Law Society and the Law Commission was such that it helped that process along.

It would be an unusual situation for a Government, I guess, to vote against its own Ministry of Justice, because the Ministry of Justice was very clear on its position on this bill. I want to acknowledge the members of the Government Administration Committee, led by the Hon Ruth Dyson, for the work that they did on this bill. I want to also acknowledge Chris Hipkins, who originally submitted this bill and whom I inherited it from. I was very pleased to do so, actually—as a then member of the Government Administration Committee I was very happy to accept that on behalf of the Labour Party. We are about open government. This is what this bill is about.

As I said, the executive Government is at the forefront of the purpose of the Official Information Act. The parliamentary under-secretaries are part of that executive, and they should also be part of the Official Information Act where it is relevant to their work as a parliamentary under-secretary.

I want to also just thank the House. This process has been a learning process for me as a first-term MP—to help a bill through its entire stages and to come to the third reading. I have learned a lot about this process—I have probably learned a lot more about people’s own way of dealing with things, and they have not always been upfront and honest about it. I think that as we are at the third reading it is actually time to either vote for this bill with real determination and purpose, or just do not vote for it at all, Mr Seymour. Nō reira, ka nui te mihi atu ki Te Whare e tū ake nei, ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke e pā ana ki tēnei pire, e tino mihi atu ki a tātou o tēnei Whare. Nō reira, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koe.

[Therefore, I extend a huge acknowledgment to the House standing before me, and regardless of the ups and downs relating to this bill, I really commend us of this House. So thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.]

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I want to acknowledge my colleague on the Government Administration Committee Adrian Rurawhe, and congratulate him on getting his bill through the House. I just want to make an observation: the Labour Party for the 9 years it was in Government had two parliamentary under-secretaries. I think those parliamentary under-secretaries probably did a very good job. We went through those 9 years, then we came into two terms of Government with National—that is 15 years. Fifteen years went past and they were very lucky that Mr Rurawhe came in and saw that when Mr Seymour became a parliamentary under-secretary they had to do something about this. He reacted quickly and he made sure that he got a bill into the House. It is funny that after 9 years of actually having their own parliamentary under-secretaries, Labour members never saw any need to make any changes around the Official Information Act. I just wonder whether there was something going on in those 9 years, that they realised: “Oh, we have to make some changes.”

Iain Lees-Galloway: What did the National Opposition do about it? Nothing.

MARK MITCHELL: I said in one of my speeches—maybe I am being a bit cynical about this, Mr Lees-Galloway, but it seems very strange that Mr Seymour comes in as a parliamentary under-secretary, with a policy that is not popular with the Labour Party, and all of a sudden we have got this bill in the House. On saying that, it was obvious through the select committee process that people want more transparency—and I remember Mr Seymour bringing in a whole lot of folders showing that he is already operating like that—but we are very happy to be able to support this bill. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I first of all acknowledge Sue Moroney, who led the paid parental leave bill, and say that it is really disappointing that as we celebrate what looks like unanimous support for this bill, we are not doing the same with her bill.

When my colleague Adrian Rurawhe—not “Rua-why”, or whatever Mr Mitchell called him; certainly the wrong surname—stood to take the first call in this debate, one of the National front-benchers interjected: “And now on to a substantial topic.” Actually, it is important, this topic, but I have to say that despite accountability and transparency being important, they are not as important as the opportunity to give families of newborn babies or adopted babies extra financial support in the first few weeks of their life. That would have been a great bill to pass, and I am outraged that for the first time ever in New Zealand we had the financial veto exercised. But with this bill it sounds like we are going to get support.

David Seymour: The member had a couple of wines at dinner, and came back and talked about the wrong bill!

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member who is chirping obviously had a nice break earlier this evening. He has come back to the House well rested and full of energy. When he saw this bill he said it was a silly bill. He said “What a silly bill.”—he was not going to support it. Then his mates in National said: “Well, we are.”, and he said: “Oops, I can’t be the only one in the whole of Parliament voting to protect my own ability to keep stuff secret.” That would not have been a good look. Even for that member it would not have been a good look. So he is now supporting what he described as a silly bill. I think my colleague is correct—it makes him look a lot sillier than any legislation that has come in.

I think Mr Mitchell made a valid point—that not one single member of the then National Opposition, through the entire 9 years of a Labour-led Government, had the common sense to put up a bill like this. It was a lazy Opposition, just like it is lazy in Government now. It should have spotted the opportunity and put forward a member’s bill itself, but it did not. So it was up to a Labour member in Opposition to do that, and I am delighted that we are doing it now.

We did not get many submissions on this bill, but I think the quality of the submissions from the Law Society and the Law Commission particularly was extremely high. It was very helpful to us. The three parties represented on the Government Administration Committee had good cross-party discussion and debate about the bill, and I think we have returned it in a better state. I think the Committee of the whole House stage was a valuable contribution to democracy. This bill will make our Parliament more accountable and more transparent, and that is something that the whole of our Parliament should pursue. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. I have to say I have kind of warmed to Mr Rurawhe’s bill throughout the process of passing it. Of course, I maintain my earlier position that it is a completely pointless bill. Just this afternoon I was reading and preparing information to be released proactively in one of my portfolios, for all the world to see, and at the second reading I showed the House just how many piles of that information have already been released. And, of course, any member who had any kind of gumption could make an Official Information Act request to either the Minister for Regulatory Reform or the Minister of Education for any official activity I have had assigned to me. Any member could have accessed all my official information through that route. So the bill makes no difference whatsoever to my functioning as a parliamentary under-secretary.

However, the bill has become attractive because it opens up some very interesting questions. Sadly, my amendments in the Committee stage were ruled out of scope, but I respect the procedure and traditions of our Parliament and, as a result, I have come to support the bill in the hope that it will be a launch pad for much greater transparency and more open government. My amendments proposed that the judiciary and the Ombudsmen, for instance, should also have the Official Information Act applied to them.

Now that we have blurred the line between executive decision-making power and the Parliament, why stop there? I think many people in New Zealand would regard it as being in the public interest to find out where exactly the Green Party members go, given that they have the highest level of air travel spending of any party in this Parliament. Where do they go, given that none of them has an electorate? I think that is something that the public of New Zealand would have a great interest in knowing, so why do we not in future introduce the Parliamentary Service to the Official Information Act, because I would like to know where the Greens go. Many of us would like to know where Denis O’Rourke goes, just out of curiosity. He himself probably does not know. If we were to bring the Parliamentary Service under the Official Information Act all members, including Denis O’Rourke, could find out where Denis O’Rourke goes.

I think that we have actually come upon a touchstone of what open government should mean for New Zealand, and I predict that over time this bill will be a launch pad for many more members of the Government establishment in New Zealand coming under the Official Information Act. Just as an example, in respect of the member who just resumed her seat, Ruth Dyson, people might like to know when she drives home and how she drives home. People might like to know all sorts of things about members’ activities—whether they get stopped and breath-tested, for instance. I can see all sorts of scope for people to want to know more about how members of Parliament and members of the Government establishment in New Zealand behave.

So I support this bill because it makes no difference to me, but it will make a very large difference to the tradition of public interest in New Zealand, to which the Official Information Act should apply. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare ko tēnei pō. I am very pleased to say a few things right now. One of them is: would it not be great if we actually lived up to the expectations that the public has of us? Actually, what the public wants are people who make speeches in the House that do not denigrate others, that do not attack other people, that do not try to undermine the reputations of other people, and that actually stick to the issues of the day. That would be pleasant. That would be what democracy was about. That would inspire people, and then maybe we would not have to use the Official Information Act (OIA) so much to try to find out what on earth is going on, because, actually, this place would be a place of genuine dialogue and genuinely constructed debate instead of nasty, unpleasant behaviour from people who should know better.

David Seymour: Oh, because Catherine Delahunty would never do that.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I myself am not always perfect in these matters, but I am very disappointed to be talking about an issue like the OIA in this manner.

The issue tonight is that we have this wonderful unanimity for Mr Adrian Rurawhe’s bill. I am pleased to acknowledge Adrian Rurawhe’s effort to make sure that parliamentary under-secretaries are under the OIA. Why am I so pleased about that? Because when the National Government did a deal with the ACT Party over charter schools, that was not taken to electorates prior to the election—a whole lot of public money and public time has been spent trying to find out what is really going on with a secret contract between the charter schools and the Government. Because the parliamentary under-secretary’s work is not subject to the OIA, we have not been able to find out those things by sending an OIA request to the Minister of Education, because the Minister of Education would just say: “Well, this is not what I’m doing. This is not part of it.”

The whole secrecy around charter schools has been very, very deleterious to good scrutiny of what was supposed to be a pilot. It was supposed to be this new model that we would be able to scrutinise and that there would be proper evaluation of. There has not been transparent evaluation of charter schools, and so this bill is very pertinent to something very current, very contemporary.

