Tuesday, 5 July 2016

TUESDAY, 5 JULY 2016

TUESDAY, 5 JULY 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Speaker’s Rulings

Oral Questions—Ministerial Responsibility, Defunct Portfolios

Mr SPEAKER: Three related issues arose in the House last Wednesday in relation to an oral question from the Hon David Parker. The first issue is about whom questions are actually directed to. The next issue concerned how the Government could be questioned about portfolios that no longer exist. The other matter was the extent to which the Government of the day is answerable for the actions of previous Governments. I will deal with the three matters in that order.

Questions to Ministers relate to a portfolio that a Minister holds, not to an individual person. A question must relate to one portfolio and can only be directed to a Minister about a matter for which he or she is currently responsible and not to a portfolio held previously. The exception is the Prime Minister, who is responsible for all activities of the Government.

Where a portfolio is defunct, there may be a Minister in a related, successor portfolio. In that case, a question should be directed to that Minister. Ministers have a duty to the House to decide on the appropriate Minister to answer a question and to direct the question to the Minister who holds the portfolio more directly concerned with the subject matter of the question. I refer you to Speakers’ rulings 167/1 to 167/5. It is for the Government, not the Speaker, to determine which Minister has portfolio responsibility for a question—Speakers’ ruling 167/4.

There will be some instances where there is no clear successor portfolio. The Prime Minister is the head of executive Government and determines the title, scope, and allocation of all ministerial portfolios—Cabinet Manual, page 18. The decision to create or to disestablish a portfolio belongs solely to the Prime Minister. Furthermore, the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the Sovereign and has responsibility to the House for all activities of the Government. It is permissible to ask the Prime Minister a question about any of the public affairs with which the Government is officially connected. Speakers’ rulings note that the ministerial responsibility of the Prime Minister, in particular, is a broad one—Speaker’s ruling 173/4.

Because the Prime Minister is the only one who can disestablish a ministerial portfolio and because of his or her very wide sphere of ministerial responsibility, questions about a portfolio that no longer exists should be addressed to the Prime Minister where there is no successor portfolio. There are some limitations on the Prime Minister’s responsibility for defunct portfolios. He or she is not responsible for a previous administration.

That point leads to the final matter raised—the extent to which the Government of the day is answerable for the actions of previous Governments. The Government is not considered by the House to be a single, continuous entity. The defeat of a Government in an election marks the end of one administration and the commencement of another, even though there may be a caretaker period. Ministers in the Government of the day are not responsible for the activities of the previous administration. But in respect of the activities of the previous Government that a Minister has had to address as a member of the current Government, it is legitimate for the Minister to comment on them, and I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 174/1. A Minister is never responsible for the policies or activities of the Opposition and so should not be asked about them or offer a view on them in the answers—Speakers’ rulings 174/2 to 174/4.

Two points of order were raised last Wednesday related to these matters, which I would like to address now. Mr Brownlee took issue with the question referring to “roles … previously carried out for the Hon Murray McCully”. Having reflected further on the matter I believe that Mr Brownlee was correct to do so. The second part of the question brought in matters for which the Minister is no longer responsible. As I have ruled, a question must relate to a portfolio currently held by a Minister.

Mr Hipkins then raised a question about whether a Minister may be questioned about something that he or she became aware of when handling a previous portfolio. Having further considered that point, I agree with Mr Hipkins that a Minister may be questioned about matters he or she became aware of prior to holding a current portfolio, provided the question asked is relevant to a portfolio currently held by the Minister.

I thank members for raising these matters, which have not been the subject of many previous Speakers’ rulings.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for those rulings. I accept them and I think they are wise guidance to the House. I have one further point of clarification. I sought some advice from the Clerk of the House after the question time to which you referred. He made the point, which is not addressed in your ruling, that where the Prime Minister or indeed other Ministers transfer a question—because I can see that if a question in this context was put to the Prime Minister he may choose, quite rightly, to refer it to another Minister—the Minister to whom the question should be referred is actually the Minister with the most knowledge, and he thinks that that is implicit, or the impression I took is that that is implicit in Speaker’s ruling 167/5. I think it would be helpful if you could clarify that in these unusual situations where there is a transfer—actually, in the end, for the House to be able to learn what it should learn—the person to whom the question should be transferred, if it is transferred, is the person who has the most knowledge about it.

Mr SPEAKER: I will look further at the matter, but I think that is well and truly covered in the ruling I have just given, in that it is the duty of the Government and the Ministers to make sure that the question is directed to the Minister with the most knowledge and most ability to answer that question. That is an expectation of this House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for those rulings. I think they will be very helpful moving forward. The one thing that I would ask perhaps for some further consideration of is what constitutes an administration in a continuing sense. In other words, if a Government is elected in 1 year, goes through a 3-year term and is re-elected, does that continue to be the same administration? With the MMP environment the make-up and nature of that can be quite different, and indeed some policies that might have been promoted in a 3-year term may, in a subsequent 3-year term with the Government continuing, in fact not be progressed or may even be overturned. So I think it does, under the MMP environment, raise a question about how long an administration should be considered as being in office.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Of course, that very issue arose in respect of the last Labour Government, which for a subsequent term was questioned in respect of the actions of the immigration department and former immigration Minister Taito Phillip Field. Of course, the questions were perfectly in order in respect of the subsequent Parliament.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a relevant but slightly different point, and it relates to the answerability of Ministers for the actions of previous Governments, which does not seem to have been covered by the ruling that you have just made. The Government of the day, whoever it is, continues to have accountability for decisions made by previous Governments that they may not necessarily have been involved with in so far as there is a continuing impact of those decisions. I think of things such as breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, the abuse of children in the care of the State—those sorts of issues where it may have been successive Governments that had some responsibility. Someone still has to answer to the House for those types of issues, and it is the Government of the day, whoever that is.

Mr SPEAKER: I think, on Mr Hipkins’ point, I have covered that point in detail in the ruling. On Mr Brownlee’s point—in my mind, as I considered this ruling, an administration changed, for instance, at the end of 1999. It changed again at the end of 2008. If there was a substantial change in the formation of a coalition Government—a substantial change—that meant the overall direction and policies of the Government changed, I could see that being considered as the end of an administration, but, in my mind, the current administration in Government today applies since November 2008.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Housing Supply—Housing Infrastructure Fund

1. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has the Government made to accelerate the supply of new housing where it is needed the most?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): On Sunday the Prime Minister announced a new $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund to help bring forward the new roads and water infrastructure needed for new housing where financing is a constraint. It is the next step in the Government’s comprehensive housing plan. The contestable fund will be open to applications in high-growth areas. It will be available only for substantial new infrastructure that supports new housing, not to replace existing infrastructure. To access the fund, local councils must outline how many new houses will be built, where they will be built, and when they will be available.

David Bennett: What current constraints to infrastructure provision will the fund help to overcome?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As part of its comprehensive plan, the Government recently proposed a national policy statement on urban development capacity that will require councils to ensure land supply for housing and business keeps ahead of growth. Feedback on the national policy statement has been positive. The councils have told us that the infrastructure and its financing is one of the key constraints where more supply is required. Some councils have strict debt limits, which means they lack headroom to invest in infrastructure. The fund will provide more infrastructure, sooner, by aligning the cost to councils with the timing of revenue from development contributions and rates of newly built houses.

Denis O’Rourke: Does the Minister agree with home builder Mike Greer on the new $1 billion housing infrastructure loan fund: “It will all be used in Auckland. There won’t be a dollar leaves Auckland, for sure.”; if not, will he give an assurance that other centres will get some?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The high-growth areas covered by the fund are Christchurch, Queenstown, Tauranga, Hamilton, and Auckland, but, of course, we would expect more houses will be built in Auckland where the highest demand is occurring.

David Seymour: What proportion or percentage of funds awarded to councils through this fund will need to be repaid in the long run?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the long run the councils will repay whatever assistance the Government offers.

David Bennett: What options is the Government considering for how the fund could be implemented?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The intent of the policy is to provide upfront cash flow to councils in a way that does not accrue as debt on their balance sheets. One option for achieving this is the Crown Fibre Holdings model, where the Government finances and owns the infrastructure upfront. There would then be an arrangement where the infrastructure is purchased from the Government as houses are built, in the same way that Crown Fibre Holdings repays the Government when new subscribers sign up to ultra-fast broadband. Another option is to use the financial assistance rate for councils in the National Land Transport Fund—a tool that has been used before. These options mean the Government would face some uptake risk if houses are not built, which is why the proposals from the councils need to be very clear about when and where new houses will be built.

Denis O’Rourke: Does the Minister agree with Mike Greer on what the Government funding is really needed for when he says: “Government has to pay for the land and provide the housing, otherwise it’s too hard to do it.”; if not, why not?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions there. The Minister, the Hon Bill English, can address one of them.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are many developers who would like the Government to pay for the land so they do not have to take any of that kind of development risk, but we are not going to do that. We are going to help councils with the timing of the revenue they need for core trunk infrastructure that will open up a new supply of new houses.

David Bennett: How is the fund expected to impact on the Government’s finances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Depending on the number and timing of applications, the fund will require the Government to temporarily borrow up to, but not necessarily actually, $1 billion, increasing net debt until the infrastructure is sold. Because the infrastructure is expected to be sold or financed in the future, when councils can benefit from the greater revenue flows, it is not expected to impact on the Budget capital allowance—any impact on the surplus will depend on the nature of the infrastructure project itself.

Denis O’Rourke: What difference will a $1 billion loan fund really make when a new Waterview to Māngere sewer pipe alone will cost $950 million?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will make the difference that councils say it should make. Councils already have in their long-term plans significant investment in infrastructure. We have discussed in detail what the constraints are for further spending on top of the growth they have already anticipated, which in this case is over 10 percent—in the case of each of these cities—and this is the constraint that the council tells us can be dealt with.

David Bennett: What other constraints are there to getting more houses built, aside from infrastructure?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reason the Government has a comprehensive plan on housing is that there are a considerable number of constraints: for instance, the speed of the planning process, which is run by the councils; the consenting requirements—which consents are issued by the councils; the need to consult local communities, which is a job to be carried out by the councils. And now that the building industry is running so fast, it is becoming apparent that there are constraints in the building industry as to the availability of labour and building materials.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of that is true, why on earth has he not told the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee the facts, rather than having him get up here asking these innocent, stupid questions?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can you take that question as being a reasonable question for the House? The member asked “if any of that is true, why hasn’t he conveyed the facts?”. The two do not mix. It is one or the other.

Mr SPEAKER: I was going to allow the question to stand to give the Minister a fairly wide chance to answer it, but in this case there is no responsibility by the Minister for a member of Parliament who happens to chair a select committee.

Housing Market—Auckland

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding housing that “I don’t think it’s a crisis”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I am concerned about rising house prices. It is certainly one of our biggest challenges, and that is why the Government has a comprehensive plan to deal with it.

Andrew Little: Does he think the Auckland housing market is under control?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, that is a sort of subjective comment, but certainly there is a record amount of construction taking place in Auckland. I think the Auckland Council is working constructively with the Government, and the Auckland Council certainly looks to be very supportive of the announcements that the Government made on Sunday.

Andrew Little: Given that only 9,400 new houses have been consented in Auckland this year and that Bill English says that only 5 percent of new builds are affordable, does this mean that fewer than 500 affordable houses will be built in Auckland this year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Andrew Little: How does he reconcile his claim that there are plenty of houses in the pipeline with Statistics New Zealand’s statement that “The trend for the number of new dwellings consented in Auckland has tailed off since late 2015.”; or is that just another inconvenient fact for his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Consenting for new houses in Auckland is at the highest for a decade. The Government can see, in the great number of special housing areas in Auckland, how many have infrastructure works on them. All of the feedback, both official and otherwise, that we get from Auckland Council is that it is continuing to process those consents at a very fast rate, and I have no doubt that both the national policy statement, potentially the implementation of urban development authorities, and the billion-dollar fund announced on the weekend—all part of the Government’s comprehensive plan—will see more houses built.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with the New Zealand Herald that his piecemeal efforts have failed to resolve the housing crisis and that lending money to councils will be no different?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford—Order! A little less interjection.

Tim Macindoe: What steps is the Government taking as part of its comprehensive plan to deal with housing—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Tim Macindoe: —and—

Mr SPEAKER: No. I am getting email from members of the public who are now getting quite fed up with the fact that they cannot hear a question and often they cannot hear an answer because some members to my left either do not like the question or do not like the answer. Mr Macindoe has a right to ask a question. I can deal with it more severely if I need to. I do not want to. I am just seeking some cooperation from members to my left.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Disorder is encouraged when questions are not in order. The Standing Orders make it clear that questions are not allowed to include assertions. The idea that the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.

Hon David Parker: The idea that the Government can load up a question by saying that its response is comprehensive, as an assertion, is what caused the disorder.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need any assistance—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: But I would like to support it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not need your assistance, but I do thank you for offering it. I will determine whether a question is in order or not. There will be some questions asked that members do not like the tone of, and that applies to both sides. Some Opposition questions members on my right-hand do not like, and the other way round. I will be the sole determinant, but I thank Mr Parker for his assistance.

Tim Macindoe: What steps is the Government taking as part of its comprehensive plan to deal with housing and housing affordability issues?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are many parts to the Government’s comprehensive housing plan. They include our social housing bill, our emergency housing programme, special housing areas, the expanded HomeStart scheme for first-home buyers, freeing up surplus Crown land, the national policy statement, Resource Management Act reforms, and the extra tax measures we took last year. On Sunday I announced a new $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund to support infrastructure needed for new housing in high-growth areas, and we are considering independent urban development authorities for areas of high housing need. By any definition, this is a very comprehensive housing plan.

Denis O’Rourke: If it costs $1 billion to fix a housing challenge in Auckland, how much will it cost to fix the housing crisis in all of New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The $1 billion is actually only a small part of the infrastructure that is required to build all of the houses around New Zealand, but the Government is, I think, making an important step to allow those councils to bring forward housing that would otherwise be waiting. But, by any definition, the Government’s response is wide ranging, and we can see that by the fact that we are in the biggest housing boom and construction boom we have seen for a very long time.

Andrew Little: In light of the fact that councils can already borrow at 3 percent a year, meaning his new loan facility really just amounts to a $30 million-a-year saving for councils, is that seriously the best and most comprehensive response he can come up with for a shortfall of 40,000 houses?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The issue is not the interest rates that councils might be able to borrow at; the issue is whether the councils run into their debt ceilings. The advantage of the fund is that it does not go on to the balance sheet of the councils until they are at a point of actually having the cash up front. The fact that the member does not understand the way that the balance sheets of a council are made up would come as no surprise to members on this side of the House, but he really should learn some basic economics.

Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Prime Minister seen in support of the Government’s new $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund, which he announced at the weekend?

Hon Annette King: What did the New Zealand Herald say?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, the New Zealand Herald thought your leader was a loser, so if you want to quote the New Zealand Herald, fine, you can go for it. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a good example of the way an interjection from my left to my right causes some disorder. If the Prime Minister would now address the question.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen many reports providing strong support—

Hon Member: He’s a bit sensitive.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yeah, that is true. That is why Grant was promoting the article. The Property Institute of New Zealand said these measures are great. Local Government New Zealand said that the new fund is an example of local and central government working together. The Queenstown Lakes mayor said that it would certainly be right that looking for these projects would be an excellent idea. And the Auckland mayor said that it is a significantly sized fund. There has been widespread support for the new Housing Infrastructure Fund.

Andrew Little: How many more housing announcements that were not in the Budget is he planning to make to tackle a crisis he says does not exist, or is the Budget not comprehensive any more?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is right that it is a comprehensive plan and has many parts to it. There are always other parts of it, potentially. That is really the point, is it not, with the challenge of housing, not just in Auckland but anywhere else around the world where we are seeing this. There is no one single thing that will resolve it. What we do know is that this Government is tackling each and every part of it, and that is in quite significant contrast to the last time New Zealand saw these issues, under the previous Labour Government, when there were no parts to any plan. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have told this side off a number of times for its interjections. They are just about as insistent from one member to my right, and they will cease.

Andrew Little: Is it not time for him to admit what every New Zealander can see: that his Government has no comprehensive plan and that what we need is a Government-led programme to restore the Kiwi dream of homeownership by building thousands of affordable homes for Kiwis to buy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member was to be believed, then we would not have the highest level of building activity in Auckland for a decade. If the member was to be believed, we would not have 24,000 extra people working in the construction sector in Auckland alone. If the member was to be believed, the special housing areas that have been released in Auckland by the Government would not be being built. If the member was to be believed, the Auckland Council would be rejecting the $1 billion infrastructure fund that the Government announced in the weekend; in fact, it is quite the opposite. If the member was to be believed, then the tax changes that we announced last year would not have had any impact on the market. If the member was to be believed, then the Crown land that we released would not be about to be built on. The facts of life are that the housing market is a lagging indicator, but it is certainly ramping up supply.

Housing Supply—State Housing and Housing Infrastructure Fund

3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i tāna i whakapūrongotia, “suggesting the Government needed to build more houses was a ‘misplaced’ idea”?

[Does he stand by his reported statement that “suggesting the Government needed to build more houses was a ‘misplaced’ idea”?]

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which was: “I think if you ask the Minister of Finance, the first thing he will tell you is that by far the biggest asset that the Crown owns is Government housing. I think there’s $20 billion sitting in there, broadly, within Housing New Zealand. Secondly, I think the issue of the claim that the Government should start building houses itself I think would be a misplaced one. The Ministry of Works used to be the provider of roads and schools and houses in New Zealand. It wasn’t a very successful model. It’s been much better, actually, for us to go out there and to contract those services.”

James Shaw: Why does he keep saying the Government should not build houses, when previous Governments have successfully built thousands of affordable houses for New Zealand families, like the one he grew up in?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the private sector is well and truly equipped to build the houses. What it ultimately needs, though, is planning laws that support that, council plans that support that, and infrastructure that can support those builds. All of those things are happening under this Government. I really seriously think if the member is telling us the answer to resolving the challenges in Auckland’s housing—or indeed housing issues around the country—is to get people employed by the Government as chippies building those houses, I think we would be better to leave it to the private sector.

James Shaw: What has changed between last month, when his Minister for Building and Housing told a Local Government New Zealand delegation that it would be wrong for central government to help out with infrastructure costs, and this month, when he announced a billion dollar fund to help out with infrastructure costs?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As is always the case with quotes, and as I demonstrated with the one from the member before, they are often taken out of context. But the Government, and in fact the Minister, has been talking to Local Government New Zealand for over a year. These issues of infrastructure have been raised for quite some time, not only by mayors and councils but by others. I would have thought the member would be applauding the fact that the Government is making it easier for the councils to connect up the main infrastructure, to allow affordable and other homes to be built.

James Shaw: Will the Government prevent landbanking and make sure houses actually get built in areas developed with the infrastructure fund, or will it look the other way while speculators make a quick buck, like they did in the special housing areas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is important to understand that the infrastructure fund is used for infrastructure that connects these subdivisions—ultimately it is the core infrastructure. Developers still have responsibility for the infrastructure on the land that they develop. Interestingly enough, if the member wants to ask the Minister for Building and Housing I am sure he can give you the exact information. But I think of the 200-odd special housing areas, over 130 of them now have works on them. Landbanking is always an issue if there are, potentially, blockages in the system, but ultimately people hold on to land for longer than they otherwise probably should do only if it is such a long way out that they are taking an incredibly long-term view or, more likely than not, that the price rise in land is faster than the cost of capital. By releasing a lot of land on to the market, as we did in Christchurch, you can demonstrate quite clearly that it actually resolved that issue.

James Shaw: Are the Government’s musings about using a Public Works Act to take private land for housing a confession that he has let this crisis get totally out of control?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. The Minister for Building and Housing was simply making the point that under an urban development authority (UDA), the powers of a UDA could be quite broad. It is always possible that within an area defined as part of an urban development authority there could be one particular piece of land—or block of land—that might need to be acquired to allow the overall block to be developed; or there may need to be changes in designations like reserves, which could then be replaced somewhere else. That is not really the preference of the Government—to be riding roughshod over property rights—our preference is always to negotiate with parties. But, ultimately, the member himself is admitting that this is a significant challenge and we do need to release more land, faster.

James Shaw: When he said, over the weekend, that there is no room for Government complacency, is there a different word to describe a Government that has stood by while the average Auckland house price shot towards $1 million and the number of people who are homeless increased to record levels?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think it would be a fair criticism to say that the Government has stood back. We have a record level of activity taking place. We have significant parts of the plan that, actually, the member’s own party has resisted. I think it is worth remembering that if you go back and have a look at the first 3 or 4 years when I was Prime Minister, the issue of housing was not a significant issue. What has turned round in that time is that New Zealand has become a much more attractive destination, interest rates are lower, optimism in the economy is very strong, and the Government’s policies are working—which is actually driving much greater demand in the New Zealand economy. So we have responded to that—that is why there are so many more houses being built in Auckland. Do we need to build some more? Yes, but we are working on that.

James Shaw: Amongst all of the announcements that this Government is making about housing, why is it that the one thing it consistently refuses to do is to actually build more houses?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I thank the member for confirming that the Government has a comprehensive plan for housing, because it does. The very point about building a house is not who employs the builder. It does not matter whether the builder is employed by a ministry in the Government or Fletcher Challenge; they will still face the same issues about the length of time that it takes to put in infrastructure, the length of time that it takes at council to issue the plans, the amount of land that is ultimately available, and the infrastructure that is required to support that. The member seems to miraculously think that, just because the cheque for the wages of a carpenter would come from a Government department and not a private sector company, somehow it would make things go faster—it will not. If the member wants to go faster, then come and support the Government in its Resource Management Act reforms.

Tertiary Education—Centres of Asia-Pacific Excellence

4. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government ensuring New Zealanders have the skills to strengthen our connections across the Asia-Pacific region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Last month I announced $34.5 million in funding in Budget 2016 for a new programme to develop new Centres of Asia-Pacific Excellence (CAPEs) in New Zealand universities as part of the Innovative New Zealand package. These centres will be cross-institutional centres of excellence in the language, culture, politics, and economics of countries or groups of countries within the Asia-Pacific region. New Zealand’s prosperity is increasingly tied in with our region and we must secure our future by investing more in preparing young people to understand the languages, culture, and economics of this diverse range of countries.

Sarah Dowie: How will CAPEs operate?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The funding will be available to support up to three Centres of Asia-Pacific Excellence, which will be modelled on the successful Centres of Research Excellence programme. We intend to set up the initial CAPEs in universities around the country, specialising in countries or groups of countries in North-east Asia, South-east Asia, and Latin America. Each CAPE will develop strong linkages with its region of speciality, run student and faculty exchanges, and become a focal point for New Zealand’s relationship with that part of the world. I anticipate that CAPEs will train language-capable graduates for New Zealand exporters, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and other Government agencies.

Sarah Dowie: Why do we need to strengthen our connections across the Asia-Pacific region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As a small country we succeed only if we are outward looking and linked into the global world. Our future economic success is increasingly connected to the Asia-Pacific region, which accounts for 71 percent of our total trade and now includes 11 of our top 20 trading partners. Expanding our partnerships with countries in South-east Asia and Latin America will only see this increase further. Once operational, CAPEs will significantly boost—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s enough.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —our ability to successfully engage, understand—which would help you, Winston—and partner with our—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —trading nations in the region, which will pay future dividends for our economy and our society. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already told that Minister on more than one occasion that I will not allow the interchange, particularly then referring to members by their Christian name. That is an informality that is just a step too far for this House.

State and Social Housing—Supply

5. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: How many houses, if any, will Housing New Zealand complete building in the next 2 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister responsible for HNZC): Housing New Zealand advises it will have built 801 houses this financial year just ended and 1,279 houses in 2017-18. This includes redevelopment of existing Housing New Zealand properties.

Grant Robertson: Oh, so they’re not new ones.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, redevelopment is new houses; that is a total of 2,080 dwellings over 2 years. In addition, Housing New Zealand advises it will buy and lease or re-sign a further 720 dwellings over that 2-year period. The member should also understand that other agencies will be producing houses for the market and for social housing: Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, Hobsonville Land Co., the Auckland Crown land programme, and “CHiPs”—that is community housing providers—which are contracted to the Ministry of Social Development. So the houses that Housing New Zealand builds are some, but not all, of the new housing supply for social housing.

Phil Twyford: How many families are living in the under-construction houses that he has been counting as meeting his goal of “building 2,000 new homes by December 2015 and 1,500 per year thereafter.”, given that the actual number completed is around half that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The figures the member is pointing to show the benefit of the special housing areas, which are now allowing Housing New Zealand to build up the pipeline. Housing New Zealand has to deal with the same constraints as everyone else, with the additional complexity that it must negotiate with each tenant to relocate them before it can do any redevelopment of its brownfield sites. It is pretty clear that it did not meet the target set at the beginning of 2013. It has now geared up considerably to build, as we said, 2,000 houses over the next year or two, and other Government agencies will also be contributing to what is going to become a large volume of new housing on Crown land.

Phil Twyford: How does he expect the public to have any confidence at all in his building targets when he keeps counting bare land with earthworks under way as a built house?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong. The member does need to understand that when he and his colleagues run little campaigns in their own suburbs with the communities to make sure all the questions are answered, that is fair enough, but it does add time to the pipeline of building Housing New Zealand houses. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Phil Twyford: Who does he blame the most for the Government’s failure to meet its own modest target for building State houses: the council, Housing New Zealand, State house tenants, local campaigns, or his own lack of political will, given that he said 2 years ago that if we want less stock, there is not much point in building State houses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member, I think, does have an understanding of the constraints, particularly on larger-scale redevelopment. All of those factors that the member has mentioned mean that it takes a number of years to build up the pipeline, and the member can be reassured that the pipeline is building up, contributed to by Housing New Zealand, the Crown land programme, Hobsonville Land Co., and Tāmaki redevelopment. The member is welcome to go and look at each of those to see just how the progress is coming along on completed houses.

Phil Twyford: Does he find it any wonder that there are so many families and children living in cars and on the streets, when the amount of State housing declines every year under his watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is incorrect about that. The number of State houses and social houses in Auckland is growing quite rapidly. I look forward to the member supporting the Government’s effort to make sure that the Auckland Unitary Plan, which is going to be delivered in a month or so, will enable sufficient supply of houses. Twenty years of misdirected planning in Auckland has had the biggest impact on low and middle-income households, who find themselves excluded from a market where the council spent 20 years trying to stop the city growing. We are working with them to change that.

Housing Supply—Housing Infrastructure Fund

6. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What response has he received from local government leaders and the housing sector to the Prime Minister’s announcement of a billion dollar Housing Infrastructure Fund to assist councils in high-growth areas bring forward new development?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The new fund has been widely welcomed as the next logical step in the Government’s wide-ranging housing plan by Local Government New Zealand, by mayors, by the Property Institute of New Zealand, by the Employers and Manufacturers Association, and by major players in the building industry. It builds on our work to fast track planning and consenting requirements, in that in some areas councils are struggling to provide the required pipes, roads, and other infrastructure to keep up with the record pace of house building. The four councils that have publicly stated that they will be seeking support from the new fund are Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, and Queenstown. Other areas may become eligible depending on the growth projections for the next 10 years, to be updated by Statistics New Zealand later this year.

Simon O’Connor: How will the new housing infrastructure fund fit alongside other parts of the Government’s comprehensive housing plan, particularly the national policy statement on urban development?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Housing Infrastructure Fund fits very neatly alongside the new requirements for councils to free up more land. The best way to avoid land banking is to create genuine competition in section supply. This is why that national policy statement requires a 20 percent oversupply. This, however, puts pressure on councils to provide sufficient infrastructure, particularly for those fast-growing councils that are approaching debt limits. This is a practical response that is part of our ongoing plan to increase housing supply.

Simon O’Connor: How does the current pace of building construction compare historically; and what steps is the Government taking to grow the capacity of the sector to build the additional $1 billion of infrastructure?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Building activity is at an all-time high of $18 billion per year. This is 50 percent higher than at the last peak, back in the mid-2000s, and 28 percent higher in real terms. In Auckland, residential building activity has trebled from $1.4 billion to $4.3 billion per year, and over the last year, it has grown by another 26 percent. The sector is meeting capacity limits and growth pressures. The Government announced further funding in the Budget of $14 million for apprenticeship training. We now have a record 42,000 people training in the apprenticeship sector.

Phil Twyford: Does the Minister agree with the New Zealand Herald that the Government’s infrastructure announcement is just tinkering on the supply side of the housing market to feed an insatiable demand by speculators, and that the Labour Party’s policy would have been a much better option?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is interesting to note that the pace of new building that we are achieving is about double what Labour said in 2008 was achievable in this term of Parliament. I sometimes disagree with the New Zealand Herald, like when it assumed that those people with Chinese-sounding names were the problem in the housing sector.

