Wednesday, 10 August 2016

WEDNESDAY, 10 AUGUST 2016

WEDNESDAY, 10 AUGUST 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economic Programme—Progress

1. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in building a more competitive and productive economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Good progress. The Government has four priorities: responsibly managing the Government’s finances, building a more productive economy, delivering Better Public Services, and rebuilding Christchurch. We are making progress on all of these. Two hundred thousand more people are in work now than 3 years ago, and a further 170,000 jobs are expected by 2020. The average wage is forecast to rise to $63,000 a year, and we are on track for moderate growth of 2 to 3 percent over the next 4 years.

Mark Mitchell: Given the outlook for continuing growth, what steps is the Government taking to lock in these gains through investment in infrastructure, education, and better social outcomes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As set out in Budget 2016, we are focusing on increasing investment in infrastructure and getting better results for public spending, for instance: a $700 million investment in science, skills, and regional development; a $2.1 billion package for public infrastructure, including the complete rebuild of the Inland Revenue Department’s tax systems; $650 million for social investment to support vulnerable New Zealanders; and in Budget 2016 there was a $2.2 billion health package. It is the results that this spending will achieve, however, that will be beneficial to New Zealand households.

Mark Mitchell: What are some of the consequences of lower interest rates for households and the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The track for New Zealand interest rates reflects what is happening with interest rates around the world, and that is that they are reaching all-time lows and, in some countries, negative interest rates for the first time in living memory. That in part is what is driving up asset prices in stock markets, exchange rates, and land and house prices. However, lower interest rates reduce the cost of borrowing, and that means that households have lifted their debt levels, because they can service larger debt at about the same proportion of interest payments in their income.

Mr SPEAKER: I just need to inform Mr Seymour that with enthusiasm he used his complete allocation of questions yesterday. Supplementary question—Grant Robertson.

Grant Robertson: Happy news, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wishes to seek leave he is entitled to do so.

Grant Robertson: What progress is the Government making towards its target of exports as a percentage of GDP rising from 30 to 40 percent, and if he does not have the exact figure, can he indicate whether it is progress or regress?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is making good progress towards its 2025 target. Of course, as that member will be aware, the impact of the Christchurch earthquake and the fact that thousands of New Zealanders are staying home instead of leaving mean that there has been significant commitment of capital and labour resource to domestic growth. As we continue on the back of this success to get the houses built and Christchurch finished, those resources will be available to divert to the export sector.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although we cannot always be certain of the quality of the question, the Government would be prepared to give one of its supplementary questions to Mr Seymour so that he might be able to ask his question.

Mr SPEAKER: On that basis I will certainly accept a supplementary question from Mr Seymour, but in the future the arrangement needs to be a little more formal, otherwise it is very difficult for me to keep an accurate score here.

David Seymour: Has the Government’s fiscal discipline been strong enough to enable tax cuts next year in election year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is yet to be seen. What we do know is that fiscal discipline in itself is not sufficient to ensure that New Zealanders get the best results from their public services. We need to actually focus on delivering effective services to people who really need them. What we have found is that the more we do that, the less need there is in the longer run for Government services, and that means more opportunities for lower taxes.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been reflecting upon the exchange that has just taken place because my colleague to the left wanted to ask a supplementary question. Although I accept the principle that has been established for a long time of primary questions being allocated on a proportionate basis around the House, I do wonder whether it is time for you to give fresh consideration to the allocation of supplementary questions. My colleague to my left is extremely enthusiastic. I am not sure that he should be punished for his enthusiasm, and I wonder whether it is time to take a more flexible approach to the granting of supplementary questions based on a member’s interests, rather than the size of the party they represent. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I will hear from Chris Hipkins.

Chris Hipkins: Ultimately, the Business Committee makes an indicative allocation of supplementary questions but the discretion, of course, always rests with the Speaker in making a final decision on how supplementary questions should be allocated. Speakers have traditionally allocated supplementary questions on the basis of proportionality in the House, which is what the indicative allocation of supplementary questions is based upon. If members were to suggest that supplementary questions be allocated based on quality, I would suggest that we get a lot more supplementary questions over on this side of the House than on that side of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not—I will hear from Ron Mark. [Interruption] Order!

Ron Mark: I rise to lend some support to the views of the very experienced Hon Peter Dunne, who stands as one of the longest-serving Ministers in New Zealand’s Parliament. I think that—if I could just add something to maybe take into account what Chris Hipkins from Labour has said—if you could come up with a formula that lends credence to the level of interest a particular party has in a particular issue, plus balance it by its numbers in the House, we would, I think, wholeheartedly consider that.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank all members for their contributions. The Hon Peter Dunne has asked me to give consideration to the matter. I will do so, but I do remind members that the allocation of questions, both primary and supplementary, is discussed at length at the start of each Parliament and has, by tradition, for many years now, been allocated on a proportional basis. I note that members to my right often do not use their full allocation; members to my left certainly do. The arrangements by which some of the smaller parties do not get perhaps what they see as a fair share is often made then by informal arrangements between a major party and a coalition party. What I do need is for that arrangement to be relatively formal, so that I can keep score. But in regard to Mr Dunne’s issue, I will give it further consideration. I may raise it as an item for discussion at the Business Committee next week.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just ask you to confer with the officials. I think I actually do have two supplementary questions remaining this week, quite apart from anything else—and thank you for the freebie. Thank you.

Mr SPEAKER: I will check that out again, but not according to the records that are being presented to me. The member is entitled to two questions; there are an additional three that have been granted by the National Party to Mr Seymour. That makes a total of five and, as I have pointed out, with great enthusiasm he asked five supplementary questions yesterday.

Grant Robertson: Does he agree with the Minister for Economic Development that growth in per capita GDP last year was “about half a percent”; if so, is Hamish Rutherford not correct that New Zealand’s economic growth is “driven almost exclusively by rising population”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I consult with a range of economists and statisticians, and Hamish Rutherford, I understand, fits neither of those descriptions—but he is a journalist. No, he is not correct, but I do notice that the Opposition and, to some extent, commentators always say that whatever is causing growth at the moment is not valid growth, and that if you took it out growth would be zero. Well, that is true—if you take away everything that is growing, there is no growth. But, in fact, for the 21-year-old Māori and Polynesian males who have just got apprenticeships in Auckland, and will get more because we are announcing the Tāmaki regeneration project, they think it is real growth.

Mark Mitchell: What international reports has he received on the performance of the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There was a recent article in the Australian Financial Review that said, in one of the rare occasions that it reports on New Zealand, that the New Zealand Government has “achieved an increasingly rare feat in any advanced economy. That includes returning a budget to surplus while managing better growth along with substantive social, economic and … taxation reform.” That is not a bad verdict from the Aussies.

Housing, Auckland—Affordability

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that he doesn’t accept the average Auckland house, costing $992,000, is out of reach for most families?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement in the House yesterday, which was: “If you look at the year to 31 March 2016 in Auckland there were 31,963 sales. Sales in the under $600,000 category of … homes were over 30 percent of that—9,638 sales. For … houses under $650,000 there were 11,842—37 percent of sales.” My point was that there is a significant number of Auckland houses selling for well under the reported average price. In addition, on the back of the Government’s housing plan, we are on track to build 85,000 new houses across New Zealand in this term of Parliament alone.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with bumbling Nick Smith that houses are getting more affordable despite—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask the member to start the question again. I may have missed something that he added in the question.

Andrew Little: I am obliged to Mr Speaker. Does he agree with the Minister for Building and Housing, Nick Smith, that houses are getting more affordable, despite prices rising by half a million dollars under his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the point that the Minister was making was that there are a number of different factors, and one of them includes very low interest rates and high levels of economic growth. I think it is probably worth injecting just a few facts into this debate. If one looks at the 2009 to 2016 level, national house prices across the country in that period of time grew 43 percent. Interestingly enough, as a comparator, between 2000 and 2008 national house prices grew by 102 percent. If one looks at Auckland over the period 2009 to 2016, house prices grew 82 percent. But, interestingly enough, if one looks at Auckland house prices between the period of 2000 to 2008, they grew 87 percent. So it is pretty simple. When they go up by a smaller amount under a National-led Government it is a crisis, but when they go up faster under Labour it is not.

Andrew Little: In light of that answer, and moving to the present, if housing is getting more affordable, why is homeownership falling and why are record numbers now living in cars and garages?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are many reasons why homeownership rates have been declining over the last 30 years, but I go back to my point. Opposition members seem to care about this issue today but did not care about it when they were in Government. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: On both sides now the interjections are just too loud and interruptive to the questioning.

Andrew Little: Does he seriously think most families have a $200,000 deposit and can afford the $1,000 a week mortgage needed for the average Auckland house?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There will be a great range, of course, of different financial circumstances of New Zealanders. But as I said yesterday, interestingly enough, in the under $600,000 category, 30 percent of all sales took place at that level, and at the new $650,000 category, where people can get access to the KiwiSaver HomeStart programme in Auckland, 37 percent of sales took place. Interestingly enough, just to take, for instance, Hamilton, 75 percent of all sales that took place over the last 12 months were under $500,000. In Tauranga, for houses under $500,000, it was 54 percent. It is quite wrong to say there are no sales that take place at more affordable levels, and a lot of New Zealanders are very realistic and they do match their income and their deposits with the houses that are there.

Andrew Little: When Auckland’s population grew by 43,000 last year but, according to Bill English, only 500 affordable houses were built, how can he possibly deny there is a shortage of affordable housing?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is working on the issue of making sure that there are more affordable houses. But I actually do stand proudly by the fact that there are Kiwis returning from overseas. There are New Zealanders not going because they see opportunities, rising wages, a stronger economy here in New Zealand. The Labour Party thinks success is when everybody leaves and you have got to go to the departure lounge to see your grandkids. Well, if that is success, you have got a pretty warped view of what a good New Zealand is like. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: Can he just tell me straight when homeownership rates will start to rise again in New Zealand and restore the Kiwi Dream of homeownership once more?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot tell the member when that side of the trends will change, but what I can say is that under a National-led Government there is a very comprehensive plan of ensuring that there is both increasing supply and support. Interestingly enough, we saw the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand data that came out today and indicated Auckland is the slowest-increasing region in the country for house prices. I say to the Nick Leggett hater: why does he not just understand the data?

Andrew Little: In light of the fact that 75 percent of New Zealanders do not believe him when he says that he has got the housing crisis under control, when will he finally step up and take responsibility?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I go back to the interesting facts, which are that there are more houses being constructed than ever before. There is a housing boom taking place in New Zealand. There are more people working in the construction sector than we have ever seen before. Under a National-led Government national house prices have gone up at under half the rate that they did under the previous Labour Government. It is very easy in Opposition to make these claims, but, in Government, Labour was a complete and utter failure.

Building and Construction Industry—Jobs

3. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent reports has he received on job growth in the construction industries?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Recently the Minister for Building and Housing and I released the National Construction Occupations projections report, which shows that the number of people working in construction-related occupations is expected to hit a high of 539,500 in the next 5 years, up nearly 10 percent—or 49,000—from last year. Occupations expected to experience the largest growth in the next 5 years are electricians, 14 percent; plumbers, 13 percent; and civil engineers, 11 percent. The majority of this building activity will be in residential construction, which is already at record levels across the country and is expected to grow a further 20 percent in the next 2 years. The report was released alongside the National Construction Pipeline Report from Building Research Association of New Zealand and Pacifecon, which predicts that the total value of building and construction work by 2021 will top $200 billion. New Zealand is in the middle of its biggest ever building boom, and the workforce to support this boom is continuing to grow.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What reports has he received on recent job growth in the construction industry?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The industry is growing rapidly and was the largest contributor to annual employment growth last year, with 27,500 more people employed. In fact, there are 40,000 more people employed in construction today than 2 years ago. The nationwide construction sector workforce is the largest it has ever been, with 232,000 people working directly in the industry, while a much larger group of 490,000 work in construction-related occupations. The Auckland construction workforce has grown by more than 24,000 in just the last 2 years, to a total of 80,000 people currently.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How is the Government supporting the demand for tradies, including in the construction industry?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: With construction growth at record levels and forecast to keep growing, the Government is actively supporting the industry to train more skilled workers to meet the demand for new housing and construction. Last year there were almost 38,000 people training in construction-related fields, which is an increase of nearly 20 percent over 4 years. For the first time ever, the number of apprentices being trained by the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation has topped 10,000. To further support training, Budget 2016 included a further $14 million for more apprentices, along with $9.6 million for Māori and Pasifika trades training. We are also supporting initiatives like Ara at Auckland Airport, which is bringing people off benefits and into meaningful employment and training on that worksite.

Police Resourcing—Numbers

4. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he continue to stand by all his statements; if so, in what fashion?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; and I did not realise question time had become Project Runway, but now that the member has asked today, I am wearing a New Zealand - designed suit. It is a New Zealand shirt made and designed here, but it is 100 percent Egyptian cotton. It is an Italian tie, and—I have got to be honest—I bought the shoes in Paris. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not mind some interjection, but when it is continuous I am going to have to deal with it.

Ron Mark: When he said “any increase in police would not be made because of [Mr] Peters’ demands” following six extra police being sent to Kaitāia on a fixed 12-month term, how does he explain this being doubled to 12 in the past 24 hours? Is it coincidence or politically fashionable?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The police make their own decisions in the operational sense of where they send police officers, but all I can say is that we do not respond to Mr Peters. What we do do is honour our commitments. When we came into office in 2008 there were 8,211 police officers. As of today the latest annual report showed there are 8,899, an increase of 688 police officers.

Ron Mark: If Minister Collins met with him 2 months ago, as she said this morning, to discuss her concerns over police resources, why have you, Prime Minister, waited until yesterday to announce increased police numbers, or did Winston Peters just jog your mind?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When the Government makes an announcement about the increase in the number of police officers, it will do that as a formal announcement with details and specifics around that. I simply made the point when I was asked the question about police numbers that the numbers had gone up under a National-led Government and that I was confident that over time they would continue to increase.

Ron Mark: Prime Minister, are you listening to the concerns of your Ministers, such as the Minister of Police, Minister Collins, or is she simply not briefing you correctly?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member has clearly never been in a briefing with Judith Collins if he does not think that she would be briefing me correctly, forcefully, and with all of the attention, care, and love that she has for the New Zealand Police Force. Police budgets in annual terms have gone up over $400 million in the time that we have been in office. We have increased both the technology and number of police officers, and I am confident we will continue to invest in the police force. One thing I will say: on this side of the House, in good times and in bad, we actually support and back the police officers of New Zealand. That is not always the case on the other side.

Ron Mark: Who does he agree with: his former Minister of Police and Deputy Prime Minister, who said crime is decreasing; New Zealand First, which said crime is actually increasing; his current Minister of Police, who is now saying police are under-resourced; or is he actually listening to his poll-driven focus groups?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that crime rates are going down, because that is a statement of fact. I agree with the Minister of Police when she says that we are investing in, and will continue to invest in, and support, police officers. I do not agree with Mr Peters when he says the crime rate is going up, because he is palpably wrong.

Ron Mark: Then, Prime Minister, why have you allowed our police per capita ratio in New Zealand to plummet from 1:488, when New Zealand First was in coalition Government, to where it is now at 1:526? Why have you allowed that to drop?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is true that the ratio has increased slightly, and the Government will be looking at those issues, but I think it is a little simplistic to say it is solely around those ratios, because of the increases in technology. We have invested an enormous amount in that area and have got the equivalent of, from memory, about 324 additional police officers. I think it is logical, actually, to ask our police force to use the best technology, provide the capability, and therefore allow them to redeploy themselves and do more on the street. It is not solely just a matter of using old technology and more people on the street. I think that is a reasonably smart thing and that that police would back that.

Teachers—Teach First NZ

5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made that will get more teachers into low-decile schools?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I was pleased to announce today the extension and expansion of a groundbreaking teacher training programme to help strengthen and grow the teacher workforce. The Teach First NZ pilot has been very effective in attracting high-achieving graduates into teaching. That is why we are extending the programme for a further 2 years to train 40 new secondary school teachers and expanding it by another 10 places focused on science, technology, and maths in 2017. This means there will be up to 30 places in 2017 and 50 new trainees overall by 2018. Teach First NZ is a field-based initial teacher education programme developed by the University of Auckland and the Teach First NZ Trust. The programme has a robust selection process that selects high-calibre participants—just the type of teachers we want in our schools. It also has a high completion and retention rate, so we are backing it to recruit more quality graduates.

Chris Bishop: How will this announcement help more young people succeed?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We are committed to recruiting the best and brightest into teaching, particularly in high-demand subjects like science, technology, and maths. The extra places and the expansion to allow Teach First NZ to cover technology graduates will help attract more new teachers for these subjects. The Ministry of Education has just released the third of four evaluation reports on the pilot from the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. The report confirms that Teach First NZ is effective and is being efficiently implemented. The strength of the relationship between Teach First NZ and the University of Auckland is an important factor in the success of the programme—

Ron Mark: No one’s listening.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —and the success of our kids. Mr Mark, you may not be listening, but the sector is.