Apart from that, the OIA has also been an instrument of citizens’ rights. It has been eroded, and it is pleasing to see a bill that will help extend and strengthen the OIA, instead of endless battles to get information. All of these battles, all of these struggles that we have in order to find out what is behind policies, what is meant by actual words—all of these attempts to get information at both local government level, I have to say, and at national Government level are gradually getting harder and harder. We really need to be challenged in this House. We really need citizens to have the right to use the OIA in all aspects of Government business; otherwise, what is the point? We may as well forget question time, we may as well forget the OIA system, if we cannot ask questions of people who are in charge of policies. David Seymour is in charge of the charter school policy—

David Seymour: Um, I’m actually not.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: —and we need to ask him questions. If we cannot ask him questions—we cannot even ask him whether he is in charge of charter school policy or not, because he is not under the OIA yet—it is not helpful to the coherent dialogue about what the nature of education is and what the point is of having a failed model from overseas imposed upon our country at great expense in order to experiment on children, some of whom have already experienced great losses.

That is what this bill is about. It is about the OIA for parliamentary under-secretaries. Parliamentary under-secretaries should be subject to the OIA; it is good that we all agree about that. It is an excellent thing.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Sit down and shut up.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: But there are reasons why this is a problem—and no, I will not sit down and shut up, because that is not my job, Mr Finlayson. My job is to hold the Government to account. It is to hold the Government to account and that is why I support this bill, because it is about that. If anybody thinks that some of us are voting for it because of what happened with the charter schools—we are voting for it for that reason, but also because it is a good example of everything that is wrong with imposed policy that is not open to scrutiny. We are very pleased that there will be greater scrutiny, and the Green Party is happy that it will apply broadly and it is happy that it will apply to the particular issue, which has inspired us to support this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Listening to Mr Seymour justifying why he is going to vote for this bill seemed to me a little bit like listening to a turkey voting for a midwinter Christmas, because it just did not make sense. In fact, his whole argument was weird and it did not at all explain his flip-flops in originally opposing the bill and now supporting it.

And, by the way, he talked about whether people wanted to find out where other MPs went, without mentioning that one of the things they might want to find out would be why one particular MP on one occasion stayed far too long at the Back Bencher when he should have been in the House. Maybe they would want to find that out, but I cannot believe that many people would want to find out where MPs generally go to have a beer or whatever. That seems to be not a good argument to justify his position but that is what he based his argument on, so that is his right—and fine—but I think I will get on to something more important, which is this: why New Zealand First actually is not going to support this bill, which we do think is a little bit of a gimmick.

I understand why—to be fair to the proposer of the bill—the bill is being proposed. Ostensibly, it is because it would make parliamentary under-secretaries fully accountable under the Official Information Act (OIA), and, on the face of it, there is of course nothing wrong with that, but that is not really what this bill is about. I suspect it is actually driven by a desire to see that David Seymour, as a parliamentary under-secretary for charter schools and for regulatory reform, can be challenged under the Official Information Act and possibly—perhaps a little bit uncharitably, but possibly—for political reasons. To put it in a nutshell, I doubt whether this bill would have been proposed if Mr Seymour had not been a parliamentary under-secretary.

So why are we going to vote against it, then? I want to say, first of all, that I listened closely to what David Seymour has had to say in his various weird speeches on this subject. He started off, of course, by originally opposing it. He said that the bill was “inconsequential in every practical sense”, given that all of his actions as parliamentary under-secretary would be copied to his supervising Minister and an OIA request would be better used to discover those decisions from the Minister direct. We totally agree. We cannot understand why anyone would waste an OIA request on David Seymour when they could get the information from a much better source—in particular, the Minister.

So what is the point of doing an OIA request to David Seymour or, indeed, other parliamentary under-secretaries? There is not any, so what, therefore, is the point of this bill? Answer—not a hell of a lot. Not a hell of a lot. In Mr Seymour’s original first reading speech he said that the Official Information Act was there to “keep tabs on what the executive was doing”, apparently believing that he was not a part of the executive and that, therefore, this bill would mean that “We have not abandoned that principle.” He, strangely, saw himself as not part of the Government executive because he was just a lowly parliamentary under-secretary—and, again, I totally agree. But now he seems to have woken up to the fact that, actually, he did join the Government in an executive position, so he now supports the bill—and good for him because he accepts that he should be part of that transparency process. But as I have said, anyone actually wanting information would be better to go direct to the Minister.

What the bill actually does is to redefine the term “Minister of the Crown” to include parliamentary under-secretaries—a very weird definition, I would have to say, of the term “Minister of the Crown”. It is a very weird definition, and when I think of that definition applying to David Seymour, I shudder—surely he cannot be a Minister of the Crown after a few months in Parliament? I mean, I can barely sleep at night considering that possibility. So for that reason New Zealand First sought no amendment to the bill because we think it is appropriate just to oppose it at this stage. It cannot possibly achieve anything useful. The better source of official information would be the actual Minister responsible, not a parliamentary under-secretary because of some weird definition that it is included in the term “Minister of the Crown”.

Finally, I want to say this: it is a shame that this bill concentrates on such a low priority when you consider all of the issues that there are around official information. Furthermore, that legislation does need attention, but this is not the attention that it needs. Government agencies and local government too often do not genuinely comply with requests for official information, and flout the obvious intention of the Act to provide information to the public whenever it is possible for them to do so. Instead, they tend to take the opposite tack, which is to withhold information as much as they possibly can and to make it as hard as possible for people to get that information. That is the reality and that is the reform that this bill really needs.

In addition to that, the Ombudsman needs more power to order the release of information and there should be sanctions on agencies and local government alike if they do not provide information in the way that is intended under the legislation. Indeed, we need to build a much better culture in both Government agencies and local government so that they see their role as being public service, which includes providing information to the public unless there is a genuine reason for not doing so. I fear that on far too many occasions the reasons given are not genuine, are obstructive, and are often excessively delayed. The Ombudsman does not have the power to do much about that. Those are the sorts of reforms that this legislation needs; not this silly little bill looking at the most minor possible issue, which will make little or no progress towards a better official information regime in this country.

We are voting—opposing the bill—against it in protest that so much time and effort is being put into this when it could be put to much better use to make genuine and much needed reforms of the Official Information Act. This bill is not needed. It will achieve nothing. It is, really, about David Seymour. It would not have been proposed at all if he had not been an under-secretary. We do not agree with the Labour Party on this; it should not have done this. This is a waste of time and effort, it is most inappropriate, and we will be voting against it.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is bizarre that the New Zealand First Party is voting against this bill, because we know that the true New Zealand First Party stands up for accountability, and that is something that it has prided itself on over many years. We have always heard that from its leader. Every time the leader of the New Zealand First Party comes into this Parliament, every little detail is so important. Yet tonight New Zealand First members can throw a bill away. They can say no to accountability on the basis that details do not matter.

What has happened to the real New Zealand First Party? What happened to that party of principle that was supposed to be there—that came out of the National Party, that was born out of principle? What happened to that New Zealand First Party that was supposed to be in this House to keep us honest? To keep us honest was its role. I believe I know the reason why New Zealand First members are voting against it. It is because they know that Ron Mark will be an under-secretary—ha, ha! What will Ron Mark be the under-secretary of? That is the question.

Brett Hudson: Maybe Statistics.

DAVID BENNETT: Yes, yes. And then there is Fletcher Tabuteau, and we know he is going to be an under-secretary as well. That is right—that is going to be right. He is going to be an under-secretary. Who else? There is nobody else who can be an under-secretary in that party. Well, maybe the Rt Hon Winston Peters might be an under-secretary, but New Zealand First will be an under-secretary to the Labour Party, which will ditch the Green Party at the first opportunity. Watch and learn, Green Party. This is the first step of the Labour Party ditching you at their first opportunity and putting under-secretaries in from the New Zealand First Party. That is what this bill is about. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Primum non nocere. This bill does no harm.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise to support this, the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Bill. Mr Seymour has made many comments about how the bill will not actually achieve any real purpose, because he is so open with information in the work he does and in his office. That is very, very true. If there is one positive we could say about this bill, and the passage of this bill, it is that at least the New Zealand public can take confidence that the openness that Mr Seymour has been exhibiting now in this term of Parliament is now going to be enshrined in a piece of legislation. They do not get anything more out of it except the good, warm feeling and confidence that comes from seeing some words in the Act. I commend this bill to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Injecting a bit of seriousness into this debate, first of all I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague Adrian Rurawhe and also my colleague Chris Hipkins on the work that they have put in to bringing this bill to the House, and putting it through.

This is not a gimmick. This is a serious piece of legislation. It is a small step towards better, open government, but it is an important demonstration of the principles of open government. I do want to really stress that, because that is what it is—no more, no less. It is a small but important demonstration of the important principles of open government.

There is a lot being said tonight, particularly by the members of the Government on that side of the House, about open government and their commitment to it. Well, I will tell you that this Government pays lip service to the principles and the practice of open government. The Government claims that it is interested in transparency, but it abuses in general the spirit of the Official Information Act by responding as late as possible to Official Information Act requests, by redacting large tracts of information, and in many cases refusing to answer Official Information Act requests, on spurious grounds, resulting in enormous numbers of complaints to the Ombudsmen and weighing down the Office of the Ombudsmen. The Official Information Act is one of the few mechanisms for public scrutiny of government decision-making and government process. And this bill, which, as I said, is small, by opening up parliamentary under-secretaries to scrutiny under the Official Information Act, is important; it is an important part of that.