Prime Minister—Statements

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by my statements that the National-led Government is doing a lot to assist senior citizens—in particular, when I said that there has been a 31 percent increase in the married rate of New Zealand Superannuation since 2008, that $41 million has now been allocated in Budget 2016 to support the SuperGold card scheme, providing more certainty for more than 670,000 card holders across New Zealand, that there have been 50,000 more—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —elective surgical operations taken.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When Prime Minister Turnbull was comfortably ahead in the Australian election campaign, why did he go public in supporting Mr Turnbull and cause his support to nosedive?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the furthest apart we ever saw it was 51:49, but I am thrilled that the member thinks that I can impact so many voters in Australia.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, with his record of endorsements in the Northland by-election, the flag referendum, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, Brexit, the Panama Papers, the housing crisis, and now the Australian election, will he not stop being a scatological Midas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I will—I will. But I just need to inform him that the last thing I said before I came into the House was: “Winston Peters is going to do well in 2017.” Ha, ha!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To put my sense of panic at rest now, is it not a fact that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have called him, pleading that he not back their campaigns?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, neither of them has rung, but if they do, I will be more than happy to have a chat with them about international events, and when I am away next week, you never know whom you might run into.

Housing Affordability—Homeownership Rates, Pacific Communities

8. Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Does he stand by his statement in Estimates Hearings for Vote Pacific Peoples that Pacific home ownership levels have increased?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister for Pacific Peoples): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. I do stand behind my statement in the Estimates hearing that the Statistics New Zealand report published in June shows that nearly 2,000 more Pacific people own their home in 2013 than in 2006. Compare that with the last time Labour was in power, between 2001 and 2006: the number of Pacific people owning homes over that time decreased by 7,000 people.

Su’a William Sio: Is the household net worth statistics report incorrect that Pacific peoples’ average net worth is $12,000, a ninth of the European population’s $114,000, and that that is largely because Pacific homeownership rates have fallen?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No, that is not correct; it is not because of that at all. What we do know is that Pacific homeownership rates will go up with higher education, and we can point to the statistics around early childhood education, which is now at 91 percent whereas it was 84 percent under Labour. We can now point to the number of Pasifika students gaining tertiary qualifications, which rose by 75 percent between 2008 and 2014.

Su’a William Sio: So is Statistics New Zealand wrong when it says Pacific people have had the greatest homeownership rate falls, having fallen 34.8 percent to just 18.5 percent?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I say again that the rates that I referred to in that Estimates hearing were on absolute numbers, and they have gone up under National.

Su’a William Sio: Is his Project Tatupu investigation aiming to increase Pacific homeownership, or is it just a way to make Pacific people homeless and unemployed in the regions instead of homeless and unemployed in Auckland?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No, it is not. It is about taking opportunities in the regions where there are jobs, and where there will be opportunities for Pacific people. We are making an investigation because we believe that Pacific people deserve the right to work and to gain meaningful employment.

Su’a William Sio: Why does he continue to deny the fall of Pacific homeownership when under his Government we now have a growing number of Pacific families in homeless situations, living in cars, garages, boarding homes, and living in emergency and overcrowded housing that they do not own?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Again I refer to that member’s party’s record in Government in 2001 to 2006, and it was pretty poor.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I just need some cooperation from the Minister. The question was, effectively: “Why does the Minister continue to deny … ?”. I am going to invite Su’a William Sio to repeat the question, but you need to address that question rather than just flicking straight back to a previous administration.

Su’a William Sio: Why does he continue to deny the fall of Pacific homeownership when under his Government we now have a growing number of Pacific families in homeless situations, living in cars, garages, boarding homes, and in overcrowded and emergency housing that they do not own?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: We know that homeownership rates have come down across the board, but what I will say is that the Government is focused on building more social housing and more emergency housing. We have implemented special housing areas and expanded the HomeStart scheme for first-home buyers, and those are things that benefit Pacific people.

Roading, New Plymouth—State Highway 3

9. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Transport: What recent improvements has the Government made to State Highway 3 in New Plymouth?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Alongside the hard-working MP for New Plymouth it was my pleasure to recently open New Plymouth’s $24 million Vickers to City road upgrade project. This stretch of road to the north of the city was starting to see a growing number of problems and was near capacity, causing delays and frustrations for motorists and freight transporters alike. The Government has now upgraded the road to include two lanes in each direction and has put in place safer and more efficient intersections as well as better facilities for walking and cycling for the people of New Plymouth as well as the wider region.

Jonathan Young: In what ways will the improved Vickers to City road benefit the people and the businesses of New Plymouth?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Now that the improvements have been made, local traffic is moving much more freely to the north of New Plymouth. Freight is also moving more easily though the area, benefiting both the port and industries to the north of the city. Businesses are also benefiting as it is now much easier to move goods and services around the city and region. So it is clear that the improvements to the Vickers to City road have been an important development for New Plymouth that will support the future economic growth of that great city.

Climate Change Policy—Government Priorities and Funding

10. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Ka whakaae a ia ki tā Te Kaikōmihana Pāremata mō Te Taiao, e kī nei, “climate change is by far the most serious environmental issue we face”?

[Does she agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that “climate change is by far the most serious environmental issue we face”?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I do agree in many respects that I think climate change is a very serious issue, and one that New Zealand and the world face.

Eugenie Sage: If the Minister says that climate change is a serious issue, how can she say that when the Ministry for the Environment has only 1.4 full-time staff who are responding to the effects of climate change and providing advice on that?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly within the Ministry for the Environment there are more people than that who are giving me advice as the Minister for Climate Change Issues, but the work that is going on across agencies is also important. Whether it is through the transport portfolio, and those working on public transport initiatives and electric vehicles; or there is work going on within science and research that is extensive as well, on the urban cycleways, to name some; and through AgResearch, and others. There are a number of officials who are working on climate change - related issues across Government.

Eugenie Sage: How can she say she is taking transport issues seriously in relation to climate change when her Government has done no substantive analysis in the past 2 years on the risks of sea-level rise to 2,000 kilometres of low-lying roads in New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I can say it quite simply because, actually, we are investing a record amount in public transport because of the investment that we are putting into cycleways and other ways of transport around this great country of ours. Although the analysis to the detail the member might want may not have been done, certainly the forward planning and the future planning within transport has been looked at.

Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request of 24 May this year from the New Zealand Transport Agency showing it has done no substantive analysis in the past 2 years on the impact of sea-level rise other than a high-level—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none; it can be tabled.

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

Eugenie Sage: How can the Minister say she is taking climate change seriously when her Government has more than halved the funding for the very people in her ministry who are tasked with finding solutions to New Zealand’s rising climate pollution?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Quite simply because we have an ambitious programme of work that is going on around climate change issues. Whether it is the changes we recently announced to the emissions trading scheme (ETS), where submitters will have to pay the full costs of their emissions by 2019; the second phase that is going on in the ETS review; the work that is going on within forestry, with AgResearch, and with sustainable farming, which is actually better than anywhere else in the world; the work that is now going on as far as ratification of the Paris Agreement, which will then mean that we have that momentum globally; or the assistance that we give internationally on emissions trading schemes and also on forestry and agriculture—I think this country takes it seriously and I think we have got a very ambitious work programme.

Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table an analysis prepared by the Parliamentary Library on 21 June that shows that between 2011 and 2016 the Government slashed funding for Ministry for the Environment officials working on domestic climate change policy.

Mr SPEAKER: No. That information is freely available to all members if they want to go and analyse Budget documents.

Community Development—Community-led Development Fund

11. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcements has she made in terms of support for community-led development projects?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): E te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. The recent launch of the Community-led Development Programme marks a step change for the long-term support of community projects, and will have a significant positive impact for successful applicants and their communities. The programme will allow communities to identify community aspirations, then partner with both central and local government, private funders, businesses, and local iwi to achieve their goals. Once fully implemented in 2019-20, the total value of investments per year will be up to $3.56 million.

Joanne Hayes: How is the new programme different from previous investment schemes?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The 5-year community-led development pilot programme wrapped up on 30 June this year. The new programme takes the best elements of the former community development scheme and community-led development and modernises them, including paid community development workers, a partnership approach with relevant agencies, intensive advisory support from Internal Affairs, and flexible funding. The Community-led Development Programme is about local people finding local solutions to their problems. It will be open to communities, hapū, and iwi. A contestable expression-of-interest process will open in September this year.

Māori Development—Homelessness, State Housing Sales, and Homeownership Rates

12. MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement about Te Puea Marae’s manaakitanga and work with the homeless that “there’s a hell of a lot of work that the State should be doing over and above just waiting for a crisis to happen and then go to it”; if so, what more does he think the Government should have done in advance?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker, ko Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, ka whakautua katoatia ngā pātai i roto i Te Reo Māori. Ā, ki te pātai, āe, nō te mea kāre ahau, kāre tātau i te hiahia kia kite i ō tātau whānau e taka ana ki Te Korokoro-o-Te Parata!

[Acknowledgments to you, Mr Speaker. This is Māori Language Week, and all the responses will be given in Māori. And so to the question: yes, because I do not—we do not—want to see our families dropping down Te Parata’s throat!]

Meka Whaitiri: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question was around a statement the Minister made, and what more he thought he could have done in advance. I do not believe the Minister answered the question.

Mr SPEAKER: My difficulty is that at the time the Minister spoke, and spoke in Te Reo, my interpretation was not coming through loudly enough so I did not hear the answer. Can I ask the Minister to address the question again? I will listen and then rule whether the question has been addressed.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Kia ora Mr Speaker, āe nō te mea, kāre ahau, kāre pea tātau i te hiahia kia kite i ō tātau whānau e taka ana ki Te Korokoro-o-Te Parata, e taka rānei ki te taumahatanga o te pōhara.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; yes, because I do not—and, perhaps, we do not—want to see our families dropping down Te Parata’s throat or falling into the difficulties of poverty.]

Meka Whaitiri: Did he, as Minister for Māori Development, make that statement before or after he voted for the sale of State houses?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ko tāku ko te aronui ki ngā tūmanako o Te Ao Māori. I tēnei wā kai te rongo rātau i ngā taumahatanga, pēnei i te hunga e noho nā i Māngere, kei te aroha atu ki a rātau.

[I take cognisance of the aspirations of Māoridom. Right now they are experiencing difficulties, like those ones living there in Māngere, and I empathise with them.]

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to the question and to the answer, and that answer in no way addressed the question that the member asked. She asked whether he made the statement before or after he voted in a particular way, and the answer did not address that question. It was a straight question.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure when that particular vote was. That is my difficulty in ruling whether it can be answered.

Marama Fox: Ā, he pātai tāku ki Te Minita, kai te aha a ia ki te tautoko i a ngāi Māori me ō rātau awhero whare?

[I have a question to the Minister: what is he doing to support Māoridom and their hopes for a house?]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ko tāku mahi, me te mahi a taku tari, tētahi wāhanga pakupaku nei, iti noa iho nei o te whakautu o tēnei kāwanatanga ki tēnei take ēngari, i roto i te tahua pūtea, $17.6 miriona te pūtea hou ka whakapaua ki ō tātau whānau kia noho ai rātau i roto i tētahi whare ora. E whā ngā aronga nui o te kaupapa nei—ko te tika o te whare, he utu tika mō te whare, te whakapakari i ngā pūkenga hanga whare, me te whakatū i ētahi kaupapa mō te hunga kore kāinga.

[My role and that of my department is but a small and really tiny part in the response of this Government to this matter, but in the Budget, $17.6 million of new money will be spent on our families to enable them to live in a healthy home. This initiative has four main objectives: houses are apt and affordable; to strengthen house construction skills; and to establish policies for the homeless.]

Meka Whaitiri: Does he, as Minister for Māori Development, think it is a good idea to sell State houses while whānau live in cars and garages?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ko te kaupapa nui, te manaaki tonu i ngā whānau katoa kia noho i roto i tētahi whare mahana, he āhua ngāwari te utu, ka taea e ngā tamariki te noho ki roto i tētahi whare āhuru nei me te hauora o te ngākau o te tinana o ngā tamariki.

[The main theme is to continue taking care of all families so that they live in a warm house, the cost is somewhat affordable, and the children can live comfortably and are physically and emotionally well.]

Marama Fox: Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, he aha anō ngā hua kua tutuki nei i a Whare Ora?

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; what outcomes again have been achieved by Whare Ora?]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ā, ko te kaupapa kei raro i ahau, kei raro i a Te Puni Kōkiri, ko Whare Ora. I roto i te wā poto anei ngā hua o te kaupapa kua puta nei, 76 ngā kaupapa whare mō te whānau kua tautokohia, 223 ngā kāinga whānau kua whakatikahia, 113 ngā kāinga hou me te hanganga o aua kāinga kua tautokohia. He nui ngā kaupapa ēngari, arā anō ngā mahi nui kai mua tonu i te aroaro.

[The initiative under my watch, under Te Puni Kōkiri, is Whare Ora. In only a short span of time these outcomes have emerged from this initiative: 76 housings schemes for families have been endorsed, 223 family homes have been repaired, and 113 new homes and the construction of those homes have been endorsed. There are many initiatives, but there is also important work ahead.]

Meka Whaitiri: Does he, as Minister for Māori Development, agree with Nick Smith that plummeting Māori homeownership is because Māori are not educated enough?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ā, i ētahi wā he tika tonu ngā kōrero o tērā Minita! I ētahi wā, ē, kāre au i te tino whakaae atu. Ēngari i tōna mutunga, kai te mahi māua mō te painga o ngā whānau e noho nei i te kore kāinga, i te kore whare rānei.

[And so there are times when what that Minister is alluding to is correct! Yes, there are times when I really do not agree either. But eventually we work in tandem for the benefit of homeless families or the lack of houses.]

Meka Whaitiri: Does he, as Minister for Māori Development, feel proud about propping up a Government that blames whānau for homelessness, blames whānau for living in cars, and blames whānau for low homeownership rates? Does that make him proud?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Koinei te mate o te tangata kore mōhio ki te āhuatanga o te noho o tēnei Whare Pāremata. Ko te āhuatanga o te kirimana i waenganui i a māua Te Pāti Māori me te Nāhinara, i ētahi wā—

[This is the problem when one does not know how this House sits. In terms of the confidence and supply with me, the Māori Party, and National, sometimes—]

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister cannot open his answer with a direct attack on the member asking the question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member—[Interruption] Order! Iain Lees-Galloway, resume your seat. When I consider the tone of the question, I do not consider that there is anything out of order in the way the Minister started the question.

Point of Order—Chambers, Lobbies, and Galleries, Simultaneous Interpretation Headsets

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is actually just a point of order of logistics. This being Māori Language Week I am sure members who are able to will be using Te Reo Māori. I notice that around the House a number of headsets that assist those of us who are not fluent Te Reo Māori speakers are missing, and therefore we have not been able to follow the debate. I wonder whether that can be addressed before the next time we have question time so that we can all follow along if we are not fluent Te Reo Māori speakers.

Mr SPEAKER: I will guarantee to the member that I will have that addressed before question time tomorrow. I apologise that it has been inadequate because of that.

Bills

Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I move, That the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. The Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting. Can I ask members to leave the House more quietly. We have a piece of legislation receiving a first reading. The Minister deserves some courtesy from us all.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill strengthens New Zealand’s ability to deter and react decisively to terrorism. It contains the provisions that are needed in New Zealand law to implement the two 2005 maritime counterterrorism treaties: the protocol of 2005 to the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, and the protocol of 2005 to the Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. I am sure all members are familiar with the detail of these two important international instruments.

The international legal framework for terrorism now comprises 16 instruments, which cover terrorist activities involving aircraft, ships, specified classes of people, the use of particular materials, and also the financing of terrorism. The 2005 protocols to the Rome convention and the Rome protocol ensure that the maritime security framework they establish is capable of responding to contemporary threats. Although these treaties covered the ships and fixed platforms—the potential targets of terrorist activity—they did not adequately address the use of ships or fixed platforms either for terrorist acts or in enabling terrorist acts. The Rome convention and the Rome protocol are implemented in New Zealand through the Maritime Crimes Act 1999.

This bill introduces new offences to implement the offences created by the 2005 protocols. These relate to the use of ships or fixed platforms for terrorist acts. For example, to use or threaten to use against or on a ship, or discharge from a ship, any explosive radioactive material or biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon in a manner that is likely to cause death, or causes or is likely to cause serious injury for the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act; the illicit trafficking by ship of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related material—for example, intentionally transporting on board a ship any explosive or radioactive material, knowing that it is intended to be used to cause, or in a threat to cause, death or serious injury or damage for the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act; the transportation of fugitives by ship, where the person assisting knows that the person being transported has committed an offence in relation to terrorism and ships or in relation to transportation of weapons and nuclear material and equipment, or has committed an act against a specified terrorism convention; and intentionally causing death or injury in connection with the above offences.

The bill also introduces a maritime boarding regime consistent with existing international law, which clarifies enforcement officers’ powers when taking action in relation to offences under the Maritime Crimes Act 1999. The bill gives New Zealand courts extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offence if there is a New Zealand link—for example, if it takes place on board a New Zealand ship. The safeguard for prosecution of an offence under the Act is a requirement for the Attorney-General to consent to the proceedings. The bill also provides that the Act does not apply to situations of armed conflict.

The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Maritime Security Act 2004, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992, the Extradition Act 1999, the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, and the Terrorism Suppression Act 2012. These amendments are necessary to fully implement the required amendments to the Maritime Crimes Act. For example, the schedule to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act is amended by adding the new offences under the bill. This means New Zealand may cooperate with international partners in responding to requests or in requesting assistance from other countries in relation to investigating or prosecuting such offending. The schedule to the Search and Surveillance Act is amended by including the new search powers in the bill. This will ensure certain ancillary powers and requirements will apply when exercising powers under the bill.

New Zealand is currently a party to 14 of the 16 core international counter-terrorism instruments, and once this bill has been passed, it will be able to become party to these last two most recent protocols. The 2005 protocols are already in force, so will enter into force in New Zealand once this bill has been passed and New Zealand has ratified them. By advancing the bill, New Zealand will not only show its continued commitment to the fight against terrorism but also ensure that terrorists will not find a safe haven in this country. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): The Labour Party will support this bill in the first reading, and we look forward to receiving the comments and submissions when we go into the select committee. It is worth remembering that this bill was first put on the Order Paper—the protocols were first signed, I think, in 2007 by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. They were put before the select committee as treaties in 2009, and it is now, what, 7 years later that the bill finds its way into Parliament. I do not know what has happened in the meantime, but the bill is welcome and we will certainly be supportive of it. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, the aim of the bill is to amend the Maritime Crimes Act of 1999 to implement the obligations under the protocol of 2005 to the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf.

It is worth remembering that the Rome convention and the protocol resulted from the Achille Lauro affair back in 1985, when members of the Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the Achille Lauro, a passenger ship. They shot a Jewish-American man who was in a wheelchair at pretty much point-blank range and tipped him over the side, into the Mediterranean. The ship then went on to Italy, where the Palestinian terrorists faced trial and were imprisoned. Since that time, there has been a recognition that, actually, there was a bit of a gap in the law, in that most of the time the taking of a ship was reliant upon the laws of sea that related to piracy. This was an act of terror; it did not have financial, private gain involved. It was actually a political statement—so, as a result of that, the first Rome convention came into being.

This is a further manifestation of that convention, which dated back to 1988, if I recall. This 2005 protocol amends that Rome convention and the Rome protocol to ensure that the maritime security framework established under those parent treaties can respond to contemporary transnational terrorist threats. It is worth thinking that back in those days, it was pre - al-Qaeda, pre-9/11, pre - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—a lot has gone on in the world of terrorism, unfortunately, since that time. So this bill enables New Zealand to ratify those 2005 protocols, which amended the Rome convention and relate to maritime terrorism; the illicit trafficking by ship of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, or any sort of related material around that; the transportation of fugitives by ship; the intentional causing of death or injury in connection with those offences; and maritime boarding. So, effectively, it broadens them in keeping with the changes that have happened in the world.

Largely, the prevention of terrorism in New Zealand is broadly bipartisan—I do not think there is a member in this House who would not support this bill—but it is also worth remembering that in preventing terrorism, we rely heavily on a number of issues, the first of which, of course, is the people in New Zealand themselves. Particularly, I am referring here to our Muslim community, which, in many ways, is our front line, our bulwark, against terrorism taking root here, and ensuring that we have a good relationship with that community and ensuring that that community is well integrated into New Zealand is probably the best defence that we have against the sorts of events that we have seen in Paris and Belgium, and so on.

But so too do we rely on the professionalism of our diplomats and on ensuring that the diplomats that we have are of the highest quality, can put together the type of legislation that we have in front of us here, and make sure that we are fulfilling our obligations under the various treaties.

I want to mention two of those diplomats—they are former diplomats now—Derek Leask and Nigel Fyfe. They are two of our more distinguished diplomats, but, unfortunately, they were targeted in what can only really be called a witch-hunt, in an inquiry that unfairly accused them of leaking documents, which they did not do. The Ombudsman’s report, which came out very recently, exonerated those two diplomats, and it is now, as the Ombudsman recommended, that they are owed an apology and compensation. I know that, for example, it cost Derek Leask tens of thousands of dollars to take his grievance into court and get his name cleared. He needs to have recompense for that, and an apology. I think it behoves the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he too offers those two very distinguished diplomats—Derek Leask served for 5 years as our High Commissioner in London—an apology.

I want to mention something else that I think is very, very important when it comes to combatting terrorism. It is, of course, what is laid out in this bill in terms of ensuring that New Zealand fulfils its requirements under international law. We also have stepped up when it comes to sending our armed forces overseas to combat terrorism in various parts of the world. We did it in Afghanistan. We currently have troops in Iraq at the moment, training the Iraqi military forces. I am not going to go through the issue of whether they should be there or should not be there—that has divided the country in terms of who supports it and who is against it—but I want to speak on one thing, and that is the way that we send our troops overseas.

When I look at countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, their sending of troops overseas, potentially into harm’s way, is recognised as being one of the most important decisions that a Government and, ultimately, a Prime Minister can make. For that reason, they adopt a far more bipartisan approach to the way that they do that than we do here. Think back to when we sent our troops overseas. We decided to make that decision in the end of 2014—to send our troops into Iraq. They were, as the Government said, sent to fight terrorism in the form of the ISIS. For many months, the Government denied that we were going to send forces overseas, although everybody knew that there was training and planning going on for months amongst our armed forces. Finally—finally—the Government made the decision, and an unholy debate erupted in Parliament, where the Prime Minister accused Andrew Little and the Labour Party of not standing up for human rights and of being gutless.

I want to point out that I went back and actually asked the Parliamentary Library “When was the last time the Prime Minister, unsolicited, mentioned the words ‘human rights’?”, and that was back in 2007, with regard to Zimbabwe, when he was Leader of the Opposition. So it is a bit rich for him to stand up and talk about human rights when it suits him. But, more importantly, the point is that it actually would have been better to engage across the House in an important decision like sending our troops overseas. Sharing the information, being able to ensure that whatever happened and whatever decision was made—and it may have been that the Government would not have been able to convince the Opposition that it was a good decision to send those troops overseas, but nevertheless we would have been able to engage in that process and, whatever happened, as we did anyway, they would go with our goodwill and our best wishes.

We do this in terms of the intelligence review that is ongoing now—and I am a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is looking at that, and it is done on a bipartisan approach. What I would like to see is that we do exactly the same and take a much more bipartisan, a much more considered, and a much more open view when we send our forces overseas, because right now I believe it is unedifying, the way that we carry that out. Thank you.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): First of all, could I acknowledge our Minister of Foreign Affairs for bringing this bill to the House. It is timely because the reality is that we are seeing an increase in maritime operations supporting terrorist operations around the world. I was recently up in Iraq and had the honour of visiting Camp Taji and seeing our troops in action in terms of the mission that they are on up there, which is, obviously, delivering training and junior leadership courses. I just want to acknowledge them and thank them, and their families also, because the work they are doing up there—we should all be very proud of them. The feedback that we got is that the training mission and junior leadership mission have made a real, tangible difference to the way that the Iraqi troops are able to go on to the front line. They are winning ground back and seriously degrading the capability of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

This bill strengthens New Zealand’s ability to deter and react decisively to terrorism. The changes are part of New Zealand’s wider commitment to the four pillars of our UN counter-terrorism strategy. It is in the interest of all countries to eliminate terrorism. Any form of terrorism has a corrosive, negative impact on us, the global community.

Regarding the main provisions of the bill, the bill introduces new offences that relate to, obviously, maritime terrorism, the illicit trafficking and shipment of weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems and all related material, the transportation of fugitives by sea, and intentionally causing death or injury in connection with any of these offences.

New Zealand has got a reputation as a good global citizen. We are a founding member of the United Nations and have recently served with distinction on the United Nations Security Council—and we continue to serve with distinction on the UN Security Council. We might be 4.5 million people at the bottom of the world, but we punch well above our weight on the international stage, in large part due to the work that our Prime Minister does and to the high esteem in which he is held.

New Zealand does not shirk its global responsibilities. We are an outward-looking country, whether it be serving on the Security Council, forging trade deals, or sending peacekeeping troops across the world. We know that the risks facing the world are many—economic conflict and terror-related—and they are too great for any one country to face alone. That is why this Government is keen to forge international trade links. That is why we stand up for our neighbours near and far who may face humanitarian crises. We are New Zealand, a country that pulls its weight. I am very happy to support this bill, and I look forward to receiving it in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I add to the thanks that the Opposition gives to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for bringing forward this piece of legislation, which, as other speakers have noted, gives effect to New Zealand’s obligations arising from the 2005 changes to the international protocol relating to laws of the sea and maritime terrorism. Ministers do good things as well as bad things. The last speaker, Mark Mitchell, said that we should be proud of the Government’s work in the Middle East through New Zealand’s armed forces doing work there. I am sure all people in New Zealand are supportive of the armed services when they are sent overseas and told to do what the Government says they should do.

It is a wee bit superficial to let that stand without recounting what has led to the terrible state of affairs that we now have in the Middle East. It is interesting that in the next few days we are going to see the Chilcot report come out in the United Kingdom, which considers whether the Parliament there was misled by its then politicians, who took them into the war in Iraq when the United Nations refused to endorse an invasion of Iraq because Hans Blix, on behalf of the United Nations, had spent some months ferreting around Iraq and had concluded that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which were used as the excuse to invade Iraq.

I was a junior backbencher in this Parliament, in the then Labour Government, when the New Zealand Labour Party kept New Zealand out of the war in Iraq. I would like to pay my tributes to the three people who led New Zealand in that regard at that time: Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and Phil Goff. All of those people withstood enormous pressure from the National Party, then in Opposition, as well as pressure from our traditional allies, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. I can remember sitting on the backbenches over the 6-week period when this was unfolding, watching the leaders of my party go grey. The pressure was intense. I remember the stress that they were under as they took that decision for New Zealand and withstood enormous pressure from our traditional allies and from the intemperate comments that came from the National Party, which said we should be in that—[Interruption] Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, the other parties have said that this is another example of us doing our duty in respect of terrorism, and I am recounting how some of the things that have gone wrong in the world—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just apply it to the bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —backed by the National Party, have made terrorism worse—including maritime terrorism.

The leaders of that party, Phil Goff, Helen Clark, and Michael Cullen, bounced back from that stress—they did bounce back from that stress. But I challenge any one of the members of Parliament who were here then not to agree with me that the pressure was enormous, and that the leaders of the Labour Party showed true leadership at that time by refusing to make the world’s problems with terrorism worse with an illegal invasion of Iraq. Those things are still dogging us in the world—including in the field of marine terrorism—because the consequences of that terrible decision that was made by other countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, are still with us. Iraq, of course, has not seen a moment’s peace since those days. We have terrorist atrocities becoming worse in Iraq. Everyone knows that Saddam Hussein was a terrible leader, but what we have unleashed in the world since has flowed outside the Iraqi borders and afflicts other countries, not just Iraq. It is interesting that we see international reports that some of the leaders of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are actually former Iraqi military personnel and intelligence personnel who have just found another outlet for their evil ways.

Can I refer also to another aspect where the reputation of the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) has been undermined. That is the matter that was touched on by David Shearer, relating to the accusing of Mr Leask and Mr Fyfe of being sources of leaks from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Rebstock inquiry was—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member is now 5 minutes into his 10-minute speech and has not mentioned a single clause in the bill. He needs to do that. I accept that previous speakers, from both sides of the House, made asides in respect of other matters that were outside the bill and I let that go. I note that the National Party member spoke for only 3 minutes, and Mr Shearer’s points were sideways, but I think the member who now has the floor needs to start talking about what is in the bill. This is a first reading of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As other speakers have said, this legislation does introduce new offences that relate to maritime terrorism, including maritime terrorism itself and the illicit trafficking by ship of weapons of mass destruction—you have got to be a bit careful about that around here, because the National Party would be very willing, based on its history, to misrepresent what was proper evidence of weapons of mass destruction, so as to justify the invasion of countries like Iraq. The bill also introduces offences relating to the transportation of fugitives by ships.