Schools, Funding—Review

6. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she still expect her Government will live up to the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the review of the education funding system that the Government “wouldn’t really be progressing the issue unless they could get the other stakeholders on board—the unions and others”; if so, will she now rule out implementing global budgets?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I can tell you that the Prime Minister and I are in complete agreement that we would like to get all stakeholders on board—parents, teachers, as well as unions—and that we need a system that delivers the right funding to the right child at the right time to ensure their educational success. If the member had chosen to provide the Prime Minister’s full quote in context, it would have been clear to the House that he was referring to advice I had provided to him that we should work with all stakeholders. In regard to the proposed global budgets—one of several proposals—we are still in an advisory group process, including unions, that then must be taken to Cabinet, and, therefore, I cannot rule anything in or out at this stage of the consultation.

Chris Hipkins: In light of her claim “it isn’t bulk funding”, what is the difference between her proposed global budgets and bulk funding?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The criticism of bulk funding from 20 years ago was that it incentivised the employment of younger, less experienced—and, therefore, cheaper—salaried teachers. I might add at this point that we are finding it difficult to get young graduates appointed to permanent positions in schools, but—coming back to the member’s question—that is the only criticism of it. In the global budget we have provided for an average notional salary so that schools will be indifferent as to what level of expertise—

Sue Moroney: No, they won’t.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —they employ into their schools. Yes, I am sorry, did you need me to go over that for you, Sue—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is finished.

Chris Hipkins: Are the teachers wrong when they say proposed global budgets would mean parents on school boards of trustees “would have to make trade offs between the number of teachers they employ and the other non-teaching costs of running a school.”; if so, why?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member is actually referring to unions rather than teachers. The unions have said—[Interruption] The unions held a press conference yesterday and said that this was what was proposed. The fact of the matter is that there are already flexibilities available in every school. In our self-managing system, the boards and principals make decisions about where they deploy resources. So what we are trying to do is continue the theme of parents having greater choice, schools having greater flexibility, and real kids in real time getting great results through those decisions.

Chris Hipkins: Under the proposed global budgets could schools opt to employ fewer teachers in exchange for more non-teaching funding if the Government froze their operating funding—as it did in this year’s Budget?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: These are all just proposals at this stage, and under our system schools make different decisions all the time. The proposal around a global budget is to give them flexibilities. The proposal is also operating in the context where we have far more data than we have ever had before—which is highlighting what the actual achievement challenges are, school by school. Therefore, the choices each school will make will be different according to the educational challenges they have.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific about whether schools would or would not be able to do something under the proposal that she has put forward, and she has not actually given an answer to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: She has. If the member listened, the Minister then said that because they are just proposals she cannot answer that. That is an answer that addresses the question. It may not be one that the member likes.

Chris Hipkins: If schools employ fewer teachers, with the same number of students, will class sizes at those schools have to increase; if not, how would they not increase?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member is posing a hypothetical about what schools might do when they have very different challenges between them, and they exercise flexibilities now. This approach gives them that greater licence to do so because the achievement challenges are different in different schools—just as, under the current situation, schools make different decisions about how they deploy their teacher-aides, about whether they team teach or individually teach, about whether they have shared classrooms or separate unit cells, or whether they use different curriculum resources. These are all the prerogative of the professionals.

Chris Hipkins: In making those decisions, how could a school reduce the number of teachers it employs without either increasing class sizes or reducing the number of subjects available?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Again, I am not going to be speaking to a hypothetical on behalf of 2,500 schools that are making different decisions every day. This is a proposal. It is a very open and inclusive process with an advisory group that includes 17 representatives from across the sector. I am waiting to hear back from them with their advice on these particular issues.

Housing—Affordability for Young People

7. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Tū ai a ia i runga i te mana o tana tauākī, e pā ana ki te mākete whiwhinga whare, “My advice is to believe in the system because it will work for young people”?

[Does he stand by his statement about the housing market “My advice is to believe in the system because it will work for young people”?]

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. However, the system would definitely not work for young homeowners if house prices crashed by half, as advocated by that member. That Green-Labour policy would be a war on the poor.

Metiria Turei: How exactly is the system working for the young Aucklanders trying to save a deposit while the average house price rises $570 a day and their rent rises twice as fast as their wages?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think there are a number of factors when you are a young person. One, certainly, is access to quality education, which is improving under this Government. I think the second thing is ensuring that there are job opportunities for New Zealanders who, ultimately, do invest in their education. We know that unemployment rates are falling and opportunities are rising in a place like Auckland—indeed all around the country. Secondly, if we look at a young couple who wants to buy a house or a young individual who wants to buy a house, whether it is in Auckland or anywhere around New Zealand, the Government has KiwiSaver HomeStart, which has recently just had both the income thresholds and the asset price thresholds increased. That does allow New Zealanders to access those. If you look at somewhere like Hamilton, for instance, I think that just under 79 percent of the sales that took place were in the $550,000 category, where KiwiSaver HomeStart would work for those youngsters. So I think, overall, you would say it is working for people.

Metiria Turei: How can he argue that his policy is working, HomeStart included, when in 2001, 46 percent of people aged between 20 and 40 owned their own home, and in 2013, after his policies were in place, that dropped to only 35 percent of people aged between 20 and 40 years old?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am always suspect about Green Party numbers, but as I say, and I am pleased that the member did raise the issue of 2001, as I pointed out today to my good and close friends in the Labour Party, in that period between 2000 and 2008—so the 2001 period the member is talking about—there was a staggering national increase of 102 percent in house prices, and in Auckland an 87 percent increase in house prices. That probably was a crisis compared with the 43 percent and 82 percent increase respectively under a National-led Government.

Denis O’Rourke: What advice would the Prime Minister give to the many grandparents and parents who own their own homes when asked by their grandchildren or children why it is that they cannot realistically expect to become homeowners themselves, especially if they live in Auckland?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first thing I would say to those grandparents is: is it not lovely that under a National-led Government they can give their grandkids a hug in New Zealand, where they are now living, as opposed to overseas, when New Zealand First was last in Government?

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister genuinely—[Interruption] Is the Prime Minister seriously telling New Zealand families that it is perfectly fine to give their grandchildren a hug and then send them back out to their cars to sleep because homelessness has become such a serious issue in this country? Is that what he is saying to New Zealanders now?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. But what I am saying is that what you have seen in the last period of time in New Zealand is a significant number of New Zealanders returning and a significant number of New Zealanders choosing not to go. Personally, I think that is a vote of confidence by those New Zealanders in our country and in our future. What the Labour, Green, and New Zealand First parties seem to be saying is that New Zealand was so much better when people were deserting the country, and I just do not agree with that proposition.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree with the World Bank, the United Nations, and Demographia that the price to income ratio of three times the median household income is the standard measure for an affordable home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think that in international cities there would be the case anywhere that, I think, the member could quote. So I think what is realistic, though, when looking at affordability for homes, is: do people have a job to support the mortgage; are interest rates at an affordable rate for them; is the prospect if they lose their job or want further overtime likely to be there; is there, in some cases, assistance from the Government, as there is under the National-led Government through KiwiSaver HomeStart; and, most importantly, what is the pipeline of development of housing in the case of New Zealand? Under this Government, it is extremely significant. That is why we are seeing a record number of houses being built.

Metiria Turei: Is that the excuse for unaffordable housing that he would give to the principal of an average-size primary school, who would have to spend about eight times their income to buy a median-priced house in Auckland; I mean, is the housing market working for that family?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, the member talks about an average principal of a New Zealand primary school, I think she quoted. If they live in Hamilton, 71 percent of all sales that took place were under $500,000. But if they lived in Auckland, 30 percent of sales that took place were under $600,000, and 37 percent under $650,000. My colleague before was just looking on TradeMe and the number of properties in Auckland that are under $500,000. There are many properties listed there. Not every property that is bought and sold is done so at the median rate. That is the reality of the property market. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If Mrs King and the Prime Minister wish to have a discussion, I would suggest they do it in the lobbies after question time.

Metiria Turei: So is it his advice—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Prime Minister, there is a question to you.

Metiria Turei: Is it the Prime Minister’s advice, then, to a senior station officer in the Fire Service in Auckland who earns a maximum of $77,000 a year that they should just abandon the city they work in and go and live somewhere else—is that his advice now?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but in many cases, and the member has quoted one—$77,000—in all probability, these are relationships where there are two members of the household working. So, again, let us just argue that the other partner is earning $50,000 or $60,000 a year—they have got an income of about $140,000 a year. I accept that there are people who earn more than that, and I accept that there are people who earn less. With $140,000 a year on very low interest rates, they will be able to afford a property in Auckland. It may not be the property that the member is talking about, but there will be properties they can afford at those levels.

Trade, China—Retaliatory Export Restrictions

8. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Trade: On what date was he or his office first informed of the “possible trade retaliation” that triggered engagement at “various levels of Government” with China and when were the Prime Minister, his office, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet first informed?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Trade): As I have already said publicly, I first learnt of concerns and allegations in late May. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) was copied in to some reports subsequently that related to this issue. On 15 July the Prime Minister’s office was made aware of issues to be raised in a media story that weekend, and the Prime Minister was briefed on a possible specific company concern or threat on 18 July in Jakarta. The Prime Minister was further informed on 25 July that there had been earlier discussions and limited correspondence.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the detail of the answer that the Minister gave. I did just wonder whether you can reflect on a question on notice—several hours’ notice—that the Minister gave us only in “late May”. He did not give us a date. He was able to give dates for all of the other parts of the question, for which we are grateful, but he did not answer the first part on the date that he was first informed.

Mr SPEAKER: That is reasonable. If the Minister has the actual date that he was first aware of the issue, that would be helpful. He certainly gave dates for the DPMC, the Prime Minister’s office, and the Prime Minister quite specifically. If we could have that, it would be helpful.

Hon TODD McCLAY: On or around 25 May.

Dr David Clark: Is he saying the Prime Minister is wrong when he said he first knew about possible reprisals on 21 July?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No. As I have already said publicly, I should have provided the Prime Minister with a fuller account of the issues, and I have offered an apology to him for that. In terms of any potential threat to our trade, let me assure the House that this issue has been taken very seriously. Every time there was a suggestion of a rumour or a threat to our trade, I have sought and received assurances from the Chinese Government that any concerns around retaliatory action were unfounded.

Dr David Clark: What prompted the discussions at various levels of Government in May?

Hon TODD McCLAY: In broad terms, the engagement relates to both Governments explaining their positions, clarifying legislation and other requirements around trade remedy issues, or New Zealand’s officials seeking assurances in the event of suggestions or rumours of possible trade retaliation being brought to our attention. However, there are limits in what detail I can provide, given the legislative constraints around the reporting of competition complaints that are not yet under investigation.

Dr David Clark: Why did he say that the contact from Zespri to the New Zealand Embassy in China on 8 July was the first time a concern was raised about possible trade retaliation, when in fact discussions had been taking place since May?

Hon TODD McCLAY: In relation to a company-specific concern, my statement was as understood and was correct. However, I repeat again that, as a result of legislation, there are things that we are not able to speak about when it comes to competition issues.

Dr David Clark: Why did he say on the weekend of 17 July that he knew nothing about possible trade retaliation concerns, when he was briefed on concerns when in China in the previous week for a meeting with Minister Gao?

Hon TODD McCLAY: In respect of that, I accept I should have sought a fuller briefing and provided additional information to the Prime Minister, and I have apologised to him for that.

Immigration New Zealand—Vision 2015

9. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has the Government made in relation to the Vision 2015 programme?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Last week the Government welcomed two reports that show the learnings of Immigration New Zealand’s (INZ) successful Vision 2015 programme. The programme was launched in 2012 and formally closed in June this year. It involved a $136 million technology-enabled business transformation of people, process, and place, which has enabled Immigration New Zealand to deliver a more customer-focused, consistent, and cost-effective service. The success of the programme has ensured that INZ is recognised as a trusted partner capable of providing outstanding immigration services, and ensures that we facilitate the effective movement of the increasing number of people coming over New Zealand’s borders.

Melissa Lee: What were the main initiatives undertaken through the Vision 2015 programme, and how have these initiatives improved INZ’s operations?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Immigration New Zealand was constrained by a high-cost operating model, a bricks and mortar - based system, and limited ability to respond to customer and market demands. Vision 2015 has transformed and streamlined services for customers, with the deployment of Immigration Online, which allows applications for student, work, and visitor visas to be made online. E-medicals can be made online, and the sorts of biometric checks for identity and risk are also now being done in this system. The risk-based approach to managing applications means communicating with hundreds of trusted partners, including high-end tourism operators, education providers, and key industry sectors, to facilitate value and low-risk visa processing.

Schools, Funding—Review

10. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Education: Will she guarantee that her education funding review will not lead to larger class sizes?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Class sizes are determined by principals; therefore, the member’s question is best directed to them. I know that principals make decisions that are in the best interests of their school community, and the education funding review is aimed at providing them with the best tools and flexibility possible to allow and support them to do so.

Catherine Delahunty: Do larger class sizes result in better educational outcomes for children?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The evidence is very clear that it is the quality of teaching and leadership in a school that makes the most difference to the quality of learning that children have.

Catherine Delahunty: When parents in 2012 soundly rejected increased class sizes, what has changed since then that would justify a funding proposal that facilitates that?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I reject the member’s proposition that the proposals that we are discussing will facilitate that.

Catherine Delahunty: Which advice would she give a principal with urgent, conflicting demands on their budget because of her proposed funding model: to increase class sizes, restrict curriculum choices, not have computers, or cash up a few teachers, as this option allows?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Unlike the member, I hold principals in high regard. I trust them to use their professional judgment about what is necessary. They do that based on the data and experience of their actual children, and they do it informed by the guidance of the board, made up largely of the parents of children at their school.

Road Safety—Alcohol Interlocks

11. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What steps is the Government taking to increase the take-up of alcohol interlocks?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Transport): Our road toll is much, much too high. To help to address this, the Government has decided that alcohol interlock sentences will become mandatory for serious repeat offenders with two or more drink-driving convictions within 5 years, and first-time offenders who are more than three times over the legal limit. Around two-thirds of all fatal crashes are caused by a combination of alcohol, drugs, and/or excessive speed. Interlocks physically prevent an offender from drink-driving, ensuring their own safety, and, of course, the safety of other passengers and other New Zealanders on the road. Mandatory interlock sentences are a targeted and effective way to help spare families, friends, loved ones, and communities the pain and suffering that inevitably follow each and every serious crash.

Jacqui Dean: What reports has the Minister seen on the Government’s announcement to make alcohol interlock sentences mandatory?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have seen many reports from organisations that support the Government’s announcement yesterday. The Automobile Association says: “The Government’s intention to make alcohol interlocks mandatory for many drink-drivers is a much-needed advancement to keep innocent people safe on the roads.” Sober Check says that it has seen firsthand the good that alcohol interlocks do—and they really do effect and improve driver behaviour change. The road safety charity Brake is pleased with the “hardline approach” this Government is taking to drink-driving. Mandatory interlocks for repeat, serious drink-driving offenders will make our roads safer for all New Zealanders.

Police Resourcing—Numbers and Crime Rate

12. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Is there any link between the increase in crime and the decline in police numbers in the past year?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): To my fellow right-winger, the premise of the member’s question is flawed. Police are funded for 8,907 sworn staff each year, and that has not changed.

Stuart Nash: Can she confirm that her Government has failed on John Key’s 2008 promise to maintain a police to population ratio of 1:500, and it has, in fact, worsened?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Not really, when you consider that we have got the equivalent of 350 police officers from the electronic assistance mobility programme that we funded for police, as well as the fact that police now have Tasers, firearms in lock boxes in their cars, stab-resistant body armour, new ballistic body armour, enhanced pepper spray, automatic number plate recognition, boots for all the staff, and sponge rounds for the armed offenders squad—none of which, of course, was funded by the previous Labour Government.

Stuart Nash: If she has been, in her words, “working on a policy for more police for quite some time”, why does the police 4-year strategy show no plans to increase police numbers until at least 2020?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As I could have said to Mr Leggett the other day at the police college in Porirua, police 4-year plans are police 4-year plans; they are not necessarily the Government’s 4-year plans.

Stuart Nash: Did the Minister sign off on that police 4-year plan?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Most likely at the time, but, of course, things have moved on.

Stuart Nash: Why has she said for months that funding and resources are sufficient, and dismissed everyone, including the Police Association, which challenged this, when clearly this is not the case?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think I have made it very clear that, at the moment, it is all right. But the trouble is that we are looking to the future and we are looking to the fact—

Grant Robertson: This Minister is always looking to the future.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —that so many New Zealanders now come back from overseas and the population is rising because of it. We are no longer losing 40,000 Kiwis every year, as we did under a previous Government.

Stuart Nash: What has made the Minister change her mind on police numbers between May, when she signed off on the police’s 4-year plan, and today?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Looking to the future.

Darroch Ball: Is she aware that raw front-line police data shows that in 2008, police attended 240,000 confirmed offences compared with 2015, when they attended 280,000 confirmed offences, and how is that, in her—and Bill English’s, and now the Prime Minister’s—own words, a reduction in crime?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: For that member’s benefit, the crime rate is looked at on a per capita basis. The population has increased by about 400,000 New Zealanders, because people like living under a John Key - led Government.

Darroch Ball: Is she aware that those numbers of confirmed offences were provided to me by her office through answers to written questions, just 1 week after she told this House that she stood by her advice that the crime numbers were down?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am very pleased that my office is giving the member assistance, and I am sure that next time it will tell him that the crime statistics are actually worked on a per capita basis, not just on the bald figures.