There have been some pretty silly contributions in the course of the debate on this bill, the silliest being that of the ACT Party member, David Seymour, who opposed it and then provided silly Supplementary Order Papers, and now, I understand, is supporting it. The weight of evidence has been clear about the sensible nature of this small but important step towards better accountability.

The final comment that I will make is that in terms of this Government’s commitment to open government—the farcicality of its commitment to open government—there is nothing clearer than the warning letter that has been sent to the New Zealand Government by the Open Government Partnership, which is the partnership of 69 countries working to implement national commitments to promote greater transparency, accountability, and engagement of citizens in policy making. New Zealand signed up to the Open Government Partnership several years ago, but it is expected to demonstrate its commitments. Well, these commitments have not been demonstrated, and a warning letter was sent by the acting director of the Open Government Partnership support unit in March this year to our Government, warning us that we have acted contrary to Open Government Partnership process by not completing the assessments that we should have done, by not undertaking the processes of engagement with the public that we should have done, and we have been warned.

The consequences of that may be that we can no longer participate in the Open Government Partnership. If that was to occur, would that not be a farce—with all of the calls, all of the claims of transparency, openness, and accountability—if New Zealand was turfed out of the Open Government Partnership? Well, we are in danger of that happening. Tonight we have a demonstration from this side of the House that we are committed to real principles of open government, to a pathway to better engagement with New Zealand citizens, to real accountability and honesty and scrutiny of the processes of Government. So I commend this bill to the House.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Just to reiterate what my colleague Simon O’Connor said: no harm can come from this bill. I just want to thank—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: A fan of Latin.

JOANNE HAYES: Ha, ha!

Iain Lees-Galloway: Say it in the way he said it.

JOANNE HAYES: Say it in Latin! Ha, ha! I just want to thank Adrian for bringing it to the House, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I join others in congratulating the member Adrian Rurawhe on having his bill progress to this point. It is a very significant achievement for an Opposition member, and it is, no doubt, something in which he takes a lot of pride. So I congratulate him and I also support the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 109

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

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Keep Kiwibank Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I move, That the Keep Kiwibank Bill be now read a second time. I want to recount the history of this bill, which was introduced by my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

The background to the bill is that the Government sold roughly half of the major electricity companies to private investors, and it did not need to have recourse to Parliament to make that sale because there is nothing enshrined in legislation that requires parliamentary approval for the sale of shares in publicly owned institutions like those generators. So Clayton Cosgrove brought a bill to this House that said, well, parliamentary approval ought to be required if a future Government wants to sell Kiwibank. It is our only significant bank competing against foreign banks in the New Zealand market. There are some others, but they are not very big when it comes to taking on the dominant banks from Australia.

There was parliamentary support for this piece of legislation to go to select committee, and to select committee it went. One of the reasons why I think Opposition parties and some of the other parties supported the legislation is that the Government was saying that it had no intention of selling Kiwibank anyway, so they thought: “We’ll keep the Government honest by putting forward a piece of legislation that says you have got to get parliamentary approval before you sell Kiwibank.” When the bill got to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, it became apparent that the mechanism that was proposed in the bill, which was to require a supermajority, which is more than just a bare 50 percent vote plus one in the Parliament in support—the bill wanted a supermajority and that was perhaps a step too far, with the committee requiring instead that a supermajority be in reserve for important things like reforms to electoral law. Clayton Cosgrove and the other members, on behalf of the Labour Party, agreed with those propositions and said: “Well, we should change the bill so that it requires a bare majority of Parliament before Kiwibank can be sold, but none the less it requires parliamentary approval.” National used its numbers on the select committee to block those amendments being made, and it has referred the bill back to Parliament without those amendments being incorporated.

At about that time Kiwibank decided that it wanted to raise more capital. Kiwibank was created at a time when New Zealand Post was a much larger organisation, when there was a lot more mail, and it could be supported in part by New Zealand Post for its expansion plans. Because postal volumes have dropped by 80 percent, New Zealand Post is no longer in a position to provide additional capital to Kiwibank to expand. The Government has refused to give Kiwibank additional capital, so the board of Kiwibank has found an alternative mechanism to raise more capital, which is to sell some shares to some Government-owned entities, those being the ACC and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. A good idea—we support that, in the circumstances that New Zealand Post faced—but, of course, the effect of that is that unless there is some protection around that share sale, those organisations can onsell those shares without recourse to Parliament and, through that sale, in the future those shares could, effectively, be privatised.

We have Supplementary Order Paper 185—which has already been tabled in this House—which changes this bill so that parliamentary authority is required for any future sale of Kiwibank shares; sales to Crown-owned entities are allowed, but only if there is a first right of refusal to the Crown to purchase those shares back from the entities, which it owns anyway, if those entities are to sell; and there is a requirement that the Crown exercise that first right of refusal, because otherwise you cannot effectively stop these shares being privatised in the future without further recourse to Parliament. That is the effect of this bill, and we hope that we will gain support for this bill from other members of Parliament so that democracy has a say in respect of whether the only significant banking institution in Government ownership cannot be sold at the whim of a Government but, rather, requires a parliamentary majority to authorise that sale. That is, in a nutshell, what this bill does.

The Supplementary Order Paper has been available for a long time for people to consider, and I know that other political parties have given it due consideration. We will know in an hour or two whether we have the votes for this piece of legislation to pass its second reading, so that the Supplementary Order Paper can then be considered at the Committee stage of the whole House.

I would make another point in respect of the unwillingness of the Government to try to improve this bill at the select committee. Michael Woodhouse, in a contribution last Thursday, criticised Opposition members in the Commerce Committee for not having made changes to the Easter trading legislation that he thought were necessary. This legislation is another instance of where a select committee could have improved a bill, but, because of this politicisation of it—on this occasion by the National Party members—it refused to do so. It can still, of course, be done by this House, because it is, in the end, Parliament that decides whether legislation should proceed or not, not select committees. On that basis, I am urging other political parties in this House to consider the Supplementary Order Paper that I have already tabled, which has been considered by members, and to pass this legislation so that if in the future someone wants to privatise Kiwibank, they have got to get parliamentary authority.

The legislation does not block the sale of the shares and the capital raising presently under way in respect of ACC and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I know that to be the case. I have checked that, and on that basis I think that the House should support it. I do think that, given that the National Government has said that it is not going to sell Kiwibank—that is the promise that it has made the New Zealand electorate—it should have no objection to passing this piece of legislation, which ensures that that principle is in place and that any future Government that wants to change that status quo just has to come to this House, get a bare parliamentary majority to change this legislation or to authorise the sale, and it will be right. If a Government cannot get that parliamentary majority, then it ought not to sell Kiwibank. It is one of those important New Zealand institutions that ought not to be able to be done away with at the whim of a Government that perhaps is trying to achieve other purposes and does not want to come to Parliament for the tick-off of Parliament before that happens.

So the earlier impediment in this legislation to support from some parties, which was that the supermajority was inappropriate for this sort of legislation, is dealt with by the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled. Clayton Cosgrove and the other members of the parliamentary team on the select committee agreed that it was appropriate that we should have just a bare majority needed for this sort of authorisation. That is the effect of the Supplementary Order Paper that lies on the Table. The underlying effect, then, is that the Keep Kiwibank Bill places a restriction on the sale of Kiwibank to private interests, and, effectively, says that for the Crown to sell its shares other than to a Crown-owned organisation, it needs parliamentary approval. If it is to sell it to a Crown-owned organisation, the sale has to be subject to a first right of refusal in favour of the Crown, which the Crown must exercise if it is triggered by the offer under that first right of refusal.

The final thing I will say is that first right of refusal has to cover not just the shares that are required by a Crown-owned entity like the ACC or the Superannuation Fund at the time of the original transaction but also, if there are additional shares issued to that organisation—for example, by further raising of capital—then the first right of refusal applies to those additional share allocations as well, so that at all times the Crown has the ability to reacquire those shares if they were otherwise to be sold to private interests.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): National does not support this bill, and that was a particularly weak speech from a member who had no interest in this bill and who has taken no interest in it through the select committee process. That really shows that he and the Labour Party intend to butcher what was Clayton Cosgrove’s baby and turn it into something that is a weak form of the Keep Kiwibank Bill. Such a watered-down version of the bill really reflects the nature of the Labour Party in that last speaker, at this time.

Grant Robertson: Do you want a stronger bill?

DAVID BENNETT: Well, bring on the strong bill. Why has the Labour Party reduced it from 75 percent to a bare majority of 51 percent? Well, it has not actually yet. That is subject to Supplementary Order Paper 185 coming to this House. The bill as it stands is still 75 percent, and the arguments against that are well-tracked in this House and are very obvious. Why is it 75 percent for this organisation and not for any other Government-owned organisation? What makes Kiwibank special compared with KiwiRail or any other organisation? Why has the Labour Party got a special interest in Kiwibank? The board actually, effectively, makes the decision, not the Government, because it is not owned by the Government. It is owned by a State-owned enterprise, which would make the decision.

Take the scenario that Kiwibank actually gets into trouble. If Kiwibank was in trouble and something like what happened to the BNZ in the mid-1980s happened and there was a decision to sell it, then this legislation would, effectively, stop that sale going through, and that could be to the detrimental position of many New Zealand households that could lose out in a time of negative gearing for that bank.