We know that the incidence of maritime terrorism is relatively low in frequency. It constituted less than 1 percent of all terrorist incidents between 1968 and 2007, but, none the less, we should not be complacent. I agree that we should put in place this legislation pursuant to the convention that we have signed up to, or to the protocol that changes the underlying international convention. But I do make the point that if you are interested in curbing terrorism and doing your bit internationally, you need to maintain the reputation of your country, including the reputation of your Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and you do not do that any good at all when you undermine that ministry by wrongly criticising senior officials within it, which is what this Government did, through the Rebstock inquiry. It does not reflect well upon Minister Bennett last week, in the face of the Ombudsman’s report saying that Messrs Leask and Fyfe had been dealt with unfairly, to say that there were some procedural problems but not to acknowledge that the Ombudsman found not just that the processes were wrong but also that the substantive conclusion she made was without justification. She besmirched the reputation of those New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials and undermined the reputation of MFAT—internationally as well as in New Zealand.

I end by supporting this legislation, but say that if you want to, as the last speaker said, have a reputation as a good global citizen, you should act responsibly as a global citizen. In the Middle East, the current Government has not got a good record. Whether it is in respect of the Iraq decision or in respect of what it has been doing with Saudi sheep in the desert—where it spent $11.5 million, including over a million dollars on flying sheep to this farm in the desert, and a $4 million cash payment—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: So back to the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill—Shane Reti.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to come back and speak to this bill in front of us, which is the work of the House at this point in time. It is a pleasure to speak to the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill of 2016.

I would like to briefly traverse the legislation that brings us here today—the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, the Maritime Crimes Act 1999, the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, of 2005, and of course what we are looking at, the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill 2016.

In 1985, as was commented on, the Achille Lauro was hijacked off Egypt and wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer was thrown overboard. In response to that, the Rome convention formed the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. This was ratified by New Zealand, through the Maritime Crimes Act 1999.

The Maritime and Aviation Crimes Bill went straight to its second reading, which is kind of interesting, because it turns out that the day it came to the House, the House was sitting under urgency. The then Standing Order 273 said there would be no first reading, and so it went straight to its second reading. At that second reading, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the time, Don McKinnon, made these points on the Maritime and Aviation Crimes Bill 1999. He said, first of all, that this bill was very important because it talked about including the unlawful use of force or the threat of force to seize control of a ship. He talked about extending New Zealand’s jurisdiction over these new offences beyond the traditional limit of our territorial lands. He also talked about the possible extradition of terrorists to those countries that are a party to the convention. That was in 1999.

In 2009 the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee undertook a treaty examination for the two protocols—the 2005 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms, and the 2005 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. These were collectively known as the 2005 SUA protocols.

The select committee had one submission. An important change here was that the Rome convention talked about shipping as being a target. The 2005 suppression of unlawful acts (SUA) protocols talked about maritime vehicles and ships, etc., as actually being vehicles for causing terrorism. That was quite a change. That it is why it is important for us to ratify and amend our Maritime Act to take this into account.

Particularly, three new offences were created under the 2005 SUA protocols. These were (1) maritime terrorism, (2) illicit trafficking by ships of weapons of mass destruction, and (3) transportation of fugitives by ships. The 2009 select committee examination was very thorough, and the national interest analysis that accompanied that said that there were only benefits to New Zealand in being a part of this treaty. With that, I think that the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill wisely enables the 2005 SUA protocols and is a very important tool in our fight against terrorism. I commend it to the House.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Tēnā koutou e Te Whare; ka tū mō Ngā Kākāriki ki te kōrero ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei Te Pire Maritime Crimes Amendment.

[Acknowledgments to you the House; I stand on behalf of the Greens to speak in the first reading of this Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill.]

This bill before us, essentially, goes back 30 years and a bit more, as has been noted before. Essentially, it can be traced back to the terrorist event with the Achille Lauro in 1985, but also to a similar event—if we recall it—with regard to the Rainbow Warrior in Waitematā Harbour in Aotearoa New Zealand. Those events, obviously—particularly the Achille Lauro—brought us to 1988 with the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, and its immediate protocol, the Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. It is worth remembering that in those days this House did not even have the nuanced constitutional maturity of a treaty examination—we just lumbered along.

It took us 11 years, from 1988 to 1999, to bring in the Maritime Crimes Act, but we did, in 1999. Within 2 years we experienced the twin towers terrorist event in New York, which ushered in the age of global terrorism, which in turn ushered in—for better or worse, and it was for worse—the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. I support the comments by the Hon David Parker and others about the inanity and the lack of application of international law at the global level that allowed that kind of thing to go with impunity. That, in a turn, brought us to 2005, with these current protocols—the 2005 maritime navigation and fixed platform protocols to the Rome convention. New Zealand signed those 2 years later, in 2007, but it took us an exactly equal amount of time—11 years—to get from those protocols to this day, with this enabling legislation.

The 2005 protocols that are, essentially, before us in the context of this legislation amend both the Rome convention and the Rome protocol to ensure that the maritime security framework established under the parent treaties can respond to contemporary transnational threats. The bill enables New Zealand to ratify those 2005 protocols to introduce new offences related to maritime terrorism, illicit trafficking by ship of weapons of mass destruction, transportation by ship of fugitives, intentionally causing death in connection with those offences, and maritime boarding.

Such was the state of alarm in New Zealand that it took us 11 years to get to this stage. It took 2 years to get to the stage of New Zealand signing, and another 2 years—so a total of 4 years—before our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee undertook the treaty examination. The select committee reported back in July 2009, which included the Green Party’s agreement, unanimously supporting continuing movement towards ratification of the 2005 protocols. That continuing movement has since experienced a pause of 7 years before resuming at any discernible pace.

But if we look at the select committee’s 2009 report, we acknowledge, as it says—and I think we would all agree—that “The overriding objective of the proposed treaty action would be to update and strengthen New Zealand’s ability to deal with maritime security challenges, by ensuring that an appropriate legislative framework was in place. There is no satisfactory non-legislative implementation option that has been identified.” Essentially, the committee concluded that “Implementation of the 2005 SUA Protocols would strengthen New Zealand’s support for global counter-terrorism and non-proliferation efforts, and help ensure that New Zealand’s domestic maritime security framework is consistent with international best practice. The 2005 SUA Protocols have particular relevance”—of course—“to New Zealand as a coastal nation dependent on the security of its shipping routes.”

Of the five principal benefits of the protocols given in the select committee’s report, two are worth explicitly identifying here, I think. They are that it “would help strengthen New Zealand’s legal framework that underpin necessary maritime security, counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation action.”, and it “would also be valuable in the context of New Zealand’s support for the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and in bolstering New Zealand’s ability to respond to some of the threats … ”. That is the assembled wisdom of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in 2009, and the Green Party continues, as it did back then, to associate itself with it.

We will support the bill, but we will support it into select committee and continue to monitor the progress of the bill. We do have our concerns around the designation of particular groups as terrorists. We do recognise that the 2005 protocols concern actual or attempted behaviour and do not address the classification of groups themselves, but if you look at some of the provisions of the bill, they could potentially cover the actions of direct action environmental groups and see such groups potentially regarded as, or alleged to be regarded as, terrorists. It could be regarded that some of those groups use or attempt to use ships to intentionally cause damage to other ships with a purpose of “compelling a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act ...”, to quote the legislation. But such actions are inherently violent and, arguably, not in line with the Green Party’s principle of non-violence. Discretion does need to be exercised by Governments about whether to charge such groups with terrorist offences or not.

Overall, the bill enables New Zealand to meet its obligations as an international citizen and is in line with our principle of non-violence—hence our support for the bill to go to select committee—but we will be monitoring that particular aspect of the legislation closely as it goes to the select committee.

Let me just conclude by associating the Green Party with the comments of the Hon David Parker in relation to the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq and the inspired and positive leadership of the Hon Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and Phil Goff in that respect. We pay tribute to all three of them, and to Mr Goff, who is sitting in the Chamber today—a very fine and upstanding parliamentarian. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in support of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill. But before I do, I seek the indulgence of the House to take a couple of moments to reflect on a very auspicious week—as this might be—and a very memorable week for some. This week we see the opportunity, I guess, for members of Parliament of this House to farewell our Chamber staff, who have worked in this House—for some of them—for up to 20 years. I think this is a great opportunity, and it is one of the only opportunities that I will have to thank these people, who work tirelessly behind the scenes to make sure that everything goes to order—the people who are not seen on the TV screens back home, but they are here every day, bright and early, making sure that the microphones work and making sure that everything is ready to go. Sadly—and then, for some, it is not so sad; I am sure there are a number of Chamber staff who are happy to take the redundancy, but it is sad for others.

If I could just take a moment to acknowledge these people here: we have got Bob Wards, who has been working for 20 years here in the House. Bob Mann, who has been here for 19 years, Deborah for 14 years, and Euan for 3 years. Maureen has been here for 9 years. We have got Pat, who has been here for 15 years, Sue for 7 years, Thomas for 6 years, and Philip for 9 years. Pauline has been here for 15 years, and Trevor for 19 years. So too has Charles been here for 19 years. Maria has been here for 3 years—I was going to say 30 years then—Judy for 17 years, and Ken for 6 years. That is a total combined time given to this House of 181 years of experience, which we are going to be losing at the end of this week. If we could just take a moment to reflect on that and perhaps give applause, certainly, to say thank you very much on behalf of all members of Parliament in the House to a great job well done. We hope that there is a celebration, or certainly an opportunity, at the end of the week where we get to come around and see you one by one. So thank you all very much.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that indulgence. I know there have been—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Do not milk it.

CLAYTON MITCHELL:—some people spoken to about getting off-subject today, and I would like to go back to the bill. I am very pleased I had that opportunity to speak to—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, what do you mean “back”? You have not been there yet. Come on.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: No, I mentioned the bill right at the start. I did actually say that I am speaking in support of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, and I thought I would start with that and that that would give me a little bit of leeway. Clearly, my leeway has run out.

This is a bill that has been around for some time. In 2005 the Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf was discussed and also the protocol to the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation that we have talked about. These protocols were signed in 2007 and, of course, they were implemented in 2010. Through all my research I cannot find anywhere that says why the hold-up has taken so long. There is nothing that suggests it should take till 2016 to ratify this bill, and I too am in support of making sure that this goes through. I have to smile when I hear things and phrases such as “weapons of mass destruction”, because, of course, we all remember George W Bush famously saying “We’re gonna get those WMDs—those weapons of mass destruction.” and waging war on the Middle East—a war in the Middle East that is still raging, and probably getting worse, not better, as they had hoped it would.

In saying that, we can also acknowledge the fact that global terrorism is on the rise, and if geopolitical parties and Governments successively around the world do not join forces and get together to work harmoniously to eradicate this sort of global terror, then we have got some big problems in the future. It is not just Governments’ responsibility; it also is the responsibility of the people. Back to the bill.

The bill is about bringing in some new enforcement regimes. It is about empowerment. I think that last year on the 15 January—it might have been 14 January—we remember the headlines when our naval ships went down to try to board a fishing vessel that was illegally harvesting fish from the Southern Ocean. It was very perplexing to New Zealanders, including New Zealand First, why, when a naval ship approached a vessel and asked it to stop, it simply did not do so—it continued on its merry way. We did not fire a warning shot. We did not try to board the ship, and, of course, we did not have the power to do so. We do not want that same thing happening when we talk about weapons of mass destruction, when we talk about terrorist activities, large bombs, and other things that are going to cause death and mayhem to platforms, which are largely considered to be oil rigs. The lives that that could certainly put at risk and also the large impact that that will have on our environment need to be factored in to this. We do support this bill’s referral to the select committee. We are hoping to get this moved through rather rapidly to see it actually being fully implemented into the House and actually ratified into law. We certainly do not see the reason for it to dilly-dally and to be held back.

The boarding regime is a very important aspect. If there is thought to be somebody who is harbouring illicit materials that may result in bombs or the like, then the person in charge, the enforcement officer, should have the power to actually board that vessel. Of course, the new powers also involve asking for those ships or vessels to stop, and if they do not do so, warning shots can actually be fired to say to them that we mean business. We do have an obligation to our country, to our people, and to the rest of the united nations of all countries to make sure that New Zealand plays its part in eradicating terror.

There is one concerning point in this legislation. It is around the Order in Council. We have spoken about the Order in Council on a number of occasions, and I fail to see what significance this Order in Council application has in this bill, because, of course, “by Order in Council” means that the Minister can implement or do what they like without bringing things back to the House. I am sure that once this has been agreed on and gone through the third reading we could implement it as soon as it gets the stamp of approval. There are currently 798 “by Order in Councils” in legislation that is active in this country right now. When we give the power to a Minister to arbitrarily make a decision on behalf of other members of the House without bringing it back to a democratic process of discussion, debate, and a vote, we take some sort of umbrage with that process. I would question why it needs to be in the bill, and we would certainly like to thrash that out at select committee to see whether we cannot get a better understanding of why it actually needs to be there. We do support this as we go into select committee and look forward to seeing how it comes out at the other end. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is unusual to follow on from a New Zealand First speaker who is actually supporting something. There was quite a bit of waffle in that speech, but I do want to acknowledge Clayton Mitchell’s contribution to those people who have worked for many years in this part of the precinct of Parliament.

Going back to this legislation that we are looking at, the bill contains provisions that are needed in our domestic legislation to meet our obligations under two counter-terrorism treaties. They are the protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the protocol of 2005 to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. We do see support from this House at this first reading, and that is good to see from all parties that want to see New Zealand take its place in reacting to and deterring terrorism as much as we can. This is part of our wider commitment as a country to doing so, and it is good to see all parties are supporting that process.

It is in the interests of New Zealand, as a free and democratic country, to prevent terrorism. It is also part of being a global citizen to make sure that we do not encourage or allow terrorism to flourish in any way in New Zealand, and to play our part in the global community to make sure that everybody is safe and fairly treated and that terrorism does not take effect in any part of our world, especially in our country.

This bill will go through to the select committee stage. No doubt the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will take a great interest in some of the finer details of the provisions of the legislation, but the general essence of what you are seeing here today is that all parties are standing to stop terrorism and to make sure that New Zealand is as safe for our citizens as possible. We look forward to that progressing through this House. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Marama Davidson.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare Tuarua, tēnā koe, ā, ka huri au ki tēnei Whare, tēnā tātou katoa! Ka tū au mō Ngā Kākāriki ki te kōrero i te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei Te Pire Maritime Crimes Amendment, ā, nō reira, hei māngai mō ngā take tika tangata.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and now I turn to this House, acknowledgments to us all! I stand on behalf of the Greens to speak in the first reading of this Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill and, therefore, as spokesperson on matters pertaining to human rights.]

I stand as the spokesperson for human rights for the Green Party to support this bill to the select committee stage. I wanted to talk particularly about the human rights balance, in light of all counter-terrorism laws and particularly in light of our international human rights reputation thus far. As my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham has pointed out, we have noted some concerns in the impediment of dissent, but I will actually go through—I understand that at this stage the bill is actually focused on actions of groups rather than on designations, so I wanted to make that point.

This bill is, potentially, to put in place New Zealand’s obligations under the protocols of 2005, which are, essentially, maritime counter-terrorism treaties—essentially, our international obligations. So, as mentioned, I can see, through the first reading of this bill, that they are focused on several important human rights freedoms, particularly the rights to life and safety. I do agree that at this point the bill is primarily to protect people’s lives and their feelings of safety.

It appears, under section 4A(1)—as my colleague has pointed out, but I want to repeat—that it could potentially impact on actions of direct action, such as environmental groups, but I am satisfied that both the actions would have to have been seen to cause harm and have been put in a particular category that, I believe, at this stage, would not impact on just ordinary dissent. So I too am pleased to support the bill going to the select committee, for that reason.

What Te Rōpū Kākāriki will be keeping an ear out for in submissions is to make sure that the balancing act of upholding the various human rights—such as freedom of thought and conscience, and freedom of association and expression—is, indeed, strong. We want to make sure that we have strong counter-terrorism legislation, but we also want to make sure that we are mindful of groups not being tagged too easily with this legislation for simply upholding other human rights freedoms. We also want to uphold freedom of privacy, freedom against torture, and freedom against being arbitrarily detained and/or arrested.

So I just simply wanted to stand and put to the House that Te Rōpū Kākāriki will be listening out for our balancing act of upholding the particular freedoms that are involved in this legislation. Again, New Zealand’s international human rights reputation is one to be protected and admired at this point. I, particularly as the human rights spokesperson, will be keeping a keen eye and ear on how this bill develops in light of a common-sense balance in upholding all of the different human rights aspects. Thank you very much.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Rino Tirikatene.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker; e tū tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire, Te Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker; I rise in support of this bill, the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill.]

It is a pleasure to speak in the first reading of this bill. We in the Labour Party are speaking in support of this bill. This is one of those bills that, I guess, is on subject matter that the House hoped would never eventuate or come into reality. This is about anti-terrorism or combating terrorism, particularly on the sea and on platforms—which I would assume would be things like oil rigs and the like. We are doing our bit as good global citizens to support this legislation, which is all about New Zealand ratifying its obligations as a signatory to the conventions and then the protocols to the conventions that form the basis of this bill—it has been well traversed by previous speakers.

I do endorse this bill, but I do hope that certain definitions contained within this bill do not really seep out into the lexicon of the general public. There are some really quite scary terms within this bill if we look at these new definitions that I understand are contained within the protocols—terms like a “BCN weapon”, which means a biological weapon, a chemical weapon, or a nuclear weapon. We do not really want to be hearing those sorts of terms freely spoken out there, but that is the reality of what this bill seeks to address. Goodness knows, in this day and age, we are seeing daily, almost, acts of terrorism happening around the globe, so we do need to be vigilant as a country, and the enactment of this legislation does just that.

I would like to just highlight one specific clause, and that is new section 3A, which will be inserted into the Maritime Crimes Act, which says that “This Act does not apply to any act that occurs in a situation of armed conflict …”. So if armed conflict were to break out, basically, we can just park this up and none of it will apply. I think that is the danger that we are facing daily as we look around the world and see what is happening out there. In the South China Sea we are seeing the deployment of naval fleets that are being moved all around the world. If we look over to the Mediterranean Sea: massive aircraft carriers from the US, from European countries, from Russia—and from all over the world. There is a lot of tension, I guess, out there in the maritime space. There are a lot of naval exercises taking place. So thank goodness that everything is calm and people are acting with restraint out there at the moment, but, certainly, we do not want any conflict to arise. If it did, this piece of legislation would not really apply at all. Goodness knows how those pieces of hardware will deal with terrorists on the high seas. But this does implement our international obligations.

I actually think that the bill does not really go far enough, because we are dealing with—in this legislation—a very high bar of terrorist activity. We are talking about biological weapons, nuclear weapons, and all of the related components that might make up those weapons of mass destruction. I actually think that the legislation should be applied to all forms of weapons that are involved in terrorism around the world. If we do look at what is going in the Middle East, in Syria, and in the conflict zones around the world—to be honest, I do get confused with all of the different parties and moderates and terrorists, and goodness knows all the other parties involved—at the end of the day, they require supply lines. They require supply lines to meet demand to actually get involved in their war-terrorist activities. So I believe this bill could go further and actually focus not just on those extreme weapons but also on all forms of weapons that are used in terrorist activities. But apart from those few remarks, I do support this bill, and I commend it at this first reading.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise just to say a few words in support of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill. As we have all heard this afternoon, this bill amends the Maritime Crimes Act to implement the obligations under two maritime counter-terrorism treaties.

It has been very good, certainly from my perspective, to hear expressed by speakers thus far the unanimous support for the need for this—the importance of ensuring that our defence framework and capability is aligned and that we have the capacity under law to do what New Zealanders would expect us to be able to do, which is that when we see that our interests are being challenged, particularly by those who have terrorist intent, we have the capacity and the ability to stop it from happening. That, for me, is a key part of what this legislation enables.

In light of the various comments that we have had, it will be very interesting to see whether we get a similar degree of unanimity from those who appear in front of us at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in the next few weeks and months. I am looking forward to that. We will be particularly interested in whether we can hold that unanimity all the way through to the third reading, because I think it serves this Parliament well when we can do so on issues of national security. I look forward to participating in that debate, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Can I just take one minute, too, to join with others who have formally acknowledged the role of the messengers who will be leaving us this week in Parliament. I have been here a long time; so have many of them. I want to pay tribute to all of them, in fact, for the loyal and professional service they have given to this House over a very long period of time. Not only have they served us but also they have been our friends, and I want to acknowledge them and wish them the best for the future.

Labour is, of course, supporting this bill, as we have all legislation that has been designed to suppress terrorist action both at home and internationally. Just in this last week we think of the more than 200 people killed by the bombing in Baghdad—200 people. I read the story this morning of a little girl who was an innocent victim of that bombing, only identifiable by a small patch of green cloth, which her mother recognised from the dress that she had been wearing. And, of course, we will do anything in our power to stop that sort of disgraceful and appalling behaviour that is supposedly motivated by a cause, religious or political, but most likely motivated by the worst side of human nature: the lust for power and control, and an utter disrespect for other human beings.

By passing this bill, we will be able to ratify two further conventions that enable us to support, through our laws, 14 of the 16 conventions that are opposed to terrorism. But I want to say that if we look at this in context, the sheer delay in passing this bill, which puts into effect two conventions that were passed in 2005—which is 11 years ago—shows, I think, that the Government believes that, at best, this sort of legislation has only a partial impact on suppressing terrorism. I think we should have done this long ago, but I also think that we must go far beyond this sort of legislation if we are to defeat terrorism. In particular, I think that we need to address the causes of terrorism: the international injustices that give rise to acts of terrorism.

It is interesting that the Act that promoted the two conventions passed in 1998, which is the forerunner for this legislation today, was in relation to a Palestine Liberation Organization attack on an Italian cruise liner called the Achille Lauro, and there was one person killed in that attack, a gentleman by the name of Leon Klinghoffer, who was an American Jewish businessman who was shot in cold blood, and his body and his wheelchair were dumped over the stern of the ship. What was recognised after that act was that there was a gap in the law. An act of piracy is an act apparently done to further your private ends, and this was not done for that purpose, so the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation was passed to ensure that action could indeed be taken against those who committed unlawful acts against ships, and to require the signatories to the treaty that we will be able to ratify by this legislation to extradite or to prosecute the people concerned.

So this needs to happen, but, actually, when you look at that instance involving the Achille Lauro, you see that it was just one further act of terrorism that evolved out of the international failure to resolve the conflict in the Middle East—the fact that two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, have claim over the same piece of land and that we, internationally, have never been able to deal with the cause of that conflict and to find a solution that was mutually acceptable and just to both sides. And, clearly, if we are to make a difference in the world, we need to do more than simply apply the patch over the offending that is occurring, which is what this legislation does, and we need to tackle the causes.

We also need to be very careful that we, as a country, do not exacerbate rather than improve the situations that give rise to terrorism. I want to give two examples of where countries have exacerbated the cause of terrorism. The first goes back to the 1980s, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and that country has lived under conflict in the 30 years ever since. And we deplored the self-interested action of the Soviet Union at that time.

But it has also been raised in this House that most acts of terrorism that are occurring now, including the one that I made reference to, arose out of the decision of the coalition of the willing to invade Iraq in 2003. And I, for one, am proud that this country did not participate in that invasion. We said at the time that the grounds did not exist for that action. I was involved with Hans Blix, who was running the organisation to check out whether there were weapons of mass destruction. He told me personally that they could find no evidence. The New Zealand Kiwi soldiers on the ground told me they could find no evidence. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service reported there was no evidence of those weapons. And we said “This action will be counter-productive”, and it was.

We stood away from our erstwhile friends in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We withstood the pressure that they put on us to be part of that invasion, and I am proud that we stood away from that invasion and worked only to provide humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of it. If it were not for that action, we would not have the level of terrorism that has taken hundreds of thousands—probably millions—of lives and that leaves the world today with 70 million displaced people around the world, deprived of the things that we would take for granted in terms of stability: a roof over their heads, a job, and peace for themselves and their families. So we need to be careful in the actions that we take internationally.

Thirdly, we need to be sure that we, here at home, address and do not aggravate the conditions that might potentially give rise to terrorism taking root in our country. Tomorrow—I think it will be tomorrow, depending on the sighting of the new moon—our Muslim community will be celebrating Eid ul-Fitr. I have many friends in that community, and I know that—they tell me—people born in New Zealand, who are loyal New Zealanders and who are decent New Zealanders, have to put up daily with prejudice and people sneering at their culture, their religion, their dress, and how they observe their religious practices.

The most important thing that we can do as a country is not simply to pass legislation like this but to make sure that our country is an inclusive one where people respect each other, where people are treated equally, where people have opportunity, and where, regardless of race, colour, or creed, they are treated as New Zealanders with that respect. I know, too, that when there are problems in that community, the people whom we rely on most to put an end to any potential development of illegal or criminal activity are the Muslim community themselves, who come to the police, who come to the Government and say: “We’re worried about this individual. They are a disturbed individual, and we think they’re being affected by the propaganda they’re seeing online.”

We support this legislation. It is legislation that should pass this House unanimously, but we need to think that there are those other things that are far more important for our country to do if we are to defeat the scourge of terrorism and prevent it from ever taking root in this country, and suppress it where it is happening internationally.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koutou e Te Whare; ko tēnei Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori me whakanui e tātou.

[Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker, and greetings to you the House; this is Māori Language Week, we must celebrate it.]

May I very briefly, as others who have spoken before me have done, pay sincere compliments and thanks to the departing Chamber and gallery team. They are a fine group of people who have served us all well. They are delightful company no matter what side of the House you are on and no matter what time of night it is. Ewan is in the House with us at the moment. I would be grateful if he could convey our considerable thanks to them all and also the fact that we will miss them dearly. We wish them all the very best for the future and thank them for their very loyal service over many, many years.

It is has been wonderful to hear the very constructive and intelligent debate on this important measure. I am delighted to know that such a significant measure has the unanimous support of the House. I support this bill.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Bills

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

Third Reading

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. I move, That the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill fulfils our commitment to extend the Youth Service to a broader group of young beneficiaries to give them access to the support they need to build their life skills, to engage in education and training, or to prepare them for employment. The Government is investing $61.2 million to support changes, in this bill, through Budget 2016. The bill extends the Youth Service to all 19-year-old parents and to 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries who are at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency.

This initiative represents the social investment approach in action—making an upfront investment in vulnerable New Zealanders so that they can go on to lead fulfilling and strong lives. We know that when teenagers have low education levels, poor financial skills, and a lack of support to engage in education or training and prepare themselves for employment it can lead to adverse outcomes and long-term benefit dependence. The future prospects for these young people and for their children are not bright. We want them to have a better chance of success and we also want to reduce the long-term costs to the taxpayer.

The Youth Service is already making a significant difference in the lives of young New Zealanders every day by helping them overcome barriers in order to reach their life goals. By having access to this extended Youth Service these at-risk 18 and 19-year-old young people get wraparound support from a youth coach, budgeting help, and then support to engage in education in particular, and in training or employment. Young parents are also referred to a parenting programme to help them develop good parenting skills. This is a significant step towards supporting these young people to move off the benefit and gain the skills and intuition they need to make good decisions for themselves and to get on to a better life pathway. The bill also clarifies three matters in the Social Security Act and ensures that there is alignment between policy intent and practice.

The Social Services Committee examined the bill and it recommended a number of improvements. I do want to highlight a couple of those. The first was to add a requirement to consult with at-risk 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries on their referral to the Youth Service so that they have an opportunity to comment, first of all, on the indicators that have given rise to that risk assessment and also to provide information about themselves that indicates what level of support they might need. I thought that was a very sensible suggestion put forward by the committee, and the bill before the House reflects that. Young people should have a say in the support that they get, and we also want to make sure that the young people who are receiving this support are in genuine need of it, and also that the support is effective for them as individuals.

Another amendment to the bill that I considered of value is to use ministerial direction to set those risk factors that may be used in the risk model to determine which young beneficiaries are referred to the Youth Service. This will enable us to be quite transparent so that people know what information is considered in that risk modelling, but it also provides some flexibility so that the risk model can be kept up to date and fit for purpose and is also informed, then, by the voice of the young people themselves. The bill passed through the Committee of the whole House and I am pleased to speak to it today at its third reading.