Questions to Members

Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Purpose

1. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Member in charge of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2): Why did he draft the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)?

ANDREW LITTLE (Member in charge of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)): Because, in 2016, no child in New Zealand should be living in a hovel, and it is time that New Zealand accepted a standard that no child should be getting sick or die because they cannot live in a warm, safe, dry home. This bill sets standards to ensure that every rental property is livable and will keep kids out of hospital.

Phil Twyford: How does this bill differ from the current law?

ANDREW LITTLE: The current law, propagated by the present Government, applies a standard for insulation that is only at the 1978 standard and requires the installation of smoke alarms. My bill requires there to be a source of heating, requires weathertightness, requires the house to be able to be ventilated, and has a minimum standard on drainage. The Children’s Commissioner described the Government’s current law as shameful and said that it will do little for children living in cold, damp, mouldy homes. My bill will be a whole heap better.

General Debate

General Debate

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This is a Government that is in total disarray, and it is time that New Zealanders got better, because they deserve better. They deserve better. Ten weeks ago it was just so easy—10 weeks ago the Government handed down a Budget that did absolutely nothing for most New Zealanders, because this Government did not care. It did not care about housing—that so many New Zealanders could not afford to buy their first home, and that so many New Zealanders were living in overcrowded housing, living in garages, and living in cars. It did not care that the Budget said nothing about health spending and did not keep pace with the changing demography of New Zealand. It did not care that the Budget froze education funding for primary and secondary schools, and froze funding for the police. It did not care about any of that. It was brazen. It was Government. It was in charge, and any Budget would do.

Well, it has been a long 10 weeks. It has been a long 10 weeks. The Government thought it could get away with handing down that Budget and caressing the nation with a soothing balm of unrealistic projections and a hopeless selling job afterwards. It has not worked. New Zealanders have not bought it, because far too many New Zealanders today are missing out and being left behind. They now see a Government that has no answers, that has no plan—Government members might have a few choice words to say, but they do not have a plan for the problems facing New Zealand.

You see, when you are John Key and Bill English you do not have to worry about couples who work and work and save and save and cannot get their first home. They do not worry about them. They do not have to worry about teachers and principals who are working harder and harder to provide the education and get the time with the children that the children need, but cannot because of the overwhelming bureaucracy that they have got to complete for their schools. They just do not care about it, and they do not worry about our police force, which is struggling to meet the demands of a rapidly growing population.

What did John Key say yesterday? Oh, they have issued them with iPads. They have issued them with iPads. That is going to help when you are faced with somebody screaming and ranting, high on P—when you hold up your iPad! I hope that it is on Pokémon GO and you can get the nearest Zubat. Is that what it is going to be? Is that what the answer is to out-of-control crime because of this Government’s failure to resource the police properly? Well, I tell you what: the rest of New Zealand cares. And, of course, the Government has now discovered, because David Farrar has told it, that the rest of New Zealand cares and expects something better.

So what has it been doing since the Budget? It has been panicking. It has been in an absolutely mad panic. In fairness, I have to give credit to Paula Bennett, because on the eve of the Budget she, at least, realised that something was wrong. That the biggest crises facing New Zealand, a housing crisis and a homelessness crisis—she realised that there was nothing in the Budget. So she quickly, without telling Bill English and without telling anybody, announced this plan to give $5,000 to people to leave Auckland. Of course, 10 weeks on, 12 people have signed up for it. That is a start, I suppose. It will help. There are 42,000 people homeless, so to start with the first 12, I suppose, is a good step, but that is as far as they have gone. That is as far as they have gone.

And then we see, a week after the Budget—because suddenly they realised they had better do something about housing and they better do something for local government. So without consulting Nick Smith and without consulting local councils, Bill English and John Key put together this $1 billion infrastructure plan—big and mighty and powerful; $1 billion dollars. They spent 3 weeks putting it together and did not tell Nick Smith until the day before they went to Cabinet. They did not tell the local councils until 2 days before they announced it so they had something to tell their conference to give the impression to their conference gathered at Wigram that they actually had something to say about housing, because up until that time they had nothing—up until that time they had nothing. This has been an absolute shambles. All along the way their answer has been that they have been working on it for years. They have not.

And what was Judith Collins’ answer yesterday when, suddenly, we got the announcement that the Government has realised there are too few police for the population we have got? She said she has been working on it for months. There is nothing in the Budget. The Government froze the funding in the Budget. There is nothing in the 4-year Police plan, but she said she has been working on it for months. Clearly, she has been working in isolation. She has not told anybody. Who is she talking to these days, apart from the backbenchers? She is talking to the backbenchers to make sure she has got the numbers, is what she has been doing. That is what she has been working on—nothing to do with her ministerial responsibilities.

New Zealanders are seeing a Government that is tired, that is out of ideas. It is giving short shrift to a shonky, shady, shilly-shallying Government, and it is coming to an end now because we have a plan for housing, we have a plan for education, and we have a plan for health, and New Zealanders will see a better choice next year.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Well, first of all, can I just say to members of the House welcome back after a 4-week adjournment. It was kind of an unexpected pleasure over the time I have been in Parliament to have a whole 4 weeks to take a little bit of time. And is it not nice to see my colleagues coming back in such a happy, positive, ambitious-for-New Zealand frame of mind. What a contrast it provides to the nasty, bickering, angry aggression and no-hope negativity we see from the Opposition.

You want to talk about being in disarray? Really? You want to talk about being in disarray? When we left before the adjournment we were celebrating—in kind of air quotes—the quickie marriage between Labour and the Greens. It was the next great coming, was it not? It was going to be this beautiful coming together of like-minded parties, and it is looking more and more like a Vegas wedding, is it not? It seemed like a great idea at the time, you rushed off to the chapel, and now it is the morning after. You are waking up, and you are wondering what the hell you have done. I have not seen a relationship fall apart so spectacularly so quickly.

Over the adjournment we had the Greens come out saying the best way to deal with housing is to take 50 percent off the value of everyone’s house. Genius—genius! Even the Labour Party knew that that one was a loser, and straight away you are seeing the commentators saying that if Labour and the Greens cannot get it together on an issue like this, how are they ever going to be able to govern? This has got to be one of the fastest marriage collapses I have ever seen. I can recommend to them, though, in the spirit of camaraderie and support, some very good Parenting Through Separation courses that the Family Court runs. We have got some excellent programmes. We have got family dispute resolution. I am sure there are ways we could help.

Of course on this side of the House the adjournment was not just a break. Actually, this is a Government that—if you look back over the last 4 weeks, what an immense amount of work we have got through. And does it not demonstrate the positive, aspirational sense of the vision we have for this country and where we want to take it? I mean, you look at the work that Maggie Barry did in announcing a predator-free New Zealand. We all know it is a big goal, we know it is a tough goal, but we have got a vision for where we want to take this country—and I congratulate Maggie Barry on that—and we recognise that, actually, why should we not set ourselves big goals. This is a nation of innovative people who believe in solutions, who find ways, and, actually, I have got no doubt that we will get there. It will be hard, but why not stretch ourselves? Why not have a positive vision of where we want to get to?

Over the adjournment I announced that this is a Government that has now delivered world-leading connectivity to nearly 2.5 million people already. Can I tell this House once more that is a programme that Labour voted against not once, not twice, but three times. It did not want that sort of connectivity rolled out. Now the biggest challenge for the ultra-fast broadband programme is that everybody wants it. Everybody wants it because this National-led Government under John Key and Steven Joyce, at the time, had the vision that said if we give Kiwis world-class connectivity—and connectivity about which back in 2008 people said “What a waste. No one will ever use 100-megabit speed. Who needs fibre?”.

We had the vision, we set a goal, we set out to do something ambitious, and, as a result, at the end of this programme New Zealand will be the fourth-best connected country in the world behind Singapore, Korea, and Japan. Those are highly densely populated, small land masses. For New Zealand, with its 4.7 million people over a huge area of islands and mountains, that is an incredible result. When I go round the world talking to counterparts, they cannot believe what we have done. I am incredibly proud that we are delivering that sort of connectivity.

Have a look at what Craig Foss has done with the mandatory alcohol interlocks. That is fantastic. You want to talk about making a real difference to keeping New Zealanders safe on our roads? Mandatory alcohol interlocks to ensure repeat drunk drivers are not on our roads are significant. Over the adjournment we have seen significant education investments from Hekia Parata and Nikki Kaye into school redevelopment and the digital technology fund. We have seen Nikki Kaye doing some great stuff in youth mentoring and creating more opportunities for our youth. We have seen the work that Steven Joyce is doing around the second stage of the regional research institutes. Simon Bridges has been opening new roads and kicking off new cycleways. So while Labour and the Greens have been infighting and scrapping and figuring out who is going to get the kids in the divorce, we have been getting on with it.

I want to take a moment to talk just very quickly about the work Anne Tolley and I are doing on family violence. We have just announced today the second pilot of our integrated safety response. This is a Government that is focused on what we are going to do to make the country better, on doing it, on getting on with it. I want to be a part of a party with vision and a Government with aspiration.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): John Key and the National Party are completely out of touch with where most New Zealanders are at on immigration. Last night TV3 news ran a poll showing that 60 percent of New Zealanders think we need better control over our immigration system.

Most New Zealanders support immigration. We are a migrant nation. We are built on immigration. We are all either migrants ourselves or the descendants of migrants. So why are New Zealanders saying that National is getting it so very, very wrong on immigration? Let us listen to what people have been saying. We are not like the National Government; we will listen to what people have been saying.

The Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, Grant Spencer, said: “… we cannot ignore that the 160,000 net inflow of permanent and long-term migrants over the last 3 years has generated an unprecedented increase in the population and a significant boost to housing demand.” Treasury and Immigration New Zealand themselves reported that there is a significant proportion of permanent and temporary labour migrants working in lower wage occupations, and recent trends—under National—show a relative decline in the skill level of permanent migrants.

Michael Barnett of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce said yesterday that there is a disconnect between the skills that the immigration system is delivering and the skills that New Zealand actually needs. The ANZ Chief Executive, David Hisco, said: “Let’s have an honest and sensible debate about immigration using facts rather than prejudice to see if we should push the pause button.” People all over New Zealand—respectable people whom this Parliament should listen to—are saying to this Government: “You are getting it wrong on immigration.”

Most New Zealanders question whether we have got our immigration settings right when the bulk of new migrants are going into roles like retail manager, cafe manager, and farm worker. That is not what immigration is supposed to be for; it is supposed to be for welcoming people who have the skills we need to grow our economy and contribute to our society. It is supposed to be about providing the skills that we are unable to supply from within New Zealand in the short term.

Instead, under National, immigration is being used to fill low-wage, low-skill, low-productivity jobs, and that is because some New Zealand employers say that they cannot find New Zealanders to do the job. Instead of saying to those employers: “Well, why don’t you offer better wages?” or “Why don’t you improve your working conditions?”, the National Government says: “Hey, get someone from overseas, pay them the minimum wage—or pay them less than the minimum wage if you can get away with it.” It subjects them to working conditions that should not be tolerated in New Zealand.

Over half of all new migrants settle in Auckland. That is a massive vote of no confidence in this Government for its failure to grow regional economies. Migrants who come to New Zealand know that under National there are not sufficient opportunities in the regions to move to the regions. The result is that Auckland’s housing crisis, which is driven by a number of factors, is made even worse by the fact that that city is trying to absorb more people than it is able to.

John Key, Michael Woodhouse, and the rest of the National Government have their heads in the sand, because they desperately need to keep immigration numbers high. Population growth is the one thing that is generating economic growth in New Zealand. Without the current levels of immigration growth, our GDP per capita would be growing at a pathetic 0.5 percent. That is basically nothing. That is why the National Government will not do anything to get the immigration system back to doing what it should: delivering good economic outcomes for New Zealand and delivering good settlement outcomes for new migrants.

New Zealand is a country built on immigration, and immigration will always be an important part of our story, but National knows that it is getting it wrong on immigration. New Zealand knows that National is getting it wrong on immigration. People of experience and knowledge are telling the Government that it is getting it wrong on immigration. It is out of touch with most New Zealanders on this issue. It is just too damned arrogant to do anything about it.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I would like to pick up on the positive and aspirational talk that my colleague the Hon Amy Adams previously raised. This is a Government that is confident for the future of New Zealand, is aspirational for better lives for New Zealanders, and is working hard to deliver that. No more do we see that aspiration than in trying to support New Zealanders into work. We have set ourselves a target of reducing the number of people who are dependent on welfare by 25 percent. That is a very aspirational target and we are working hard to achieve that.

Why? Because we know that being in work is good for people and their families. It is good for them economically. If you want to talk about poverty, the best way out of poverty is having a good foot on the employment rung and being able to support yourself and your family. If you want to talk about good health, we know that people benefit from being in work. If you want to talk about strong communities, it is where people are actively involved in their communities, and part of that is about being part of the workforce that is creating that community. So we are absolutely confident that we are going to achieve that 25 percent reduction in the number of people who are reliant on the welfare of their fellow New Zealanders to keep them alive.

How are we going to do that? I just want to bring a few facts to the table about regional economic development, because this Government is out working in communities around the country, working with them to increase the amount of investment that is taking place in their communities. We know that whether it is local firms investing more or outside firms coming in and investing in those communities, investment creates employment and it creates wealth within those communities, and that is what makes our regional communities strong.

This Government has been active. We have had a plan developed in Northland that is working hard. There are a number of large opportunities for economic growth up there, and we are supporting that well, alongside local government and local businesses. The Bay of Plenty—I have to say, it is my own area, which covers from Ōpōtiki and the East Coast right through to Tauranga down to Rotorua—is an area that has worked together well over the previous 10 years, and, I tell you what, that area is pumping. It has developed a plan itself. Yes, the Government is supporting it; yes, local government is supporting it, but the business sector itself is excited. They are working together and they are looking at the opportunities that are available.

Of course, the most important for me—the most important issue that we are looking at is the development of the Ōpōtiki aquaculture project. That is a project that has the capacity to change the lives of thousands of people living in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, one of the highest areas of deprivation in New Zealand. That project, which the Government is backing with finance and with resources, has the potential to change the lives of the people who live in the Eastern Bay of Plenty and bring considerable wealth to the country. This Government is right there working alongside them.

We recently launched the Hawke’s Bay plan. There is an East Coast regional development plan, and we have broken that into two: one in Tai Rāwhiti, which will be released later this year; and one in Hawke’s Bay, which was released during the adjournment. The most important part of that, for me, was Project 1000. Minister Flavell and I announced Project 1000 as part of the Government’s commitment to the economic development of Hawke’s Bay, which is to get 1,000 new jobs for unemployed Hawke’s Bay people. That, again, has the potential to change the lives of thousands of families in Hawke’s Bay, because we know that there are jobs. There are jobs there. When you look at the horticulture industry, it is working hard to increase its productivity, and what we are saying to it is that you cannot rely on bringing outside help; you have to be developing your own people. The greatest resource that this country has is its workforce, is its people. I am delighted to be part of a country that is supporting New Zealanders into jobs.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It is one of those days, is it not, when you come down to the House, you have got a whole bunch of speech notes and you are ready to deliver something that is prepared, and then someone stands up in the House and says something that rocks you in your shoes. That has just happened with Mr Iain Lees-Galloway’s speech on immigration.

Like one of the previous members said, the adjournment time gives us the chance to get out and take stock and listen to people. We have to say, in New Zealand First, we have to say we have travelled up and down the country. From Invercargill to Auckland, I have been everywhere, and the message we are getting consistently is that the public is actually tired of the type of speech that Mr Iain Lees-Galloway just gave. They are tired of one side of the House claiming that another party in this House, whose immigration policies have always been sane, sensible, and population-focused—is racist and xenophobic. Now, suddenly, on the back of a poll that Mr Iain Lees-Galloway from Labour has seen, which tells him “Oh my gosh, 60 percent of the country agrees with the Rt Hon Winston Peters in New Zealand First that immigration policy is chaotic, is out of control.”, suddenly everyone should listen to Labour.

Let me tell you what people are saying out there: “Red or blue, there’s nothing new.” National and Labour are just the same. It is like Pepsi and Coke: tell me whether one can tell the difference. One comes in a blue package; the other comes in a red package, but everyone knows 90 percent of the people cannot tell the difference between Pepsi and Coke, and that is exactly what is happening right now. We do not actually care about the argument that goes on between National and Labour on who put more police here, who has got a stronger focus on law and order, or who wants to get immigration under control—we see them both as exactly the same and so does most of New Zealand right now, who are all coming to that realisation.

We go down to Invercargill, down to Gore, and who is filling in my meeting? It is National Party farmers, who have had a gutsful.

Todd Barclay: Absolutely no one—no one is there.

RON MARK: Todd Barclay can stand up and rant but Todd Barclay should ask the listing committee of the National Party where his committee has gone. Where has his committee gone? People are looking at this Government as being no different from the last Government.