This bill does not make sense in any way, shape, or form. The Labour Party members know that. They have watered it down through a Supplementary Order Paper process. They do not actually stand behind what they believe. If they really believed in entrenching it by 75 percent, why do they not stand behind that and take it all the way through the House? No, they had to water it down, and it is still a pathetic bill and does not deserve to go through this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Can I just have some quiet, please. I am calling Grant Robertson but I would like to hear what he has to say.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It will be well worth it. That was the member for Hamilton West—the member whom time has passed by, quite frankly.

Tim Macindoe: No, Hamilton East.

GRANT ROBERTSON: East—sorry. I truly should withdraw and apologise for that, should I not? Far be it from me to implicate Tim Macindoe in that abomination of a speech by David Bennett. Time has passed Mr Bennett by. Actually, there are two explanations for that speech. Either time has passed him by or his listening comprehension skills are up there with his reading comprehension skills, because he clearly did not hear David Parker describe what has occurred. So let us fill in the gaps for Mr Bennett.

In between times from when this bill was introduced to now, there has been quite a big change in the future for Kiwibank as a part of the New Zealand Post Group. As David Parker said, there has been a change in terms of capital structure. The Government—with Michael Cullen as the chair of the New Zealand Post board, working with Bill English—has come up with what is quite an elegant solution, actually, for keeping Kiwibank in public ownership and for supporting New Zealand Post through the transition from being largely a postal services company to now working in the modern technological age. That means it stays in public ownership with strong capital investment from the Superannuation Fund, ACC, and the Government as well. So the Labour Party did what a good Opposition would do: it decided to update its member’s bill to keep up with the times.

I congratulate my colleague David Parker on putting forward this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 185 on a bill that he inherited. He inherited this bill and, being the agile member of Parliament that he is, he said “I’m going to put forward an SOP that recognises where we’ve got to.”, and that is what he has done. I will return to the detail of that in a moment, but I think it is important to look into the history of how we came to be here—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Can I ask the Government members just to quieten it down, please. There are so many discussions going on that I am having difficulty hearing the member.

GRANT ROBERTSON: And that will be the only time you will ever say that in this House, Mr Assistant Speaker. For the history of this situation, we do have to go back to the beginning of Kiwibank. It is right for members on this side of the House to be sceptical about the commitment of the National members to Kiwibank. They hated it from the beginning. They hated the idea that there might be a player in the banking industry that was going to be a bit disruptive and get a better deal for New Zealand consumers and customers of banks. That is what Kiwibank has fundamentally done. It has come into the market, and it has played an important role in giving New Zealanders a fairer go when it comes to their banking services. But National members did not like that when it was introduced. They hated Kiwibank—all those great achievements of the fifth Labour Government, with Kiwibank, KiwiSaver, Working for Families, and paid parental leave. Of all the things that they voted against, Kiwibank was right in there, but it has sustained itself.

Let us not forget that Bill English gave the game away on this when he was recorded, I understand, at a party conference function. He said: “We can’t get rid of it this term, but don’t worry, we’re going to have another crack at it later.”

Chris Bishop: Who recorded it?

GRANT ROBERTSON: I do not know who recorded it, Mr Bishop. Do you know who recorded it? I do not know who recorded it. But that happened and Bill English was indeed caught out telling the truth on this matter.

So New Zealanders and the Labour Party are right to be sceptical about the National Government’s commitment to the ownership of Kiwibank, and that is what lay behind this bill originally. It was that and the fact that it was drafted—and I think it was my former colleague Charles Chauvel who was responsible for the drafting of this bill; I think it was in his name originally—at a time when the National Government had launched into its asset sales programme. It was hocking off the family silver like no one’s business, and right around New Zealand people were saying “We know what’s going to happen—Kiwibank is next.”, and, of course, it had form. Bill English said he wanted to do it—maybe in the second term, not the first term. So this bill was drafted to ensure that Kiwibank was kept in public ownership, and that is the history of how it got here. That is the goal of the bill. It is to make sure that Kiwibank stays in public ownership and does not lose what is important to its many thousands of customers around New Zealand—that it is a New Zealand bank, and that it does represent something of their money being part of our country. I think that is an incredibly important goal, and that is what this bill tries to do.

In the context of the National Government’s asset sales programme, the idea came up of a 75 percent majority—a supermajority—it is true. We got excellent advice at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, including from the Clerk’s Office, about the significance of using a provision like that for a bill like this. I do not think there is any harm in having raised that for debate, because it is such an important issue that we retain control of our public assets. But, as Mr Parker has already said, Labour Party members were prepared to recognise that the supermajority was not an appropriate vehicle to take this forward, and we were looking at the idea of a simple 50 percent parliamentary vote. But then, as I say, there was a major and fundamental change in the capital structure of Kiwibank. The goal of the bill then had to be altered in order to meet the new arrangements and the new circumstances, and that is what is covered in Mr Parker’s SOP.

Essentially, proposed clause 6 in the SOP does two things: in the first clause, it makes sure that the only way any sale or disposal of New Zealand Post’s interest in Kiwibank can proceed is if it is a disposal to the Crown or an organisation that is wholly owned by the Crown. So that is the principal level of the original bill, which says public ownership is the default setting.

I want members opposite to stand up tonight—Chris Bishop will do this. I know he will, because he is a huge fan of public ownership of assets, is he not? He is a huge fan of public ownership of assets. So what I want National Party members to do is stand up tonight and commit to Kiwibank remaining in public ownership—commit to it. He is not very vocal right now, Chris Bishop—he is thinking through the consequences of betraying his principles of mass privatisation versus getting into trouble for committing to the public ownership of Kiwibank. We await with interest. Mr Seymour, you do not need to speak. We already know what you think, so you can stay quiet. But other National Party members, we do want to hear from you. Are you committed? Because that is what the new clause 6(1) that David Parker has put into this bill is all about—the commitment to public ownership.

Then we want to deal with the precise situation that we now face, which is that the Government has inserted the possibility of a first right of refusal for the Crown, should any of the subsidiaries decide that they want to onsell their shares. The first right of refusal is a good thing, but at the moment it is not automatically triggered. What David Parker is trying to do in this bill is say that the Crown must exercise that first right of refusal. That, to us, is actually essential because our commitment and support to the elegant solution that I mentioned before—of giving Kiwibank or New Zealand Post a bit more capital, a bit more chance to survive, because they are not going to get it out of the Government in the new world—is predicated on those shares and that capital remaining in public ownership. That is why we have to make sure that we put the Government on notice that the first right of refusal has to come back to the Crown. Clause 6(2) and (3) on the SOP say that if the first right of refusal is triggered, the Crown must exercise that right unless it obtains the support of Parliament to do otherwise. This puts it back into this House. It puts it back into this House’s hands that unless the Government does what we believe is right, then Parliament will have the final say.

I think Mr Parker has come up with an excellent SOP that keeps the essence of the original bill—the concept of public ownership, and the concept of a parliamentary final decision-making point—but also it acknowledges the new situation around the first right of refusal and around an injection of capital via the Superannuation Fund and ACC. It is a very good approach, and one that I hope other members of the House will look at and see that it achieves the goals that, certainly on this side of the House we want which is the public ownership of Kiwibank. I look forward to Chris Bishop’s commitment to ongoing public ownership of our important assets.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): This is an embarrassing bill for the Parliament to consider. It was an embarrassing bill when it was put up by Clayton Cosgrove as a political stunt. It is a slightly less embarrassing bill for the Labour Party now with David Parker in control of it, who has clearly realised that the idea that Parliament would put the ownership of Kiwibank on the same level as the entrenched provisions in the Electoral Act and the Constitution Act 1986—he has clearly realised that is a silly idea and has moderated the bill somewhat, or, at least, has indicated that at the Committee of the whole House stage, if it gets there, he will moderate the bill somewhat. But it is still an embarrassing bill.

This bill was put up as a political stunt. We just had the admission, essentially, by Mr Robertson that it was done so. It is a seven-clause bill. At the select committee Mr Cosgrove could barely bring himself to defend it. He did so with a smirk on his face, knowing the entire time the bill was put into the ballot as a stunt. It had the good fortune to be voted on at first reading and sent to the select committee. The Finance and Expenditure Committee received 15 submissions, seven of which were form submissions. So, having put the bill into the ballot and having had the good fortune to have it drawn, and having had it sent to the select committee, the Labour Party cared so little about this hugely important constitutional issue of public ownership of Kiwibank that it could not even be bothered to organise form submissions through a website to blockade—well, not blockade, but at least bombard—the Finance and Expenditure Committee with a lot of submissions. It could not even be bothered to do that.