I want to reiterate that this Government has high aspirations for young people, particularly those young people who have talent and potential but are at risk of poor outcomes without support. So we want to invest in them early in their lives, at that critical time when they are making their transition into adulthood, so that they do have the right supports they need to make that transition successfully. This is a $61.2 million initiative—an investment that we know, based on results to date, will help prevent young people from becoming embedded in a lifetime of poor outcomes, both for themselves and for their families. As a Government we are confident that extending the Youth Service to more at-risk young beneficiaries is an important investment that will support them to get better educated and have a much better chance, then, of being employed themselves and going on to live a full life.

For teen parents in particular, the evidence suggests that it is important to engage them in education as soon as possible, with the right supports put around them, both for themselves and for their children. It means, of course, that those children get better outcomes too if we are able to assist their parents to get on to that better, sustainable life pathway.

I want to conclude today by acknowledging the hard work and compassion of the 44 Youth Service providers we currently contract and the around 300 youth coaches across New Zealand who every day are working to change the lives of thousands of these vulnerable young people. I have absolute confidence in the capability and the expertise of these providers and also in the passion that they bring to the relationships they have to form with these young people in order to be effective.

These youth coaches take on these at-risk 18 and 19-year-olds and they will motivate them and inspire them in a caring and professional way, and they will walk with them, side by side, towards a much more prosperous future. These are some of the most vulnerable young people in our communities and they deserve the very best support that we can wrap around them. I commend the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill to the House.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I want to start with a quote that is relevant to this bill, and that quote is: “I have learnt through my own experiences and the experiences of others around me that our young in particular can quickly begin to self-stigmatise when the media and society stigmatise them. When the media portrays only a picture of a ghettoised, poverty-stricken group of troublemakers, then our youth can resign themselves to the fact that this is what they are.” In relation to this bill I just want to say this: is it not so sad that it is not the media or external society that we are talking about here? We are talking about the Government stigmatising our young people, and that is why we cannot support this bill. That quote was actually from my maiden speech, and young people—the education of them and them going into employment—is something that has always been important to me, and it is also very important to the Labour Party.

We heard the Minister for Social Development talking about the social investment approach and how this particular initiative, this particular bill, is in line with that social investment approach. Clearly, this is an indication of how flawed that social investment approach is, that that social investment approach is short-sighted, and that it takes a deficit approach to our young people. The social investment approach talks all about negative measures in relation to a person. It depicts people as liabilities to this country, rather than focusing on the fact that people—particularly our young people—are the biggest resource and asset that this country has. So we will not be supporting this bill.

The Minister talked about the fact that the Youth Service has been successful to date. Well, I am on the Social Services Committee. We have asked for evidence of that and there is no evidence to suggest that what we currently have in place is actually successful, and now we have the Minister putting more money into something when there is no evidence to support that it has been successful and she is looking to extend it. To us, that makes very little sense.

We put up three amendments at the Committee stage that we thought were fair, and they were not supported by the National Government. I think, really, those amendments, when we look at them, would make sense to a lot of New Zealanders, hence why they were supported by a large number of the parties in the House and were maybe one vote short of actually being able to get through.

The first of those amendments was in relation to education. One of the issues that we have with this bill is that it encourages education up to only National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2, and after NCEA level 2 is attained the focus goes primarily on employment. We are not opposed to young people going into work but, first and foremost, we want to get behind young people to get the highest level of education that they can, hence why we put up an amendment in the Committee stage to say it actually should not just be NCEA level 2; it should be NCEA level 3 or higher. The Government decided to vote that down, and what we have instead is a bill that does not support educational achievement any higher than NCEA level 2.

Another amendment that we put up was an amendment that would have enabled young people who were not identified through the Government’s predictive risk modelling to actually opt into the Youth Service programme if they thought it would be of benefit to them. Part of the reason why we put that particular amendment up was that we want to take the stigma out of this programme. Enabling young people who have not been identified by the Government’s predictive risk modelling as being at risk to actually opt in would go some way to removing the stigma attached to this programme, but, again, the Government voted against that amendment.

The third amendment we put up was in relation to the expectations of young parents who participate in this programme. The concern that we have about young parents was that the expectation on them to return to work or to return to study is much greater than what it is for any other parent. As was pointed out by the Human Rights Commission, it discriminates against young parents. So, instead of having 3 years to be able to stay home, if you wish, to care for your child, the expectation here is that if there is a teen parent support unit within the vicinity of where that person lives, they have 6 months and then they will have to go back. If there is not a teen parent support unit within the vicinity of where they live, then the expectation is 1 year.

Of course, if a young person wants to return to work or study at an early stage, we would support that—in fact, we would create that opportunity—but forcing them to do that when that expectation is not put on older parents is unfair and, in fact, discriminates against them. We put that amendment up, but, again, that was voted down.

There are other issues that we have in relation to this particular bill, and one of them is the fact that the Government is pushing for young people to go into work and study, which is not a bad thing necessarily—as I said before, we support young people being given the opportunities—but what the Government denied and what it failed to recognise is that there are fewer opportunities for young people to be able to go into employment under this Government. What it failed to acknowledge is that the number of young persons not in education, training, or employment is currently at 87,200. That is over 26,500 more than when National took office in 2008. The National Government needs to take responsibility for the fact that the unemployment rate for young people is actually in a worse state now than it was when it took office in 2008.

So when those members turn round and say to us “Actually, we’re going to extend this programme because it’s been successful.”, then, of course, we are saying: “Well, hang on a second, how can it be successful when we have 26,500 more young people who are not in employment or education now than what we had when they took office in 2008?”. They are failing our young people.

The other issue that we have in relation to the Government, its Youth Service programme, and what has been suggested here in the bill is that there are rising concerns about the ability of the National Government services to support youth into quality, stable employment, given the failure of the Government to facilitate benefit-to-work transitions for the main benefits. I am not talking about youth benefits here; I am talking about main benefits. Based on the March 2016 figures, with only 19,730 of the 49,907 benefit cancellations going into work, of course we are concerned because only 7 percent of total beneficiaries were actually going into employment.

We have got concerns that the Government’s whole purpose is not necessarily to ensure that these young people go on into employment or on to having better lives but—as seems to be the case with the main benefits—just to get people off benefits with no actual concern for where they go on to or concern for whether or not their lives are actually better. We have got concerns that there has been very little tracking and monitoring in respect of whether or not the lives of young people, or even older people, who are on benefits have improved and whether or not there have been successful employment outcomes when they have left the benefit. We can see that in terms of the Government’s agenda even when we look at just its Better Public Services target, which is to reduce welfare dependency—not to make people’s lives better, but just to get people off benefits.

We will not be supporting this bill. We did support it at its first reading because we wanted to give it a chance, but we are disappointed that the Government was not willing to work with the other parties to actually improve the content of this bill and to improve the services that are provided to our youth in this country.

ALFRED NGARO (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēna koe, huri noa i Te Whare Pāremata me ngā mihi ki ngā mema katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you all, members throughout Parliament; greetings.]

I rise to take a call on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill in its third reading. Can I acknowledge the rangatahi and young people whom we work with in our communities—I hold the cup of Matipō Primary School, out in west Auckland—and the role that they play. I was also gifted this brooch by a rangatahi, Anahare Harris—knowing some of the work that we are doing that is included in this bill—and this is part of a Young Enterprise scheme and work that she is doing to make a difference in her life as well. I want to acknowledge these gifts, because they are working with young people. They are talking about the aspirations that they have for the future of their lives. The intent of this bill is very much in that vein. The previous speaker talked about the things that the Government was not doing—and when you are in Opposition it can be a speech about all risk and no responsibility—but we know that when you are in Government you have to look at the track record of the responsibility that you are undertaking. [Interruption] I do apologise, Mr Assistant Speaker.

In regard to this bill, which was an election promise in 2014—I was on the select committee in the 50th Parliament, where we had young people from the Dingwall Trust and others who came to talk about the challenges that they had when they came out of State care at the age of 17 and needed extra support in order to guide them through their transition into adulthood, into employment, and into forms of training. This Government heard that and has taken that on board, as well as some other issues. So I want to declare that today, in this third reading, as this bill passes through the House, No. 1, it is completing an election promise to ensure that we will raise the age of eligibility from 17 to 18. I want to also declare that there is also a provision still there in the Act for the chief executive to be able—if there is a risk factor where added support is needed—to extend that care on to other ages and even up to 21. So we think that is absolutely important as well. And $61.2 million over 4 years is significant—it is to provide the ability for 44 youth services, to ensure that they have wraparound support.

The whole issue around youth coaching becomes important. We know that young people at this age—many of us who have our own young children and young people who are young adults, young rangatahi as well. They need that added support. It does not matter where they are, whether they are in State care or children of our own from good homes, from good families. The youth coach is no different to that. What youth coaching does is to provide for them the ability to be able to look at their finances, and how they can manage them with good budgeting to ensure that they pay off the things that are important for them, that are needed.

The other thing that it provides for is parenting. That is quite critically important. All of us who have been in the role of being parents—who are still in the roles of being parents—know that it is not something where you sort of wake up and you have your children, and you are automatically a good parent. You have to learn that along the way. This is the important role that coaching plays. This is not some overbearing role of responsibility; instead, it is support that we think is critically important.

I think it is also imperative to note the reasons why we are intervening early. The New Zealand Productivity Commission’s report quite clearly stated that, No. 1, we need to target our approach. We make no excuses about the fact that we are targeting early. We know that we are targeting early because it says this.

Darroch Ball: It’s not early, Alfred.

ALFRED NGARO: Mr Darroch Ball might want to listen to this, if he has read the Productivity Commission’s report. What it says is that if you are a job seeker between the age of 19 years—

Darroch Ball: But they’re on the benefit already.

ALFRED NGARO: Mr Ball may not know this, but the length of that period of time is, on average, 13 years.

Darroch Ball: Well, stop them from getting on the job seeker’s benefit in the first place.

ALFRED NGARO: Those who are 19 years of age, who have been sole parents, the average of that period of time—Mr Ball, you may be interested—is 18 years. The speakers on the other side have said that if we are taking on our roles and responsibilities to care for our young in their times of need then we should show some responsibility, and that is what we are doing. We are giving them a wraparound approach with a life coach, we are going in and intervening early, and we are putting in support services for those youth services that do make a difference. We think that is significant.

Our desire through this legislation is to enable all young people, even young people like Anahera Harris, who has a dream and a desire to be able to own her own business. These are the same dreams and desires that we have for our young people, and our young rangatahi as well. We believe that this bill is part of the process—part of the way that we believe will make a difference. I commend this bill, in its third reading, to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Tēnā koutou. I want to join with my other colleagues who have spent the beginning of their contributions acknowledging the roles that many of the messengers who are departing from this House have played in keeping this place ticking over. I personally consider them not just friendly faces but I consider many of them friends, and I am very sad at their departure.

I want to respond to some of the points that the member who has just resumed his seat, Alfred Ngaro, made. The first point—there are a number of them so I will start with the first. One of the points that the member made was that it was an election promise to raise the age of care and protection so that the Government played a support role for rangatahi right up to the age of 18, because it is currently 17. I feel like at this point I know the Government’s policies better than he does. If it was an election promise, it was one the Government has failed to implement for 8 long years, because anyone who has been following this issue will know that the bill to lift that age was on the Order Paper. The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No. 6), if my memory serves, was on the Order Paper, on the Table, ready to be debated by this House, when National won the election in 2008, and that amendment was dumped. So not only did the Government not implement it but it actively voted against an amendment that would have brought that change into place back in 2008.

Not only that, but the Government voted against multiple attempts by Labour to raise the age, in a number of amendments that we put before the House. It was only after significant lobbying by Labour, by Dingwall Trust, and by Lifewise, and the Greens also supported that raise in age. That was the point at which finally Anne Tolley—and I acknowledge that she accepted the advice of the expert working group—agreed that the age should be raised. So, an election promise? That could not be further from the truth, and I wanted to correct the record.

The second part of the record that I believe needs to be corrected is this notion that the Government is somehow supporting increasingly early intervention. What are the markers of that—what are the markers of that—because, specific to this bill, one of the things that the Government was very quick to get rid of when it first came in was Youth Transition Services. So to create this notion that we never had anything for young people who are not in employment, education, or training before the Youth Service came along is patently incorrect. Not only was there a service available for young people that the Government dumped but it was a service that was available for 24-year-olds and younger, and it did not create a prerequisite where you needed to be on a benefit to access that service. I want to say that again: you did not have to be on a benefit, as a young person, to access Youth Transition Services.

What is important about that? Well, my colleague Carmel Sepuloni spoke to the issues around a deficit approach, which this Government is taking, and that was a big part of it. But, actually, it acknowledged that some young people never access a benefit because, firstly, it is so hard to access Government support, and, secondly, they might actually just simply be at home, not having a particular plan in place, living on a couch—support from whānau in some other form. But the benefit is not the predeterminant as to whether or not they need support; it is simply that they are not in education or training. Should that not be our concern? Should that not be our measure? It is not whether they are a drain on the State via a benefit; it is whether or not they are not using their potential. That should be our concern because that costs us in other ways and it costs them.

So this notion, as well, that there are other forms of early intervention, particularly around sole parent support and so on, that are going on—well, actually, in the last month alone we have seen this Government dump Parents as First Teachers. It has dumped Strengthening Families. This idea that it is somehow investing in early intervention is factually incorrect. It is narrowing down further and further the scope of whom it provides services for, and by default that means that people will be left behind, and young people in particular.

But should not a measure of success, if we are talking about Youth Service and whether or not we are engaging and assisting young people, be how many young people are not in education and training? Would that not be a measure of success? Because on that basis, as has been canvassed in the House, the number of young people from 15 to 24 years of age who are not in education, training, or employment since this Government has taken office is now at 87,200. There are 87,200 young people who are not in education, training, or employment. That number devastates me. It devastates me in particular because when I first came into Parliament I was our youth affairs spokesperson, a job now ably done by Louisa Wall. At that time the numbers were lower than they are now and they were devastating, but they have increased by 26,500 young people. That is five times the size of the town I grew up in. I can barely fathom that number of young people not being in education, employment, or training. Our concern should not just be those who are on a benefit; it should be every single one of those young people. That is one of the reasons—in fact, that is one of the most significant reasons—we cannot vote in favour of this bill.

The Youth Service is being extended in this bill for another 2,000 young people—2,000—but that is not the full extent of the need that exists out there, and if the Government truly backed itself that the Youth Service is the answer to everything, then it should offer it to everyone. Give it to everyone who is in need and whose potential is being wasted, because it goes much further than those 2,000 young people.

But, actually, what I want to speak to in my last contribution in the debate on this bill is what the alternative could have looked like. What, in our view, would a comprehensive service for young people not in education or training look like? Well, it would not be contingent on you walking through a Work and Income door. It would not be contingent on you seeking support; in fact, it would be much more proactive than that. Labour’s plan has always been that we need to make sure that every young person has a plan to be earning or learning. That means that at the point that a young person leaves school, we check that they have a plan. We ask at the school gate where they are going, what they are doing, and whether they need support, and we do not just leave it there, because we know from the experiences of those who work in this space that, actually, a young person might have a plan when they leave school but that it can quickly fall over. In fact, one of the most vulnerable points is usually 6 months to a year out of school, so we check back in. We check back in and we make sure that they have something to occupy their time, and if they do not, what do we do? We do not give up.

I still remember the experience that I had relayed to me once when I was visiting a comprehensive youth transition service that was operating in a small town. I will not name the town in case I give away any personal details, but there was a particular young woman, who, when she left school, said she did not need help. She got a call from Youth Transition Services, and said: “No, I don’t need help.” She was doing nothing. The youth workers contacted her again, a month later, and asked: “Do you need anything?”. She said: “No, I’m fine.” This young woman was growing up in a gang family. Not one of her whānau members were in employment—not one. She said she was fine.

The youth workers did not give up. They called her again, a month later, and this time she confessed that she needed money. So they talked to her about some of the options that she had and, before long, convinced her that maybe she should apply for a job at the local supermarket. They picked her up, they worked through interview questions for her, they made sure she had an outfit for the interview, they took her there, and she got the job. She was the first one in a long time in her family to have employment, and it came purely out of the persistence of those youth workers, who were absolutely convinced that it did not matter whether she was on a benefit or not and it did not matter if she said she was OK. They kept up their contact and they offered their support.

A comprehensive youth transition service is what we need. It is not just about markers of whether or not you are a drain on the State via a benefit. It has got to be more comprehensive than that. It is absolutely Labour’s intention, when we take office, to reintroduce a comprehensive service like that again for every under-24-year-old, to ensure that once again they are earning and learning, and we can reduce those devastating statistics of “neets” in New Zealand.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in wholehearted support of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill in its third reading. I would just like to say what an exciting piece of legislation it is, and what an exciting project to back youth services. I would just like to acknowledge all those people who work in the youth services and the hard work they do. What we do know is that when we look at the review of youth services in 2014, it found that four out of five of all the young people were in education, were in training, or were in part-time or full-time employment. What a great initiative and what great services to support some of the most vulnerable young people we have, because we on this side of the House know that the way to get these vulnerable young people back on track is to get them into employment, get them into education, and get them into training so that they will go on to be productive members in New Zealand society.

I would just like to let those vulnerable young people know that it was the Opposition that said no to this bill. The Opposition does not want them to engage in youth services that will provide them with vital education, employment, and training and that will help them go on and be productive members of society. How arrogant. What an arrogant Opposition, which is preventing vulnerable young adults from gaining what they need to succeed in life. Well, I am proud to be on this side of the House, which is backing those young people and backing those youth services. That is making such a vital difference in our young people’s lives.

When you look at those young people and the complexity of working with those young people, 38 percent are victims of domestic violence, 76 percent are victims of emotional neglect, 5 percent are homeless or are victims of sexual abuse, and pretty much all of them have disengaged from mainstream education, and that is why it is right that we invest in these social services. They provide intensive and active wraparound services that will put these young people at the heart of the care that they need to help them get out of benefit dependency. We know, when we look at people who go on the job seeker’s benefit, that there is about a 6-month window of opportunity. If we can get in there in those first 6 months, we can steer them into a direction of employment, training, and education, because we do know that when you look at the future liability of dependence of beneficiaries, most of them have got on the benefit at an early age in life. If you go on at the age of 18 or 19, you are resigned to being on there for 13 years, and that is what the Opposition wants. It is happy for those people to languish there for over 13 years, and that is an arrogant Opposition.

So on this side of the House—

Louisa Wall: No one believes you.

MATT DOOCEY: —we are investing in youth services. We are opening up the provision and the entitlement that our vulnerable young—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am just going to interrupt the member and ask my colleague Louisa Wall not to indicate that about the Speaker. Thank you. Tom Doocey.

MATT DOOCEY: Tom Doocey? Matt Doocey—thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh, Matt Doocey. I remember the talented one.

MATT DOOCEY: But it is good to hear my father getting good name recognition after those 22 international games that he refereed.

So, back to this bill, when we look at these young people what we want to do is to get them into education, employment, and training. We know that when we put $1 into these youth services, it will result in a reduction of $2.53 of future liability. This is about social investment. We are investing in projects that will go on and benefit young people and, ultimately, with our Better Public Services targets—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. Order! I regret interrupting the member again. I am going to have to warn my colleague Louisa Wall now that one cannot interject across the House asking for members to be honest, because what that implies is that they are being dishonest, and if one believes that, then the appropriate approach is to write a letter to the Speaker on a privileges matter or to debate it, if the member thinks that the person is being accidental rather than deliberate in their approach. So I will not have that sort of interjection.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a $61 million investment into young people. The sooner we pass this legislation the better. That is why I will sit down and that is why I urge Opposition speakers to take a short call, so that this legislation can be passed tonight and our young people will be supported into being productive members of society. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa, ngā mihi o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori ki a tātou katoa. Kāti! Ka kōrero au mō ngā Kākāriki i roto i te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei te pire, Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. Kia ora tātou!

[Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker and to all of you throughout the House, well done and good tidings to us all for Māori Language Week. Enough! I will speak for the Green Party in this, the third reading of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. Congratulations to us all!]

Excuse my mangling of the language. The Green Party is voting against the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill, and for many of the reasons that were demonstrated by that previous speaker, Matt Doocey, who stood up and listed statistic after statistic of the problems with our young people. That member demonstrated so clearly the Government’s deficit model when it comes to understanding the potential of our young people. This piece of legislation does a disservice to our young people, and we will not be supporting it.

I must say, I have spent almost a decade of my life working alongside young people in education, youth health, and development organisations, and I have loved that work. I felt it a complete privilege to work alongside young people and experience the inspiration of their resilience, their creativity, and their smarts when they have been given the opportunity to deliver based on the belief that they can. This legislation is the antithesis of that experience. I think it is a generally well-understood concept that if you treat a person, particularly a young person, like an idiot, they are probably going to fulfil your expectations. This was proven, actually, in the years of research and experience that led to the development of a strength-based approach to youth development. Old approaches to youth development focused on problems. They were reactive, targeted tightly, and intended to deliver programmes with professional providers putting young people in the place of being recipients of services. This approach took lots of resources, but the results tended to be short term or not so successful.

Positive youth development, strength-based youth development, turned this on its head. The initiatives were developed in partnership with young people. They involved community members and sought to develop a community response to supporting young people. It was proactive, not targeted, and looked towards positive outcomes rather than looking at problems or deficit models. If you start with focusing on what someone is good at and go from there—ehara! They are more likely to believe that they have possibilities.

Conversely, if you start with a focus on risk, then—surprise! There is a much higher chance that young people will either just do what they are told for as long as they are made to, rebel, or give up hope in themselves, rather than develop the skills and attributes in themselves that will sustain them throughout their lives. This we know from practice; this we know from evidence. This is not what this legislation is about, and when the chair of the Social Services Committee stood up previously and told us that we had obviously not read the Productivity Commission’s report around how to work with young people—I have got to say, I read the report, but I do not think that it is the expert on strength-based youth development and how to work with young people. It is not.

This legislation extends the bad old ways of working. It starts from the point of telling us that some young people are at risk of being a long-term liability to the State—of being beneficiaries. This legislation assumes that all parents who have their children before the age of 20, who are not working enough hours, or who are not being supported by a partner who is earning enough are at risk. We are no longer talking about children under the age of 18 here; we are talking about young parents up to the age of 20. It is even more tightly targeted and risk-based too when it comes to young adults without children, because to develop this legislation the Government is going to use predictive risk modelling, taking information from other State services like education and the existing Child, Youth and Family—or whatever it might become—to decide which young people might be at risk of long-term welfare dependence.

The chances are—and we have to keep acknowledging this—that most of these young people will be Māori rangatahi, because contact with Child, Youth and Family is one of the factors that the Government has said it will use to define risk. Almost 60 percent of those young people in care are Māori. Those young people will be separated from their peers who are not deemed to be a risk, and, without any choice on their part, they will be subject, in addition to the work test or work preparation obligations, to budgeting, interviews, and reporting obligations, alongside money management supervision, which will pay most of their bills for them and require them to shop primarily at certain stores.

These are adults we are talking about—19 and 20-year-olds. Of course, if they miss an interview or do not provide the information required in enough time, their benefit will be cut completely. As well as this increased scrutiny, young parents up to the age of 20 will need to go to work or into low-level stage study from when their baby is the age of 1, or, if a teen parent unit is available, from when their baby is the age of 6 months old. These are young adults who we know are so likely to have been told that they are a problem—at school, in society—over a long period of time already and now they are going to be told it again, by this Government.

Let me be clear: this is not a strength-based approach. Let me be clear: this is not an empowering piece of legislation. What this legislation does is it infantilises and stigmatises young people. It entrenches and exacerbates already painful inequalities. It makes young people the problem and fundamentally alters their relationship with people in their community who could have worked alongside them in a positive way. Increasingly, international evidence shows that the interventions that work best are less targeted, unconditional, and involve extra money—the exact opposite of this programme—so we in the Green Party do not support a measure that uses our precious resources to increase targeting and conditions and is strongly risk-based rather than strength-based.

The Government tells us that despite not having a comprehensive evaluation of its initial programme, it is extending it because it has aspiration for these young parents and young people and it is willing to invest in them now. Well, I do just want to remind this House that repeatedly, when this Government has been given the opportunity to increase those young people’s access to higher education above the level of National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, which we know is likely to get them off these benefits 6 months earlier and enable them to stay off these benefits longer, it has turned down that opportunity. The costing of how much extra it would have cost to be able to extend it to higher level courses was only $10 million, but apparently these young people are not worth that $10 million. Although the Government tells us that it has high aspirations—well, not that high.

Again, when this Government has been given the opportunity to put safeguards in place to protect the children of these parents—to give the person who may end up applying sanctions the discretion to not apply that sanction if it would make it difficult to feed, clothe, or care for the well-being of that child—this Government turned down that opportunity. It demonstrated that, fundamentally, it does not put children first. It does not have aspirations for our young people or our society. The Greens will be strongly opposing this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. I will get into the main reason why in a second, but I would just like to make it clear, as I did in my first and second reading speeches, that New Zealand First does agree with the intent and the purpose of this bill. The fact that the legislation aims to improve educational and social outcomes for young beneficiaries—of course New Zealand First supports that intent and purpose. It wants to provide youth coaching along with other services, such as budgeting help and parenting courses.

The two main things that this legislation wants to do is to extend the Youth Service to include all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children and also 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered to be at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency. New Zealand First agrees with all of that intent and purpose, but what we have got to remember is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is what I am reminded of when I read this bill. Even though we do agree with the intent, it is not the “what” that is the intent and purpose; it is the “how” and the “why” that New Zealand First has some challenges with.

The main issue that we have heard from Labour and the Greens and the entire Opposition is the one about the social investment approach. When we hear Government members talking about evidence and data and investment, they fail to mention a whole heap of evidence that is available, and has been available, to the select committee about why the social investment approach does not work. I have got a stack of evidence here, and I just hope I have got time to get through it all. Hopefully, the National Party members and the Minister for Social Development can hear the reasons why New Zealand First and various Opposition parties oppose this bill.

But, first, I would like to point out the fact that—this is the third reading, but if we talk about the first reading, the second reading, and the Committee stage—we have got 5 hours of debate. Throughout that entire 5 hours of debate, the number of times that members on the Government benches have mentioned the social investment approach is a grand total of twice—that is, twice. In the entire first reading, only Matt Doocey mentioned the social investment approach. Not even the Minister mentioned the social investment approach during the whole entire first reading. During the entire second reading it was mentioned only once, and that was by the Minister. Funnily enough, what the Minister said was exactly what she said in the third reading, and it was word for word because I read it when she was reading it out.

The problem with it is that they have got it entirely wrong, unless they are mistaken or they are deliberately misleading on what the intention of the social investment approach is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member cannot say that another member or members are deliberately misleading the House. As I indicated earlier, if he believes that, then the appropriate thing is to write a letter to the Speaker on the matter of a breach of privilege. But he has himself breached the Standing Orders, and will withdraw.

DARROCH BALL: I withdraw. What I would like to do is quote Mr Doocey—what he said in the first reading debate. He said: “If we take a social investment approach—and that is what this Government is doing—we know that if we can focus on the most vulnerable and give them the resources, it will make them more productive later in life.” The problem is that the social investment approach does not focus on the most vulnerable.

All you have to do is take a look at the regulatory impact statement. The first sentence of the first paragraph, which is about supporting the investment approach, states that the investment approach applies a long-term liability perspective to the cost to the benefit system. That is what the social investment approach is about. It is about the long-term liability perspective to the cost of the benefit system, not targeting the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, that is what the Minister said, that it is about talking about vulnerable New Zealanders—about targeting vulnerable New Zealanders. That is not true.

The second thing that the Minister said in her second reading speech was that “Evidence shows that young people under 20 are likely to remain on benefit long term if they do not receive the support they need at this early age.” What that implies is that the support they need at this early age is through the benefits and through this legislation to extend the young persons’ services. However, when you go and have a look at the evidence and what it says in the regulatory impact statement it states that “Ideally this regulatory impact analysis would have measured the Net Present Value of the predicted change in lifetime costs to the welfare system ... It is too early to accurately measure the reduction in average years on benefit … It is not possible at this stage to isolate the effects of the Youth Service interventions on the above factors … It is difficult at this stage to accurately predict how well the impact the Youth Service is having on those it currently serves will translate to other groups.”

This is in the regulatory impact statement, and it has not been mentioned once by the Government. It also goes on to say that “It is not possible to apply a rigorous comparison of the expected changes in liability to the operational costs.” So even if we take what it says in the regulatory impact statement—which I have quoted—which is that it is about the long-term liability to the benefit system, according to this it does not even measure that. It does not even stack up to that. The regulatory impact statement says that it is not possible to apply a rigorous comparison. So I am not sure what the Government is talking about in regard to the evidence that all of this works. It states quite demonstrably that it does not. It does not have the evidence there to show that it does work.