Then we have Mr Grant Robertson on Q+A telling the whole nation the trickle-down economy does not work. Hello! Mr Robertson, if you had not realised it, it was started by the Labour Party. It was called Rogernomics, and then National picked it up and called it “Ruthanasia”. The result was the same: devastation in the provinces and farmers out there being told they should get on and keep their chins up and handle the economic changes, whilst this Government, which trumpets free-trade agreements—which the Labour Party promoted as well—has done nothing to curb the excessive use of subsidies in these countries that they proudly proclaim they have established a free-trade agreement with.

Mr Speaker, you are a farmer from the Banks Peninsula and I know that you were raised like me in rural New Zealand, in the Wairarapa, and we know something that our grandparents told us a long time ago, and farmers down in Gore and down into Invercargill were telling us this as well: nothing is free—nothing. Do not come into this House and trumpet “Ruthanasia” policies or Rogernomics policies and tell us that the poor at the low end of the chain are going to benefit from that, because all the evidence shows, after 30 years of rampant neo-liberal experimentation—started by the Labour Party—that the gap between rich and poor is greater than it has ever been. It has actually reached the level where you may never be able to turn it back—well, looking at the housing situation.

By the way, we are getting to the stage in New Zealand First where we actually think we have got a security problem, because it seems that every second day Labour is picking up one of our policies and trumpeting it as its own. The thing that disappoints us more than anything is that the media print it. We would simply ask them: “If you want the original Rolex, come to New Zealand First—do not go buying a cheap, Singaporean model from the Labour Party.”

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): That previous member, Ron Mark, was very, very excitable. Amy Adams was talking about the rapid divorce between Labour and the Greens, and now we are seeing New Zealand First versus Labour. I do not know what is going on over there. But the Labour purge has begun—the Labour purge has begun. Far be it from me to defend a Labour MP, but why is the Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, picking on a fellow Hawke’s Bay MP Stuart Nash—the vast, rabid right-winger Stuart Nash, apparently. What is going on over there in Labour? Why does he not pick on Mr Shearer? Why does he not pick on Mr O’Connor? What is wrong with Mr Nash? Is it because Mr Nash is secretly supportive of the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Is it because he has actually won a seat—even though he took it off National; we will get it back—when Mr Little has not? What is going on? The purge has begun. No longer is free speech a choice, an option, within the Labour Party or its recent members.

National has been very, very busy throughout this recent adjournment. We just continued where we left off all the way through, and we continue right now. As previous members have said, during the adjournment we launched Matariki: Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan 2016. Absolutely, for the first time ever, all of the Hawke’s Bay councils are aligned in agreement—all of the councils. The regional council, iwi, business, and central government are aligned with an action plan, and a strategy to grow jobs, to help realise potential, and to help the mighty Hawke’s Bay help itself. Funnily enough, that plan was praised and supported by Mr Nash. Perhaps that is why Mr Little is not supporting his own MP. That plan, Matariki, in Hawke’s Bay, as Minister Anne Tolley just said includes Project 1000—1,000 new jobs for people on some kind of assistance from the taxpayer to help grow the horticultural industry, and a $25 million investment in core transport infrastructure to help goods and produce get to the Port of Napier and to make our roads safer.

How will that produce come about? Schemes such as the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme will help that. Free-trade agreements are helping the demand for that produce to get to that port. As well as that, there are 45 action points—I have been on the road over the last 4 weeks with the small business roadshow. Out of Wellington, out of the central business district, and in provincial rural New Zealand—in the heartbeat of small business, semi-commercial areas—we have had businesses coming and listening and learning about all the tools available to them that this Government has put in place to share with them to help enable them to be all they can be within their business.

We have business.govt.nz showing those who turn up, in outstanding numbers, the portal for businesses to engage with government. We have a demonstration of the New Zealand Business Number, which this Government put in place and is implementing to help businesses communicate once—have one door to communicate—with government on whatever it might be. We have the Inland Revenue Department at those meetings explaining the tax transformation and the changes in provisional tax. Would you believe that the Inland Revenue Department gets a round of applause at these various meetings from hard-working small-business owners? We have ACC doing a presentation, talking about some of the plans available to small-business owners, and single shareholder-operator businesses, which can help them and provide certainty to them. We have Statistics New Zealand showing where data, where information can be found to assist businesses learn more about not only their competitors but their potential markets.

We have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade there, advising on free-trade agreements and tariff situations in various markets. We have WorkSafe in there, explaining to businesses they do not need to spend a whole lot of money to buy an expensive programme. Actually, they can work with WorkSafe and they will find themselves saving a whole of money. We have the Digital Journey people there. We have the labour inspectorate there, pointing out to small businesses that they can download, for free, an employment agreement written by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to help make them safe and to save them funds, time, and resources. And, of course, we have regional business partners talking about the Callaghan Institute and how to access it.

This Government is positive. It is united. We are not going after each other like the Labour Party members are now doing. We are continuing the hard work, the focus to help enable New Zealand to be all it can be, and I am proud to be part of that team.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): There are 60,000 new New Zealanders every year for whom we do not do enough. These 60,000 are a diffuse group. They have no clear spokesperson or organisation backing them. Some of them are living in very inadequate housing, others are subject to all sorts of assaults and vile abuse, and yet no one speaks up for them. It is time we changed our attitude.

Before the xenophobes and the bigots start to rise to the bait, let me say that I am talking about the number of children born in New Zealand each year: 60,000 new New Zealanders. Those young New Zealanders have no choice about the circumstances of their birth or the nature of their upbringing, but we owe it to them to provide them with all of the wherewithal to enjoy a fruitful and prosperous life.

Sadly, as the core of our future, they often get overlooked in the debates that take place in this Chamber, and for that reason I welcome the initiative taken last week by Judge Caroline Henwood and Sir Mark Solomon to launch a covenant for our nation’s children. I want to share with the House a couple of statements from that covenant, because I think they go to the heart of the concern and the focus that we as a Parliament ought to have upon the future of our children: “We the people of Aotearoa New Zealand make a solemn and enduring covenant with our nation’s children, whoever they are and wherever they may be, in equal measure, those children who are born and those born in the future. We as New Zealanders undertake an unconditional duty to do all in our power to ensure that all our children are treasured, respected and enjoy a good life full of opportunity in a nation that is diverse and rich in culture and aroha.” There can be no more profound statement about the functions that we seek to perform than a commitment to the children as the future of this country.

Around 24 percent of our population is under the age of 18. Just under 70 percent of our young people are lucky enough to be brought up in a two-parent household. Just under 20 percent are raised by a single parent or in other groupings. As I said, those children do not choose the circumstances of their birth, but every child has an equal right to access to opportunity in this country, every child has an equal right to access to quality healthcare and education, every child has a right to good housing and good prospects in life, and our challenge—and that is what the covenant recognises—is to focus our efforts afresh on delivering those policies.

I am conscious of the work that my colleague to my left, the Minister for Social Development, is doing in the area to try to bring children to the centre of Government policy-making, and I applaud that. I welcome it, but it is a long-overdue initiative. But the important point about it is that by focusing on our children, we then start to focus on the nature of our families, our communities, and all of the support and other systems within those communities that enable people to function effectively. We do not have isolated debates, as we do today, about housing provision, law and order, or migration. They are all connected into a focal point of saying “Let’s serve the interests of our children because they are our future.”, and, therefore, we can put all other policies through the prism of how they affect children.

I noticed last week when the covenant was released that there was a rather large measure of silence to greet it. I would have expected in the quiet of the adjournment more passion from politicians, who profess concern about our country’s future, to get in behind this charter because it provides a way forward.

What we are seeing around the world now is a reaction to the sort of “Up you!” politics that the Trumpists and their acolytes in this country are seeking to follow. In Britain, under the former Liberal Democrats leader Paddy Ashdown, a More United movement—that is what it is called—has been developed, with the express aim of supporting moderate, progressive politicians across the political spectrum to stamp out extremism and focus on the real issues. Our children are our most basic real issue. It is time we focused afresh upon their needs.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to make a contribution in this general debate in support of the Government—a Government that is sensible, a Government that is unified, and a Government that is stable and is delivering for all New Zealanders. As part of that, it has economic growth forecast at 2.4 percent, unemployment forecast to drop to 5.2 percent, and it is bringing Crown debt down to 20 percent of GDP by 2020. Is it any wonder that we are the envy of the OECD? We certainly are, through our stable management, the envy of the OECD in a world in which some of our larger, more traditionally stable democracies are facing some incredible turmoil, and New Zealand is leading the way in stability and growth.

I want to take the time to address some statistics with regard to me being a regional MP and leading the anchor state of this country—Southland. There was a Northerner—a member opposite—who addressed this House last night and claimed that Southland was in recession. My goodness, if producing 14 percent of New Zealand’s total export receipts is being in recession, then she must be a monkey’s uncle. If an employment rate of 74 percent—when the national average is 65 percent—is not doing well, then I do not know what is. Yes, we can acknowledge that dairy is volatile at this stage. In fact, it has dropped in our export statistics from 32 percent to 26 percent. But tourism is up, and we are still boxing economically above our weight for New Zealand—producing, I say again, 14 percent of New Zealand’s total export receipts.

Why is that? I am very proud to be a regional MP in this Government because this is a Government that is looking at the economy as a whole, and is providing initiatives to help grow the regions. We are looking at capitalising on our strengths, and we are diversifying our markets and diversifying our economy further. How are we doing that? We are investing $2 billion in ultra-fast broadband to connect our businesses to the rest of the world so that they can easily make connections and easily do business and get into new markets and stabilise their existing markets. That is so important in places like Southland where we are removed from larger centres. But look, you have got lower overheads in Southland and you are connected—and so you can do business, and do business well, from anywhere in New Zealand.

I also want to talk about the potential in Southland. I recently came back from a trip to Norway—a conference that celebrated the success of aquaculture and best practice. I learnt about best practice in aquaculture and what it can produce—jobs, revenue, and money for its people and for families in Norway. Southland has been signalled as a potential place to grow aquaculture, through our strategic group, our Southland Regional Development Strategy (SoRDS) Group, which is leading the charge there. But the Government has come in behind the SoRDS Group and behind Ngāi Tahu, and the Ministry for Primary Industries is leading some research to look at the viability of sites around the Southland coast to increase our share of aquaculture. At the moment we produce 20 percent of New Zealand’s aquaculture, and we believe that we have the natural climatic advantages and the environmental advantages to be able to expand that. The statistics at the moment are that for every hectare of aquaculture, for finfish, you are producing about 20 jobs and about $20 million worth of revenue. Southland wants a slice of that. Southland wants to capitalise on that. Southland wants to grow with that.

Southland is doing well. We are not in recession. We box above our weight. The northern member of the Opposition from Dunedin should realise that.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Huri noa ki tēnei Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. Today is my first day back in the House after the adjournment. I stayed in Auckland yesterday for my appearance on the Native Affairs live panel last night, shot at Te Puea Marae in Māngere. This is the marae that has been helping families into homes. I am sitting here, listening to all of these speeches, particularly from National benches, and I wish that this House and the members in it were not so disconnected from the realities of New Zealanders and the hardships that families are facing at this very time. I have had to sit here and listen to members, such as the honourable Minister Amy Adams saying that it is nasty, negative, and no-hope discussion when the real issues are brought to members’ attention.

I wish the Minister had come to the Native Affairs live panel last night and listened to the likes of the social service providers, such as Hurimoana Dennis, Darryl Evans, and Ian Hutson of the Salvation Army, of Māngere Budgeting Services, and of Te Puea Marae, who were absolutely the opposite of nasty, negative, and no hope. They were simply talking with calm, with reason, with insight, and with wisdom about the years of work they have done at the front line and the realities that they and many other social service providers are facing—realities that happened and are happening to our country because of mismanagement by this Government.

To listen in the House today, in question time, to our Prime Minister harp on about the record number of houses being built without mentioning the record figures of homelessness that we are now having to face is an absolute farce. Some of those people are working. Some of those families are in paid employment. I also had to listen to Minister Tolley talking about how being in employment is the solver of all the issues. Some of those people who are living in vans, cramped in homes, and squashed in garages are in paid employment. Nurses, teachers, and police are finding it hard to live in Auckland. That is OK—should we just say that Auckland is not for nurses, Auckland is not for police, and Auckland is not for teachers? Their salaries are not enough to keep up the pace of what houses—[Interruption] Yeah, look at me like that. I do not mind. I will look at you straight back.

Auckland should be for everybody. I have had to sit in this House at question time today and listen to the Prime Minister refer to poverty as “a great range of financial situations in this country.” That is how our Prime Minister has defined poverty. The absolute minimum that we should expect, no matter the great range of financial situations, is that every tamariki, every mokopuna, every whānau, and every person should have a warm, safe, affordable, and secure home to live in. If we do not start there, then you are in denial—and that is how the Prime Minister and his Government have not answered all the questions today, and many before. Every time they are caught out, every time they are having to face and confront what their Government has failed in, they try to blame it on someone else, or they will talk about something else, or they will talk about something else from the past. They cannot answer directly and confront and face exactly what is happening.

This is why they did not want to support the inquiry into homelessness. Labour, the Greens, and the Māori Party are not afraid to confront the truth and are working together, across the country, to face the issues. We are not afraid of being accountable. I have had to sit here today, and I wish the members in this House were not so disconnected from what is happening to ordinary people who are not even as angry as I am. They are calm. They are doing the best they can. They are remaining and struggling and doing the best that they can. I wish all of us were accountable. Thank you.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Can I just say that it is wonderful to come back here, after 4 weeks of being away, and be able to pick up exactly where it was that we left off, which is being a part of a party that is governing at the moment, that is very positive, that has a lot of energy, and that is doing some great things for New Zealand. Often you get these accusations made about Governments being in their third term. People will accuse third-term Governments of lacking new ideas or lacking energy. But this Government is far from that. Right across the board, in fact—socially, environmentally, and economically—we have got hard-working Ministers and people within the party who are generating new ideas. They are facing up to the issues that New Zealand is confronted with, taking us to where we need to invest more in order to deliver better results, and making those investments, making those calls. Budget 2016 is an example of that. Right across the board, as I said—socially, environmentally, and economically—this is a balanced Government that is doing things right across the whole gamut.

Can I start in the social sphere. Budget 2016 saw $652 million extra being invested back into the social investment package, of which $348 million was to boost spending for our most vulnerable young people. We are committed to ensuring that the vulnerable young people of New Zealand will not be left behind, that they will get better treatment from the Government going forward than they have ever had before. That is why we are investing money up front. That is why we are taking our social investment strategy to new lengths—to ensure that those who are likely to have the poorest long-term outcomes in their lives have that turned around through early intervention and through early investment, to ensure that we are going to deliver a better New Zealand for those New Zealanders. Our results are starting to speak for themselves, and we are moving forward with that strategy.

On the environmental front, we are also making great inroads. For example, the recent announcement of being predator-free in New Zealand by 2050—a bold, ambitious environmental goal that we are setting for New Zealand, one that I am sure everyone will buy into and support. It is another great announcement from the Government, and one that will be backed up, I am sure, by community groups, the private sector, and the Government itself as we move forward towards that goal. We are investing in the environment, in terms of rivers, with an extra $100 million that has been put up for river clean-up funds. We have seen the benefit of previous funding that has gone in, particularly in the Manawatū, where I live, where, with the help of Government funding working alongside community groups, over the last 5 years 120,000 plants have been planted alongside the Manawatū River and its tributaries, and 208 kilometres of fencing has been put in to help improve the Manawatū River. I know that is something that the local people around there are very concerned about. This Government is concerned about those issues as well. On the environmental front we are making progress as no other Government in New Zealand has ever made before.

Finally, what is often talked about as being one of the most critical parts is the economy. We are making fantastic progress and inroads in that area as well. We are continuing to be forward-thinking and to look at new ways to boost our economy, and we are seeing a more diverse economy as a result. The extra $700 million - odd that has been invested into the Innovative New Zealand package is going to be felt right around the country—in particular, as I said, in the Manawatū, where I come from. That money is going to make a big difference in helping to boost our development and research institutes and the jobs that go along with them. On Friday the Manawatū-Whanganui regional growth plan is going to be unveiled in Whanganui. I am looking forward to the announcements that are coming through from that. I do not want to steal the Minister’s thunder, in terms of the things that are going to be announced, but I am absolutely excited by what I see as the investment by this Government into local regional economies to ensure that we will create more jobs. We will create a better future for people who are living in provincial New Zealand.

Right across the board, as I said—socially, environmentally, and economically—this Government is moving New Zealand forward and is going to take us to better places in the future.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Firstly, can I thank you, because over the adjournment we were privileged to host Youth Parliament. I would like to extend my appreciation—I think all the young people whom I have engaged with had a thoroughly good time, and that was because of the management of the House.

Can I also acknowledge that yesterday was the International Day of the World’s Indigenous People, and so I mihi to all the indigenous communities around the world, and there is a particular focus this year on education.