This bill was an embarrassment when it was drawn, it was an embarrassment when it was debated at first reading, and it remains an embarrassment today. It is actually to the credit of Mr Parker that he has realised that, and he had the misfortune to inherit this bill. Clearly a ballot went round the caucus at some point when Mr Cosgrove decided he was going to indicate he would shuffle off the political mortal coil at some point and he could not take command of the bill any more, and David Parker drew the short straw. David Parker drew the short straw and the bill went in his name. To his credit he has put forward a slightly less constitutionally dubious and outrageous Supplementary Order Paper, but the bill is still a silly bill. The National Party remains opposed to this piece of political chicanery, and we will continue to vote against it at second reading.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of this bill. Despite what the previous speaker, Mr Bishop, said, I do not think this bill is entirely a stunt at all. I think it is actually quite germane to what is happening at the moment because although the National Government has found it politically difficult to carry out its ambitions of privatising Kiwibank, that is its intention. That is because it does not see the purpose and the benefit to New Zealand of having a New Zealand - owned bank, a Government-owned bank that can help achieve greater competition in the banking sector for New Zealanders, and that is exactly what Kiwibank has done. The Green Party supports the bill, particularly with the excellent amendments from the Hon David Parker.

I will note again, in clause 3 of the bill, there is a very clear purpose: “The purpose of this Act is to ensure that Kiwibank continues to be owned by the New Zealand people, unless and until it is absolutely clear that they no longer wish to own Kiwibank.” I think it is fair enough for the Labour Party to introduce such a bill, given the history of what has happened in the last few terms of Parliament, when the public actually made it very clear that they did not agree with the partial privatisation of the energy companies, and yet the Government went ahead and did it anyway, with its one-vote majority, even though a significant portion—I think even the majority of its own voters—did not support that policy. The Government still went ahead and did that.

Of course, that privatisation did not make any economic or fiscal sense. There were a lot of arguments put forward that we needed to do it to pay down debt. Of course, that is not what happened. We ended up flooding the market with shares in energy companies, receiving a much lower value than what they were worth, and now the cost of selling them has almost been the benefit. The money that we received from selling those shares has actually almost been exceeded by the cost that we have forgone by not receiving the dividends from those companies. Of course, once you have that partial privatisation it means that private shareholders who have an interest in maximising their returns do not necessarily have in mind the interests of the New Zealand people when they are looking at policy. When you have an oligarchic situation, which is very—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before you take the point of order, I will ask Mr Robertson to stay on his backside, thank you.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: I just found it unbearably annoying to listen to Mr Seymour interject in everybody’s speeches this evening, and I did not get up to do a point of order because I did not want to interrupt other members’ speeches, but I am going to interrupt my own speech to ask you—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sure, and I know, because I have—being a foolish person—been in the car and been listening to Parliament on the radio for some time, and I could hear Mr Seymour interjecting. I could hear Mr Seymour interjecting, and there is a convention here that people are more reasonable interjecting from the cross-benches, especially to colleagues on the other side who are near them. I ask Mr Seymour to respect that convention and to keep his interjections occasional, and, preferably, witty.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a very similar situation, and I think it is entirely relevant and fair that the Labour Party brought this bill to the House, given that we already have a similar situation where we have, effectively, an oligarchy in energy markets, and yet the Government went ahead and partially privatised shares in the energy companies.

Now what we have in the banking sector is definitely an oligarchy. We have nearly 90 percent of all banks in this country dominated by the four big Aussie banks. That lack of competition has even been noted by Standard and Poor’s which called it oligopolistic. Just for the benefit of Mr Seymour, in particular, who I know is very ideological and has a blinkered understanding of economics, in standard economic theory an oligopoly is a bad thing because it means there is a lack of competition and you get excessive profits, which are actually not efficient because, of course, when you have excessive economic profit it means that the price that people are paying for a good or service is greater than the marginal cost of production of that service.

Excessive economic profit is inefficient and bad for New Zealand, in particular, because those profits are flowing offshore. We are paying up to $4 billion a year to foreign-based shareholders in these banks, and that is not getting us better services. It is not getting us better banking services and it is not getting us better mortgages; it is actually quite inefficient.

When Kiwibank was introduced in 2001 it was very effective at lowering bank fees and ensuring the New Zealand public, whether they banked with Kiwibank or one of the big four banks, were actually getting a fair deal in terms of the price they paid for banking services and were more likely to receive fair mortgage interest rates. It is entirely reasonable and important that the New Zealand public are assured that there will not be a sale of Kiwibank unless there is a parliamentary majority in favour of that for good reason. It would be very difficult for me to understand what the purpose of selling Kiwibank would be, because it is incredibly beneficial to New Zealanders to have a Government-owned bank that is there to compete with the big four Aussie banks.

Of course, the Green Party supports strengthening Kiwibank even further so that it can do more to compete with the big four Aussie banks. We support legislative changes that would help the credit unions and other New Zealand - owned institutions grow and be more competitive with the big four Aussie banks. That is one of the ways that we can ensure that we will not be paying too much on mortgage interest and it means real savings for New Zealanders—I mean, up to $600 or $700 a year—on their mortgages if we have a more competitive banking sector, not to mention ensuring that we have lower rates and fees.

Of course, the National Government has come up with its own solution. Rather than investing in Kiwibank and enabling it to compete with the big four Aussie banks, it has found a solution which is, effectively, a back-door route, potentially, to privatisation. Rather than more directly providing the capital that Kiwibank needs, the board has had to make the decision to raise capital by selling shares—probably at an undervalued rate—to Government institutions with no assurance that those shares will not be onsold to private investors. If at one point the Crown did intend to buy them back in a period of 5 years, it could end up costing taxpayers up to $800 million. It makes more sense, I think, for the Government to put $100 million directly into the bank, allow it to grow its business—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Thank you.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: I suppose it just speaks to the very limited understanding of the overall social and economic benefits that Government can provide to its citizens on the part of this National Government that it looks at short-term ways of finding a surplus and it has a very accounting-focused approach to evaluating benefits, rather than looking at the overall picture of what is going to be better for New Zealand households. Why does it make sense to have a New Zealand Government - owned bank if we are not going to use that bank to deliver greater benefits to the New Zealand public?

So, of course, the National Government’s approach, just as it is with public television or public energy companies, is to run them on commercial grounds and to eventually, potentially, sell them off. Of course, although you might get some very, very short-term benefit from that from the point of view of trying to achieve a surplus, eventually there will be enormous costs to the New Zealand public of not having a well-established New Zealand - owned bank that can compete with the four big Aussie banks. The Green Party very much supports retaining public ownership of Kiwibank, strengthening Kiwibank so it can do more to benefit New Zealanders.

MELISSA LEE (National): I rise to take a short call in this Keep Kiwibank Bill second reading. Obviously, as a member of the National caucus, I oppose this bill. Even the title of the Keep Kiwibank Bill seems a little bit redundant to me. Although I was not part of the select committee that actually looked at this bill, the Government has committed to retaining 100 percent ownership of Kiwibank, and so to actually debate this in this Chamber seems a little redundant.

But before I actually go on to the bill, I just want to address some of the comments that the member who just took her seat, Julie Anne Genter, actually mentioned about wanting to sell off Kiwibank. I just recently—actually, last week—was part of a Māori business delegation that went to Korea and Japan to look at businesses and look at the markets over there so that Māori businesses could, potentially, look for bigger markets overseas. Some of them were even looking for business partnerships—they were looking for investors. Sometimes when businesses are actually running and want to expand to grow their markets, having investors can actually build their business so they can take their products and their business to bigger markets. Actually, if that member cannot see the benefit of that, I just do not know what we can help her with.

This is currently a proposal for New Zealand Post—the fact that we are going to keep 100 percent ownership of Kiwibank. We will sell part of Kiwibank to ACC and to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. This will see Kiwibank remain 100 percent Government-owned. Although Kiwibank will not be 100 percent owned by New Zealand Post, it will be wholly Government-owned. The proposal will give Kiwibank access to extra sources of capital for future growth and will broaden its exposure to commercial expertise. The bill, as it is currently drafted, would prevent this transaction from happening.

The New Zealand Post proposal includes a right of refusal to ensure that, should ACC and the Superannuation Fund ever want to actually sell part of their Kiwibank ownership, they will then have to give their first right of refusal to the Government. So, to me, this bill is actually redundant and unneeded. I oppose this bill.

Debate interrupted.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to rise at the conclusion of members’ order of the day No. 4, the Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill, or 10 p.m., whichever is earlier.

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

Bills

Keep Kiwibank Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the second reading of the Keep Kiwibank Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill.

I note that the member in charge of this bill has changed. Mr Cosgrove was the member who brought the bill to the House, but now I see that it appears that Mr Parker has taken the reins. It is a good thing that the bill remains a Keep Kiwibank Bill, because it is obvious that it is no longer a “Keep Clayton Bill”. I have no issue with that. Mr Parker is a fine, upstanding member and I am sure he will make a splendid job of shepherding this bill through all its remaining stages. That is not to say that Mr Cosgrove is not also a fine member. He has made a lengthy and—I am sure many people believe—valuable contribution to this House. He has valiantly held off the challenge from me in the Waimakariri seat for the last two elections, succumbing, obviously, to Mr Doocey and Ms Wilkinson before him, but he has, obviously, managed to keep just ahead of me, and I do not blame him for not wanting to take that challenge on a third time. We wish him well in whatever endeavours await him beyond these halls.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee has recommended by majority that the bill not be passed. This is hardly surprising. It is not a surprise that the National-dominated Finance and Expenditure Committee should want to keep the door open as far as a sale of Kiwibank is concerned. The select committee’s report states that the bill raises a fundamental issue. It says: “The means by which this bill seeks to ensure that Kiwibank continues to be owned by the New Zealand people raises an important constitutional issue. What it proposes would legislatively entrench New Zealand Post Limited’s ownership of Kiwibank Limited. Entrenchment restricts the future ability of the legislature to decide matters by simple majority and the majority of us consider that it should therefore be used only for provisions of a constitutional nature. Currently, entrenched or ‘reserved’ provisions are found only in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Constitution Act 1986.”