When we are talking about the social investment approach, we are talking about targets. I have mentioned this ad nauseam through the first and second readings of this legislation. We are talking about Better Public Services targets, data collection, and issues with predictive models. We have heard previous speakers talk about the predictive models and the issues with them. But even if we go into the departmental disclosure statement, the information that all of the Government backbenchers who have spoken today and spoken in the last few weeks had available to them, the Ministry of Social Development says that the risk model for Youth Service extension is still in development—it is still in development—and will likely be finalised prior to implementation. The risk model that this Government is intending to use on this benefit is still being developed. It does not even know what risk modelling it is going to be using.

The problem extends out to the fact that, and this is the ministry’s statement, the model will be similar to the “neets” predictive model—the predictive model that is used for “neets”. We have heard today that there are over 87,000 “neets”—youth who are not in education, employment, or training. That is the highest it has been in 3 years—the highest it has been in 3 years. It has never been lower than it was before this Government came into power in 2008—it has never been lower than in 2008. It has always been on the upward trajectory. The Government wants to use this risk predictive model for this new piece of legislation. It is no wonder that New Zealand First and the rest of the Opposition are not supporting this bill.

If we go on to Treasury, Treasury, when stating the social investment approach, is talking about the fact that the social investment approach is about “improving the lives of New Zealanders by applying rigorous and evidence-based investment practices to social services.”—rigorous and evidence-based investment practices to social services. However, if you continue to read about this piece of legislation, and the evidence and the advice that is given to it, it is still too early to assess the impact of the service. Findings to date suggest that the service is effective in engaging young people in education and training—they suggest. But Treasury and the Government itself say that it is about applying rigorous and evidence-based investment practices. Obviously, New Zealand First cannot be put into a position where we are going to support a piece of legislation where the evidence that the Government says exists literally does not exist—literally does not exist.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to go through all of the evidence that I have got here, because there is a mountain of it, but there are studies that have been conducted, not only internationally but locally. I would like to mention just one briefly, from the University of Otago, by Emily Keddell, about the ethics of predictive risk modelling in the New Zealand child welfare context. She states that the problem with it is that data exists in silos. We have got the issue where we can concentrate on the victim, and not on the surrounding information—the surrounding data that creates the environment for them to be victims in the first place. She goes on to say that what this Government is doing is focusing on the needles in the haystack instead of on the haystack itself, and not stopping the hay from turning into those needles in the first place.

We have tried, throughout the process of this bill from the first reading through to its third reading, to get the Government to answer those concerns and address the evidence that we have got and present it, and it has failed. The Government has mentioned the social investment approach twice throughout the entire three readings, including the Committee stage. We are disappointed with that, because the Government has not made any progress whatsoever. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koutou ki ngā hoa o Te Whare Pāremata. He ture pai rawa tēnei, ka whakatutuki Te Reipa he mea pai mō te rangatahi.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to you fellow colleagues of Parliament. Labour concludes that this is a good legislation for young people.]

This is a good bill and it will do some good things for our young people. It is a positive bill for our young people, quite simply because as a result of this bill, more young people are going to get more services wrapped around them to enable them to achieve more qualifications, to get more of them into work, and to build better lives for themselves and for their families. That is what this bill is about—it is about getting them into a position where they can build better lives for themselves. I think, ultimately, that is what we want for them.

How will they achieve this? More of them will have access to those 44 youth services that are operating around the country, and those over 300 youth workers who are working within those youth services, to be able to give them the confidence and the assistance that they need to be able to build better lives for themselves and for their children.

We know that this is successful because, actually, instead of burying ourselves in reading reports—instead of burying ourselves in reading bits of paper—some of us have actually got out and talked to some of those young people who are in those services and who are in those teen parent units. I can tell you that the ones whom I have spoken to think this is great. They actually love the fact that there is a youth mentor who believes in them, who is prepared to spend time with them, and who believes in them enough to invest in them.

I have been a little bit saddened to hear from the opposite side of the House some of the things that I have heard said in other readings and today. Those members have used words like “stigma” and “deficit”, and they have used words like those to say that we are going to leave these young people where they are.

We have heard people say that in the almost 10 years they have been involved in youth work they have used the strengths-based approach, or otherwise. Well, in the 18 years that I spent in social and youth work, working with young people, I can tell you that every youth worker whom I have ever come across, and the ones I see working within our youth programmes now—of course they use strengths-based approaches. Of course they work with young people on their strengths and say: “We believe in you. We can take you further. We can assist you and we will assist you to go further and build better pathways for your life.”

Every service that I have ever worked in, or ever had any association with, has a threshold for you to get into that service. When I was a school guidance counsellor it was pretty open—you could walk in the door and sit down and have a chat. The threshold was not too high to access that service. But, that said, if they were wasting my time and theirs, they did not stay there very long.

When I worked in child and adolescent mental health, for a tertiary mental health service, people had to meet certain thresholds in order to receive service from that particular service. In the same way, there will be some thresholds for people to access this Youth Service. They will be teen parents, and the ones who are there now are 16 and 17—we are just looking to extend that up to 18 and 19-year-olds. They will be teen parents, or they will have been identified as being at risk of long-term welfare dependency.

The social investment approach that we are taking is not simply saying that we are going to do something with these young people, so that they will cost us more money. No, the social investment strategy says that, actually, we are going to invest in these people up front, so that they can have better lives. The social investment strategy uses words like “long-term dependency on welfare”—it uses those criteria. But let me tell you something: when you are 17 or 18 years old, if the Government has to spend lots of money on you, it is probably because there is not going to be a lot of opportunity or good success there for you later in life. The social investment strategy is about investing up front to give those people better lives, and that is exactly what we are doing. I will tell you now, if I were in their shoes I would not want to be sitting back and having the Government spending money on me for ever and ever and ever because, guess what? The Government generally spends money on people when the outcomes for their lives are not as good as they could be. So we are going to invest in them.

When those youth workers—those 300-odd youth workers in those 44 services—keep working across those young people, they will believe in them. It will be strengths-based; it will be focused on the positive things that they can contribute to society. We believe in those young people—we are aspirational for them. That is what this bill is about. It is about getting behind young people who need some help, to help them to do better in their lives. Thank you for this opportunity. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa, ngā mihi o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori ki a tātou katoa. Ka tū au mō Ngā Kākāriki ki te kōrero i te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei Te Pire Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. Kia ora tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you all around the House, and accolades of Māori Language Week for all of us. I stand on behalf of the Greens to speak in the third reading of this Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. My appreciation to us all.]

The Green Party is here in Parliament because we want a fair society. We want to look after our people and our planet, and we know that can be done with smarter policies. We are opposing this bill because it is not best practice and it is not going to take us in the direction of a fairer society, unfortunately. I am sure that members on the Government side really believe that this bill is the best way to achieve it.

The previous speaker, Jono Naylor, gave a really passionate speech, and I really agree with the aims that he articulated in his speech, but I think that he is mistaken about the effectiveness of this particular bill. It was telling that he said that, rather than burying ourselves in reports and reading the evidence, we should just get out there and talk to some people anecdotally. I think that sums up the problem with the National Party’s approach to governing in general. It tends to take a blindly ideological approach, particularly when it is about social security.

This particular approach, which is evidenced in this bill, is punitive and it is controlling. It is both reacting to and perpetuating the myth that people who need help—those young people, some of whom are parents—are irresponsible and have not worked hard enough. That myth has really been abounding in New Zealand for several decades now. The reality is that the neo-liberal policies that were embraced in the 1980s and 1990s in New Zealand have led to a stark increase in inequality, and that inequality means that the playing field is just not level.

It is easier, I think, for those people who are doing well in Aotearoa New Zealand to tell themselves that the people who are not doing well are not doing well because they deserve to be poor or deserve to be punished for their lack of work ethic. It is oversimplistic. I have seen the same thing in America.

Hon Anne Tolley: This is so arrogant. I find that offensive.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is not arrogant; it is just how it is, and I am sure that the Minister is offended because it is true. In fact, she finds it offensive because it is so on-point. It is very hard for people to confront the truth—

Hon Anne Tolley: Oh, really? I find it offensive that you would stand up in this House and accuse us, on this side, of trying to do something to help people.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: I am sure that the Minister and the other MPs on the National Government side of the House believe that they are doing the best for people, but I think that, unfortunately, they are very wrong and they do not want to listen to the evidence and accept that.

I am going to quote Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw, who is a researcher specialising in this, at the Morgan Foundation. She says that 40 percent to 60 percent of New Zealanders believe that parents who do not have enough are irresponsible people who have not worked hard enough. The research shows that there is a belief in New Zealand that those people are losers and, by implication, the parents of healthy, well-off children are hard-working winners.

The National Government regularly buys into this meme in this way of describing what is happening in society, saying that in order to move parents to a winning frame of mind, a firm hand is needed, and we need to push them into work and off the benefits that could help them. “It is extraordinary that these Victorian values continue to inform our social policies,” says Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw, “especially given that research from all over the world shows that moving low income parents into work through use of sanctions does not often improve economic positions overall, and children suffer associated pressures.”

So, the truth is that this National Government’s approach is paternalistic and the approach in this bill is paternalistic. The reality, articulated many times by my colleague Jan Logie during the debates on this bill, is that people tend to do best when they are given both freedom and responsibility, when they are treated with respect, and when they feel that they can trust those who are there to help them and not that those people are there to chase them up and check on them and make sure they are complying with a whole lot of bureaucratic requirements.

The best practice from around the world shows there are two principles. They are that the help is better when it is less targeted and when it is unconditional. “It is a highly disruptive concept;”, according to Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw, “our entire social welfare system is built on the provision of conditional aid.” The Green Party supports a smarter approach.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): He Reo Māori katoa, ā, tēnā tātau e Te Whare. Anei te mihi atu ki a koutou i runga i Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Tēnei pire kai taku ngākau, he aha ai? Kai te tautohetohe tātau mō te tamaiti, mō te hunga rangatahi, kia tupu pai ake i runga i Te Whenua o Aotearoa. Kāre au i te whakahē ki te ngākau o Te Minita. Kāre au i te whakahē ki te ngākau o te pire. Kua kite atu au i ngā hua kai roto, he hua kai roto mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna e hāngai ana ki te kaupapa. Kāre au e whakahē ki te hiahia me te wawata o te kāwanatanga hai āwhina i ngā tamariki, mokopuna. Kai te tautoko au i tēnā.

Kua kōrero atu au ki Te Minita; kua whakawhiti kōrero e pā ana ki aku āwangawanga e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Ā, kua rangona au ki tōna ngākau nui ki ngā tamariki, mokopuna me ngā rangatahi o Te Whenua. Hoi anō rā, kāre au i whakaae ki te pūnaha whakahaere whakatutuki i ngā wawata o Te Kāwanatanga. Kāre au i te tautoko katoa i ngā kōrero o tēnei taha, a te taha mauī o Te Whare ēngari anō, kua rangona au ki tā Darroch, me ōna whakatūpato mai i te pānuitanga mai i te rīpoata e kī nei kia tūpato. Koinei hoki tāku, kai te pīrangi au kia tautoko i Te Kāwanatanga. Kai te pīrangi au te tautoko i te wawata kia tipu pai ngā rangatahi i runga i te whenua.

I tērā wiki, i kite atu au i tētahi tamaiti, 16 noa iho te pakeke. Ko ia tēnā, nā tana kuia i whakatipu. Kāre i haere ki te kura i te nuinga o te wā. Kua puta kē i te kura i tēnei wā. Kua tae atu tōna kuia ki te penihana, kāre tēnei tamaiti i hiahia kia noho taumaha tōna nohonga ki te taha o tana kuia i roto i tōna whare. Nā reira, i puta kē atu te tamaiti ki te rapu mahi, kia kore e taumaha te noho o tōna kuia. Ā, i aukatingia e WINZ tōna penihana. Nā reira, i te tiriti tēnei tamaiti e moe ana. I te rapu mahi ēngari, kei hea tōna māngai tautoko? Kai hea te youth worker e tautoko nei i tēnei tamaiti? Kai te tiriti moe ai! Kai te rapu—[Interruption]—kai te whakahē te pire! Kāre e kore! Ēngari kei te whakaaro au mō te hunga rangatahi. Tēnei tamaiti, kei hea tōna ringa āwhina? I hoki atu ia ki te whare o tōna kuia, he aha ai? I rapu mahi, i rapu mahi i runga i tēnā ka taea te hoki atu ki te whare o tōna kuia ki te āwhina i a ia. Koirā tōna ngākau nui.

I a au e kite atu i a ia, e whakaaro ana au tēnei pire, mehemea e whakahē tēnei tamaiti i ngā whakaritenga o te pire, ka aukatingia te penihana ki a ia, kei hea a ia? Kai te tiriti! Kai te whakahē te ture. Ko ngā pirihimana kei te whaiwhai atu i a ia! Nā reira, āe, kua kite au i te wawata, kua kite au i te hiahia, kua kite au i te ngākau o Te Minita i roto i te pire nei. Hoi anō rā, kua kite au i te hunga rangatahi, mehemea kāre i hāngai ki ngā ture e whakarite nei, ā, kai hea rātau? Kai raro putu ai! Ko wai kei te tiaki i a rātau? Kai hea tōna ringa āwhina? Anō nā ka tuku whakaaro ki a rātau mehemea ka whānau tamaiti ana, kotahi tau te pakeke o te tamaiti, 14 pea te pakeke kua whānau mai tōna pēpi, ā, 15 te pakeke, ā, me haere ki te rapu mahi. Ki raro i tēnei ture, me haere taua tamaiti ki te rapu mahi. Koirā te kōrero, kia eke ki te 1 tau, me haere ki te rapu mahi, āe, mehemea kua eke atu ki te NCEA reanga 2. Hoi anō, kia eke ki te 19 te pakeke, rerekē rawa atu.

Mō taua take, kāre e taea e Te Pāti Māori te tautoko i te pire ēngari, kai te tautoko i te wawata, kai te tautoko te ringa āwhina i a koutou, i runga i te aha? Te ngākau nui ki te hunga rangatahi! Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā.

[It is totally in Māori, and so acknowledgments to us, the House. I greet you in regard to Māori Language Week. This bill is in the bosom of my heart, and why is it? Because our debate is about the child, about youth growing up well in the country of New Zealand. I am not opposing what is in the Minister’s heart or that of the bill. I have seen the benefits in it, and there are benefits there for children and grandchildren about the matter. I endorse that.

I have spoken with the Minister; we have exchanged views about my concerns relating to this bill. I have heard about her commitment to children, grandchildren, and young people of the country, but I do not agree with the administrative instrument to fulfil Government aspirations. I do not endorse everything the left side of the House is saying, but I do heed Darroch Ball’s cautionary words about reading the report more carefully. That is my view as well, I want to support the Government. I want to support the desire for the young people to grow up well in this country.

Last week I saw a kid about 16 years old, who was being raised by her nanny. Most of the time she was not going to school and, at the present time, she has left school. Her nanny is now eligible for the pension and this child does not want to be a burden to her nanny in her home. So that kid has left and gone out to look for work. WINZ, as a consequence, cut off her benefit and so the child is now sleeping on the street. She is looking for work, but where is her support? Where is the youth worker supporting this kid? She is sleeping on the street, she is looking—[Interruption]—the bill opposes! Without a doubt! But I do have a view about the young ones, about this kid—where is her helping hand? She went back to her nanny’s home, and why? To look for work, with the thought in her mind that by going back to her nanny’s place, she would be helping her nanny. That was her big wish.

As I look at her situation, I think about this bill and say to myself: now, if this kid is opposing the provisions of this bill and her benefit is denied, where is she? On the street! The law opposes this! The police will be after her! On that point, I can see the aspiration, the desire, and the heart of the Minister as far as this bill is concerned. However, I have also seen the youth who may have been out of line with the law as it stands. Where are they now? They have gone under! Who is looking after them? Where is their helper? I also think about those young ones who have a child, where the mother was 14 years old when the child was born, and a year later, when the mother is 15 years old, she has had to go out to look for work. Under this law, that young mother must go and look for work. That is the story, after 1 year she must go and look for work and, yes, if she has gained NCEA level 2. The situation changes completely when she becomes 19 years of age.

For that reason, we, the Māori Party, do not support the bill but endorse the aspiration and will continue to lend a helping hand, and for what reason? The commitment to the younger people! Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.]

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take this call to support the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to extend the Youth Service to 19-year-old beneficiaries with children and 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered to be at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency.

For 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries there will be risk assessments done. We heard from Opposition members that that will stigmatise young people. Actually, these young people need help, and we want to help them. The risk assessment will be a very transparent process. It will include factors that are well accepted—for example, the level of education, involvement in employment or training, and contact with Child, Youth and Family or the justice system. These kinds of factors will be used for the risk assessment model.

Once a young person is referred to the Youth Service they will go through a consultation process, which will give them an opportunity to comment and also provide extra information about their background. Based on a risk assessment during the consultation process, Youth Service providers will also have an opportunity to understand the needs of that young person who is referred to the Youth Service. It is quite possible that during that consultation process Youth Service providers may feel that the young person being referred to the Youth Service actually does not need that referral, and the Ministry of Social Development can consider that recommendation and can actually withdraw the referral if appropriate.

We also heard about sanctions. Yes, when these young people are referred to the Youth Service they will have obligations to meet. If they meet their obligations, there will be incentives, and if they do not, there will be sanctions. Nineteen-year-old beneficiaries with children will be required to work towards the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 if they do not have NCEA level 2, and they will be required to take a budgeting and parenting course. Eighteen- and 19-year-old beneficiaries will also be required to work towards NCEA level 2 and take a budgeting course. If they do not meet their obligations, there will be sanctions. Sanctions are an important part of the Youth Service, because having sanctions has shown us an improvement in the level of compliance for the requirements that are there for Youth Service.

This is a great bill, which is to support young people so that they can have a better future. This Government is committed to providing that support to our young people. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I understand this is a split call from the Labour Party—Louisa Wall.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, nō reira, tōku tika ki te kōrero i runga i Te Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill hei māngai mā Te Reipa mō ngā tamariki.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and so, as spokesperson for Labour on children, it is my right to speak on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill.]

I am the Labour spokesperson for youth affairs. Mahi pakeke tēnei pire. [This bill creates a lot of hard work.] Labour opposes this bill. We do so because from our perspective the intent of this bill is all wrong. I would like to quote: “One of the Government’s priority results for Better Public Services is to reduce long-term welfare dependence.” In February 2015 the Government set the following target for this result area: “By June 2018, a 25 per cent reduction (from 295,000 people in June 2014) in the total number of people receiving main benefits, and a $13 billion reduction in the long-term cost of benefit dependence.”, as measured by an accumulated actuarial release. So from our perspective children are not at the heart of this piece of legislation, in spite of what the Minister for Social Development and her Government say.

What is at the heart of this piece of legislation is saving $13 billion.

Jono Naylor: No, it’s not.

LOUISA WALL: That is the driving force behind that Better Public Services target, and other people may want to debate that, but if you truly did want to put children at the centre of policy, then you would find this side of the House 100 percent in support—

Hon Anne Tolley: Rubbish.

LOUISA WALL: —of any initiative that you proposed—100 percent supportive. So when you look at pieces of research like The Negative Effects of Instability on Child Development: A Research Synthesis by the Urban Institute, which was released in September 2013—if the Minister had read this piece of research, what it says is that obstacles for our tamariki’s healthy development are about the instabilities in their lives. The most important factor is actually having stable accommodation. Let us make sure that all of our children have a home, Minister. Let us make sure that all of our children have a home and that their parents can provide for them. Let us make sure that all of our parents have access to parental courses that are going to enable them to be the best possible parents that they can be.

That is not what this piece of legislation is committing to, or what it will provide for our most disadvantaged families. Kay Brereton from the National Beneficiary Advocacy Consultation Group highlighted that through the select committee process for this legislation. We also heard from the Salvation Army, the Human Rights Commission, and the Attorney-General themselves, which said that this Government was actively discriminating against 18 and 19-year-old citizens. So for the Government to say that children are at the heart of everything that it does is actually factually incorrect, based on submissions that we had from number of parties.

So if we want to work alongside our children—and we heard from my colleague Jan Logie earlier—then the empowerment model that we would use is not punitive. We would not be penalising our young parents who do not want to leave their babies who are 6 months old. That is what this piece of legislation forces our young parents to do—to leave their 6-month-old babies and seek either full-time study or work-based training opportunities. What I say to this Minister and that Government is, what about that 6-month-old baby? What if we put that 6-month-old baby at the heart of this piece of legislation? What would we do? We would make sure that 6-month-old baby had a home.

So if this Government said that every child who has a child is going to have secure accommodation, that those children are going to be looked after, that their parents will be entitled to every single piece of support that they are eligible for, and that we are not going to put ceilings on them, and did not say that we will support your education only if you can get to National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 but, actually, that we fully and totally supported them to have dreams and aspirations, then this side of the House would be voting in support of this piece of legislation. But that is not what this piece of legislation is doing. That is not the intent of this piece of legislation.

Some people on the other side need to read their Better Public Services targets, because all of the targets are about money. It is all about saving money for the Government so that next year you can give big tax cuts to New Zealanders who do not need them, because you do not want to provide services to those who are most in need. So I am really proud to stand on the side of the House that puts children at the centre of what we do. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Tēnā koe. That was a very impassioned speech by my colleague Louisa Wall, and I could not agree more. I want to take a slightly different tack in my contribution, and this is to address a concern that I have raised in many debates on this particular piece of legislation. It is about the evaluation of the effectiveness of this particular programme, because, frankly, we have not seen any evaluation that this programme actually does what it has been designed to do. Despite numerous calls from this side of the House to see the evidence that this programme actually works, we have yet to actually see that evidence in action.

I want to discuss this from the point of view of supporting community agencies that every single day support young people to parent well, to get education, and to do the best that they can. Every single agency that I have ever worked for as a community services person, if it has any contributory Government funding, has had to have a stringent requirement that the programmes that it delivers are not only evaluated but are evaluated towards their effectiveness. Every single partner to the Government in the community sector has to do that, yet this Government can stand by and say that it can deliver programmes that have not had full evaluation. We do not know that this programme will actually deliver what it says it is going to deliver, yet the Government requires community partners to jump through hoops every single day to ensure that they can get contributory funding—not full funding from the Government, but contributory funding.

So I believe that what is happening here is that the Government, in many of its conversations about partnerships with community agencies, is talking about softening up the people of New Zealand to dumping some of those smaller agencies and going to the super-agencies, because this Government does not know how to partner with communities. It cannot partner with multiple agencies to deal with the breadth of issues that this piece of legislation is designed to correct. This Government just does not know how to have relationships with communities, so it sets up these super-agencies, bypassing all of the good work that our community agencies have been required to do, year in, year out. It does not know how to have relationships with communities.

It does not know the complexity of issues that surround young people who are wanting to get into education or employment, or to parent well. It is not just about reaching National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. As my colleague says, it is about getting into decent housing that they know that they can be in for a period of time that they determine, and building connections into their communities. That is actually what sits at the heart of sustainability. That is what will develop those young people into people who can be good parents and go on to have fulfilling lives.

Do not get me wrong—the Government has taken some measures to look at programmes. Let us not forget that this Government has embarked upon a reform programme for some time. I recall when this Government started looking at vulnerable children in 2011 and 2012. We all recall the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children, which then became the Children’s Action Plan. At that time it promised much. I remember talking to Minister Paula Bennett at the time, saying: “Thank you for giving us the opportunity to do this piece of work.” Unfortunately, the Government did not deliver on what was promised. It did not deliver an action plan that will support our children to grow up to lead the fulfilling lives that they deserve.

We cannot support this bill. It is a shame, because our young people and our children deserve so much better.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the Hon Anne Tolley on caring so much about our young people, in bringing this bill to its third reading today.

We know that the social investment approach works because more than half of those who exit the programme remain independent of benefits 3 months later. We believe in the potential of all of our young people, and we want to support those most at risk to be meaningful contributors to society as a whole but, more important, to their families and to their own children. That is why Budget 2016 included a $652 million social investment package. This bill will make a positive difference and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

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

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill

First Reading

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. This bill repeals and replaces two elderly pieces of legislation—the Fire Service Act 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977—and instigates the biggest change to the fire services of New Zealand since the response to the disastrous Ballantyne’s Fire in Christchurch nearly 70 years ago. This bill also reflects the views and desires of New Zealand’s fire services, their communities, and wider stakeholders on the future of the nation’s fire services.

Last year’s consultation process on what was needed to maintain and build our fire services received over 230 submissions, and the message from all of those for change was loud and clear. So this bill is another step in the journey of change, transition, and futureproofing. It represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enable New Zealand to have a fit for purpose fire organisation that is flexible, modern, effective, and efficient. It will enable fire services that work well, fire services that are funded appropriately for what they do, and, it will value the rural and the urban, and the paid and the volunteer workforce.

This bill creates a unified fire organisation that brings together the urban and rural fire services spread throughout New Zealand. The new organisation will be known as Fire and Emergency New Zealand, which reflects that the activities of the fire services of New Zealand have changed considerably in the last 70 years. Today’s firefighters face a wide range of issues of fires, from forests and other vegetation fires to fires in homes and commercial properties, but although fighting fires remains at the core of the fire services, their role has expanded far beyond this. Their functions now include responding to vehicle accidents, urban search and rescue, and dealing with hazardous substances incidents. Fire services also have a key role in assisting other agencies and organisations with a variety of other incidents including animal rescues, maritime incidents, and technical rescues. This bill reflects these expanded roles in the main and additional functions of Fire and Emergency New Zealand. It also formally recognises the flexibility and agility New Zealand’s fire services have displayed for many years and will continue to show in the future.

Firefighters are a passionate and committed group of people, whether they are urban or rural, paid or volunteer. They serve our communities to protect and preserve life, property, and the environment. Their communities, in turn, support and encourage them—something that is consistently identified as the key to the success of New Zealand’s fire services. It is critical, therefore, that this strong community support is recognised and maintained.

This bill enshrines this support and reflects it through the establishment of local committees. These local committees will be appointed by the board from representatives of the local area and will serve as the area’s voice to Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s board. They will advise on local risks and issues, consider and promote the interests of the local area’s volunteers, and provide feedback and guidance to the board on local fire and emergency planning. Over 80 percent of the firefighters in New Zealand are volunteers. As a significant portion of the workforce, volunteers will move into a more direct relationship with Fire and Emergency New Zealand, although they will not become employees as such, and there will still be an important and vital place for the United Fire Brigades’ Association. This bill enables the provision of independent advocacy services and support for volunteers, at no charge to them, and that is the role that the United Fire Brigades’ Association has played for more than a century now.

Fire and Emergency New Zealand will develop a framework for supporting volunteers based on modern volunteer principles. Increased support for volunteers recognises their contribution while not detracting from the support given to the paid workforce. The bill clearly states that the existing paid and volunteer workforce will retain their entitlements when Fire and Emergency New Zealand is established, so local brigades will retain their chief fire officers and their deputy chief fire officers.

The way that the fire services of New Zealand are funded will change. Fire and Emergency New Zealand will be funded through the fire levy, which is paid on insurance for contents, property, and motor vehicles. This will replace a variety of funding sources for rural fire services and allow the new organisation to be adequately funded for the work it will do. The bill will allow the fire levy to be broadened to include insurance on material damage, not just fire damage, to better reflect the range of functions Fire and Emergency New Zealand will perform and to make levy avoidance more difficult. The fire levy on motor vehicle insurance will be extended to include third-party insurance, ensuring that more motor vehicle owners contribute.

There will be public consultation at least every 3 years on the level of the fire levy, making the funding of the fire services more transparent and requiring the funding of the new organisation to be aligned to its strategic and business planning processes. The bill will also include anti-avoidance provisions to ensure compliance with the new levy regime.

The bill includes an updated offences and penalties regime that will provide appropriate penalties that punish and deter unwanted behaviour through a combination of significant fees or terms of imprisonment upon conviction. The bill removes cost recovery for rural fires and establishes an infringement notice scheme that will be designed to address low-level offending. These updated offences and penalties provisions will be supported by a comprehensive compliance and enforcement strategy that will help the new organisation and the public to encourage compliance and will make clear the penalties for unsafe behaviour. It is important that firefighters have the tools to appropriately respond when they identify behaviour that could have or has had serious consequences.

The bill also clearly sets out the powers firefighters may exercise in the course of performing their functions. It includes modernised powers of entry and inspection to investigate the cause of fires and to support Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s regulatory role in ensuring compliance with the bill. There are appropriate safeguards in place for the exercising of these powers, including the production of identification, the requirement for warrants in line with the Search and Surveillance Act, and, for marae, taking into account the kawa of the marae as far as is practicable in the circumstances.