Today, for me, is going to be a lot of thankyous. I would also like to thank Dame Diane Robertson, who has moved on as the Auckland City Missioner, and in her place we welcome Chris Farrelly. So I say kia kaha to Chris, because one of the first pieces of research that he has contributed to the discussion around homelessness in our community was a press release dated 7 June 2016. So between 2014 and 2016 we have had a 55 percent increase in the number of homeless people in Auckland; these are those living within 3 kilometres of Skycity tower. In the last 2 years we have had an extra 81 people whom the Auckland City Mission, with a whole lot of collaborators, has identified as homeless.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Judge Andrew Becroft as our new Children’s Commissioner. I think he has started his tenure on an incredibly powerful platform. And what is that platform? That platform is actually not only being an advocate for children but being an advocate in terms of enabling us, as a society, as New Zealanders, to contribute and to participate in what is a very, very important discussion. Should the Ministry for Children be the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, which is incredibly stigmatising, or should it actually be a ministry that is going to provide for the needs and aspirations, not only of our children but of our whānau? And I leave you with this: vulnerable means to be exposed to harm, whether it be physical or emotional. And so if the Minister and that Government want to tar children who are going to use the services of this new children’s ministry with that term “vulnerable”, then let them address all the exposures to harm, both emotional and physical, to ensure that our children actually grow up in an environment where they can thrive. I agree with our Children’s Commissioner that labelling them as vulnerable is not the best way to start that journey or that process.

Can I also thank Te Puea Marae, who, over the 10 weeks of its opening, has provided accommodation to 156 people. Included in those people have been 83 children. So Te Puea Marae has acted as, I guess, a conduit between those who are living on the streets, living at the marae, to now having accommodation. So I want to mihi to all the leadership at Te Puea Marae for actually putting their hands up and saying “We care, and we care enough to assist whānau who are in crisis.”, and then actually following through and making sure they have somewhere to live. Nineteen people still live there and the marae will continue to support those people until they all find accommodation.

They have now passed the baton on to my marae, the Manurewa Marae, who will take registrations on Monday from 9.30 a.m. They have the capacity to provide for 146 people and in addition to that they have got five Portacom homes that are for women and children. I do not know whether the Government is funding them. I have got no idea but I would hope that it is, because an initiative like this, which is community driven, deserves to be supported by any reasonable, caring, compassionate Government. Our marae will be serviced by volunteers. I want to mihi to Rowandale School in my electorate. They have put their hands up because they will be there on a roster. They need people who can provide breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

So to our whānau and communities throughout South Auckland who care enough to not just talk about things but to actually do things, I want to acknowledge your leadership and say thank you on behalf of this Parliament for doing something to meet the needs of those who are most vulnerable, and to say thank you for continuing to ensure that no one is left behind. Kia ora tātou.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I had the privilege on Sunday mornings of listening to the Radio New Zealand children’s programme. That is where I first heard of Flick the Little Fire Engine, Little Toot, Diana and the Golden Apples. Today I want to model my contribution on one of those stories—The Soldier’s Deck of Cards. It is a story about a soldier who in front of a court martial conveyed his beliefs with all that he had at the time—a pack of cards.

So, today, this pack of cards in my hand is my Hansard. This pack of cards is my Speakers’ Rulings and my policy notes. When I look at the ace, I see a representation of the best, the finest, the highest level—a serve that cannot be returned. And this reminds me of the Government’s front bench—the best, the first, the highest level—serving up the Opposition with a serve that cannot be returned.

When I look at the two, I am reminded of the $2 billion in the 2016 health budget—$28 million of that to the Northland District Health Board. You know, when I first worked there we had nine resident medical officers—today there are 90. The workforce has expanded and continues to expand under this Government.

The three is a tragic reminder of the number of Labour leaders who have held office while this Government has been in office. The clubs are how they were dispensed; they clubbed each other to death. The diamonds are why: their “twinkle twinkle”, pie-in-the-sky policies. Their hearts—they had no heart, no love for each other, that is for sure. And this card shows how they were buried—with spades. The deck tells the story.

When I come to the four, five, and six, it takes me to Sunday, 20 December last year, 456 days since a stunning 2014 election—a stunning election. Over those 456 days, this Government has given New Zealanders free under-13 childcare, reduced ACC levels, and benefit increases.

The seventh is the day of rest, but not for this Government—we are hard workers. We do not rest. We have completed an endless number of bills through their third readings—the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, a building amendments bill, Te Piri mō Te Reo Māori, and many others.

The eight and the nine, well, that is the number of emails I have received lately—89—from the people in Portland who are awfully glad to be receiving a roundabout either on Loop Road North or Loop Road South, which will facilitate logging trucks off State Highway 1. They are also very grateful for the $25 million of new roading funding from Toetoe Road to Springfield.

This takes us to the face cards—the jack, the queen, and the king. This Government will face the tough issues. Te Ture Whenua is a tough issue, foreign fighters are a tough issue, Auckland housing is a tough issue, and this Government will face them all.

In conclusion, that leaves just one, the joker—and I will leave it to the House to decide who and what party that is. But let me give you the attributes of the joker. The joker is very old—the joker first appeared in a pack of cards in 1860. It is usually depicted as the jester, with diminished capabilities, and the joker is frequently also known as the wild card—unpredictable, unstable, and unsuitable to follow the usual rules. Again, I will leave it to the imagination of the House as to whom this applies. Today this pack of cards is my Hansard and my policy notes, and I look forward to filling out the rest of the cards. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill

In Committee

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave of the Committee for all of the clauses in the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill to be taken as one debate and voted on separately at the end of that debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Preamble and clauses 1 to 4

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): In the absence of any other takers—

Tim Macindoe: You were up so quickly.

POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, I know. I rise to take a call on the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. I refer to the four clauses of the bill and the importance of each of these clauses to ensuring that the Foundation of the Blind—or, as it is now known, the Blind Foundation—can continue to meet the purpose for which it has been designed.

What is important about the title clause, clause 1, is that it gives the Blind Foundation the ability to now ensure that its legal structure and its status within the community is fit for purpose for the work that it needs to do. The title of the bill is the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill, and what it will, in effect, do is repeal the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002 because of the need for the foundation to become an incorporated society. The need for the foundation to become an incorporated society is for the status and the conditions that sit around incorporated societies, which means they act for members.

It is a membership organisation, and that is really important to the Blind Foundation because it is an organisation that is not only for members but actually has a governance structure that is completely staffed by people who are either blind or have low vision. It is an organisation that is completely based on the needs of people who are blind and have low vision, including its governance structure, so everything it does as an organisation is for people who are blind and have low vision. It is a completely inclusive organisation. It actually demonstrates some of the best elements of that phrase that is often quoted in the disability sector: “Nothing about us without us.” This is an organisation that is completely inclusive, completely membership based, and knows what needs to be in place for members of our community who are blind and have low vision.

Why is that important? It is about being able to design facilities and services for people who are blind and have low vision, because you know exactly what you need. It is about being completely member-driven, knowing exactly what members need. It is what we would like to be as a society—completely inclusive for people who are blind and have low vision. The foundation has been set up to ensure that a couple of things happen: that people who find themselves in a situation where they become blind or are born with the condition are able to access appropriate services and have the type of equipment that people use. We all know about guide dogs, and we are all completely supportive of fund-raising efforts by the Blind Foundation to ensure that it continues to have those resources to provide services to its members.

It is also about communication and ensuring that what we might take for granted—the ability not only to communicate with each other but to communicate effectively with members outside of the blind community—is in place. That includes things like access to Braille, and it also includes things like access to audio descriptors. I know that many of our free-to-air television shows have audio descriptors as part of the programming for people with low vision, but all of our pay TV and many of those things that we take for granted—like being able to access and see the Olympics or the top rugby games—do not have audio descriptors attached to them. So, just in the passage of this bill, I want to advocate on behalf of the Blind Foundation. There is a way for us to go for people with low vision and with issues around blindness to actually have access to the kinds of things that we take for granted, and audio description of television programmes is just one of those things.

Clause 4 talks about the consequential amendment to the Copyright (General Matters) Regulations—in particular, regulation 5. That is around ensuring that the names of the associations with access to any of the publications that are produced in Braille are within the purview of that particular regulation. But in that regard I also want to make a plea around the Government’s response to the Marrakesh VIP Treaty. What that will do is allow greater access for publications that are in Braille to be imported into New Zealand, and for the blind community to have access to those publications. I understand that the Government is willing; I just want to ensure that we just gently encourage it to do that.

I also want to encourage the Government to seek out the two—at least two, I believe—other nations that need to sign up to this treaty for it to become something that we will ratify, so I would really encourage this Government to think about that. It is a small but very significant matter, particularly for the Blind Foundation. It has been advocating for a long time for the ratification of this particular treaty. I think, as we are passing this bill through the Committee, it is an appropriate time for us to discuss the issues that will make communication for people with low vision and with issues of blindness a little easier for them.

I thank the Minister for bringing this bill to the House. I want to thank the Blind Foundation for all of its hard work, for its service to the community, and also for raising matters in the wider disability context. I look forward to ensuring that this bill passes its third reading. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to speak in this Committee stage of the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. Can I begin by acknowledging the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicky Wagner. This private bill that we are debating is in her name, and, as I have mentioned in a few prior contributions, I think it is quite apt, not only because of her own passion for the subject but because of the fact that she is the Minister responsible for these areas—not just, of course, for the blind, but for other people with a variety of disabilities. This is a very simple bill, as has clearly been indicated today by the request that we deal with this as one debate. The provisions themselves are relatively simple, and I will touch on some of those in this speech.

But I think what is really important to stress, and it is somewhat brought out in the bill—in its general policy statement in the explanatory note, and so on—is the purpose. The purpose is, in fact, far more important and symbolic than just the words themselves. This is the desire of the Royal Foundation of the Blind to take control, if you will, of its own destiny and its own work. The very purpose of this bill is to remove the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind off the statute book. It is probably not appropriate in the Committee stage—and we are not going to go through all the history of the bill and why it is here—but the reason we have clause 3 is to repeal our Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002. This is to allow the foundation to now act as an incorporated society for its members and supporters—those who are blind and those with low vision or vision impairment—to be able to control their own destiny, and, ultimately, to send a very strong signal, as all parts of this bill do, that the statutory requirements are no longer needed.

As you will imagine, the title itself is very simple—really just indicating what this is all about. I will point out—maybe it is just my love of semantics—it is very unusual to have the words “Act” and “bill” in the same place. That is important. The legislation is going to come into immediate effect once it receives Royal assent, as is pointed out in clause 2. There was no great debate in the Health Committee around any of these clauses. We know that the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind is working quite hard to prepare the transition; therefore, no transition elements were needed. Clause 3 is again a very simple statement—a simple repeal here of the previous Act of 2002.

The foundation itself has been around—I think, since 1908 if memory serves me right; the Minister will be able to clarify that for me a bit later—for about 126 years. I think last year it celebrated its 125th anniversary. I think in 1908 the original legislation was put in place. As former speakers have pointed out, there is a consequential amendment around copyright regulations from 1995—we have just been really clear about that. I suppose in this Committee stage we want to be really clear that, although we have brought this to the Committee with no amendments in our report—the bill went through the select committee and was passed unanimously with no amendments—it is not indicative of not having done anything. I know that is almost a triple negative in a series of words there, but the committee was actually very careful to go through this bill to ensure it clearly reached its intentions. Importantly too, it became an opportunity—and I thought it was quite important; we have not been able to note it in the clauses, rightly but unfortunately—for the wider discussion that was had with representatives of the foundation to understand some of the wider issues that are affecting those who are blind or with low vision.

Ultimately, through all these clauses, and by allowing the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind to become an incorporated society, the foundation is going to be able to continue to pursue its agenda and lobbying. I am very conscious of this insofar as 2 weeks ago, in my own area back up in Auckland, I had a good opportunity to go and meet with representatives, not only to talk though what was happening with the bill but, importantly, to hear the issues that they have. The previous speaker, Poto Williams, was elucidating one of them around the Marrakesh treaty.

The other issue, which I think is important to note, and which is going to come out of this bill, is around what was debated here in the Youth Parliament. It is around accessibility. I know—for the foundation, and those listening—that was well heard here, and I acknowledge my own youth MP who spoke very passionately on it. The foundation has a range of activities it wants to pursue and continue to pursue, and accessibility—or the mock bill that the Youth Parliament had—is just one example of them. This bill has four clauses—four very simple clauses. It does not even take more than half a page, but that is not symbolic of the larger work, if you will, that the foundation undertakes and wants to continue to undertake.

As I say, the Health Committee did spend a good amount of time on this. We gave it all due consideration. What it seeks to do has been very clearly articulated, and so we are very pleased to return here to the Committee stage, and look forward to any further contributions. Along with my colleague on the committee Poto Williams, I am very much looking forward to a third reading and progressing the bill further.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): It will be a celebration, the day that this bill passes. The Blind Foundation, in numerous iterations, has been working in New Zealand, supporting and working with blind people, for over 126 years. I think most of us know where the original Blind Foundation buildings are in Parnell—enormous brick buildings. In those days there was a residential facility. There was a sheltered workshop. There was a whole lot of support, where people lived on the place.

I think that really reflects the changes that have happened in disability over those 126 years. Originally the organisation was named “for the Blind”. It was all about looking after people who could not manage in the real world and had to live in a sequestered regime in residential places in a place where ordinary New Zealanders did not come very often. I think it is really incumbent and actually a real celebration for this organisation that it can come to this stage where it is now becoming an incorporated society of the blind. It is no longer “for” the blind; it is “of” the blind. It is about people who are blind or who have low-vision impairments who can live a life as any other New Zealander does, who can have more choice and more control over their lives. If you look at the history of the 126 years, you can see how that has changed. I do think we need to pay tribute to the organisation for advocating for that change, for cannibalising its own organisation in the beginning and becoming a truly empowering organisation for blind people.

Right now the services that the Blind Foundation provides are to support people so that they can live a full life, to make sure that they can make the most of every opportunity that New Zealanders have in this country. I think we have had some mention of technology today. Interestingly enough, the blind community has always been good at taking up innovation. After all, Braille was one of those early technologies that allowed blind people to live lives as close as possible to ordinary New Zealanders in terms of reading and in terms of communication. Now we are seeing some fantastic new software and computerware that blind people can use to support them in the adoption of technology; the foundation is very strong in that area. There is a famous bit of software called Job Access With Speech (JAWS). It is fascinating because they use it in terms of software and computing. What it does is it reads words aloud really, really fast. You and I probably would not pick up the speed of the reading, but blind people are attuned to JAWS, and they can speed it up. It is fascinating to watch them using that technology.

There have been several turning points along the line because the legislation has changed, but the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002 was a turning point because that allowed the foundation the opportunity to become an incorporated society. Even though it took until 2012 for it to do that, it opened the door for it to take that control over its organisation. It was also the time that it changed the name to the Royal New Zealand Foundation “of” the Blind, rather than “for” the blind.

I think that this repealing is particularly important. It is important not only because it has given the organisation the opportunity to highlight in Parliament the work it has done, but also because it wants to make it very clear that there is no confusion between having a statute and giving it the independence going forward. I think that the fact that it is now totally on its own, controlling its own destiny, looking after its sector, and being completely independent of Parliament is a really positive move. So I would like to say thank you to the organisation. Thank you for providing those services for 126 years. I would like to thank the select committee for the work that it has done to get to this stage. Finally, I would like to say kia kaha to the organisation for the next 126 years. Kia ora.

Preamble agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) on behalf of the Hon David Parker (Labour): I move, That the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is quite straightforward: it is to ensure that everybody working in New Zealand has the right to receive the minimum wage. Everybody in New Zealand who is an employee has that right, along with various other employment rights that are secured for them in the Employment Relations Act.

However, a large number of people who are working in New Zealand do not enjoy the benefits of the rights conferred upon them under that legislation because they are engaged as contractors, not as employees. We are seeing an increasing use of contracting relationships and an increasing number of people who fall into the category of dependent contractor—that being someone who is, for all intents and purposes by law, a contractor, but who actually receives the bulk of their income from one principal. In other words, they are more or less in an employment relationship; however, for the purposes of the law they are in a contractual relationship. Those people are not entitled to a minimum wage. Despite the fact that they may be working 5 days a week or in a regular pattern of work, and receiving all of their income from one employer, they are not entitled to the minimum wage. A large number of people, particularly in more precarious forms of work, such as the delivery of flyers and newspapers, in particular, actually find themselves receiving remuneration that works out at considerably lower than the minimum wage—particularly after their costs are accounted for.

This bill seeks to confer on those workers the same rights as people who are employed in employment agreements that are regulated by the Employment Relations Act. As the Labour Party’s minority view outlines, there are two options for how to proceed here. One is to legislate protections for a subset of contractors called dependent contractors, including as to minimum remuneration; and the second is to legislate to apply minimum remuneration to contracted workers, not just to employees. This bill takes the second approach.

We heard a range of submissions. A number of submitters were in support of our approach, a number of submitters were in support of the concept but urged us to take another approach, and then there were submitters who were simply opposed to the approach altogether. As a result of that, the member in charge of this bill, the Hon David Parker, and Opposition members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee did ask for a number of amendments to be drafted, which they were. Unfortunately, the committee chose not to adopt those amendments, because the committee was voting the bill down. Often, committees will decide to improve a bill—regardless of whether they are going to recommend that the bill proceed or not. Unfortunately, in this case the committee chose to vote those amendments down.

So we propose to bring those amendments, by Supplementary Order Paper, should this bill proceed to the Committee stage. I say to members who are contemplating how they are going to vote at this second reading that I know that for some who supported the bill to select committee that was as far as their commitment went, and that they are reconsidering their vote after the select committee stage. I say to those members that because we were not able to bring the amended legislation back to the House, please send this bill on to the Committee of the whole House so that we can have a debate with the whole Parliament about those amendments, and consider your vote then—at the Committee stage—and, potentially, at the third reading stage. If you are still not sure where you want to land on this, please send the bill to the Committee of the whole House, because there is more work to do.