The truth, of course, is that the Nats simply want to give themselves some wiggle room in case they decide, or actually for when they decide, that they are going to flog off Kiwibank, no matter how many times they insist that they are not.

The majority National committee’s report—well, National and their little friend from the Epsom tea party—says that: “The means by which this bill seeks to ensure that Kiwibank continues to be owned by the New Zealand people raises an important constitutional issue. What it proposes would legislatively entrench New Zealand Post Limited’s ownership of Kiwibank Limited.” Well, yes, it does. It does seek to ensure that Kiwibank continues to be owned by the New Zealand people, but I do not know that the issue raised is of particular constitutional significance.

The report does say “Entrenchment restricts the future ability of the legislature to decide matters by simple majority and the majority of us consider that it should therefore be used only for provisions of a constitutional nature.”, which, it could be argued, was significant. But, as we all know, no Parliament can bind a future Parliament. An entrenched provision, which requires a three-quarter majority of the House in order to be overturned, can itself be overturned by a simple majority. So any future Parliament, or indeed this one, could use a simple majority to simply remove the entrenchment provision and then use another simple majority to make whatever other changes it felt like. So, actually, entrenchment in itself does not restrict the legislature now or in the future. It is merely one more procedural matter to be overcome as necessary, and not a particularly onerous one at that. So that is a cop-out.

Of course, now it has sold off, or it is going to sell off, nearly half of Kiwibank, 45 percent of it to itself. The Government is selling 45 percent of Kiwibank to ACC and the Superannuation Fund, which means that it is still in New Zealand ownership—Government ownership, as Ms Lee pointed out. But there is nothing stopping either of those two entities from onselling their stakes at some stage in the future—which is obviously the matter that Supplementary Order Paper 185 seeks to address against, obviously, protestations again from the Government that it would do no such thing. Then, of course, the Government can turn round and say: “Well, we didn’t sell it off, it was ACC, the board of the super fund, or whatever, and we can’t tell them what to do.” So that is a cop out too. At best it is very cynical. It would be an elegant deception if indeed it was elegant, but it is not. It is transparent, cynical, and actually rather clumsy, I have to say.

In fact, the report also says: “Some of us believe that the danger that Kiwibank will be partially or wholly privatised by the current Government remains a risk.” Well, that is an eminently valid concern for those members to hold and one that is reinforced by this Government’s decision not to support this bill. If it was genuine with its stated intention of not selling off Kiwibank, it would have no problem supporting the bill. But, as always with this Government when it comes to putting its money where its mouth is, it suddenly has commitment issues. Then it says “There could be other ways of achieving the bill’s policy objectives without raising an issue which is so fundamental to our constitutional democracy.”—like what? Perhaps some members opposite might like to suggest a few. Committee members have not explored those options, the report says, but anyone who cares to do so might like to do that for themselves. Well, that is reassuring—or not.

This is a short, simple bill that does deal with reassurance—a reassurance from the Government that it does not, in fact, intend to sell off Kiwibank. It is apparent that this is a reassurance that it is not prepared to give, precisely because it is not actually an intention they hold. It does want to flog it off. It is philosophically opposed to New Zealand and New Zealanders owning anything. Everything must be privatised, everything must be sold off to its financial backers in China, and the State must most certainly not own anything on behalf of the people when some private foreign corporation could be owning it and making a profit out of it off the backs of ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders. That is why the Government will not support this bill.

Well, New Zealand First does support it. We are proud to support it. Mr Parker and the Labour Opposition can take some comfort from the fact that in a year and a half the next Government, which will be a New Zealand First - dominated Government in some shape, form, or another, will take the steps necessary to ensure that this bill’s aims are met. If this Government has flicked it off in the meantime we will be taking it back. The speculators and the carpetbaggers who come grasping for a share of it will not be getting a cent more than what they paid, and they will be getting less than that if its value has diminished under private ownership. So any potential investors—or perhaps it should be co-conspirators—might like to bear that in mind if and when the Nats do, in fact, bring Kiwibank to the auctioneer’s block. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the member, I just want to ask Mr Scott—

Alastair Scott: I wasn’t on the phone, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was just playing with it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): You are giving a very good impression by putting it by your ear.

Alastair Scott: No, I wasn’t.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking to this Keep Kiwibank Bill. I feel sorry for David Parker, I really do. I just cannot understand how he ended up having to front this bill—I think you must have been out of the room when someone was looking around to take it over. Mr Clayton Cosgrove is a very lucky man, because this bill has been prepared by someone who does not understand anything about banking or financial arrangements. The best thing I want to say about this bill is that he clearly has no understanding around governance structures and governance arrangements, and that previous speaker just demonstrated it.

As most people understand, State-owned enterprises (SOEs) have a clear governance structure, as do all corporations in New Zealand. This bill cuts right across it. No Minister is entitled to tell any SOE what it should be doing at an operational level, and I think at a principled level this bill falls over at the first hurdle. The second reason why I think this bill is an absolute nonsense is that it does not say what constitutes a sale—no one has actually addressed what a sale means in this bill.

So I will give you four examples—four examples missing in this bill. Firstly, if you raise some cash to fund an expansion, does that constitute a sale? Secondly, if you raise equity to meet increased prudential requirements—as happens with banks all the time—does that constitute a sale? Thirdly, what about issuing quasi-debt such as convertible debt instruments, as some of my colleagues will understand—does that constitute a sale? Fourthly, if you are seeking to sell part of the business, which may or may not constitute a majority of the bank’s asset, does that constitute a sale under the terms of this bill?

The clear example of this was that when I looked at the annual report of Kiwibank just the other day I noted in the recent profit announcement it reported $143 million in profit, $46 million of which came from the sale of its Australian business for $95 million. What this proposes here is that members of this Parliament should, by majority, be telling banks what they should be doing, and I just think it is fundamentally wrong.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I would firstly just like to start by congratulating the previous speaker, Andrew Bayly, on this possibly being the first time I seriously contemplated turning down my hearing aid in the House. Anyway, the Green Party supports the intent of this bill. We support keeping Kiwibank in Kiwi ownership and we support the amendments that have been put forward. The reason why we support it is that we understand the value of keeping strategic assets that have been built up by generations of New Zealanders, and keeping them in the hands of New Zealanders so that we can all benefit in the future.

There is no question that the public ownership of Kiwibank has significant strategic benefit to New Zealand. I think it is worthwhile reflecting on a bit of history. Prior to Kiwibank we had an enormous problem in New Zealand because of the lack of competitiveness in the banking sector. The four big Australian banks were sucking—and it still continues—huge profits out of New Zealand to disappear overseas. But do you remember the days of $3 monthly base fees and exorbitant transaction fees? If you do not remember, you are probably not old enough to be a member of Parliament. It was the arrival of Kiwibank that changed that. Having a State-owned bank has been an incredibly important market mechanism to promote competition in the banking sector, and surely that is something that we should all be able to get behind because that competition has helped ensure that some of that profit is returned back to customers rather than disappearing off overseas. That is incredibly important.

If we do not commit to keeping Kiwibank in public ownership there is a real risk that further down the track we could see Kiwibank becoming yet another foreign-owned bank. This is the last thing that New Zealand needs right now. So the Green Party policy is to retain Kiwibank in full public ownership, which is what this bill does.

But we would go further than this bill. At the moment, Kiwibank is constrained because the Government is treating Kiwibank like a cash cow, rather than empowering it to act more in the public interest. The Green Party policy is to strengthen Kiwibank to act in the public interest, and to empower it to act even more effectively and competitively with the four Australian banks. We believe that this stronger competition will see all banks cutting lending rates more rapidly and passing on a greater proportion of savings to Kiwi households and to businesses, rather than syphoning off the profits overseas. To achieve that outcome we need to ensure not just that Kiwibank remains in public ownership; we need to help it grow faster. That is why we have launched a policy that says we would inject more capital to enable it to expand more into commercial banking and allow it to keep more of the profits instead of being treated as a cash cow by the Government, and change the corporate intent of Kiwibank to enable greater priority to be placed on market leadership.

We would do all of these things but the fundamental principle that this bill puts forward tonight is just the start, which is to keep it in Kiwi ownership, in public ownership. We support this bill. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. I know this is the third David to speak in this debate tonight, and I would like to share my condolences with my fellow David, David Parker, whose heart really is not in it. You can tell that he is about as passionate about this bill as a very passionless person is about a very dispassionate thing.

We have heard some very interesting arguments about why the Government should own Kiwibank at all. If you want to be a supporter of this bill, then you have to believe, first and foremost, that the Government of New Zealand is somehow advancing the interests of New Zealanders by owning Kiwibank. It is worth just thinking about how that might be. What we heard from Mr Parker is that the ownership of Kiwibank by the Government somehow makes the rest of the banking sector more competitive and somehow ensures that we get better service, lower mortgage rates, lower fees, or some combination of the above from the remainder of the banking sector.