The bill also includes new powers for dealing with hazardous substances incidents and powers to take samples or objects for testing or analysis. It includes specific provisions for evacuation schemes and measures to ensure there are adequate firefighting water supplies for emergencies and training, including the development of a code of practice for firefighting water supplies. The bill sets out the fire control measures for when the starting of fires or activities likely to cause fires can be prohibited or restricted. These measures are necessary to protect life, property, and the environment; to describe fire seasons; and to establish the responsibilities and requirements on individuals and commercial operations to limit the risk of fires in open areas.

Fire and Emergency New Zealand will continue the important relationships that the Fire Service has established with the Department of Conservation and the New Zealand Defence Force. It will also enter into operational service agreements with departments, as is the current practice, as well as the Ministry of Education and industry fire brigades. There will also be a new dispute resolution process so that the organisation can resolve disputes consistently and fairly. I will not go into these in great detail, but there is a range of transition provisions forecast in the bill, and there is also provision made for the transfer of assets so that from the time of the new organisation taking effect, the assets currently available will be available to Fire and Emergency New Zealand to perform its functions. How they are transferred in the long term will be determined using a principle-based approach and in collaboration with the owner of the asset.

So overall this bill supports the invaluable and varied work of the fire services of New Zealand, and as of 1 July next year establishes Fire and Emergency New Zealand as the new overarching organisation. It is a combination of community, volunteer, and paid firefighters alike. This change has been a long time coming. The time is right. Our firefighters, their communities, and their stakeholders all agree that the change is needed and all agree that this is the right process. I want to acknowledge the contribution they all have made over the last year in bringing this proposal together. So with great pleasure, and a small amount of pride, I commend this bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare otirā, ki a tātau hui tahi nei i tēnei pō tēnei te mihi ake ki a tātau. Tino pai ki ahau kia tū ake ki te kōrero ki te pire nei, te pire e pā ana ki Ahi me Ohotata Aotearoa, arā—the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. Pīrangi au ki te tuku i taku kōrero i te reo Māori nā te mea ko tēnei Te Wiki o te reo Māori. Otirā he maha ngā kupu-ā-kaupapa kei roto tēnei pire. Ahakoa tēnā, māku e tarai ki te tuku taku kōrero.

Tuatahi, e pai ana tēnei te whakakotahi, ā, te Kōmihana Whakaratonga Iwi me ngā Rōpū Weto Ahi ki Taiwhenua kei raro i tētehi rōpū me kī, hinonga Karauna hou. Nō reira, e tautoko ana ahau taua w’akaaro. Kua roa te wā e whiriwhiri, e titiro atu Te Kāwanatanga ki tēnei take. Ka puta mai ngā kōrero o taua āhuatanga, te arotake ki tēnei pire, tēnei āhuatanga. Nō reira, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a rātau mā, i tuku kōrero mai. Ki taku nei mō’io, 235 ngā tāngata e tuku kōrero ki roto ki tēnei arotake. Kei roto i ā rātau kōrero e whakaae ana rātau kia tīnihia ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki te Kōmihana Whakaratonga Iwi. Nō reira e tika ana kia tuku mai e te Minita tēnei pire nā te mea whakaae ana te hapori whānui. Nō reira, e tuku mihi atu ki a ia te Minita, ā, i tuku mai tēnei pire.

Kei roto te pire nei e whakamanahia tēnei hinonga Karauna hou, kia pēnei i te kōrero o te Minita, he mana hou tā rātau kia uru mai ngā whare, kia āta titiro ā muri i te ahi, kia titiro mai, kia mōhio mai āe, he aha te tino pūtake ka tīmata aua ahi. He mea hou tēnā. He mea hou anō hoki, ā, ngā mana e pā ana ki ngā mōrearea pūmatū, ki taku nei mōhio, hazardous chemical substances. He mana hou tēnei anō hoki. Nō reira, e tū ana ahau mō Te Rōpū Reipa hei tautoko ana tēnei pire, kia tuku atu tēnei pire ki te komiti whiriwhiringa, hei āta titiro ki roto i ēnei mahi nei. E pai ana ki ahau, ā, kua kōrero ki ahau ki ngā kaimahi e mahi kore pūtea ana–volunteers–e pā ana ki tēnei āhuatanga. Pai ki a rātau te whakakotahi ēnei mahi i raro i tētehi rōpū hou. Ā, ka pai anō hoki, ā, kia mahitahi me ngā kaimahi, me ngā rōpū hei mahia aua mahi mō he pūtea; nō reira, e tautoko ana ahau taua āhuatanga.

E tū hoki au kia tuku atu tētehi āhua āwangawanga e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Arā, ko te kohikohinga o ngā pūtea, ngā pūtea whakaeke. Kua rongo au nō ngā rōpū mō ngā kamupene insurance. Kāore e tino whakaae a rātau ki te kohikohinga i ngā pūtea whakaeke ki a rātau mā. Ko tā rātau kōrero kia tuku atu pūtea mai i ngā tāke kē. Koinā tā rātau kōrero. Ki a au nei, me whiriwhiringa e te komiti whiriwhiri e pā ana ki tēnei take, kia noho mārama ai te katoa e pā ana ki tēnei āhuatanga, kia tuku, kia whakahokia atu tēnei pātai, he aha te mea tino pai, he aha te ara tino pai kia kohikohi ngā pūtea nei.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, I wish to acknowledge everyone gathered this evening. I am delighted to speak on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I wish to speak in Māori because it is Māori Language Week. There is much policy detail in this bill, which I will attempt to describe in Māori.

Firstly, it is beneficial that the bill unifies the New Zealand Fire Service with the National Rural Fire Authority under a new Crown entity. Therefore, I endorse this plan. The Government has spent a long time considering this matter. Comments about that aspect, in terms of reviewing this bill in relation to this situation have emerged. And so, it is fitting that those who sent in those comments are acknowledged. I understand 235 individuals sent in comments on this review. Their approval to amend aspects relating to the New Zealand Fire Service Commission was included in their comments. It is appropriate that the Minister has brought this bill before the House due to widespread public support. With that in mind, I commend the Minister.

The bill creates a new Crown entity, which the Minister stated gives fire services new powers to enter homes following a fire to establish the cause of the fire. It also provides new powers relating to hazardous chemical substances. Accordingly, I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to endorse this bill and its progression to select committee for consideration. I am fine with that, and I have spoken with volunteers about this bill. They approve of the unification of fire services under a new organisation. It is also beneficial that firefighters and organisations work together; and so I support the unification.

I would also like to express concerns about the bill, particularly with regard to the collection of the fire levy. I have heard from insurance companies that are opposed to the levy and say that fire service funding should come from normal taxes. In my view, the relevant select committee considering this issue must discuss this to ensure that everyone is clear about what is the best way to collect the fire levy.]

Given that it is Māori Language Week, I did try to do my entire speech in Māori, but there are some things that are very technical and are beyond the scope of my Te Reo Māori. Mā te wā pea ka tū au. [Perhaps, in time, I will stand.]

I do have some questions around the collection of levies and around what is the best way to actually give effect to that. As I understand it, Cabinet made a decision around that before the review had started, and so I do not think the submitters who made submissions through the review process were really given the opportunity to discuss that.

I am not advocating one method over another. All I am saying is that the best way forward needs to be examined in full, and I think it is appropriate for the select committee to do that. I think that the working together of both the volunteer and the paid sector is one thing that the volunteers—from the feedback I have been given around that—do want, although they do tell me that they have good relationships between the different fire services.

This bill is, obviously, a way to give recognition to the substantial changes that have happened over time. Once upon a time firefighters put out fires and that is pretty much all they did, but they now have a vast range of work and tasks they provide for the community, not the least of which are things like urban search and rescue and providing the prevention side of things as well. I think those things are incredibly important, and I can speak from the number of marae that I am involved with where we have close interaction with the Fire Service to make sure that we try to keep our marae safe and have the prevention measures in place. So we look forward to hearing from all of these people during the submission process of the select committee.

Taku kōrero whakamutunga e tuku mihi atu ki a rātau ngā kaimahi whakaweto ahi. Nō reira, huri rauna te Whare nei, ā, tēnā tātau katoa.

[In making a closing remark, I pay tribute to them—the firefighters, the ones who extinguish fires. And so, to everyone throughout this House, my appreciation to us all.]

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is my pleasure to take a short call on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill in its first reading. Can I just acknowledge any members of the Fire Service that we have in the House today—I think we do have some—and their families. Welcome, and it is great to see you here. Can I just mention my own fire service back in my electorate of Rodney, and also the fire service in Northland.

The previous speaker highlighted—and I agree with him—that our Fire Service and our firefighters are now far more than first responders to house fires, commercial fires, or any type of fire. Every year we attend award ceremonies where they will be receiving awards for their actions at motor vehicle accidents, chemical spills, storm and flooding damage. In my own electorate, when we were hit with a major storm, it was our firefighters who were the first ones out there dealing with the damage and the carnage associated with that.

I was recently up in Kaikohe, and I want to acknowledge the rural firefighting service in Kaikohe because it had actually implemented a youth programme whereby it has taken eight young guys who were going off the tracks—they were running straight into the arms of the gangs up there—and wrapped around them mentoring, some discipline, and training, and it is training them to be rural firefighters. This is the kind of community spirit - based service that we have in our country, and I just want to acknowledge our Fire Service, the role that it takes, and everything that it does in our communities.

Like I said, it is only a very short call. I do look forward to receiving the bill on the select committee and being given the opportunity to get up and speak in this House again to this bill. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Esteemed ones, I acknowledge you collectively in regard to the matter of the day; greetings, salutations, and my appreciation to us all.]

Can I, first of all, say what a delight it will be for our select committee to have this piece of legislation. It has been a long time coming, but I can also say that it has been through a very good process—two big rounds of reviews and a lot of public debate about it, and so there should be.

This is quite a fundamental change to the way that our fire services are organised. It extends their powers, and it will bring to the forefront of the debate the sometimes tense relationship that professional firefighters and volunteer firefighters have had in different parts of the country, but I think that the legislation is designed to give us the best possible service for the future and I am sure that every member of the House will support the intention.

Our select committee will, I know, because of the performance of the members, give the bill a lot of rigorous investigation, listen carefully to the submissions, and then bring it back to the House with any changes that we see fit.

As the Minister who introduced this bill indicated, this bill establishes a single, unified fire service, so that repeals two pieces of legislation. I was a bit surprised that the Minister referred to them as being—“quite ancient”, I think, was his term. The mid-1970s is not ancient compared with some pieces of legislation that we have in the House, but the Acts are old enough and, certainly, they reflect a structure that is no longer even current practice, let alone best practice for the future.

The Fire and Emergency New Zealand service will become the new service for us. I do not know why we have to have “FENZ” as the—it is not a very attractive word. We might be able to come up with something better as the name that will develop as its commonly referred to name. But, certainly, the new legislation, when it is passed, will replace the Fire Service Act 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977.

The member Mark Mitchell, who resumed his seat immediately prior to me, made mention of the Fire Service brigades in his area, and I would like to do the same. I have had a very close association with the brigades in my area. The two volunteer brigades that are currently in my electorate are Lyttelton and Sumner—both extraordinarily competent leaders in our community as brigades—and I have the Woolston professional fire brigade in my electorate as well. All three of the buildings—Woolston, Lyttelton, and Sumner—received quite a lot of damage in the earthquakes. It was extraordinary to watch the brigade in Lyttelton, with a very badly damaged fire station and with members who had left their places of work, give hours and hours and hours over days to ensure that the community was safe. As was written in a book called The Brigade, a story about the Lyttelton Volunteer Fire Brigade and the work that it did post 22 February—which I would recommend to the Minister to read, if he has not already—a number of those brigade members had not been able to contact their own families while they were giving of their skills and talents to support others.

We recently had the news in Christchurch that the Sumner Fire Station, which actually survived a lot of the worst of the quakes somehow—I do not know how—got very badly damaged in the last quake we had and is now going to be replaced. So that will be a celebration for them, once that is under way.

The insurance issue and what contribution commercial property owners make to the service I am sure will come up in the discussions. I know the Minister ducked for cover a little bit on that one—did not go the full step in terms of who contributes to the service—and I am sure that the Insurance Council and perhaps even some of its individual insurance companies will make representation on that.

I am interested, though, in the other area of insurance—that the third-party cover is being extended under this provision, and I think that is something that will be welcomed. I am not sure whether it therefore becomes compulsory—I assume it does, given that it is a levy—or how broadly that third-party cover extends, but I will be very interested in learning more about that when we have the bill at the select committee.

The futureproofing of the legislation is also something that I think should be commended—the fact that it is a requirement under this legislation to do, I think, 3-yearly reviews. That will mean that we will not end up in this situation again. We will not have to have—probably—huge and significant structural changes, but will be able to keep the legislation refreshed. As the needs of our communities change and the ability of people to volunteer, or the reluctance, potentially, of employers to support their staff to volunteer—those relationships might change, and I think the idea of futureproofing by that 3-yearly review is a good one.

The updated offences and penalties regime includes new infringement offences. That will put Parliament in quite a different place than it has been before, and I think that is a good place. We are sending a clear message to the community about standards and consequences, and I think that is a very good message.

The removal of the powers to recover the cost of rural fires—I listened to the Minister’s introductory comments and I did not get any detail about that, but I would be interested in the rationale behind the removal of those powers. There are new powers introduced for managing hazardous substances incidents. That is, again, just keeping up with incidents that when the original legislation was drafted probably were not as common, may not have been as dangerous, or may have been contained in different ways.

Measures to encourage compliance among levy payers and to protect the integrity of the levy are something that everyone in this House should certainly understand and would support. There are new powers for firefighters to enter premises to investigate the causes of fires. I am not generally a supporter of giving intrusive powers to any other members of our society, so I will be looking at that very carefully and asking what it will have potential risk around and, if so, what we might do to mitigate it. Of course we want to support investigations as to the causes of fires and prosecution, if that is appropriate after that, but I am nervous about granting intrusive powers to people without very good justification—and also making sure that there is a protective mechanism around such powers.

In conclusion, can I say that I have been—everyone in this House will have an association with fire and emergency services, I am sure—really following the debate on this quite closely. I am very pleased that it has finally come to the House. It is overdue, but it has been a worthwhile process to wait for. It has involved a lot of people, and there has been a lot of public discussion and debate about it. So it is not a surprise bill. It is one that has got a little bit of rigour behind it—and that is not common, actually, under the current Government—so that is good.

I think we will end up with a flexible, modern, and efficient fire service that is backed by its legislation, instead of the current situation where I feel as if the fire service often has to try to work around the legislation to get best practice, and that is a dumb thing. We want to make sure that the services—[Bell rung]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): About 1½ minutes, sorry.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you. We want to make sure that the services are funded appropriately, that the levies are fair, and that people understand them and comply with them. This gives us an opportunity to do that. It gives us an opportunity throughout the debate to recognise the amazing contributions that both our professional firefighters and our volunteer firefighters make to their communities. We will be listening to their voices very carefully as the debate progresses.

BRETT HUDSON (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. It is a pleasure to rise in support of this, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. Much-needed reform has been canvassed after many, many years. The legislation that this will repeal and replace dates back to the 1970s, to a time when a firefighter’s role was very, very different indeed. So it is good to see legislation that recognises that both paid and also volunteer members of our fire service now are involved in many more types of activities and incidents, whether it is urban search and rescue, vehicular incidents and extrications, or other emergency services. I am pleased to see that we will have legislation that both recognises that and sets up the structures and the funding arrangements to support that.

I am also very pleased to see within that some measures that follow along from the lines of the Inland Revenue Department to prevent avoidance of those levies, through the new means that will be used. So it remains to go through the select committee process. I look forward to that, and I commend this bill to the House.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa, ngā mihi o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori ki a tātou katoa. Ka tū au mō ngā Kākāriki ki te kōrero i te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei te pire, te Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you collectively throughout the House and salutations of the Māori Language Week to us all. I stand on behalf of the Green Party to speak in the first reading of this bill, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill.]

The Greens will be supporting this bill. There are some things in the bill that we are a little bit cautious about. However, we are really quite keen to hear the submissions during the select committee stage, and we look forward to the discussion around the intricacies, because I think we do have to acknowledge that it is a fairly complex bill.

One of the major things that this bill does is that it brings together many of the different organisations that currently deal with fire services in Aotearoa into one Crown entity. Currently there are the New Zealand Fire Service and the National Rural Fire Authority and 52 separate rural fire authorities. Within this, there are more than 400 volunteer fire brigades around the country and around 13,000 volunteers, who comprise about 80 percent of the workforce.

I just want to take this moment to express my gratitude to these volunteers who provide this essential service. In my own community on Waiheke Island, we have got two volunteer brigades—we have got the Oneroa one and the Onetangi one—and both of them are staffed by skilled, trained volunteers. Over the summer, the Onetangi brigade was actually called out to our place when a passer-by noticed smoke coming from the back of one of our houses. Although we lost a bit of equipment, the quick response from our volunteer brigade essentially saved our house. That fire was the result of a bottle lying in the grass over the summer, so it was a good reminder that we should actually mow the grass.

I just want to record here my thanks to the committed men and woman who have devoted years—years—of their lives to this work. They are the people who come when they are called, any time of the day or night. They leave their homes and their jobs, and they respond to the emergencies in our communities. Those emergencies, of course, include car crashes, house fires, bushfires, and civil emergencies, as we saw during the Christchurch earthquakes. No doubt my colleague Eugenie Sage will touch on that more.

I particularly want to note for the record, and in Hansard, my thanks to Ron Leonard, the fire chief on Waiheke Island, who retired in May after 29 years as the fire chief and a total of 48 years as a volunteer firefighter. I want to congratulate his deputy, Bruce Sciascia, who has taken on the fire chief role. Again, he is not inexperienced—he has been a volunteer for 20 years. I just think we need to recognise that we have these amazing people who continue year after year to provide a service for free.

Anyway, this bill has been a long time coming, as others have said. There have been two reviews, one in 2012 and another in 2015, and this bill acts on many of the recommendations from those reviews. I want to acknowledge that the process around the reviews was very inclusive and there was quite a large number of submissions. Under this bill there is the new Crown entity, Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), where all fire services in New Zealand—rural, urban, volunteer, professional—will come under that one overarching piece of legislation. So it replaces two pieces of legislation: the Fire Service Act 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977.

It is hoped that it will lead to more consistency across the service and, hopefully, better coordination between the urban and rural fire services. This lack of consistency was kind of referred to in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), which said, basically, that because there are so many of them, there was a lack of data. It said “For example, there is no single national incident reporting data for the fire services”, which means that “a lot of specific information of the work undertaken in the rural fire sector is unknown.”, including around the use of cost recovery under section 43 of the Forest and Rural Fires Act. It also said: “Further, each of the … Rural Fire Authorities, would have to collect data in a way that could be shared in order to effectively analyse the activities of all of them.” The RIS does say that it expects that the reforms in this bill will actually lead to better monitoring, analysing, and reporting—and I suspect it probably would—so that there is best practice right across the services.

But there is a similar statement around this lack of information, lack of data, in the regulatory impact statement, which deals with the new funding arrangement as well. FENZ will be funded principally by levies, as others have referred to, and they are levies that are basically paid on insurance for property and motor vehicles. That funding replaces the variety of sources that have funded the rural fire service—for example, things like the cost that it was able to charge and recover under the Forest and Rural Fires Act.

How the levy system will work is one area that we would like to know more about. The RIS disclosure statement notes that one significant remaining question is the impact of the proposed funding reforms on the private sector. It states: “Any change to the levy will have an effect on … [the] private sector and not for profit entities. Due to commercial sensitivity and privacy we are unable to access … data and therefore cannot model the … nature and extent of this impact.” So there is a bit of a gap in some of the information around how this will have an impact, but I can imagine that this is something that we are going to discuss more and find out a lot more about during the submissions process. I would like to note as well that the levies will be reviewed every 3 years, but I do think we should note that as a result of the reforms in this bill, it probably will cost levy payers—people who have insurance—a bit more.

Aside from the creation of Fire and Emergency New Zealand—FENZ—and the outlining of its services, its objectives and functions, and its operating principles and powers, and aside from the reform around the levies, the bill also looks at other parts of the whole fire operation. It states in the bill’s purpose clause that this bill will be about reforming “the law relating to fire services, including by strengthening the role of the communities … in the provision of fire services, … provide for local committees to influence and advise FENZ; … improve support for volunteers and enable them to communicate directly with FENZ; … provide new offences and penalties to improve fire safety.”

I just want to note, as it says in the explanatory note of the bill itself, that “The Bill provides that the existing paid and volunteer workforce will retain its existing entitlements. Volunteers will move into a direct relationship with FENZ, and there is provision for independent advocacy ...”. We support the emphasis on community and community engagement and the support for volunteers, and I am keen to hear from the firefighters union how this will impact on its workforce and those firefighters’ working conditions, although I understand that the union was involved in the review itself. However, we look forward to a robust discussion during the select committee process and we commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill, and I really want to start the contribution off by saying that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through to a select committee, but there are some reservations that we have, and I want to be very clear about that. Whether or not we continue with our support after the select committee process will obviously come down to hearing from those submitters. We want to hear what they have got to say.

Some of the issues that have already been raised with the work that we have been doing behind the scenes with regard to this bill I think have some validity, and I think there will be some potential problems if they are not addressed. They may well be addressed as we delve into this bill, and from reading through the bill so far, I think there are some good points and some tidying-up that has occurred, and I will talk to those in a moment.

But I just want to reflect for a moment on the work that the Fire Service does, and this is from last year’s annual report. The Fire Service attended 72,800 incidents around the country. It attended 5,400 structure fires, 10,300 medical emergencies, 5,100 vegetation fires, 4,800 motor vehicle accidents, and 3,245 hazardous materials incidents. That is highlighted very, very boldly on the first page, but it does not go on to talk about the other things that the Fire Service is heavily involved in, and we are talking about weather incidents.

With global warming, whether you are a believer or not, certainly things are heating up, and so too is the weather, and because of that we are seeing higher winds, we are seeing more rain, and we are seeing a lot of unexpected weather conditions—floods, etc. And every time we see a weather incident, who do we see there, in the middle of the night, working in the wind and the rain and the floods? It is our Fire Service, whether they be volunteers or full-time employees of the Fire Service, chopping down those trees, making our streets and our communities safe again.

There is no mention on this first page of the report about the work that the urban search and rescue (USAR) team does. I had the great pleasure of being invited along to an exercise that the USAR team had when it was going for its certification, which it passed with flying colours. I went through to Palmerston North for that exercise, and what an incredible set-up it has got. Under this new regime, of course, urban search and rescue—although it is not heavily mentioned in the explanatory note to this bill—will now actually be officially recognised and it will have a home inside the overarching Fire and Emergency New Zealand service. But it was great to be there on that day, and, in fact, it was a day when we had an earthquake that rattled the lower half of the North Island. So to actually be on an exercise with the urban search and rescue guys, who obviously work in rough and ready and rumbling terrain—to actually have a real-life earthquake where they were digging through concrete, and to just see how they execute their work was just fantastic.

Something that people will not be aware of, and many people in the House will not even be aware of it, is that if 111 is called and an ambulance arrives at an incident where the ambulance officers need to lift somebody up on to their trestle to take them off to hospital and that person weighs over 150 kilograms—and there are a number of those big front-rowers whom we have playing in our teams around the country—they actually have to call the Fire Service. The Fire Service gets called out at all times of the day and night to lift those heavier people on to stretchers to put them inside the ambulance. So the Fire Service does a lot of work that you and I and the people of New Zealand do not really give it full credit for.

Then, of course, we have seen incidents around this country where there is an incident involving the police—particularly in our rural communities, where the number of police has been restricted—and who do they call? Not Batman, not Superman; they call the Fire Service. They dial 111 and those volunteer fire services and those rural fire brigades come out and they have on a number of occasions assisted the police, to help them arrest somebody and keep the community safe.

How do you fund that model when you have got weather conditions, you have got car accidents, you have got rural fires, you have got urban fires, and you have got all sorts of issues and options? There has already been a number of concerns raised by the stakeholders who are actively involved in the Fire Service about the validity of having a fire levy and increasing it to third-party insurers to try to capture a wider audience to get more coppers in the bin. We know that there are a number of people who do not have third-party car insurance on their cars who are, ultimately, going to load up more of a levy on those people who do have third-party insurance on their cars, for example.

I think that if this Government wants to introduce something along those lines, then maybe it needs to look at other ways to capture a wider audience. In the UK, for example, it is compulsory when you have a motor vehicle to have third-party insurance as a bare minimum, to make sure. They are not worried about whether your car is insured; they are making sure that for the car of the people whom you might hit, or the fire that you might cause, or the accident that you might be involved in, there is going to be some cover. This has not been addressed to date, and I think these are the sorts of issues—and others—that are going to come out in our select committee process.

So one of the ideas that has already been put forward from the submitters and the people we have been talking to is that, rather than putting a third-party insurance levy on cars, maybe it is a levy that goes on a registration—so that every car that is registered pays a levy. That has already been put forward and discussed, and I think you are going to hear submitters coming through quite strongly about the fairness and equity when we are talking about the funding model for the new Fire Service regime.

It goes on to more than that because, of course, you have got insurance, and you have got places that are insured and you have got places that are not. I am not suggesting that there are a lot of those properties out there that are not insured, but one thing for certain under this new regime is that you are going to see a step back from the rural insurance, and it is going to be heavily subsidised by the levies that are going to be paid in the cities to subsidise the rural sector. So that could be a concern, and, again, that could be something that could be captured in a rates levy across the board so that it is evenly spread. I think that as far as a funding model goes, there are some serious concerns moving forward, and that may have an impact on New Zealand First’s position moving forward on this bill as to how this is going to be properly funded.

It is also important to note the number of people we have got within our Fire Service. These figures do not include our USAR teams, and I believe there are a few hundred of those people around the country, but at the moment we have got around 1,730 career firefighters, full-time employed. Speaking to a number of those—and I have a number of friends of mine who are full-time employed in the Fire Service. They love their job, by the way. They love the work that they do. In the public sector we have huge amounts of admiration for them. In fact, as far as that goes, I think they are considered to be at 97 percent in a trust and confidence rating that came out with this report, which was also saying that we the people understand the importance of their role.

There are some concerns with regard to those jobs, and I know that Minister Dunne has addressed some of those, saying “Don’t panic, it’s business as usual, you know. Don’t hurry, don’t worry—don’t forget to stop and smell the flowers, everybody. We’re going to keep the model internally the same, so just watch this space.”, but there are concerns, and I think they need to be addressed as well.

We have a total of 11,150 volunteers, plus 600 full-time employees working inside the sector as management and support staff. But there are 11,150 people working in the Fire Service who are volunteers. They give up their days. They give up their nights. They are on call 24/7. A lot of them have jobs that they need to attend to. They have families, they have husbands, and they have wives who are on call. Another concern that has been raised through the volunteer sector is the potential marginalisation of volunteers within the Fire Service. There is, in some areas, some disregard, if you like. A little bit of a culture shift needs to happen. That needs to be addressed as we bring all these entities together to be one, with the amalgamation, to make sure that we are not leaving the volunteer sector behind and left outside in the cold.

To wrap things up, I think the third point that needs to be raised and addressed—again, speaking to stakeholders—is in regard to the potential bureaucracy that may manifest in the amalgamation. We have to make sure—and, again, I bring it back to a point that the Minister has already made in the bill, which I do commend; I think it is a great one—that we are setting up local committees to make sure that there is input from local stakeholders, who know their area better and the importance of the role that they play within the area, to actually advise the board at the top end, so as to make sure that they are not marginalised and forgotten.

But we have to make sure, when we are combining rural and urban, that funding is shared adequately, that we have got the right funding sources coming through, that our volunteers are actually part of the big picture, and that when we are dealing with rural and urban together we are not forgetting the big picture.

We look forward to seeing this bill in the select committee. To finish off, we would like to think that we can support this bill if we can tidy up a few of these areas moving forward. Thank you.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise to take a very short call in support of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill in this first reading. As has already been talked about, the formation of this bill is a product of the Swain review. It is one that looks to modernise the service, to bring both the urban and rural components together—the paid side along with the volunteer side.

As has already been discussed in this House, the Fire Service and its emergency responses have evolved over time. It is no longer about firefighting per se; it is also about first response to crashes. Especially in my area, a southern geographical spread—that response is certainly well received in such isolated areas. And, of course, the Fire Service’s duties also span to search and rescue. So it is a service that is very much needed in New Zealand and one that should be reflected properly in legislation.