I would like to quickly go through some of the amendments that we proposed. First of all, we would like to clarify to whom the bill would apply. A new clause 6 would insert definitions in section 2 of the principal Act. We would recommend some amendments to make the definitions clearer. We would recommend amending the term “specified person” to “specified contractor” throughout the bill. We believe this would make it clearer as to whom the bill applies to, and would help the public in understanding this legislation.

This bill is intended to apply to companies only where the company consists of a single person as a shareholder and director who personally provides the specified service. For clarity, we would recommend amending the definition to specify that the bill would apply only where such a person provides the service exclusively—that is, not simply in a managerial capacity alongside employees. We believe that this intention is not fully clear in the bill as it was introduced.

There are some technical changes we would like to make around numbering. We would like to add some guidance on the actual rate of remuneration not being necessary. Clause 7 proposes to insert new section 4B, containing guidance for the courts to use in establishing the actual rate at which the contractor has been paid. We do not consider it necessary to give this level of guidance and would recommend that new section 4B be deleted.

The relationship with the adult minimum wage—in the bill as introduced there is no mechanism for ensuring that a minimum rate of remuneration for contractors is consistent with the adult minimum wage. That certainly was not the intention—the whole point of this bill is to ensure that the minimum rate for contractors is the same as the adult minimum wage. So, for clarity, it would be desirable to make an explicit link to the adult minimum wage set under the primary legislation. We would recommend amending clause 7, new section 4C(2), to make it explicit that if a minimum rate of remuneration is set, it must not be less than the minimum adult wage rate. We would also recommend technical changes to clause 8, amending section 5, to ensure that a minimum rate of remuneration be reviewed annually.

We would also like to make amendments to clause 10, inserting new section 6A, to provide that contractors working for more than one principal at the same time, such as a truck driver delivering goods for more than one principal at the same time, would not be entitled to receive the minimum rate of remuneration from each principal. This was one of the issues that was raised by submitters—that, often, people are working on multiple contracts at the same time. The truck driver is a good example: you might have multiple contracts’ worth of goods in the back of the truck at the same time, and it would not be appropriate for each of those contracts to deliver a minimum wage rate. What the bill would therefore require is that the combination of those contracts adds up to a rate that at least delivers the adult minimum wage.

We would also like to make some changes around the retention of remuneration records. Obviously, it is important that remuneration records are retained, if we are to establish whether or not a person on a contract is actually receiving a rate that is comparable to the adult minimum wage.

I appreciate that there were some concerns raised by submitters around costs, especially for some industries—that this is going to increase costs for certain industries. Well, to a degree, I have to say that if your industry only survives by paying people less than the minimum wage, then you are, effectively, being subsidised by the State. Lots of industries have to pay people the minimum wage. There is no escaping that—and if they are not able to survive paying people the minimum wage, then they are not able to survive. That is the nature of capitalism. Unfortunately, some industries are using this as a way to circumvent those rules and pay people less than the minimum wage. The minimum wage works for most industries—why not for those that rely on this system?

There were some technical issues that were raised by people, about the complexity of this bill. Again, the amendments that we propose seek to address this.

Ultimately, this legislation comes down to a fundamental belief, on this side of the House, that if you are working in New Zealand, you should be entitled to income that is at the very least equivalent to the adult minimum wage. Some people are not afforded that right. That is wrong. We should change that. This bill is the way to change that, and I urge members, particularly those considering their vote this afternoon, to support this bill through to the next stage.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. I have to commend the member who has just resumed his seat, Iain Lees-Galloway, and the member in charge of this bill, David Parker, for the intentions that led them to bring this bill to the House and to advocate for it. I think that everybody in this Parliament broadly shares the intention that people who work in New Zealand should be well remunerated, that their work should be safe, and, ideally, enjoyable, and that it should give them the money required to live well. There is no question that that intention is broadly shared by every party in this House and by every MP, including myself.

But where the differentiation begins to occur is when you start assessing the bill—or any policy, for that matter—on the basis of its consequences and its outcomes, rather than merely its intentions. Although I commend the soft hearts of the Labour Party members that led to their bringing this bill to the House, I worry that the softness has extended to their heads. It is possible that the member in charge of the bill, being from very, very cold Dunedin, where they have very, very cold winters, has not been able to think rapidly enough, as the cold temperature has got to his brain.

The issue at hand is that a good piece of legislation should address a well-defined problem. One has to ask oneself: “What exactly is the problem that this bill seeks to solve?”. The problem appears to be, if you take the bill’s author at his word, that not everybody is earning quite as much as the minimum wage when they are contractors. It is interesting to see that they have not included taxi drivers in the list of professions. The problem that they have, it seems, is not actually a natural problem or a market failure. It is just that there is a wide range of different types of work that people do, and not every kind of work is remunerated on an hourly basis, for a wide range of reasons.

In the case of taxi drivers, the reason is that they spend a large amount of time waiting for trips. People who choose to make themselves available, waiting to do a job, might not be able to do that if they require the minimum wage amount of revenue for every hour that they spend doing it. So, ultimately, you have to ask what the Labour Party is saying to those people. Is it saying that they should stop working, or that working should become illegal? It simply does not make sense, and that is when we come to the unintended consequence of this bill, which is that if we are going to require all contractual work to be done on a minimum wage basis, then what should be said to the many small-business people out there who often have very few employees and who are actually often unable to pay themselves the minimum wage?

I have been in this situation myself—technically breaking the law when I started hiring myself out as a consultant at one point in my career. I spent a huge amount of time at the beginning attempting to get busy, and I did not actually get paid anything for all of that time. Under this bill, technically I would be breaking the law. Of course, eventually, the members will be pleased to know, I did actually get some very lucrative contracts and paid myself out in the end, but for a time I, like many small-business people, would find myself actually breaking the law if this bill was to pass, because when you own a small business, when you start a small business, when you are busy trying to get busy and bring in work to contract with, often you actually cannot pay yourself the minimum wage.

So this bill does not apply to taxi drivers. It cannot apply to people in any kind of small business if it is in one of the 16 types of work that are scheduled. But what about those who it does apply to? Labour seems to believe that the Government can costlessly raise the amount of income that people have. I thought it was very interesting to hear what Iain Lees-Galloway said. He said: “We believe on this side of the House that if a person is working, then they should get the minimum wage.” The key word there is “if”, because the reality of this bill is that by trying to require higher wages than people are currently earning, in many cases their employer will go out of business. Mr Lees-Galloway said that would happen, and he seemed to almost relish the thought that a business owner would go out of business.

But if he was to complete the thought, he would ask himself what would actually happen to the person presently doing that work. Is it the case that when the Labour Party asks whether a person is working, it would rather a person currently contracted under these provisions stopped working altogether? That is the real trade-off. Because we have not got a properly defined problem for this bill to solve, it is not actually bringing any good. But to the extent it is effective, it is also going to reduce employment, and that is before we start talking about all the additional compliance costs.

It was an observation, funnily enough, by an Auckland University economist, whose name is going to escape me—Tim—that one of the things that has happened in the New Zealand economy in the last 30 or 40 years is that we have an enormously greater amount of compliance, transactional management activity, and far less activity in actually producing valuable stuff as a proportion of the economy. This is one of the reasons why productivity growth has been a bit weak lately. Once you start to look through the select committee report and think about what the bill would mean, it would mean that a whole lot of types of work in which people are paid to deliver a service are going to have to, effectively, become employment and that people are going to have to start measuring how many hours they spend on the job—

Andrew Little: Shocking! Absolutely appalling!

DAVID SEYMOUR: —so that they can divide their income by that amount of time. Once they have started doing that, you are going to have to be able to verify whether it is actually true. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition says that it is shocking that you would have to do that, and I understand he is being sarcastic. He is right at one level that, of course, it is perfectly plausible that people could adjust to that extra cost if this law passed and if they were required to do so. It is perfectly plausible that it could be done.

But you have to ask yourself how many more costs business people and employers—people who, in many cases, at the start of their business do not even earn the minimum wage themselves—should have to take in order to comply with a law that does not have a clearly defined problem to be solved and a law that, if anything, will have the more damaging unintended consequences of making it harder to start businesses and making it illegal to do many types of work that people are currently gainfully employed in. And, for all of that, it will put on additional compliance costs for those meagre benefits and, in some cases, negative unintended consequences.

This Parliament, I hope, can find far more productive things to debate than simply trying to add additional compliance costs for what really, from the Labour Party’s point of view, is more of an exercise, in my view, of political branding than actual policy improvement. For all of those reasons, I proudly oppose this bill.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): Well, that was a speech of which I think the totality was easily encapsulated by that member David Seymour’s admission that when he was self-employed he was incapable of negotiating a decent rate for himself. The member who has just spoken gave an account that is the basis of the real road to serfdom, which is—and he asked the question—“Well, if people can’t be employed being paid at this exploitative rate, who else is going to do it?”. That is the question that exploiters ask. They just want somebody to whom they can pay as cheap a rate as possible.

On this side of the House, we stand for the dignity of labour, the dignity of work, and the decency of work. The way the world is going at the moment, it is not about jobs; it is about work and it is about people being treated fairly for the work they do. That is regardless of employment status. Whether you are an employee, whether you are a contractor—a so-called independent contractor or otherwise—it is about ensuring that the work you do is fairly rewarded. The problem that this bill is trying to remedy—and is pretty clear and explicit about, if one takes a moment to read the bill, with its schedule 2 and its specified list of services—is that it is clear that there is a range of jobs about which it can be said that there is a growing number of New Zealanders engaged in them, for which they are not being paid even the minimum wage as prescribed in current minimum wage regulations. That is the issue we have to come to grips with.

Let me tell the House this story. I had a businessman who chanced upon me, actually, in the Christchurch airport recently. It was not in the Koru lounge, where I would otherwise have been mixing with “ordinary” New Zealanders, but in the public area of the airport. He came up to me, and I thought I was blocking his path, actually. I said: “Oh, excuse me. Sorry, Sir, I’m blocking your way.” He said: “No, I actually wanted to come and speak to you.” He described himself as a businessman. He said he owns a business that operates in both Auckland and Christchurch, and also has an operation in Australia. He described himself, curiously, as one of the top - 2 percent supporters of the National Party. I was not quite sure how he quantified that, but he said: “I’ve long been a supporter of the current Government, but I have increasing disquiet, on two issues.”

The first issue he raised was the rate of wages that New Zealanders are being paid. He proudly told me—and it was very admirable, from what he told me—that the minimum rate of pay in his business, which is a manufacturing and distribution business, is $21 an hour. He said that if somebody comes in off the street into a semi-skilled role, that is what they will get paid. He provides training. He has got a skilled level of labour, and technical and professional levels in his business as well. But he said that he finds it unbelievable that people are being paid at $15.25 an hour, and sometimes just above, for responsible work. We talked about it—you know, the fact that, for example, in aged care rates of pay for a lot of those workers are at $15.25 or just above. He said that that is not right. He said that we have a major problem in this country: too many people are being paid too little for the work that they do.

We know that one of the developments over the last few years is that, increasingly, workers are being shifted off conventional employment arrangements and put on to these contractor arrangements, sometimes with not a great deal of real choice. It may be of interest to the previous speaker, David Seymour, to know, actually, the reality of employment relationships. Where you have the owner of a business, or a manager representing the owner of the business, dealing with somebody who provides their skills and time and talent to that business, the relationship is not an equal one. Most people, you know, they want to work. They want to do their best in their work. But if they are told “Your position is being disestablished, but we have this role over here, under a contract that we will call an independent contract.”—actually, a lot of people feel compelled by circumstance to accept that as an arrangement. So they become a contractor. For many of them, they are doing the work that they were doing previously as well—the same workplace, often using the same tools, working with the same colleagues—but then they find that they are assuming a level of cost and a level of risk in that employment relationship.

That is what this bill is seeking to address, because that is wrong. If we value work and, most importantly, if we value the people doing the work, we will make sure that comparable work done, under whatever employment status, is paid at a comparable level—paid at a fair and decent level. There is no reason, there is no justification, for why somebody who shifts from an employment status to a contractor status, doing comparable work, should be paid differentially simply because they are a contractor—or, worse, be paid, effectively or in real terms, less than the minimum rate because of that change in status. That is what this bill is seeking to address.

It is interesting—and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s report acknowledges this—that other countries have addressed this problem. This is an issue in many parts of the world, but other countries have found the means to deal with it, including our nearest neighbour, Australia. I remember that when I was involved in the union movement, the New South Wales Government conducted an inquiry into just this issue, and it was horrified by what it discovered. It was able to regulate at a state basis, and now there is federal regulation, as well, which ensures that if you are doing work of a specified nature on a contract basis, and it is quite clear that it is not dependent on a client walking in the door—as might happen with a taxi driver—you ought to be paid at least at the regulated minimum wage level for the work that you are doing.

The world of work is changing. That is why, in the Labour Party, we established our Future of Work Commission. We take that issue seriously. You would expect us to, as the party whose name is the Labour Party. It is disappointing that members opposite—or at least their Government—do not appear to take the issue as seriously. But the world of work is changing, and more and more people will be working in different ways, including working under contractor-type arrangements or even, as Mr Seymour talked about, self-employment arrangements—but, hopefully, they will be better at negotiating better pay rates for themselves. We have to have a regulatory framework that acknowledges that but also accepts that there is a real risk of exploitation if we do not get that regulation right.

This bill is about accepting that there is a real risk of exploitation of some if we do not get the regulatory framework right. This is a good bill. This is a bill that deals with a problem that is around today and is only getting bigger. It is a problem that other countries have managed to solve and it is a problem that this bill solves, if the House is prepared to support it. It is disappointing to see that the majority of the select committee has recommended that it not proceed, but it is within the power of this House—those members with a conscience and those members who want to be part of a country that celebrates good and decent work—to do the right thing.

Support this bill in its second reading. Let us have a Committee stage debate, tease out each part of the bill, and, if Mr Seymour and his colleagues on that side of the House have concerns about specific aspects of it, let us consider their alternatives. Let us see the Supplementary Order Papers that will provide alternatives to the issues. But let us accept—as the select committee in its summary did, I think, at least impliedly accept—that there is a problem. There is a problem. The committee was just concerned that maybe it was too hard to fix or that there were too many fixes required to be made. Well, this bill is very explicit and it is very specific. It shows that it is capable of fixing the problem, and that would benefit at least some people who are otherwise going to suffer as a result.

Mr Seymour talked about the productivity problem that we have in this country, and that is a big problem. It is a problem of investment, it is a problem of our technology, but it is not a problem that gets fixed by paying those doing the work less and less and less. That is a way of fixing the productivity problem: you just pay people less and less. That is the exploitative way. That is the road to serfdom. This bill is about a road to prosperity for the people affected—for contract workers, but, actually, in the end, for all of New Zealand. That is why we are supporting this bill.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill. Just as a backdrop to this bill that is before the House, this is obviously a bill that had been put forward by the Labour Government some time ago, under the Darien Fenton bill, which was put forward but was actually rejected by the House. This is now a rewrite of that original bill proposed by Darien Fenton. Today what we are doing is having another go at trying to introduce similar provisions.

I think we have got to ask ourselves what we are actually trying to achieve. I have just heard the previous speaker, Andrew Little, talk about trying to deal with exploitation, and I think all of us agree that no one wants to see exploitation take place in New Zealand, with regard to New Zealand workers doing a proper job. But it is also a question about choice—choice about the way people want to work, and the relationship that they want to have with their employer.

I think it is a fundamental tenet that we need to have a very close conversation around, because choice is something that permeates everything that we want to do, and, provided we are not getting to a point of exploitation, that is a legitimate—in fact, a fundamental—right of everyone in New Zealand.

The third thing is around risk and reward. What is adequate risk and reward for doing a proper day’s work? I think, again, this Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill is sort of starting to cut across a lot of those original propositions. That is why we are not supporting this proposed bill.

One of the things that I just want to pick up on is that, if I look at clause 14 of the bill, “New Schedule 2 inserted”, which lists all of the different services that would be caught under this bill, they are quite wide ranging. We had a number of presentations from different industry players and workers, on a number of the related industries listed here, for instance: cleaning services, courier services, food catering, and fast-food delivery, right through to truck-driving services, telemarketing services, and newspaper and pamphlet delivery services, just to name but a few of the different companies that came and gave us very thoughtful presentations on this bill.

You know, when you look at some of those, particularly around the courier industry—and we had a number of submissions from that industry. This is around risk and reward—we had certain operators who were saying that they very much liked the arrangement of being able to be an independent contractor. That was their choice, and they saw that as adequate risk and reward. They did not actually have a view around exploitation. So in that case you have the contractor voluntarily wishing to enter into these arrangements, and actually finding them very satisfactory.