There are many sectors that might be described as oligopolistic in the economy—for example, jumbo jets. There are only two serious providers of those in the world, but nobody is seriously suggesting that the New Zealand Government should own a jumbo jet manufacturer just to ensure that New Zealanders get decent service from the jumbo jet industry. Indeed, we could go through quite a range of different industries where the argument that David Parker made could be applied, but of course we would not because it is absurd. It is equally absurd in the case of the banking sector.

But even if we look past the absurdity of the notion applied to other sectors, we just have to ask ourselves how it is that Kiwibank could offer a better level of service to New Zealand consumers than other banks. There appears to be really only two ways. One is that it is going to be somehow smarter, more innovative, and more efficient than the other four major banks—let us not forget some of our smaller domestic competitors here in New Zealand as well, and all of the non-banking entities in the financial services sector—and that somehow Kiwibank has knowledge and information that none of them have that it can bring to bear to operate more efficiently than they can. If the Government could set up entities that were that ingenious, then I think it should be doing it in quite a wide range of sectors. But, of course, the Government does not have that sort of insight.

The other way, and the more likely way, is that by investing in Kiwibank on behalf of the taxpayer the Government is prepared to accept a lower return than those taxpayers could get if they were to invest elsewhere—for instance, somebody who might have some of their portfolio invested in a trading bank. So the Government would be taking money off New Zealanders that they could be investing elsewhere and forcing them to invest it in Kiwibank at a lower rate of return. That is the Green Party’s proposal: to, effectively, subsidise mortgages by shovelling cheap capital into the back of one bank. It is a clever trick politically, but it does not actually make anybody better off in the long run and on average.

There is a range of technical problems with this bill, which Andrew Bayly brought up, I thought, quite loudly and eloquently. What changes in capital structure are permissible under Kiwibank? This is the reason why Government ownership tends to be less efficient. There are these additional political constraints, such as: what can be the capital structure of ownership for an entity such as Kiwibank? Also lots of questions start to arise as it tries to change its ratio of debt and equity funding. It just does not have the level of autonomy that a privately owned entity would have.

I just want, finally, to touch on a couple of comments that Julie Anne Genter made, and in particular the xenophobic nature of them. The thread running through her speech was this implicit assumption that if foreigners are involved—if foreigners buy the bank—then somehow that is more sinister than if New Zealanders owned the bank. I think it is regrettable that the House has come to that standard of debate all too often these days on issues that should be a question of economic debate rather than parading as xenophobia. With those thoughts I will resume my seat, in opposition to this bill. Thank you very much.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I too oppose this bill. If we can even agree that the Government should maintain ownership of Kiwibank—and I am not sure we do—it is a lazy attempt at ensuring Government ownership. There is no thought about the Companies Act. There is no thought about the consequences of good governance practice. It cuts right across the interests of the shareholders because you are hamstringing the guys who are managing the company. You are hamstringing the board of governors. They are there to do their job, to ensure that the company prospers, and to act in the best interests of that company. So to bring any action of that governing body into Parliament completely contradicts the purpose of Mr Parker, which, I assume, is to maintain a prosperous and healthy business. For that reason alone, I oppose this bill.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Before I talk about this bill I would just like to comment on a couple of the comments that previous speakers have made—nothing about Mr Scott, he did not really say anything. Actually, I thought for a minute there that he was saying that Kiwibank should remain in Government ownership. He said “Let’s consider it still does.”, and I lost him there.

Mr Seymour is an interesting political character. He hawks a standard ACT line, that the private sector is always better than the public sector—an ideological burp from the last century. It is amazing that ACT actually stands for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. I am just wondering when Mr Seymour is actually going to stand up for consumers and taxpayers. Unbelievable. Anyway, his political relevance is represented in the polls, where he is at about 1 percent at the moment.

Mr Bayly made an interesting speech. Like all Nats, he is more concerned about finance than families, and that is a shame. It is a shame that the most passionate I have ever heard Mr Bayly is when it comes to banking—not about homes, not about houses, not about jobs, not about economic development, but about banking.

Kris Faafoi: Governance structures.

STUART NASH: Oh, governance structures—governance structures in banking. That is Mr Bayly’s passion. Unbelievable. That man really is out of touch with the issues that affect middle New Zealand. I just wish Mr Bayly would channel that passion—which none of us knew he had, actually, until he stood up there and shouted the House down. But I wish he would channel that passion into something worthwhile. I doubt it, but it would be good to see.

And then Mr Bishop stood up here and said that this is an embarrassing bill. I actually thought Mr Bishop was a little bit more in touch with New Zealanders than this, but this just showed again how out of touch Mr Bishop is.

I remember a referendum that occurred 3 or 4 years ago. It was a citizens’ initiated referendum and it was about the sale of State assets. And 67.3 percent of New Zealanders—over a million New Zealanders—voted no to selling State assets. And Mr Bishop stands up here and says that we should sell Kiwibank. There is a man who is out of touch with middle New Zealand. There is a man who is out of touch with the 67.3 percent of Kiwis who do not want our assets sold.

But, Mr Bishop, let me enlighten you a little bit as to the impact that Kiwibank has had on the market. I think it was in 2008 or 2009 that there was a banking inquiry set up. The chief executive officer of Kiwibank addressed this inquiry and he said that he believed that the impact of Kiwibank on the New Zealand banking sector in its first 5 years saved New Zealanders about a billion dollars in interest—about a billion dollars in interest—due to increased competition.

Hon David Parker: And fees.

STUART NASH: And fees, yes—and fees. Kiwibank has played an incredibly important role in the New Zealand financial sector. But let us say that this $1 billion that Kiwibank has saved New Zealand consumers and taxpayers has a multiplier effect of about $10 billion. That is $10 billion into the New Zealand economy in terms of growth, in terms of jobs, in terms of retail spending, in terms of homeownership that would not have occurred if Kiwibank had not existed. Kiwibank was the right thing to do at the time. Kiwibank is still the right thing to do, and why would we give this up? Why would we give this up?

The way the world works at the moment in large corporate organisations—actually the financial sector is dominated by these large corporates. If a competitor comes in and it gets a little bit too smart, a little bit too successful, or a little bit too aggressive, what happens is that it is bought. It is just bought by one of the behemoths that dominate the industry. We have seen it time and time again, and it is why all New Zealand banks, except Kiwibank, are owned by Australians or, eventually, offshore organisations—

Hon David Parker: Or bigger ones.

STUART NASH: Or bigger ones—much bigger ones. They have been bought because they got in the way of profits. We have a bank in New Zealand that is owned by New Zealanders. We have only one bank in New Zealand that is predominantly owned by New Zealanders, and it is called Kiwibank. Why would we sell this? Have we not learnt from the debacle of BNZ?

David Seymour: New Zealand First’s over there.

STUART NASH: Have we not learnt from the mistakes of Mr Seymour’s predecessors? It seems not. But thank goodness Mr Parker is standing up for those one million Kiwis who do not want to sell our assets. Thank goodness Mr Parker is standing up for that $1 billion that we have saved New Zealanders in interest and fees. That is the reason why I back this bill, that is the reason why I believe Kiwibank absolutely needs to remain in New Zealand ownership, and that is why I hope that Kiwibank will be part of the New Zealand financial sector for generations to come, because Kiwibank works for Kiwis, and I think that is incredibly important. Thank you very much.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I find myself following Mr Nash for the second time in 2 days. I want to invite him again to come to the right side of the House, where I know his heart lies, and I know that his real interest in politics lies. He would probably enjoy the opportunity.

I do not believe that this bill is necessary, because no one is suggesting that Kiwibank is going to be anything other than 100 percent Crown-owned. In fact, the Hon Sir Dr Michael Cullen has spoken publicly and said, as chairman of New Zealand Post and as a former Deputy Prime Minister in a Labour Government, that it is prepared to look at other opportunities with other Crown-owned organisations. Those opportunities will allow Kiwibank to expand. They will allow Kiwibank to have greater capital and expertise brought into Kiwibank. But that is not a reason for us to be looking at this bill. No one is suggesting—certainly not from the Government side—that Kiwibank should be anything other than Crown-owned.

This bill is also an anathema to the normal constitutional issues that were used for a 75 percent majority threshold to vote in this House.

Hon David Parker: Keep up. Read the Supplementary Order Paper.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I understand that Mr Parker—yes, I have been reading Supplementary Order Paper 185. He may or may not get an opportunity to—

Hon David Parker: You blocked it at select committee.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: —discuss it in Committee stage. No, we did not block it at the select committee. The bill that Clayton Cosgrove drafted, which was so appalling, did not come with this somewhat more sensible but unnecessary wording attached. Clayton Cosgrove brought us a bill, which he was very unenthusiastic about supporting in select committee, that would have said that the Parliament of New Zealand would have to vote by a 75 percent threshold if a company owned by a State-owned enterprise should ever be sold. Has that ever been done before? No. Should that ever be done? No. It is not something that we should be doing with our State-owned enterprises.