To finish with, in my short call, I do want to pay tribute to Minister Dunne on his consultation process. I had the pleasure of attending meetings between both the rural and urban fire services in Invercargill and greater Southland. They were conducted with the utmost respect, and were a very constructive series of meetings that took on board the challenges of uniting the different aspects of the service but also acknowledged the opportunities. I think that consultation process was done in a very good way, and it has produced this bill, which is well needed and reflects the modern state of the Fire Service. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Ka tū au mō Ngā Kākāriki ki te kōrero i te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire te Fire and Emergency Bill.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to you collectively, the House. I stand for the Green Party to speak in the first reading of this bill, the Fire and Emergency Bill.]

I am very pleased to take a short call on this bill. The Green Party is pleased to be supporting it, the modernisation of the Fire Service that it precipitates, and setting the Fire Service on a good path for the future.

I must say that whenever the siren goes in the middle of the night to call out the volunteers in the area where I live, I am enormously grateful for their skills, their commitment, and that huge gift of time that they provide for dealing with fires and accidents. Particularly in Christchurch, after the earthquakes, the volunteer fire brigade in Diamond Harbour was the core of the response, reassuring the community by simple things like taking the fire truck around the streets immediately in the hours after the February quake just to reassure people that it was there, and requisitioning a big water-tank that I think was on its way to a farmer, which became the hub of the water supply for the community when people’s tanks were unable to cope.

The voluntary fire brigade is a huge part of our emergency response services, and this bill, in modernising the services and ensuring that there is a greater commitment—in the words of the Minister—to integrating them with the Fire Service, is a good step forward because, as others have said, there are about 13,000 paid and volunteer staff in the Fire Service, and a very high proportion of those, around 80 percent, are volunteers. So we are very pleased about the Minister’s comments that the bill retains the existing entitlements for volunteers and that it will increase the support for volunteer firefighters. I think the bill also has provisions in it that Fire and Emergency New Zealand must take reasonable steps to recognise, respect, and promote the contribution of volunteers, and it must consult with them and relevant organisations.

We are interested, though, in some of the clauses of the bill, because clause 11 sets out the main functions of Fire and Emergency New Zealand and clause 12 sets out some additional functions. Those additional functions are to the extent that Fire and Emergency New Zealand has the capability and capacity to implement them. One of those additional functions is responding to severe weather-related events, natural hazard events, and disasters. The Green Party will be very interested in submissions as to whether those additional functions should be elevated to be more of a key purpose, because, as we saw with the Christchurch earthquakes, and with climate change and the increasing likelihood of more intense weather events—particularly more severe storm events, with warmer air temperatures that can retain more water; so the storm events are more severe and there is more rainfall—the Fire Service is being called out to respond to those. It is having to have operational capacity not just with fire trucks but potentially also with boats because of significant flooding that we have seen in Northland, in Dunedin South, and elsewhere, so we are interested as to whether that should be much more of a core function of the new organisation.

The other area where the Government should take much more cognisance of the impacts of climate change is, of course, the increasing risk of fire danger. We have seen those chilling photographs of the spread of wildfires in Canada and the United States. The work that the Ministry for Primary Industries has done in New Zealand shows that there is likely to be quite a significant increase in fire danger, particularly in eastern parts of New Zealand, where we are likely to have more drought with climate change. We are likely to have longer fire seasons, an increased fire load because the vegetation has dried out, and much drier and much windier conditions. That is yet another example of why we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, because climate change is going to put even more stress on our Fire Service and on our urban and rural populations.

The other area that we would be particularly interested in, in terms of submissions, is in relation to the offence provisions, because the—

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

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I recall some years ago an elderly, retired fireman related stories of his time in the rural area. It was a time when the service of the fire brigade was to put out fires. He told the story of this house that had burnt down. The wind sort of swept up the flames and all the surrounding trees burnt and the embers started falling down. Unfortunately, some of the firemen did not have the appropriate safety footwear, and so they could not get close enough. On another occasion he related the story of how they went there and they did not have sufficient water. Again, this was in a rural area. On another occasion, in order to prevent the fire from spreading to the other buildings, they hosed down the two sides and did not put out the fire. It was sort of funny, in many ways, but he related that story to convey to me how different things were in his time as opposed to today. He also related how important it is to sufficiently resource the department that we call our Fire Service.

Tonight I had the opportunity to call Theunis Wedzinga, the duty station manager at the Māngere Fire Station. I asked him whether they were aware of this bill coming through. His answer was yes. What was his feeling about this? Mr Wedzinga has served in the rural area as well as in the urban areas, and he believes, in his words, that this is a big step forward for the Fire Service and for New Zealand. He believes that by bringing together the organisation under one Act, rather than having the Forest and Rural Fires Act and the Fire Service Act, hopefully there will be sufficient funding for the organisation, recognising the services of the Fire Service, as well as recognising the volunteers, but, in addition, to have ongoing training.

That then brings me to the bill. There are three parts to the bill. The first part establishes Fire and Emergency New Zealand; the second part refers to its operational functions, duties, and powers; and the third part talks about the levy. I hope that the general public do consider that particular part seriously. Although I acknowledge the Minister of Internal Affairs has done significant work in ensuring that there was widespread consultation and that people had an input into the implementation of this bill, he also released alongside this work the budget for this work, of $303 million in 4 years. A significant proportion of that is capital for the establishment of the headquarters.

The concern I have is that we can expect increases in levies. I do not know, given the fact that our Fire Service is no longer focused on just putting out fires—we basically use our fire services for just about anything, just about anything. Oftentimes people tell me it is easier to call 111 and ask for the Fire Service than it is to call 111 and ask for the police to turn up. There is a big question of whether Fire and Emergency New Zealand will be sufficiently funded in order for its officers to carry out their task and perform their duties and about the burden that will add, whether it will be added fairly, and whether the increased levies will go directly into Fire and Emergency New Zealand, or, as we have seen with this Government, it often siphons off money to do other things. I would ask that the Minister continue with his good work on this, and extend the consultation period to the fullest.

I recommend the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee. It is an appropriate committee. The chairperson is professional. The chairperson is far better than some of the other chairpersons at ensuring that we have widespread input on some of the concerns. My colleague Mr Wedzinga, the station manager at the fire service in Māngere, is wanting to ensure that all their members have that opportunity to make a statement at the public consultation process. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): It is my honour to take a call on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill at its first reading. First of all, I would like to pay gratitude to all the firefighters and the volunteers who stand up in difficult times with other New Zealanders. This bill is also part of the Better Public Services of this Government. We warned that the law should be revamped and updated, because it has been due for a long time. The review was taken in 2015, and the recommendations are contained in this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation. I hope you will indulge me, because I am not sure whether I am going to get another chance to speak in the House this week, and I want to take the chance to thank the messengers in the House who are leaving Parliamentary Service at the end of this week. I can see Pauline, Philip, and Pat in the House at the moment, and Judy—and I think that is Sue—up in the gallery. Thank you for the many years of service that you have given to us. We work in a very unique environment and sometimes it can be very political, and I would like to thank you all for the professionalism you have shown over the years in my experience as an MP and wish you all the best. I am very lucky—being a Wellington MP I will see many of you when you leave this place. I think I will see Bob and Trevor on the platform at Porirua train station, as I do on a regular basis. I thank you all for your service and wish you all the best.

Can I also acknowledge the 13,000 men and women, I think it is, who make up our Fire Service, whether they are volunteers or professional firefighters in our communities. Like many other members have done, I take an opportunity to thank them for their particular services, and I would like to thank the Titahi Bay, Plimmerton, and Paekākāriki volunteers. I live very close to the Titahi Bay Fire Station and quite often get woken by the alarm. Also can I thank the Tawa, Porirua, and Paraparaumu professional firefighters for the job they do and the contribution they make to the community.

It is an enormous change that we are seeing being heralded through with this piece of legislation, and can I acknowledge the Minister in charge of this legislation, the Hon Peter Dunne. Having read through a lot of the documents and the regulatory impact statement, I see there has been a lot of consultation with a lot of community groups to put this piece of legislation together. I do acknowledge the Minister for that. There are major changes that cover governance structure—a change in the funding model—which I am sure we will have a submission on from the Insurance Council of New Zealand. I think this piece of legislation does recognise the changed nature of the work of our professional and volunteer fire services, whether they are urban or rural.

While we are looking at some of these big picture issues with this legislation, certainly when I have been speaking to some of my volunteer fire service people, they do not want to let this piece of legislation go through and miss an opportunity for them to their job more effectively. When I speak about that I want to make a comment about subpart 3, in Part 2—it sounds like a bit of a Committee stage speech—which goes to the formation and approval of a code of practice for firefighting water supply. That might seem slightly mundane, but it is certainly an issue that my volunteer fire service has brought to me around the issue of training.

The responsibility of the upkeep of the fire hydrants in the street—at least in my area; that of the Porirua City Council—is the responsibility of both the professional and local volunteer firefighters. They have had some issues around the maintenance and upkeep of those, because every time they have to go and do that they have to put in place a traffic management plan. That has been an issue for them, especially for the volunteer firefighters in terms of having the people who are accredited—qualified—to do that, the time, and, potentially, the expense that it takes to do that, which has caused a great level of frustration within the volunteer fire service. So I look forward to submissions in the select committee. When we look at the firefighting water supply, one of the issues I think we have to look at is in terms of training and maintenance of some of those fundamental things. I sit on the Government Administration Committee. I would encourage volunteer firefighter services around the county, if this is a particular issue for them—and it certainly is for the Plimmerton fire service in Porirua—to submit to that as well.

Another issue around the security of water supply for firefighting is that under the current Fire Service Act, section 30(1)(b) says that firefighting services should “have the use of all water in any river, creek, stream, watercourse, channel, lake, lagoon, well, tank, or other source of water supply whatsoever for the purpose of extinguishing any fire or stabilising or rendering safe any hazardous substance emergency.” In English, I think that means that if there is some water there and they need it to fight a fire, then they have access to it. The issue, again, is around training. Some of our volunteer firefighter services need to train, and in some areas that particular aspect—the water and the areas around it—is challenging. They have been told “Oh, you can go and use the local school pool.”, but it does not quite match up to the real conditions that they may be faced with if they are asked to take water out of one of those bodies of water. They have asked for permission from the Greater Wellington Regional Council to be able to practise that. They have taken the water out and put the water straight back in, but they have found the red tape and the bureaucracy around being able to do that very frustrating.

If we are going to give firefighters the power to be effective and give them the ability to use these types of water supplies in an emergency, then we have to get real about letting them train in those situations. Otherwise, they will get into a situation where they need that water to fight a fire, and they will think, well, “There goes the pond.”, or “There goes the lake.”, or “There goes the lagoon.”, but when they get there they will come up against something that they have not foreseen and have not been able to train for, and that is going to be problematic. That was a real scenario where one of my volunteer fire services said “Hey, look, we will take the water out, then we will put the pipe back in.”—so the water is essentially just going through the hose—“Can we do that?”, and it has been prevented from doing that. That is one of the practical issues—[Interruption] Yes, I think it is a very strange issue, Mr Assistant Speaker, and that is why I think that these are some of the practical things that I would like the Government Administration Committee to look at during the select committee process. I would encourage as many volunteer and professional fire service personnel who share those frustrations to make a submission during the select committee process.

I think that Part 2, subpart 3, around the code of practice around firefighting water supplies, is good because it compels Fire and Emergency New Zealand to work with local committees, any local authorities, and the New Zealand standards organisations to get that code right. I am thinking that that has been set up to make sure that some of these impracticalities around training for some of its scenarios can be sorted out so that we do not have what I would call a silly situation where it cannot do practical training. So there is that issue around supply and of practice and training around water, and also the issue of having to have a traffic management plan for doing something as simple as setting up and checking a fire hydrant and seeing whether it is fit for purpose, if it was to need it.

These kinds of issues are frustrating for lot of volunteer fire service personnel who have been in the service for decades. If we can ensure that we can sort out what are, in my mind, these very small issues—get them sorted—then we will have these volunteers around for 5 or 10 years to come, and will address the issue that we have with recruiting more people to the likes of volunteer fire services and to firefighting. If we lose that body of experience because of these niggly little issues, it will be to the detriment of all of our communities because we will not have those people there who can give their knowledge on to the next generation of volunteer fire services.

I am looking forward to the select committee stage. There is plenty to look at, but, as many of my colleagues have said, at this stage we will support it. We think it is a good change—a change that brings the Fire Service into the modern era and also fits the purpose. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill in its first reading tonight. This is the culmination of many years of consultation and consideration. This new organisation that will be set up is called Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), with local committees to be established at the local level. This single organisation, FENZ, will be responsible for rural and urban fire services.

Reflected at the heart of this bill is the importance of the links between fire services and communities, and also the strong need for support for volunteers, given that 80 percent of firefighters are, indeed, volunteers. This bill reflects the changing demand on our rural fire services. For example, from my own experience on the West Coast, rural fire services very rarely put out a rural fire. In fact, in some areas it is difficult to even get a fire to burn. However, these volunteers are often engaged as first responders to motor vehicle accidents. This bill will ensure, through the regional committees, that they are well resourced, trained, and heard. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Bills

Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. I move, That the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by a date that is 4 months and 1 day from the date that the bill receives its first reading. The amendments in this bill will make it easier for people to connect to ultra-fast broadband (UFB), as well as make more minor changes to improve the liability allocations process for the telecommunications development levy and, ultimately, extend the regulatory requirements to the second phase of the UFB contracts. This bill creates a new consenting process that telecommunications companies must follow when installing modern telecommunications networks such as UFB.

At least 80 percent of New Zealanders will have access to UFB by 2022. Already at least 50 percent of our population has that access. Demand in New Zealand for faster, better broadband is huge and continues to grow, fuelled by the Government’s UFB roll-out. However, not all of those with access are able to connect easily. Around 225,000 UFB orders will need permission for access to property shared between neighbours, such as shared driveways or in apartment buildings. The current process also creates delays. As of April this year, there were almost 800 orders on the books where the consenting process had been running for 50 working days or longer without resolution. The bill aims to reduce delays in cancelled orders for UFB, to result in better outcomes for those ready to connect.

A tiered consenting regime will allow installation methods to be prescribed into two categories according to the impacts those methods are considered to have on shared property. Installation methods with the lowest impacts will no longer need consent from other parties. Under a category 1 installation, the UFB connection is determined to have no lasting impacts on property. In these cases, a statutory right will be provided for a network operator to continue with the installation after providing 5 working days’ notice. This is estimated to cover about a third of installations in shared driveways. A category 2 installation means that the connection will have some lasting minor impact on a property. This could include drilling a cable underground or leaving small potholes to access cable networks. Under these installations, neighbours will be provided with a high-level design and given 15 working days to object on a number of limited grounds. This is estimated to cover off about half of all installations in shared driveways.

For multi-unit complexes governed by a body corporate, the consenting process will vary slightly from this tiered regime, to better fit in with these existing governance structures. Installation methods that do not fit into the new categories will continue to be subject to existing consenting requirements. A disputes resolution process will also be created to ensure that any disputes that arise as a result of the new consenting regime are dealt with fairly and efficiently.

The bill extends the regulatory requirements relating to the first phase of UFB to the extension of the programme. These minor technical changes are consistent with what Parliament has already enacted for the first phase once commercial negotiations for the second phase are concluded. Two statutory authorisations are provided under the Commerce Act for potential partnering arrangements between Chorus and the Crown that may emerge from the UFB extension tender process. The proposal to provide statutory authorisations should not be viewed as predetermining the outcome of the tendering process. It is, instead, a pre-emptive action consistent with the first phase of the programme to allow the Government to have a full set of options available to it for the tender process. I commend the bill to the House.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): The Labour Party is pleased to support this bill, basically because it makes good common sense. We have an ultra-fast broadband (UFB) roll-out that needs to access private property. There are obviously some complications that occur when that is attempted, in many cases. What this bill is aiming to do is to try to iron out some of those complications by which there could be delays in getting the ultra-fast broadband from the street, if you like, into the homes.

Right at the moment, what happens is that the network operators have the consent of the legal owners of the property through which they run the fibre connection, but this could be complicated if the end-user is not the sole owner of the property—for example, if you have got a unit title, some sort of company share arrangement, perhaps, or Māori freehold land, or maybe if there is an easement. There is a whole range of different complications that can create problems in getting the connection through to the owner who wants the ultra-fast broadband.

As a result of that, this legislation breaks the installations, effectively, into two different categories. Category 1 installations are those installations that have no lasting impact on properties. They might disturb the grass or soft surfaces, or something like that—perhaps a narrow trench through a garden or whatever—but they create no real physical problems other than that. That is what the legislation calls “category 1”. For those installations, a statutory right will be provided for the network operator to get on and install UFB after providing 5 days’ notice. So the notice time is pretty minimal. People get 5 days’ notice in terms of the fact that this is going to go through the area. That is estimated to cover around about 37 percent of the connections that are made with the UFB roll-out.

Category 2 installations are a little more complicated. They have more of a lasting impact on property, such as drilling a cable underground, leaving potholes, having to cut through, say, concrete, or having to access a metre every 10 metres or so. For these installations, neighbours will be provided with, basically, a high-level design of what is going to happen, and they get 15 days to object on a limited number of grounds. If they do not object, then they are deemed to have consented. So it effectively eliminates a lot of the time delays and problems that are being created at the moment. As the Minister for Communications said, a number of cases right now have been waiting over 50 days to be connected, because of disputes between different parties that the ultra-fast broadband consent has to go through.

It is estimated that category 2, that more difficult installation, is going to be about 51 percent of all installations. The balance—the 12 percent of installations left from the 37 percent in category 1 and 51 percent in category 2—is more invasive than even those two categories and will be subject to the existing requirement where all parties have to provide their consent. So, in effect, it will mean either bigger earthworks or bigger concrete works, or whatever.

There are some complications, obviously, as well, around apartment blocks where there are multiple dwellings and owners, and the law will clarify this as well so that once a single-unit owner has placed an order for UFB, the network operator will have an automatic right to the common areas of that property to best determine the right way or the most appropriate way to install UFB. It means that an apartment owner who wants UFB will not be stymied from getting it by a whole lot of other people in that apartment block.

We are looking forward to hearing what is going to happen in the select committee. I am sure there will be submissions on this, and I am sure there will be other issues that perhaps we have not been able to consider or think about in the course of this first reading. Nevertheless, those issues can come forward at the select committee. We can hear those, and we can tweak and adjust, hopefully, if the Hon Amy Adams will allow us to be able to do that in the interests of good natural justice and in order that we are able to get the best bill and the best law that will be able to be rolled out.

As I say, the Labour Party is pleased to support this. We notice that ultra-fast broadband is going out at a reasonable rate. There were about 24,000 requests for UFB in April and 16,000 connections. You do the maths on that and somehow along the line 8,000 people requested it but did not get it. What I would assume that means is that we are running a little behind what people would want, but, nevertheless, it is being rolled out at a reasonable pace. I have to say, I was one of those people in April who made that request and actually got their UFB connected, so who am I to complain?

However, I do note that with the excitement around our UFB roll-out we should remember that there are a number of people in our society who are not even connected to the internet, let alone able to connect to UFB. For example, Peeni Henare was just telling me that 68 percent of Māori do not have access to the internet. That is a lot of Māori people who are not connected to the internet, compared with 86 percent connected, the average across New Zealand. The biggest non-connections are in the areas where there is the greatest level of deprivation, which is perhaps in Northland and Gisborne. Perhaps in some of the rural areas it is more difficult, but, nevertheless, it puts these people at an extraordinary disadvantage.

At a time when we are rolling out various computing devices—iPads, etc.—in schools, the fact that kids in those areas, in those groups, are unable to go home and do their homework using the internet, as so many people across New Zealand are so accustomed to doing now, puts them at a distinct disadvantage. It really does show up what people are calling the digital divide. Likewise in Auckland: 70 percent of Māori in Auckland have access to the internet, but that means 30 percent do not. That is a very significant number of people.

Not only that, if you look at Māori in terms of their connections, if you like, to the industry, again, Mr Henare was telling me that only 1 percent of Māori are seeking study in the information and technology area. I think that is a real shame, because obviously this is an area that is growing. Although we can get very excited about the fact that we are having ultra-fast broadband rolled out at the pace that the Minister has laid out, we do need to think very, very seriously about those people who are being missed, those people who do not have the access, those people who are likely to fall even further behind as a result of not being able to be connected to something that we have come to see almost as a right, as in water or electricity or whatever. We need to make sure that those people are connected and that we have some means of being able to roll that out in a much more universal way. Thank you.

MELISSA LEE (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. I listened very carefully to the member who just took his seat, David Shearer, and also to the Minister Amy Adams. I am very excited about this bill coming to the Commerce Committee, and I look forward to the submissions when we actually deal with them.

One of the comments that the Minister made was that as of April this year there were almost 800 orders on the book where the consenting process had been running for about 50 working days or longer without resolution. This is one of the issues that we are trying to resolve with this bill. As Mr Shearer said, a situation where houses are sharing a driveway or people live in a high-rise complex where they actually need the permission of their neighbours, who may not necessarily be present, is something that we are trying to resolve here.

The comment that the Minister made, in terms of 50 days of no resolution, reminded me of the times when we did not actually have the internet. I am obviously going to be ageing myself, but, going back to university when the internet was not available, I think we all went to university with typewriters. Nowadays more and more people are wanting faster, cheaper internet services. This is one way of making sure that we deliver the service better and faster. I commend the bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I thank the Minister for Communications for bringing forward this bill. I think it is great that in New Zealand we have got cross-party agreement about the importance of fibre connection. It really is not an issue that should be too political. We have had successive Governments running some pretty good telecommunications policy in New Zealand for well over a decade now—it is about 15 years since we saw the deregulatory moves and the structural separation of what was Telecom, which was split into what is now Chorus and Spark. We have had the Government intervention to advance the speed at which fibre is rolled out in New Zealand. There is cross-party agreement that this is a good thing to do. I do not think there are many, if any, parties in this Parliament that disagree that it is a good thing to do.

The reason we agree is that it enables improvements in a lot of aspects of society. The one that is most common for people—the ability to get, through the internet, things that used to come through the television—is, in some ways, less important than some of the other advantages, but it enables things like more efficient delivery of Government services to people. It enables telemedicine, so that people in rural areas can get a better quality of medical care. It enables improvements in education—again, particularly relevant to rural schools, where they can, through fibre, deliver more specialised subjects to their pupils, particularly in secondary schools, that might not otherwise be able to be delivered to a small area school.

But most important of all, it seems to me—or, equally important, I should say, rather than necessarily more important—are the commercial benefits that arise from ultra-fast broadband (UFB). We are now at a stage in the world where we have a lot of enabling technologies that have been matured and that are important to New Zealand, improving the economy, which we share the fruits of. We have the necessary telecommunications capability in our telecommunications companies. We have got ubiquitous mobile technology. We have got increasingly common UFB capability. We have affordable computing power. We have sensor technologies that are affordable. These things combine through the internet of things, and as a consequence there is a myriad of new commercial opportunities that are made possible by these new technologies, whether it is in precision agriculture—or selling precision agriculture products to the world—or whether it is new software verticals where clever New Zealand software companies can develop services that not only are relevant to New Zealand but also have a global reach and can be sold internationally in a way that lifts the value of our economy. Fibre is an important ingredient of that, so I am pleased that we are making progress in the installation of fibre. It is true that the Auditor-General recently produced a report that was complimentary of the way in which fibre is now being rolled out in New Zealand—and long may that continue.

I would say that sometimes the media cycle is a little bit unkind to Ministers, and I would not be doing my duty as an Opposition member of Parliament if I did not actually hold up today’s New Zealand Herald with the front-page story—instead of ultra-fast broadband, it has “ultra-shoddy broadband”. There is a litany of problems here. On the front page here, there is a photo of someone who “has been left with an infrastructure timebomb after fibre-optic cables were installed at his Howick home.” It turns out that these problems are not isolated, because if there was only one problem, then you would not see this on the front of the New Zealand Herald today. There is a litany of similar problems where shoddy levels of installation service have resulted in these cables being left in places where they are, obviously, not going to last: the weather is going to get into them, people will kick them or drive over them, or in any other number of ways these things are going to be problematic into the future. There are examples where two neighbours have got fibre-optic cables on their fences held up by duct tape. Duct tape is the installation method that is being used by Chorus, in respect of some.

Chorus admits, to its credit, that this is substandard. But it does appear that, according to the people in the paper, Chorus had dismissed requests to bury the cables rather than hang them off fences with duct tape. Of course the people who are in receipt of these services are worried that if the fibre fails, they will not only suffer the loss of service but also get a bill to fix it. So they think that more should be done to make sure that broadband is installed properly. These exposed cables worry residents—in fact, that is the heading on page 3. The litany of complaints does not just cover half of it; actually, it is the only front-page story. It does not just cover the whole of the front page; it is also continued on page 3 of the newspaper. Although it is true that there is cross-party support for this, and although it is true that it is very important to the development of our economy and to society more generally, it is also true that it is not without problems.

Can I also mention a couple of other issues. One of the tensions that we now have in New Zealand is that over time, as New Zealand transitions, effectively, from copper-based services to a combination of mobile broadband and ultra-fast broadband—both of which can deliver telephone services as well—there is a question of how much money you spend on copper maintenance, and for how long. I know that the Minister does not think that we should have advanced planning of this; she thinks that we should leave it all to the industry. I am not sure that that is right, because, in the end, someone is going to have to make a call eventually as to what is the right signal to have as to when we should be turning off the old technology and moving to the new. The Minister is not even prepared to contemplate having that conversation. But if she is not going to have that conversation, then we need to pay particular care as to whether there is going to be enough money spent on maintaining copper in the meantime.

We know another complaint that we have had in the last couple of weeks is that with the big rain events throughout New Zealand, we have had more complaints about water getting into the old copper-based system, which means that there is a lot of static in, and inferior performance of, the old copper-based services for those who use them. Those copper-based services remain essential still for the majority of people in their homes, because most people still have a landline, and most people now still use landline-based broadband for their internet. It is not as good as UFB. It is better than it was, but unless it is properly maintained, we are going to have problems there.

One other issue that is raised by this legislation—I will not go again through the land access issues that my colleague David Shearer has explained very well, with the cascading level of approval you need depending on the seriousness of the intervention. I agree that those proposals look sound, and I am sure that the select committee will look into the detail of them. But there are also some changes made to the telecommunications development levy. This is a matter that has not got universal support within the industry. The industry does question it, and I think that submissions will be made to the select committee by participants, not just to the changes that are being made that are said to reduce some of the complexity and compliance costs associated with the telecommunications development levy but I expect that there will be some submissions made as to the levy itself.

Finally, one of the challenges we have in New Zealand is in rural areas. I am not yet convinced that we have got the balance right in terms of the push into rural areas. There have been a lot of complaints from councils around the country complaining that their residents cannot get decent broadband and that the rural broadband services that have been pushed by the Government have not been up to the mark. I know I have had complaints from some of the telecommunications providers that there is some anti-competitive behaviour, they think, in respect of the two dominant players, who are reluctant to share aerials. If you have got to have more than one tower, that is more expensive. We have got to the point where the providers seem to agree that they will have one tower but they insist on more than one aerial, despite the fact that there are technological solutions that would enable them to share one aerial and, therefore, allow for broadband to be pushed into rural areas more cost-effectively. That is not UFB; that is mobile-based broadband, but it is a necessary substitute in some rural areas.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the first reading of the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is an important bill because, as we know, day by day the demand for ultra-fast broadband is increasing. It is very important for our businesses, educational institutions, community, and others that opportunities are available because of this.

Thousands of New Zealanders involved in shared properties or living in apartments experience delays in connecting to ultra-fast broadband, and they need permission for access to the property shared between the neighbours. In 2000 we had only 22 percent of our population with access to broadband. In 2003 we had 51 percent, and in 2012 we had 86 percent of our population with access to broadband. Fifteen years ago the total usage of the internet was 40 gigabytes. Today, monthly usage of the internet is almost 80 terabytes. These are the things that are required for ultra-fast broadband, and this bill will help that availability to the end-users. I commend this bill to the House.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Nga mihi nui o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori ki a tātou katoa. I rise to support this common-sense, non-controversial, technical bill. The Green Party supports ultra-fast broadband. We see it as a key plank in modern 21st century infrastructure for a modern digital economy. This is the key platform from which digital companies can be exporting, we can be having videoconferencing around the world, and game creators in their garages can be exporting their products around the world. We believe in a digital nation. This is like how our ancestors used to invest in ports and railways. This is what our generation invests in as we try to deliver prosperity for future generations.

I believe we can be a digital nation. In fact, it is important that we embrace this opportunity. There is a limit to how many tourists we can cram into Fiordland. There is a limit to how many cows we can cram into our paddocks. There is no limit to the software, the services, the intellectual property, and the new products that we could be exporting around the world. There is simply no limit, and that is our future if we want a richer country.