On the other side we had a company—a very reputable company—making similar representations, that they found these arrangements perfectly acceptable and preferred them. It does not preclude the arrangements of actually employing employees, but for that model it worked very well. The other one, which was the most obvious industry where this level of exploitation is perceived to occur, is the newspaper delivery service. Again, we had some presentations on that to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

This is the issue that I think that people have got to consider a little bit further: companies want to make sure that they get good value for money from their employees, and employees want to be paid adequately for doing a proper day’s work. How do you measure that? In many industries it is appropriate to actually set targets about what sorts of outcomes you want to achieve during the course of the day, and the delivery of newspapers is one such case. Particularly in that industry it was providing jobs to many disadvantaged people, particularly people with disabilities, younger people, and older people who would not otherwise find getting employment easy or were not in the situation of wanting to take full-time employment. So entering into a contractual relationship in that case was actually perfectly feasible and acceptable to all concerned.

I think the issue around cleanliness services is another area in which there is a lot of debate about whether we are allowing these people to work late at night, endlessly doing jobs and not getting paid a suitable remuneration. One point I want to make—and the member from ACT noted it earlier—is that no one wants to see anyone exploited, no one wants to see anyone being underpaid for what they do, but the right to have a conversation and enter into a voluntary relationship with a contractor is perfectly legitimate. Even as a professional contractor—many are the times I have seen and witnessed where professionals determine what they are going to incur in doing a job, whether it is writing a report or providing some form of advice, and subsequently find that they overrun that time estimate and therefore will exceed the agreed budget that they have entered into with the contracting firm.

That is, in a sense, a contract. It is a contract between two parties who have all of the information and who make a willing decision, and it is almost a willing buyer situation. That is a perfectly legitimate circumstance. If we took this bill to its extreme we would be suggesting that even those professional relationships involving highly skilled people—we would seek to renegotiate with them if, for instance, we found that their overall rate was less than the minimum wage.

I just think that is fundamentally wrong. I think the right for people to enter into proper arrangements is fair and reasonable and equitable and should be provided for. We do not want every person to be a contractor. We certainly want to see employment arrangements continued in that regard. But that flexibility is, I think, a very strong issue that we need to maintain in our employment relations.

I do want to just add that as a Government we have been very focused on making sure that we stop some of the less attractive and unwanted practices that have been occurring. I note particularly how we have banned zero-hour contracts, where employers do not guarantee any hours of work. I think that is a fundamental change and a very important one that this Government has brought into play.

We have also sought to increase the minimum wage, and I am glad that the Government has progressively increased the minimum wage from $12 back in 2008, now up to, currently, $15.25. The issue is: can we get there quicker? Should we be imposing a higher minimum wage, which many have advocated for? But I think for the many thousands of business owners out there—and there are about 500,000 small businesses in New Zealand—the owners of those businesses and the shareholders in those businesses would be concerned that we are not doing that in too fast a progression. We have set about doing it in a logical way, which means people can budget and, at the same time, all New Zealanders can share from that upside as we progressively increase the minimum wage.

We have also extended paid parental leave, reduced ACC quite significantly—a reduction of $232 million for ACC cuts—and I think all of those things go together to make the work environment that we currently have in New Zealand far more robust and appropriate for New Zealand’s circumstances.

The last thing I just want to home in on is the cost of this proposal, which I do not think many people have actually thought about. I just want to lay out a comparison between the minimum wage and what it means to a salaried employee versus a contractor. An employee would be paid 8 percent of their gross earnings as holiday pay, on top of their wages, and an ACC levy would be deducted through the PAYE system, as we all know. If we were to compare this with regard to a contractor, a contractor receiving a similar amount of remuneration—and let us say that is the minimum wage—would not receive holiday pay but would have to pay both the earners levy and the work levy. The levy rate varies according to the employment sector. It ranges from 10c in the dollar, to several dollars per $100 of liable earnings. So, actually, what this means, excluding the tax consideration, is that the contractor would be approximately 9 percent worse off in a week than an employee. I think that is one of the financial constraints we should really think about when we talk about this bill. So, on those grounds, I oppose this bill.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this good bill, which has been presented by the Hon David Parker, the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill. This is a good bill because it aims to close some gaps around workers and fairness, about what people should actually get when they are doing some work, and the gap that is caused by employers seeking to exploit various workers.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Minimum Wage Act to ensure an extension of provisions to apply to payments under a contract for services that end up being paid at less than the minimum wage—this is about correcting that. Certain sorts of work—and one that has been mentioned a lot is pamphlet deliveries—are not currently subject to the same provisions as wages that are paid through other contracts. This aims to fix that.

Contractors are exempt from most minimum employment standards, and in a way this bill does not go quite far enough. The previous speaker, Andrew Bayly, was referring to some aspects. He did not mention ACC in there. This bill appears to still not quite be fixing that, but it will ensure that a number of workers will actually get, at least, the minimum employment standards of financial gain.

The Green Party supports raising minimum wages—always has—and supports the Living Wage movement. During the election campaign our policy was to ensure that all relevant Government contractors were to make sure that a living wage was paid when their contracts came up for renewal. That is just one example. We support workers and we try to ensure that inequality is reduced all the time. We are consistently looking at bridging the gaps around inequality. We support the concept of contractors being able to receive a decent wage equivalent to at least the minimum wage, and for good reason.

These workers are, effectively, subsidising those who are contracting them. Just think about those people—we see them delivering leaflets, pamphlets. Maybe a reduction in the amount that is delivered will mean a reduction in junk mail, but it is appropriate that they should be working in a safe way. They should be treated fairly, they should be treated with dignity, and that means they should be being paid at least the minimum wage. They are not always working in a comfortable position, either—wind, rain, hot and cold, steep, slippery, different situations, dogs, and whatever. To think that those people would do that and not be getting paid the minimum wage is totally wrong.

In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I noticed the Government bleated a lot about the cost of enforcement. Well, if it costs a bit to enforce this, so be it. It is absolutely critical that enforcement is carried out, because I have seen in my region that contractors for the grape industry have needed enforcement to actually get fair pay for those who are working for bit payment and otherwise.

I notice in schedule 2 here we have got quite a list of different services that may be affected: building and construction services; cleaning services; courier services; food catering; fast-food delivery; the newspaper and pamphlets, which we talked about; personal home-care support to individuals in an individual’s house; a number of entertainment services; the manufacture of clothing, footwear, and textiles; telemarketing; market research; security guards, even; and also forestry industry services related to planting, pruning, or felling—that industry has had one hang of a hiding in terms of deaths and employment issues. If this bill can go any way towards helping there, it is a very good bill. It also affects truck-driving services delivering goods.

It is important that any contract in any related service like that is covered and that anyone there is getting at least the minimum wage. We will be supporting that and will continue to support it because this is a good bill. It will work for fairness for those people. It will allow them to at least have the dignity of the minimum wage, and if there is a cost of enforcement, so be it. We need good enforcement in the workplace for health and safety reasons, but we also need it to make sure that people are getting the minimum wage.

So the Green Party supports this and is grateful to the Hon David Parker for bringing this bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon David Parker. As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker for the work that he has done on the bill and the work that he did on this bill during the select committee process, but I am taking this call to oppose this bill because this bill is to apply the minimum wage to contractors in the same way it applies to employees. This would mean that individuals and businesses hiring contractors will be required to keep a record of their remuneration and, if broken down to an hourly rate, it should come down to at least the minimum wage, so this means that they will also have to keep a record of their number of hours. It is not just one side—a business or an individual hiring a contractor—but the contractor providing their services would also be required to keep a record of their hours as proof, if required. To me, this is just adding unnecessary rules for businesses, and businesses do not need that. In my view, businesses need to be set free so that they can invest, reinvest, and create more jobs. We want our businesses to grow. We do not want unnecessary rules and regulations imposed on our businesses.

I was not surprised to see that a number of submitters opposed this bill for these reasons. Those submitters who opposed this bill were from the business sector—business representatives or firms—and they had a very, very similar view, because these are the people who are out there in the field, and we should be listening to them.

Some very interesting points came out during the select committee process. A submitter said that moving to a time-based model for contractors in the way we have it for employees would actually restrict contracting opportunities because contractors like to have flexibility. Some of them just work part-time. What people look at when they go out to hire a contractor is the time line they can provide their service in and also the fees for their service, and normally businesses or individuals wanting to hire a contractor will be going out and asking for more than one quotation. Once they have compared that quotation, they will give that job to the one who is most satisfactory, according to their business or their needs. Sometimes these people going out to hire contractors have no idea about the number of hours that job will take to finish, so it is really unfair to put this responsibility on these businesses or individuals to make sure that the contractor they are hiring is going to earn at least the minimum wage when the total amount the contractor is charging is broken down to an hourly rate.

Coming from a manufacturing background, I have first-hand experience of dealing with contractors, and I know that contractors know what they are doing. Coming from a manufacturing background where there are several machines, I know that on a regular basis these machines are serviced, and these companies that service these machines do not provide that service for just one company, but that is their job. They go out and service machines in several businesses. What they do is they come in on a regular basis, they grease and oil the machines, run them, and show that they are running fine, and they do that after hours so that the regular business is not interrupted. So no one is actually sitting there and monitoring the number of hours those people who come to service those machines spend on those machines.

Sometimes in such businesses where there are lots of machines, machines can break down, and my experience is that contractors will never provide a quote over the phone. What they do is they will come to the site, they will assess the machine, and then they will provide their quote, and most of the time the quote is subject to various conditions, such as if they find there was another fault inside the machine or if they require a new part, which, of course, would require an additional quotation for buying that part and also for the time they spend on sourcing that part. If the machine is small—I am just picking one example from one industry—then sometimes these people will offer to take the machine to their workshop, because that is convenient for them. That works well for them, and in gaps they can fix that machine and then deliver it back to the site where it is required. And if the machine that has broken down is huge and cannot be transported, in those situations these people will come on site and fix that machine, and normally, again, it is done after hours because no one wants to interrupt their business during normal working hours.

Again, when they come to fix any broken machines, normally they will be given access, in my experience, to the factory or the site. They come and do the job, they take 5 hours or 10 hours—no one is sitting there and monitoring the number of hours they actually spend on that machine. No one wants to know whether they are just sitting in the tearoom and having their dinner; what they want is the assurance that the machine is fixed and they know how much they are paying for the job that the contractor is doing for the business. So, in my view, this bill is underestimating contractors out there, and this bill would do the opposite of what the member actually wants to achieve. I believe there are enough protection mechanisms for contractors if they feel they are being exploited. What we should actually do is spread the awareness that there are provisions available for contractors if they feel that they are being exploited.

I also feel that this bill will bind contractors to the minimum wage, because if this bill goes through, the signal will be that contractors should be earning just the minimum wage. As a result of this bill, people will start looking at the number of hours they will be asking contractors to break—the number of hours—and will also start calculating the amount that they are charging based on the minimum wage. I am a supporter of having a free market. I think we need the flexibility that is in the market place, and we do not want to bind contractors to just the minimum wage because some contractors are more efficient than others, some contractors like flexibility, and some contractors just like to work part-time. That is why a lot of people come out from their regular professions and start up their own business as a contractor. So we would be taking away that freedom from contractors, because, as I said before, it is not just the business or an individual hiring a contractor who would be required to keep those records but the contractor offering those services would also be required to keep those records. We want to see that the market is giving that flexibility for businesses to grow and for people to do well and to support our businesses.

I do not understand why the member is so fixated on the minimum wage. On this side we are focused on growing our economy because if the economy is strong, we have more new jobs and higher-paying jobs, and that is what we want our businesses to do. To support our businesses we are diversifying our economy. We are getting free-trade agreements signed—for example, we already have a free-trade agreement with Korea. We are very supportive of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which is going to be worth $2.7 billion by 2030. These things are to support our businesses. We know that wages are rising faster than inflation, and there will be around 195,000 more people employed by mid-2020. These are the things we need to do to support our businesses. If the economy is strong, then people will have higher earning power.

As one submitter said, it is not a good idea to mix two models—the employee model and the contractor model. First of all, it is not desired by the business sector, and also it is not practical. My colleague who spoke before me from this side gave an example of where contractors will actually be earning less than employees if they are put on just the minimum wage, because they will have to pay ACC levies and also they do not get holiday pay. It is not a good idea, so I oppose this bill. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I was sitting there listening to this absolute rubbish from across the House. It was like a pit bull chewing a wasp. I just could not believe the absolute nonsense coming out of Parmjeet Parmar’s mouth. The reality is that this is the winter of that party’s discontent. Its members are so disconnected from reality when they think that it is all about business. They forget the point: it is about people. People make business. People operate business. People are the very ones who create economic growth and development for this country. The whole speech was all about how this is not good for business and we cannot afford it.

I want to start my contribution for New Zealand First by supporting strongly this bill that has been put forward by David Parker, the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill, and talk for a moment about that very thing, the minimum wage. The reality is that some employers out there would pay their workers less but they cannot because it is illegal. Think about that for a minute. There are employers out there who would pay less than the minimum wage if they could. So let us focus for a moment on the $15.25 that we heard Andrew Bayly talk so feverishly about—that this party, the National Party, came into office in 2008 and took the minimum wage from $12 per hour up to $15.25. Annualise that. We are talking about $31,000 a year, working full-time on the minimum wage, at the current rate. Take your tax off that and you are taking home around $480. Your rent is around $300 to $350. How can you expect somebody to live on the minimum wage?

This Government over there is justifying paying people less because they are contractors. It talks about choice. We are not talking about choice. People are forced into taking these jobs because they have got no options open to them. You think $15.25 is acceptable. You can pay people less, because they have got the choice to do so. It is an absolute disgrace. What about talking about a wage that is sustainable? What about going back to the days when you could do a hard, full day’s work and get a genuine pay that you could actually sustain and live on and get by on, and move forward. The National members are quibbling—quibbling—saying: “$15.25, we’re not going to justify. We’re not going to support our workforce to make sure they get that very thing.”

Let us talk about the choice. We are talking about, in many cases, contractors who are forced to take jobs because there are no other jobs available to them. Take this job, but it is a contractor’s job. In Australia they have gone through some massive reforms to tighten up on exactly this thing, because people—not all people, and not all businesses—are out there exploiting our hard-working people. They have legislation in Australia that says if you are employed from a single source for 80 percent of your income, then you are not a contractor. What about implementing that? This is a way of getting around the law. At the end of the day, when you are comparing employees and contractors, employees get a raft of protections. They get a raft of benefits. They get 4 weeks’ paid annual leave per year. They get sick leave. They get bereavement leave. They even get KiwiSaver contributions paid to them by their employer. When you are a contractor, you are responsible for that entirely yourself. When they are not paying you a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, then you are going backwards fast.

The reality is that this bill is a very sensible bill. We did have a number of people and submitters coming through, and the majority of those people were very responsible employers, contractees, and businesses. We also heard equally from a number of people who fully support this bill looking after the rights of employees and contractors. The reality is that we have to make sure that we have got a balance, that people working in a contract situation or, in fact, as an employee have a balance with their employer or their contractee to make sure that they are not exploited.

I commend the people who came and spoke to us at our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, because there were genuine businesses out there that were absolutely not having any impact on making any overtones towards paying people less than the minimum wage. We commend them for that. This bill goes no way to disenfranchise good operators—businesses that are actually working within the confines of the law, with morals, and working inside a legal framework to ensure their workers are looked after. Some of those contractors have been working as contractors for years. Why would they not? “I enjoy being a contractor working for this organisation. They look after us, and I’m certainly getting paid more than the minimum wage.” This is commendable. But we are talking about the vulnerable workers. We are talking about the shysters, the mongers who are actually out there doing a disservice to the goodwill of employers and businesses in this country—the ones who will take absolute advantage if they can. As I said when I opened, they would pay you less but they cannot because it is illegal.

The minimum wage is an absolute doddery figure. It needs to be brought back into line. On average, 40c an hour over the last 8 years of your Government—that is what you are putting your hand on your heart about? You cannot live on that sort of money. Nobody here could. You go and stay a night in your car and you think “well, look, I’m supporting the homeless”, but I would like to see you live off $480 a week. You will not be able to do that. Nobody can. You cannot raise a family on that, you cannot live, and you cannot put food on the table.

Chris Bishop: Of course you can’t. That’s why you get Working for Families.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: The reality is that this Government is out of touch. Chris, you are absolutely out of touch when it comes to knowing how to run a business or being involved in running a business. You live in a bubble. You have never been outside this bubble. You have never employed anybody, and I bet you have never been on the minimum wage and actually lived off the minimum wage.

Chris Bishop: I have, actually.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: You were probably living on the minimum wage when you were living with your mum and dad. Try living under the minimum wage.

The reality is that we need to be supporting this bill. I hope that we have the sensibility to make sure that we look after those vulnerable workers who are forced into this situation. People engaged as contractors have few of the protections of employees, and this bill is about tightening up on that. Absolutely, 100 percent, we need to make sure that they are playing on a level playing field.