This bill is unnecessary. The select committee, by a majority, did not support it. It did get through a first reading; we will find out in a minute or two whether it gets through a second reading. But the National Party does not believe it is necessary. There are good controls that are in place through the executive. When it comes to State-owned enterprises, they have the ability to get on with the job and do their work, but there is still oversight from the executive, and that is all that is necessary. The National Party does not support this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Keep Kiwibank Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 25 May.

DAVID SEYMOUR (ACT—Epsom): In the first part of this contribution I was making the point that the price of housing in a market, like any other market, is set at the margin. It is the price of new homes that is the strongest determinant of what the average price level across the market is going to be, and if it is true that there is excessive demand from overseas buyers—if we accept that just for a moment—then concentrating all of that demand on new homes and pushing up the price of new homes is going to push up the price of housing across the market. So the bill simply will not work the way it is designed, for very simple economic reasons.

Can I conclude by saying that this is part of a worrying trend that came out in the earlier debate this evening—and it is implicit in this bill as well—and that is that there is a rising tide of intolerance of foreigners and xenophobia in many of the bills and much of the debate that we have heard tonight. I think that as we look around the world it is actually a worrying sign that the once-proud, liberal Labour Party is bringing in bills such as this, and such as the Keep Kiwibank Bill, to the House, in part because it shows that it has no other imagination but in part because of the quite ugly underlying sentiment that is implicit in the bill.

I oppose this bill proudly. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I am pleased to support my colleague Phil Twyford on behalf of the Green Party in this the first reading of the Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill. That is what this bill is about. I will tell you what is ugly—what is ugly is that New Zealand families of all nationalities and all backgrounds are being pushed out of their homes. That is why we support this bill, because it is one tool—one of many tools—that the Government can, and should, use to rectify this situation and to lessen the environment that favours houses being used as a business.

I want to talk a bit about Ōtara. My family are connected for, I think, four generations now to Ōtara. Ironically, Ōtara is where my grandparents’ generation was banished to, in a sense. Ōtara was the place where the poorer working-class families went to. Ōtara was the place where Māori and Pacific Islanders were sort of pushed to, because that is where it was OK. It is not a flash place; that is where it was OK for Māori and Pacific Island families to go to. So they did, and they put down roots. They put down roots for generations. My family house in Hamill Road is one that I remember for three generations of my family.

The houses in Ōtara and the families in Ōtara are being pushed out by the current crisis. They are being uprooted as investors and speculators—people using homes as a business—are able to overcharge rents and are also able to use the lack of rental protections to evict people and families just because they can charge those higher rents. So, yes, we do need to use every single tool that is available to us to rectify this housing crisis that is having real and dire consequences for New Zealand families right now—and that is what is ugly.

The housing crisis is big and real. Being locked out of housing used to refer to not being able to buy a home. Today being locked out of housing means being locked out of even renting a home.

We know this. I have been to Te Puea Marae twice in the past couple of weeks. I have been part of a Manurewa Marae cleaning bee—that marae is also preparing to respond to the failure that is currently happening in my own communities and trying to mop up the Government’s mess in terms of this housing crisis.

This bill is a tool that is fair and reasonable and will play an important part in rectifying the housing crisis. Actually, what we need is a Government that will get in, boots and all, and work across Government, across systems, and across communities to prioritise addressing the housing crisis urgently and in the long term. If we do not, what is happening today—the dire consequences that we are seeing today—will continue. Even if we did start today, we will still see the fallout for some years, and possibly decades, to come. So we also need things like a strong State housing programme. But, certainly, a restriction on overseas investments, on buying up homes in our country, is a wise and sensible thing to do. It is not all of what we have to do, but it certainly is one of the tools that we must be employing.

We support this bill because it has conditions in it whereby we would actually still welcome overseas investment if it was indeed to be able to funnel the benefit of that back into our country, back into allowing New Zealand families to purchase a home, and to increase the supply for New Zealand families. So, again, it is reasonable. There are things built into this legislation to still allow overseas buying to happen under certain conditions. So this is one good tool that we have to use.

What is this really about, though? This is really about trying to transform the environment that has resulted in the dire, ugly, brutal outfall that we are seeing today, where New Zealanders are living in garages, in cars, under bridges, and on the streets, or are just panicking in their rental property because there is no security in respect of whether they will be able to stay there, because it is too favourable—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Have I gone over?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): You have gone over.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is my pleasure to take a call on this, the Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill. National does not support this bill. We do believe that it is a supply issue.

Maybe I will just talk specifically to Auckland and maybe even my own electorate, and say that what we do have to do is build more homes and we are doing that. I can certainly attest that in my own electorate, in a subdivision called Millwater—if anyone wants to come up and visit; Phil, you are welcome to come and have a look—we have got houses, 10, 20, 30 houses, coming online each week, and that is mixed housing.

But one thing that we do have to get better at—and something that I believe has held us back, particularly in Auckland—is that we have to accept the fact that we have to realise that we need intensification. We have to be able to provide high-density housing, we have to provide medium-density and low-density housing, and certainly in my own electorate of Rodney there has been some resistance around high-density and apartment living. But I can tell you that I had a visit down here a couple of weeks ago from a year 13 class from Ōrewa College, and they want to stay in the area. They want to have different options and, actually, they are very happy to have access to an apartment to get themselves on to the property ladder.

I remember myself, when I was a young 21-year-old in Auckland just having recently graduated as a new policeman and wanting to get into my first home. Actually, I had grown up in East Coast Bays, a fairly nice area close to the beach.

Phil Twyford: You couldn’t do it now, Mark.

MARK MITCHELL: Well, I had to move. I had to move into an area that was Helicon Place, which was called “Nappy Valley”. It was called “Nappy Valley” because they were all low-cost houses, and that was the way I actually got myself into the housing market. So we just have to be more clever and more open to the fact that we have got to deliver different forms of housing so that our young people, especially, have got access and can actually get on to the property ladder. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I am sorry that the members of the National Party in this House are not supporting this bill, which is a common-sense and rational response to a failed housing market. How do we know it has failed? It is because we have the lowest homeownership rates in 64 years. It now takes 50 years, on average, to pay off the average Auckland house. We know it is failing because we have an epidemic of families living in cars, garages, and campgrounds, and that that overheated and failed housing market is made worse by an influx of uncontrolled foreign investment that is driving house prices higher and higher.

There are many other countries, particularly around the Pacific Rim, that have enacted measures that are similar to my bill—to Labour’s bill—to try to control the destabilising effect of uncontrolled foreign investment in the housing market. It is the policy of the Australian Federal Government to ban non-resident foreign buyers from buying existing properties. If people want to invest in real estate and they are not a resident and they are not a citizen, they have to build a new house and thereby add to supply. That policy has channelled $30 billion of foreign investment into the construction of new homes in Australia in the last 12 months.

I want to refer the House to recent statements by the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, who had this to say about Vancouver. Vancouver is a very nice city, as anyone who has been there will attest, but it bears many similarities to the Auckland housing market. It is incredibly expensive. Justin Trudeau said recently: “An influx of capital from Asia is partly responsible for soaring house prices in Vancouver … We know that there is an awful lot of capital that left Asia in the past few years. Obviously overseas money coming in is playing a role [in the Vancouver housing market].” He has just launched an investigation into the impact of foreign buyers in the Vancouver and Toronto housing markets.

Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong—they all have restrictions, like my bill, or stamp duties, which are designed to restrict the destabilising effect of uncontrolled foreign investment in the housing market. In Beijing and Shanghai non-resident buyers cannot purchase residential real estate in those cities. Why? Because the Chinese Government is committed to protecting the economic interests of the people who live in those cities.

The Government has cynically downplayed the impact and the role of foreign buyers in the housing market here. For years it refused to collect the data on the presence of foreign buyers in the housing market, in spite of the fact that in both Australia and the United Kingdom it is the policy of Governments in those two countries to have a searchable and transparent register of foreign property ownership. From 1 October last year the Government required non-resident foreign buyers to register with the Inland Revenue Department, and recently Land Information New Zealand released the data it had collected over that 6-month period. The Government cynically tried to say that it showed that only 3 percent of the transactions during that 6-month period went to foreign buyers, but it had excluded 45 percent of the transactions from the data set that it used to calculate that 3 percent, so the data showed nothing of the sort. It was meaningless. It made no useful contribution to the public debate about the impact of foreign buyers in the housing market.

Even more damaging for the National Government’s credibility on this issue was that the four Australian banks have now stopped lending to foreign buyers. They have stopped lending to foreign buyers. Who do you believe: the National Government when it says that foreign buyers have no impact on the housing market, or the four Australian banks that completely dominate lending for mortgages in this country? That, in a single stroke, demolished what little credibility the Government had left on this issue.

National wants to make this an issue of race. It is telling the 64 percent of New Zealanders who want to see Labour’s policy enacted—National is telling those people, and the 54 percent of their own voters who want to see Labour’s policy enacted—and who say that they want a Government to put the interests of young Kiwi homebuyers first that they are xenophobic. That is the definition of being out of touch. Those members are utterly out of touch. They stand on the side of foreign, non-resident speculators against the interests of young Kiwi first-home buyers.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

The House adjourned at 9.52 p.m.