On this note, I would like to acknowledge the small tinkering we saw from Minister Hekia Parata—one step towards that today with the tinkering of the curriculum around technology. And, look, I could not put it better than the chief executive officer of Orion Health, who today said in response: “After 6 years of waiting, a 12 month review process … seven months of deliberation by Minister Hekia Parata and her Ministry, all there is to show for it are some minor changes, including a pledge for more consultation.”

We are light years away from the digital nation that we could be, where we are growing those high-value jobs, delivering those higher-value exports. Instead, we are cramming tourists into Fiordland and we are cramming cows into paddocks. And on the ultra-fast broadband, although it is something we have seen unanimity across this House in supporting, I will not be as charitable as some of the previous speakers have been on the Government’s responsibility.

It is pretty hard to oppose the Government investing $1.35 billion in broadband, but you only have to see the front page of the New Zealand Herald today to see the shoddy process of Steven Joyce in rolling out ultra-fast broadband. I feel sorry for Minister Adams. This is not the only time that Steven Joyce has left a mess for some other Minister to clean up. He was quite happy to get the headlines, as he always does, with the initial investment, but the actual details, the technical process, is left for another Minister to clean up. You only have to go on to Geekzone or PropertyTalk or Reddit to see it is not just a litany; it is pages and pages of problems that people have with actually connecting to this critical piece of national infrastructure. It is great that we are finally getting around to dealing with a small segment of the problem, which is shared access in multi-unit dwellings, but we all know it is larger than that.

I grew up in New Zealand in the eighties, when there was this constant myth that it took 6 weeks to get a telephone connected, and how horrible and, you know, Polish shipyard it was to take 6 weeks. You know how long ultra-fast broadband connections are taking? Longer than that. I have had someone in the internet service provider sector saying that at the end of this year, as the connections ramp up, we could be looking at 3 months for someone to get connected, because of the roundabouts, the to-ing and fro-ing, and the days off work people have to take to finally get connected. And the Government is deluding itself if it thinks it is simply a problem of shared access in multi-unit dwellings.

But this is the problem we have before us in this bill. We support it because there are some pretty common-sense changes, and this is exactly what I mean: some pretty common-sense changes that Steven Joyce could not have considered years ago. There are some pretty common-sense changes, like a disputes resolution body that Steven Joyce could have included in that bill, but instead he decided to ram it through the Parliament as fast as he could, and now Minister Adams is having to clean it up.

As we talk about cleaning up the mess, I would actually like to question the current Minister because I know that this is something that has been on the table for more than 4 years. Why has it taken more than 4 years to finally get this issue resolved? It was entirely foreseeable that we would see problems with shared access in multi-unit dwellings. With having no disputes resolution process, it was patently clear we would have these problems down the line, and, sure, although we support these pretty common-sense, pragmatic solutions, why on earth has it taken so long? For those people on the front page of the paper, for those people who have to vent that they have taken days off work, that the person has not come round, and that the official application form has been lost somewhere in the Byzantine bureaucratic internal dwellings of Chorus, why has it taken so long? Why has it taken 4 years to get to the point where we are finally putting a first reading of a bill there?

We support the technical changes around the telecommunications development levy, and we support the changes around UFB2—pretty uncontroversial. We think the mix the Minister has reached in terms of category 1 and category 2 in apartments is pragmatic. It is hard to find the most elegant solution that will not annoy someone, but I think she has found the mix. Our criticism is that it has taken so long. It was not foreseen, and once again we are debating the problems.

I remember the “Ultra-fast Broadband Amendment Amendment Bill”. We are debating the problems, trying to retrospectively fix problems that could have been foreseen. We are not taking the opportunities to build a digital nation—to make sure that we are teaching our kids the right skills in school, that we are actually finally now teaching our trainee teachers to use digital technology, that we are encouraging coding in our schools, and that we are encouraging familiarisation and experimentation in the new products to be created in new technologies, like manufacturing 3-D printing. We are not debating the huge opportunities we have in the space industry, for example, with Rocket Lab. No, once again the New Zealand Parliament, late at night, is trying to fix up a mess that was entirely foreseeable. So I will not be as charitable as the Labour Party members tonight. We support the bill, but let us do better as a country. Let us build that digital nation.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much. Before I begin my contribution on the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, can I just acknowledge, please, the Chamber support staff who are going to be finishing at the end of this week. This is likely to be the only contribution I give in this House this week, and so I want to acknowledge those who are leaving us, the time that they have given us, and the care that they have given us over the years. We hope to see you again as friends, perhaps even occasionally at the Back Bencher, and we can buy you a beer.

To move on to the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, New Zealand First will support this bill to select committee only at this stage. We have some concerns, and I think those concerns are based generally around the respect of property rights. I think they have been the concerns that have been articulated and why it has actually taken the Minister the time to get to this point, because there is a balance between moving forward with progress and, at the same time, being respectful of each individual’s property rights in this sort of an area.

I personally believe that the two-tiered system that the Minister has set up is a very positive one. I think that having category 1, for example, installations that use existing equipment, aerial installations, and installations that only disturb soft surfaces where those surfaces can be easily restored, are reasonable. They sound reasonable, but, again, we want to just say that we are going to support this bill to the select committee only, because we want to hear from the public.

I think Mr Parker has already referred to an example of cords wired by Chorus, subcontractors, or whomever, being laid across gardens and so on. One cannot underestimate the passion that some people create in their gardens. A garden may be a soft surface, but is it going to be able to be easily restored? I think it is about making sure that we have a reasonable understanding of what those parameters are going to be. The Minister has done a—a job on working to make sure those parameters are in place. The fact that we have a disputes resolution mechanism in here, also—it is a tried and true process. We have used it in other formats. It is going to now be placed inside this environment. Again, it gives us some hope that this is something that will sort out this disorder.

Category 2 concerns the fact that installations are the width of the micro-trenching—that it is not more than a prescribed width—and that installations are predominantly below the surface, such as directional drilling, open trenching, and those sorts of things. Again, I think it is interesting, though, to look at the clauses that have actually been placed inside the bill, like new section 155ZO(3), in clause 10: “Before recommending regulations prescribing a method of installation as a category 1 installation under subsection (1)(e), the Minister must be satisfied that the installation will not have any lasting, substantial, physical impact on the property.”

One of the ways that a person with those property rights is going to be able to protect them is the 5 working days for a category 1 and the 15 working days for a category 2. So they are going to be able to lodge a complaint, and no work—according to the information that we have at the moment through the regulatory impact statement and other documents—can be done on the property until it has been through the disputes resolution process. Then if there is still no agreement, we understand that it can then go to the District Court. So there is still that process of protection for property rights, and we are hopeful that it is going to be flexible enough and substantial enough to actually alleviate the fears of those people who are concerned about that. But we will hear about that at the select committee. I have no doubt that we will hear about that at the select committee.

We are interested in what we believe to be a slight increase in the levy that is going to take place. It will be interesting to hear the service providers’ perspective on that, because I understand that there is an expectation that that will not be passed on to the consumer, but we will be listening to hear how that is going to impact on the consumer and how this legislation is going to roll out.

I just want to pick up on a couple of things that have already been said. I will be interested to have my peer who is sitting nearby, Ria Bond, sitting on the Commerce Committee, because I understand that that is where this is going. I will be interested in whether this might affect the right to occupy and whether that affects those who are sitting inside the villages and so on and have rights to occupy as opposed to actually being on a cross-lease or in a body corporate situation.

Chris Bishop: I’m sure Ria will be right on it.

TRACEY MARTIN: It may not touch them at all, but considering, Mr Bishop, that everyone has the right to this technology no matter where they live or what age they are, that is something that needs to be considered. I pick up on Mr Parker’s conversation around the technologies that are available using ultra-fast broadband. I think of some of the advances in nanotechnology that may actually assist this nation to keep people in their homes for longer, thereby meaning that they are less of a financial burden in their old age inside institutions when they can stay in their home if we can actually create these technological leaps.

I also take a little bit of an issue with regard to Mr Parker’s conversation around copper and when the moment is to turn off the spend on copper. Doing a lot of work in my portfolio area for the member for Northland around the delivery of broadband and internet up in Northland, with many, many, many of those people being reliant upon copper, we would hope that until there has been a suitable solution for those communities, and that nobody turns the tap off on upgrading the copper cabinets and actually doing the copper-fibre blend that is being talked about and delivered, possibly through Northpower, down power lines.

I think, also, that it is interesting, part of the reason—I think, with regard to the contribution by the member from the Green Party—around the delay for Chorus, for example, being able to get ultra-fast broadband into homes. Agreeably, the Minister pointed out that some of those delays are around this access issue, but there is also a massive delay with regard to Chorus, and there is a skills shortage—the inability of them to actually hire the number of people whom they can then train to deliver this service. So we have some other areas of inflexibility there that we also need to address.

Lastly, just to cap up, New Zealand First will actually support this bill to select committee at this stage. We will be listening to the contributions of the submitters. The balance between property rights and access is the largest issue for us as infill housing takes a larger and larger place, particularly inside of Auckland, as we go forward. This could become a larger and larger issue. We can appreciate that. There needs to be an answer, but it must be an answer that is balanced with the property rights of the existing population. Kia ora.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am delighted to take a call on this bill. I think I might speak in analogy. Look, 10-minute speeches are akin to dial-up.

Hon Member: It’s a metaphor.

SIMON O’CONNOR: It is sort of more of a metaphor, but there is an analogous element to this. Long 10-minute speeches are akin to dial-up. Those that are a bit shorter may be ADSL. Three or 4-minute speeches may be VDSL speed, but this speech is an ultra-fast broadband speech—it is completed seconds after it started.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I have not had a chance to look through the bill given the amount of time that member spent on his speech. I am happy to take a call on this. I note that the bill has two parts. Part 1 contains amendments to the Telecommunications Act 2001, and Part 2 is simply the introduction of new schedules. That begs the question: it seems like this is something very, very easy that could have been done quite some time ago and we are only now coming around to it. But then I am asking myself, as there are only two parts to this, what is missing from this bill?

You have to consider the timing of this—when the country is awash with a national housing crisis, we are trying to deal with this issue here. I will tell you at a later stage why I raise that issue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: While sticking to the bill, you will do that.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: In terms of the bill, my colleague David Shearer has said that this bill is really timely. It is something that needs to happen, and therefore we do not have a problem with it if it goes to the select committee. But I think I would be keen, like many I have heard in this House, to listen to the submitters. Although the papers that have been made available talk about category 1—methods that have no lasting impacts on property, such as those that disturb only grass or other soft surfaces—for these installations a statutory right will be provided for network operators to get on with the installation after providing 5 working days’ notice. This is estimated to cover about one-third of installations in shared driveways.

The second category of installation that this information provides for concerns methods that have some lasting impact on property, and I suspect that would be drilling a cable underground, leaving small potholes to access the network every 10 metres or so. Neighbours will be provided with a high-level design and given 15 working days to object, on a limited number of grounds. I am not sure what that limited number of grounds is, but it appears that for 15 working days you have that opportunity to do so—“If they do not object, they will be deemed to have consented. Category two is estimated to cover off approximately 51 percent of installations in shared driveway rights of way.”

Then, at the last part of this information, we have unprescribed installations—“The remaining 12 percent of installation methods that are more invasive than these new categories will continue to be subject to the existing requirement whereby all parties need to provide their consent.” This is information provided by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

I was looking through the bill to see whether there is information available in terms of people living in cars or garages—whether they will have access to this—and I will tell you why. Regarding internet access to the home, this is a report released in 2014, which states: “While 86 per cent of the European population had access to the internet at home in 2012, only 68 per cent of Māori people and 65 per cent of Pacific people had internet access in the home.” Then it goes further: “In 2001, the gap between Europeans and Māori was 8 percentage points. This had increased to 18 percentage points by 2012, an increase of 125 per cent. Similarly, the gap between Europeans and Pacific people was 12 percentage points in 2001. This had increased to 21 percentage points by 2012, an increase of 75 per cent.”

The point is that you have got a significant proportion of the New Zealand population that has no access to the internet in the first place, which I thought would also be something that the Government ought to look at. In my own electorate, internet access is 57.9 percent, compared with 72.8 percent in the rest of New Zealand. A significant proportion not only of my electorate but also of New Zealanders will not be able to benefit from this, and I cannot find anything in the bill that suggests the roll-out of internet access to the rest of the New Zealand population.

Given the situation that we currently have, will people living in cars, garages, and emergency homes have the benefit of this? The point of this whole report is to suggest that one of the signs of poverty and one of the signs of growing inequality is the lack of access to the internet and the lack of access, I suspect, for many to broadband.

My colleague David Parker highlighted a newspaper article this morning in the New Zealand Herald—in Howick this occurred—where it showed some holes that had been dug between not just one but a number of neighbours, with duct tape being used to attach cables. I hope that as part of this bill and part of the public consultation process, the members of the general public who have had some experience so far in being able to access the internet or services that they receive will come forward. My fear, or the concern I have, is that the power that is given to the network operators to simply come through and determine—I do not know whether they will give that notice to the neighbours by way of a letter or by a card. I suspect that there will be a lot of people in various neighbourhoods who do not even pick up the mail in their letterboxes anymore; they have become dependent on email. I would be interested in hearing from the general public how they would prefer to receive that notice, whether it be a letter, a card, or through their internet service.

I do not really have anything further to add to this debate. The explanatory note says that “the Bill will allow prospective liable persons to select their chosen financial year end date rather than mandating the year-ending-30-June format; the Bill will update terminology by replacing the term ‘consolidated statement of financial …’ ”—it seems to be a lot of waffle when we are only trying to do something very, very simple, and that is: enable people to access fibre.

What I am saying is that what is lacking from this bill is what this Government intends to ensure, which is that access to internet communication is available for all New Zealanders. For as long as the figures that I quoted earlier remain, where a significant proportion of New Zealanders and a significant proportion of the Māori electorate do not have access to the internet, the finger-pointing towards this Government that is happening will continue, because lack of access to internet is a sign of poverty. Particularly in this day and age, in the 21st century, if families do not have access to that, then they would be classified as poor—but that is only one of the signs. Thank you very much.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, a bill that has a very simple purpose, which is to make it easier for people to connect to ultra-fast broadband (UFB)—easier and quicker. So the last thing they need from me is to take up more time in this House—that could slow down their connections. So I would like to commend them for their interest in connecting to UFB, and I would like to commend this bill to the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much. It is interesting to see the Government taking such short calls on this piece of legislation, but I might try to use the 10 minutes to canvass a number of issues around this piece of legislation. Connectivity is a very important issue. I think you only need to see what happens to consumers when they lose their connectivity—and lose their minds—to see how important it is to both businesses and the average Kiwi at home. Making sure that you do have connectivity to the internet is obviously extremely important. It is extremely important in an electorate like mine, in Mana, too. I have the pleasure of sitting on the local board of the Computers in Homes board for Porirua. At the moment, because of the cost of broadband connections, we are currently looking at different ways of being able to offer broadband connectivity, or internet connectivity, to communities like that of Waitangirua and Cannons Creek. We know that if those families in those areas, and the children in those areas, do not have the ability to connect to the internet, they will be at a distinct disadvantage compared with other families and other children who do. So it is certainly an extremely important issue.

This piece of legislation, though, is the kind of bill that you get when a Government does not use its taringas. It should have listened about 2 to 3 years ago when this issue first arose, when the ultra-fast broadband (UFB) roll-out began and people started contacting their local MPs. They said to us: “Hey, we’ve got an issue with a right of way or a body corporate. We can’t connect up to the internet because of this. There’s one curmudgeon in amongst the lot who is not letting us connect to the internet, so we can’t connect.” I am connected. I think most of us are connected, and I think you can all agree just how frustrating it would be if you lived in an apartment and one person, perhaps, was holding this up. But, as I say, this issue is not new.

This was around 2 to 3, potentially 4, years ago, and I think that at the time when I was on the Commerce Committee, we had a number of submitters come to us—and we were discussing a piece of broadband-related legislation—saying: “Hey, we’ve got this issue around connectivity, around rights of way, around body corporates.” So it was a live issue then, and my colleague Clare Curran was extremely hot on this issue, saying to the Government: “What are you going to do about this?”. Because if you’re talking about making sure that as many New Zealanders as possible can be connected to the UFB, we could potentially have a big problem—and potentially in our biggest city of Auckland, where we do have a lot of apartment living, a lot of shared dwellings, and rights of way—where you could have an enormous number of people not being able to connect. We had the likes of the telecommunications companies come to us and say: “Hey guys, this is an issue. We can’t do this. There are property rights at play, and, fair enough, because this is where the legislation sits now, but we might need to address this issue relatively quickly so we can make sure that people can get connected.” To those people at home who are not connected because of this issue, I would like you to see just how responsive this Government is to those needs that you had 2 to 3 to 4 years ago. You have waited not weeks, not months, but years for this issue to be addressed in this House. As I say, this is not a new issue.

Can I also have a little bit of sympathy for the Minister who is responsible for this piece of legislation. Who does not want more New Zealanders to be connected to the internet? That is what this piece of legislation does. But she was passed a huge hospital pass by Steven Joyce—and I acknowledge the contribution of Gareth Hughes that he made earlier. Steven Joyce sat on this problem for years, and when election time came round and Amy Adams, whom I have a lot of respect for, took over the telecommunications portfolio, there was a big issue here, and she is the one who has to front the legislation. Steven Joyce did not have his eyes across the detail when the ultra-fast broadband roll-out was proposed. He did not have his eyes across the detail when this issue came across the table at the select committee. He ignored the thousands of people who, I am sure, have been affected by this, who are saying “We can’t get connected.”, and he left Amy Adams to pick up the pieces. So I do have a certain amount of sympathy for that Minister, who is responsible for this legislation because Steven Joyce, the previous Minister of telecommunications either ignored or wilfully ignored this issue or just said: “Hey, I’m not going to be the Minister any more—not my problem.” But we have got this piece of legislation that hopes to fix that issue, and I guess that in some way we have to give some acknowledgement to the Government that it is actually doing something about this. It might be years later, but that is the situation we are in.

What does this piece of legislation actually do to solve the problem of people who are in a situation where because they have a body corporate or right of way or because someone else has a right to the carriageway or the land where you would hope to put the UFB cables down, someone is either not responding or does not want it there? Well, for homes down rights of way, no consent will be required, although 5 days’ notice must be given if a fibre cable installation is non-invasive. I am told that that is if it is a shallow hole under grass—so if it is an easy job, no consent is required, though you have to give 5 days’ notice of that. For apartments, a UFB installer, I am told, will get deemed consent and be able to proceed if they have not heard from the body corporate within 15 days. So if you give notice and you do not get any feedback after 15 days, for an apartment, you should be good to go, and there is the right for the UFB installer to go and get stuck in and put the cable in. If the installation is categorised as an invasive, because it involves major work, work will proceed if no neighbours on a shared right of way object. So it is slightly more complicated. Obviously, there is a notification period, but if no one says no on that right of way, then, again, you can go and fill your boots and make sure that the cable is installed. That will create a solution for many people out there who have been frustrated at the lack of connection to UFB.

The UFB is extremely important not just to the families who use it to watch Netflix or do whatever but also, in terms of the economic growth that this Government puts so much weight on, to the UFB roll-out. But I would like to stress again that it got all excited and said: “Here’s the UFB.” Some people put up their hands, including the telecommunications companies, and said “Hey guys, there’s a slight detail here with us being able to roll this out to everybody in terms of apartments, rights of way, and body corporates.”, but the Government did not listen, and we are here doing another patch up on an extremely important piece of legislation that this Government has trumpeted since it came into office in 2008. It is trying to usher it through late on a Tuesday night, with those members taking very few calls, because they feel a bit guilty. They feel just a little bit guilty. They think: “We don’t want to talk about it for very long, because it is something that we should have done 4 years ago—4 years ago.”

I could go and find some of the emails that I had from constituents from right around the country who said “Hey, why isn’t the Government listening to us on this one?”, and I do not think they are watching tonight, because I think they have given up all hope of the Government doing anything about it. But help is on its way, because the Labour Party will support this piece of legislation. It is late. It is bad because the Government should have done it much, much earlier. Again, I have some sympathy for Amy Adams. I do not expect Amy Adams to be sending a Christmas card to Steven Joyce this year, because, in terms of parliamentary hospital passes, he has thrown her an absolute doozy.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take just a brief call on the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill is about connectivity. So in the first part of connectivity—e Te Mana e Te Whakawā, tēnā koe; in Māori Language Week, Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori—we connect with our Māori whānau and iwi who are out there as well. In the second piece of connectivity, can I also acknowledge our Chamber stewards, the ones whom I have come to know over this period of time. There is Trevor, Thomas, Sue, Bob, Judy, Pat, Euan, and Philip. Can I just acknowledge their service to us in this House and their warm smiles and their friendliness as well.

The last part of connectivity is just the fact that what this bill does do—and it has been laboured on a number of occasions in regard to property access—is ensure that there is a consenting process that is tiered and allows for a regime that allows for quicker installation. We think that is good. I am looking forward to being on the Commerce Committee, which will receive submissions and work this bill through the House. There is not an ounce of guilt in here; instead, there is a sense of wanting to do the work that is necessary to get the job done. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications): I move, That the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by a date that is 4 months and 1 day from the day that the bill receives its first reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Building (Pools) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 June.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou. It is my privilege to be the first speaker on this, the second reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. I think it is fair to say that as we come back to Te Whare to debate this bill, we have considerably more information on the table than we did at its first reading. One aspect of the debate that I want to clarify really relates to an exchange that came up between the Minister in charge of this bill, Nick Smith, and me during question time on one occasion, when we had cause to question the motivation of the Minister bringing this set of reforms to the House. When questioned on some of the analysis—some of the assumptions of the Minister—he laid claim in this House to the fact that it was indeed Labour that had set out the process that he was undertaking and, therefore, any questions we were raising were somehow an own goal.

I want to clarify that Shane Jones did initiate a review of the fencing of swimming pools when he held that ministerial portfolio. I read the forward of Minister Jones’ consultation document at that time, and he was very clear. He was clear that the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act had saved lives but that there were more lives to be saved. We were obviously not able to finish that process—there was an election. That work was shelved for years. Nick Smith then came into the role, dumped the process that Shane Jones had undertaken, and rereleased a discussion document that specifically stated that, in fact, his purpose was to reduce compliance costs.

The whole purpose and direction that Nick Smith was setting out in undertaking, again, a process of seeking submissions had a very different flavour from that set out by Shane Jones. I want to correct the record because it is disingenuous to say that what we are debating in this House was instigated, particularly in terms of what it has produced, by the Labour Party when Labour’s primary goal was to reduce further, if possible, the loss of life, and the primary goal of the Government has been something very different. That is not to say that these two things are mutually exclusive, but we would not prioritise one over the other when saving lives should clearly be our main, primary focus.

It is also fair to say that during this debate it has been clear that, since the first reading, some of the claims that have been made by the Government on the way that the bill was first drafted have been patently false. As I have said, the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act (FOSPA) has—there is no question—contributed to a large decrease in the number of accidental drownings in New Zealand, from 100 drownings in the 10 years before FOSPA to 30 drownings in the 10 years that followed through to 2012.

Undoubtedly, it has made an impact, but what the Government claimed was that the bill that it presented to us, which departed from some of the standards as originally first drafted and departed from some of the standards that were established, would reduce further the loss of life, and we voted in good faith for that bill based on the regulatory impact statement. We then heard evidence from WaterSafe Auckland, the Auckland Regional Public Health Service, the New Zealand Paediatric Society, Starship Children’s Health—graphic, graphic submissions around how they questioned whether or not this bill would, in fact, achieve that. In fact, they raised the point that they believed more lives would be lost as a result of these amendments.

In particular, I want to reflect on the fact that the New Zealand Paediatric Society stated that the most effective way to reduce drownings further would be to ensure compliance with the existing standards that were in place—hard-fought standards that were the subject of a huge amount of consultation. Their view is that if you want to reduce drownings, you must check that people are actually complying, because there has not been a drowning in a pool that has been compliant with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act since it has been in place, and that is a really interesting point. Most of the drownings have, in fact, been when there has been a breakdown in following and complying with that regulation—a broken latch, something that has enabled you to climb over fencing, and other aspects that were outside the control of the Act itself. But, actually, when the Act is followed, it works.

The idea, which this bill originally came to the House and proposed, that we create a longer lead time between inspections by councils, seems completely counterintuitive. The argument was that councils were not consistent and uniform in their inspection regimes, and so the Government proposed that even though a majority of councils inspected every 3 years, we uniformly set the level at 5 years. That struck us as being wrong. Auckland Council, for instance, maintained that it should stick with the 3-yearly inspections, as 65 percent of pools are found to be uncompliant when inspected within that time frame. Imagine what compliance would be like if we pushed it out to 5 years.

We pushed hard at the select committee for the Government to see sense and to create a uniform inspection regime at 3 years given that that is what most councils were advocating for themselves, and I am very, very pleased to say that the Government agreed with that analysis eventually and that that is an amendment that has been made as part of that robust select committee process. We congratulate the Government on that—that was a good step. In fact, that is one of the reasons why we will be voting, at this stage, in favour—

Chris Bishop: Oh, very good.

JACINDA ARDERN: —to make sure. Hold fire, Chris Bishop. We want to make sure that we support the majority amendments that were made at the select committee and acknowledge the progress that was made. But our support at the third reading is contingent on successfully making further amendments to the bill at the Committee stage, particularly around the dilution around four-sided fencing.

Currently, all of the evidence says that the best way to stop drownings is to have a complete four-sided fence. The Government has made an amendment that will allow the entry to a home—for instance, the door to a home; a door between the home and the pool—to act as a fourth side, instead of a fence, and people can use, for instance, a monitored alarm that will sound if someone exits through that door, into the pool area. Alarms are unproven when it comes to ensuring safety. We need only look at what has happened in jurisdictions where they have done some analysis around fire safety. If an alarm becomes annoying to people, they disable it. It is easily done. One of the primary causes of some of our accidental drownings is the fact that people are distracted, and if a parent is distracted when supervising a pool area, they are less likely to hear an alarm. So if you have already got that primary cause in place, the likelihood they are going to hear an alarm is also diluted, and then you lose all your protection.

We should not allow our legislation to be based where human frailty can enter, because this is where our safety and our regulations fall down. Significant evidence would suggest that alarms are unproven internationally. There are lots of reasons they can fail. We do not support them, over and above the other mechanisms that have been proven. So we will be seeking an amendment to remove the use of alarms as a substitute for the current standard, which works.

I want to acknowledge the other gains that the select committee made. It broadened the purpose of the Act, beyond drownings, to injury, which was an important point. The Building Act, of course, gave the impression that rather than having defined standards that were moving to this acceptable solution, it embeds, actually, that the acceptable solution is the one that is actually specified in the standards in the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act. Why did officials not make that clear to submitters? There was so much confusion around that point, but we hope that we have clarified that at the select committee.

The bill also provides greater information now to councils re spa pools. Again, we are now reliant on spa pools having lockable lids. There are still some question marks for us over that, over whether that is going to be an acceptable solution. We do know there have been drownings in spa pools. But, for us, the main point was that there are elements of this bill that dilute what we have, and we are keen to remove those parts of the bill. We are supporting it for now, but our third reading support will be contingent on our amendments being successful. I really would like to bring the attention of members across the House to our hope that our amendments will have their support.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is not usual for the Government chair of a select committee to quote from a Labour Party minority view on the committee’s report back, but I am compelled, having heard the address from the member Jacinda Ardern, who has just resumed her seat. The Labour Party’s minority view, as part of the committee’s report back says: “… we are pleased that the submission process has worked to remove many of the defects submitters were concerned about. While some submitters will be disappointed that other barriers (rather than fences) remain permitted, the system overall will be more effective than less.” That really sums up the good work that has occurred on this bill at the select committee.

The bill that has been reported back to the House for its second reading is significantly different from the bill that was introduced for its first reading. We did a lot of good work at the select committee. We heard a lot of very good submissions from a number of very good submitters. I was impressed by the calibre of those submissions. But this is a bill that, effectively, repeals the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act of 1987 and moves those provisions into the Building Act. It does not actually create a situation that is of great concern, other than changing that piece of legislation into a more consistent, broader piece of legislation.

There are three quick points that I want to make while I have the floor. One is that spa pools and hot tubs with safety covers will no longer require a fence. This is a practical solution that means that it will impact upon the vast majority of owners of spa pools and hot tubs that already have lockable covers. The vast majority of those pools are not currently fenced. They are difficult for local authorities to identify because many of these pools are portable.

Secondly, retailers will now be required to inform people who buy spa pools and portable pools of the safety rules, to help people understand how to use these pools legally and safely.

Hon Simon Bridges: Knowledge is power.

SCOTT SIMPSON: That is right. Knowledge is power. Thirdly, councils will now be required to inspect pools every 3 years instead of every—

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.