We have got a situation with a number of these points. In my first speech I said we had some reservations with regard to pamphlet deliveries. One of the offshoots from this is the fact that if you have got an aged population who are out there delivering pamphlets, and they do it as a bit of a sideline—they do it as much to be social in their neighbourhood, to go and deliver pamphlets around the streets. They might take 3 or 4 days to walk around the streets—Mrs McClintock, as she goes and talks to the Bradley family down the road. They stop and have a chat and a cup of tea. This bill actually caters for that. They are not going to be disenfranchised because they can employ a 16- or 18-year-old on a pushbike who can whizz around the entire place in 2 hours flat. They want to take their time to do it. New section 11AC, inserted by clause 13, exactly covers it off by saying, regarding recovery of minimum remuneration: “Specified person may not recover minimum remuneration for time that exceeds agreed reasonable time to provide service”. So a negotiation can come in, and it is about fair and reasonable time. If the speakers on the other side think that it is too hard to hold on to records for 6 years because that is more of a burden and a cost and an issue for those businesses, the Inland Revenue Department expects us to hold on to all of our information for 7 years. So how can they justify keeping hold of your records? You have to keep hold of your records anyway.

There is no downside to this bill. It is a positive bill, looking after the best interests of positive businesses so that they can be put on the same level playing field with each other. You have got a positive contractor working within the confines and the rules and regulations of this country, and you have got some of those businesses that do not, and under this legislation those businesses that do not will come up. It will actually make for fair trading across all sectors, making sure that we are looking after the most vulnerable people in our community. I hope that today it gets support.

I look forward to hearing more absolute rhetoric rubbish from that Government. Chris Bishop is like a pit bull chewing a wasp now, waiting to jump up and justify that “I was on the minimum wage and I wasn’t living with my mum and dad.” Well, I have to say that I betcha you have not employed people and I bet you have never seen the hard side of what poverty looks and smells and tastes like. I would like to see you raise a family on $600 week, $31,000 a year. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chris Bishop. How are you getting on with that wasp?

CHRIS BISHOP (National): What pretentious nonsense. I do not know whether Mr Clayton Mitchell knows what the phrase “pit bull chewing a wasp” actually means. I suggest he google it. It is actually reasonably offensive to me and also Parmjeet Parmar, but that is generally in keeping with the tone of debate from, you know, “Bernie Sanders - lite” over there from New Zealand First.

He stood up and said: “Mr Bishop’s going to get up here with his rhetoric.” Well, that was a speech full of rhetoric. That was a speech full of highfalutin rhetoric about the minimum wage, and I do want to respond to three of the points he made about the minimum wage. Firstly, he said “We can’t expect people on $15.25 an hour to provide for families.”, and that is true. That is why if you are someone who is earning at the minimum wage and you have children, the Government provides Working for Families payments so that you can look after those children. It is why the Government provides social support through the $2 billion a year we provide in the accommodation supplement. He talked about high rents. That is why we have the accommodation supplement—to make sure that families can afford rental housing.

It is true that there are some people out there who are earning the minimum wage. Often they are people who are students—people who are working part-time. I have worked on the minimum wage. I was a barman and was actually working below the minimum wage in the United Kingdom. Lots of people have. The point is they are often entry-level jobs. They are often the jobs you get as you move up the career ladder. There is a role for that.

The second point I want to make is about the quantum of the minimum wage. We have one of the highest minimum wage rates in the developed world. Whether or not you measure that as a percentage of the median wage or as a percentage on a per capita basis, the reality is we have one of the highest legislated minimum wage rates in the developed world, and study after study and official advice after official piece of advice demonstrates that we have that.

The third point in response to Mr Mitchell about minimum wage rates is that he just pretends that you can legislate for higher wages. That was the theme of his speech—we need higher wages. Well, everybody agrees with that, and, actually, the wage increases have been outstripping inflation rates for the last 8 years, but the Government cannot just turn around and legislate to give everyone more money. This is the fantasy land economics that New Zealand First lives in. If the Government could do that, we would.

Mr Clayton Mitchell thinks that this is a flinty and hard-hearted Government, but surely he cannot pretend that this Government is so hard-hearted that if, with a wave of the magic wand, with a piece of legislation, or with the stroke of a pen, we could just give everyone $25 an hour and give everyone on the minimum wage $30 or $50 an hour, we would not do that. Of course we would, but the reality is that is not how wages are worked out, and, actually, that would come at the cost of jobs. That is why every time those members stand up and say “We need to make sure everyone gets a living wage, and we need to increase minimum wage rates.”, they neglect the importance of actually making sure that there are sustainable jobs out there in the economy.

We have increased the minimum wage rate, and we have done so in a sustainable way. It has been increased every year that we have been in Government because it is important to make sure that those who are not earning a large amount of money do share in the benefits of economic growth, and that is what we have ensured. So that deals with the silly speech from Mr Mitchell.

Let me talk about the bill. My colleague Maurice Williamson, in the first reading of this bill, talked about how this bill was an example of the “Maharey principle”—the “Steve Maharey principle”. I was reading back through the Hansard—because I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, so I have come to this bill a little bit late—and I thought that was a really apt description of the bill. Steve Maharey was famous—and I actually cannot remember what he said it about—for saying that “There are things that you say you’ll do in Opposition that you never do in Government.” It is this sort of populist, cheap rhetoric that—actually, fairly like what we hear from Mr Mitchell—

Jami-Lee Ross: “Keep Kiwibank”.

CHRIS BISHOP: And “keep Kiwibank” is a good example. My colleague Jami-Lee Ross names the example of the Keep Kiwibank Bill, which Clayton Cosgrove introduced into Parliament, and then he gave up the portfolio and landed the hospital pass to end all hospital passes over to poor old David Parker, who has also got control of this bill. So I do not know what David Parker has done inside the Labour Party caucus recently, but he seems to have—

Tim Macindoe: He must have gone to dinner with Phil Quin.

CHRIS BISHOP: Ha ha! Yes, that is right. Mr Macindoe says he must have gone to dinner with Phil Quin—gone out for kai and kōrero with Phil Quin and the right-wingers in the Labour Party caucus. We cannot possibly have dissenting views inside the gulag that is the Labour Party.

Anyway, this is an example of a “Maharey principle” bill, because, actually, Labour looked at this when it was last in Government and it decided not to do it. Darian Fenton got lumped with introducing it as a member’s bill, where “We have got to do something for the unions, so let us introduce it as a member’s bill.”, and all the advice was: “Don’t do it.” Cabinet heard the advice. Clayton Cosgrove knows that that was the advice. Phil Twyford, thank God, was not in Cabinet back then. He was still struggling to try to win selection to get into Parliament. But those members know that the official advice was against it. They rejected it when they were in Government, but then they went into Opposition, and it is like a lot of bills we get from Labour members. Twice now—

Phil Twyford: How many elections have you won?

CHRIS BISHOP: Just wait, son—just wait. They have twice—

Phil Twyford: How many?

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, your mate up on the backbenches scarpered off, so ask yourself why. They have twice now tried to reintroduce the thermal ban legislation, they have twice, I think, tried to reintroduce the biofuels obligation, and this is just another example of a retread bill, reintroduced into the House by Labour. This is a classic example of the “Maharey principle”. The select committee had a good look at this bill, as it did in the 48th Parliament, I think it was, between 2005 and 2008, and on both occasions it recommended that it not pass, and the majority has recommended that it not pass in these circumstances because the reality is that contractors are different from normal employees. They are costed differently. Their earnings are calculated in different ways. The structure and methods of their payments are different. They are different, and they are legally distinct for a very good reason.

Actually, my good colleague Andrew Bayly gave an example of how the bill was sort of well-intentioned, but with the way the bill is drafted it could lead to situations in which contractors are actually worse off—in some cases, reasonably substantially. Parmjeet Parmar made that point as well, and I notice that Maurice Williamson and other speakers in the first reading made that point as well.

We are yet to hear in either the first reading debate or the second reading debate—or from Mr Clayton Mitchell, in his voluminous contribution to the House—an adequate response to how the bill will actually make contractors worse off. The whole point of the bill is to make contractors better off. Actually, there have been examples provided by officials—and I will not relitigate or regurgitate the examples given—that have been mentioned in the House as to how the bill will make contractors worse off not better off, and we are yet to hear any adequate response to that. Actually, Parliament has an obligation to legislate not just with good intentions—because too often Parliament just legislates good intentions—but for things that will work and that are actually based on evidence, and this is a classic example of how this bill is not.

The officials advised that the costs outweigh the benefits. The select committee came to the right conclusion that this was an unworkable bill that would not lead to the improvements for contractors like the bill aims to do, so that is why National stands in opposition to it.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. The previous speaker, Chris Bishop, just actually proved the point of the New Zealand First member’s assertions that, in fact, he does live in a bubble, and that there is a world outside of this place and outside of Cabinet papers and outside of the numerous reports that are given to select committees and to members across the House.

There is a world outside of this place, and that world exists with real people. That world exists with people who are trying to make a living—trying to make a living for their families, trying to make a living for a better future for themselves, to make sure that they are able to compete in a job market that allows them to compete fairly, that allows them to be able to compete fairly against some of those other operators out there who actually do go out seeking to undercut and do go out to force these types of wages down.

Furthermore, I take the point of Mr Mitchell in saying that it is also the reality out there that there are some dodgy employers. There are some fantastic ones and, I dare say, for the most part, many of them are operating well within the law, and others, and I want to commend Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust at this time, who have committed to paying their staff a living wage; a living wage—not the minimum wage—a living wage. For Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust in Tāmaki-makau-rau, you have got to appreciate that the cost of living in Tāmaki-makau-rau is extremely high, so I congratulate Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust and all of the good employers out there that actually do right by the contractors—do right by the people. Mr Mitchell is right when he says it is about people. It is not simply about the businesses, it is not simply about the market and “We’ll let the market sort it out.”; it is, fundamentally, about people.

With this particular bill, I stand, obviously, to support my colleague the Hon David Parker in his attempts to bring fairness into this space, and I take the point from Mr Bishop, who talks about retreads. What this actually speaks to—and the Leader of the Opposition hit it on the head—is that we are committed to these things. The Labour Party is committed to fairness in the labour market. We are about good jobs, we are about allowing people who work hard to get paid fairly, and that is what we are here for, so it is no surprise to see an attempt in the last decade to get this bill across the line and, when it did not succeed, to come back and do it again—because we are committed to that. We do not flip-flop. We do not make policy or decisions on the hoof, off the cuff, or as we run, and “We’ll pay people to leave Tāmaki-makau-rau” and all of the other things.

Mr Bishop also spoke about intentions versus outcomes. Well, I think that is pretty rich, given the brightline legislation around property and capital gains tax that was recently introduced by this Government. It is, as those members have mentioned in the debates on that particular bill, well-intended, but it actually does nothing. It does absolutely nothing, and we challenge them on that.

At its core, this bill is about being fair. It is about making sure that, as already mentioned, if someone works hard they are paid fairly. It also seeks to close a loophole that sees contractors exploited. The Leader of the Opposition spoke at length about the exploitation that is out there in the current workforce today. It is everywhere—contractors, young people, and workers right across the entire work spectrum are suffering from exploitation from far too many employers, so this seeks to close one of those loopholes that see some of those dodgy practices by employers exploiting contractors.

We on this side also believe that this bill is fair—that it actually does not hold back business. We do not believe that it holds back business. In fact, one of the reasonable aspects of this particular bill is that where a contractor—like a truck driver—has a contract with two separate employers, they cannot take advantage of that position. You know, this is a reasonable step for this particular bill, and it does not disadvantage the employer in any way. In fact, it puts the onus back on the contractor to operate within these particular rules, so we recommend an amendment to new section 6A in clause 10 to provide for that particular issue.

One of the growing concerns for this country—and we have been fighting and advocating for this particular issue to be forced on to the agenda of this particular Government—is around poverty. It is around low wages. Despite the Government’s assertions that wage rises are outstripping inflation and that everybody is doing better, that is actually not the case. We see it far too many times in our electorate offices across Tāmaki-makau-rau and even in the regions now, where we are seeing families struggling out there. We want to see this first step in bringing equity into this particular field—to make sure that contractors are paid fairly and that employers are looking after those people who actually make their business.

We also, in this particular bill, would recommend that the minimum rate of remuneration be reviewed annually so that we do not come back in 10 years’ time trying to seek another equitable position for contractors in the market place. We need a constant review process that happens annually, to make sure that the wages that are being paid to contractors will keep up with, or at least track, the cost of living for many of our people out in in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Finally, we, I, the Labour Party—this side of the House—stand to support this bill, to congratulate the Hon David Parker on his hard work in this space. There were many challenges in the select committee process where Mr Parker, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, put up a good fight, and we hope that this Government realises that these particular bills are actually for the betterment of all Kiwis, for all New Zealanders, and not just for the very few. Kia ora.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): The aim of this bill is to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1983 to extend its provisions to payments under contract for services that are remunerated at below the minimum wage. Under the proposals advanced by the bill, labour inspectors would be authorised to seek remuneration arrears and penalties on behalf of certain independent contractors in instances where a contractor’s remuneration has allegedly been below the minimum wage proposed by the bill.

We believe that the bill is not workable. As Business New Zealand says in its submission, “The Bill is impracticable, uneconomic and breaches basic legal principles.” The bill seeks to fix something that is not broken, according to a submitter. Independent contractors and related remuneration models operated in, for example, the express package industry have been there for over 50 years. Throughout its lifetime, the industry has not been dogged by issues relating either to the independent-contractor model or related remuneration models. The fundamental reason that this is the case is the partnership that exists between the principal’s needs and the independent contractor’s needs. Both parties need each other in business to stay in business.

This model has provided New Zealand with a highly, highly efficient and essential express package industry. The bill is uneconomical because it changes a productivity-based remuneration model to a partially fixed remuneration model that is not based on productivity. The bill artificially and inappropriately orders contractual relationships that are mutually agreeable to both parties. It does not account for the different types of remuneration common in the contract industry, including, for example, hourly rates—time-based; piece rates, which are volume based—and fixed price on completion, or outcome based. The bill artificially makes contractors working on the basis of piece rates, or for a fixed price on completion of work, move to time-based remuneration, despite the former being their preferred model of remuneration.

Despite the fact that the bill will be applicable only to self-employed contractors and not staff, the bill makes an incorrect assumption that every contractor within the prescribed schedule is taken on as a contractor when they would prefer to be an employee. This is not correct. Many contractors have multiple clients, giving them an adequate income from all sources while preserving a level of flexibility and variety that they value and do not get in a more traditional employment relationship.

Comprehensive enforcement of this bill’s provisions will be impossible to achieve without a very significant increase in regulatory capacity. Enforcement, therefore, is likely to be based on grievances and complaints of non-compliance, and, therefore, will mostly benefit only those very few who take and win a case. So the consequences of forcing a time element into contracted outcomes are significant, including the possibility of encouraging unsafe practices by contractors in order to meet artificial deadlines, and it is unlikely that outcomes will be gained. For example, people may want to purposefully delay their work in an attempt to get better pay or more money. Delays in contract performance, or cost overruns arising from minimum wage claims, would be inevitable.

These, in turn, could lead to contract performance complaints, claims for compensation, and the like, which normally leave neither party the winner. Also, we do have existing laws to regulate the market. Any breach of the current Minimum Wage Act caused by improperly treating someone as a contractor rather than an employee can already be challenged. All occupations specified in proposed schedule 2 will suffer negative consequences if the bill is introduced.

The courier service is very important to our economy. In the main, independent courier contractors are engaged on the basis of pick up, haul, and deliver, and the courier segment itself has several sub-segments. The largest is the network courier segment where items are picked up from A by one courier and delivered to B by another courier, either locally or elsewhere in the country. So, between these functions, the post trucks, planes and so forth are required to underpin the service. So this segment typically remunerates couriers on piece rates. Another primary segment is the point-to-point segment, where an item is picked up from A and delivered to B by the same courier. In this segment couriers are often remunerated by way of a pre-agreed revenue split between the contracting company and a courier, or on a job-by-job basis.

Both these sub segments have existed from the outset of the modern courier industry in the 1960s, without drivers being exploited. Independent contractors in this industry make business decisions based on their equity investment in vehicles. They can be leased or owned, new or second-hand, and maintenance plans, operating costs, including their employees’ labour and general overheads, are included there. Investment and other business decisions are unique to each contractor and to the type of contract holder.

The generic, time-based model proposed by the bill would not recognise independent contractors’ unique input costs, nor would it incentivise productivity. Instead, it is likely to disincentivise productivity, leading directly to higher costs and reduced service levels. Market intervention such as this would be destructive to the courier industry, its customers, and the many thousands of couriers who have invested in their own businesses and are currently working productively and positively in industries. The current law is sufficient to prevent misuse of contractor status. Therefore, I would like to oppose this bill.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I think that last speech just personifies the struggle that National members are having trying to justify why they think it is OK for people who are working hard in New Zealand to be paid below the minimum wage. That is what the National Government is arguing here in this Parliament—that it has such a strong future in mind for this country, that its brighter future actually involves people being paid less than the minimum wage for working hard in this country. Well, that is not the vision that we have on this side of the House. We actually want people to be paid well. We want to improve wages. We want people to have decent living standards, and that is what this bill is all about.

I want to congratulate the Hon David Parker on bringing it in front of the House, but I also want to commend former colleague Darien Fenton, who was absolutely passionate about this, and was the original drafter of this bill. If National is trying to pretend that it wants to fix this issue but it just has not thought of the right way to do it yet, it has had many years to think about how to do that because this bill has, in fact, been before the Parliament before. So no one is going to believe that bit of nonsense from the National Party.

I want to agree with Labour leader Andrew Little, when he said earlier in this debate that we are after the road to prosperity, not the race to the bottom that the National Government seems intent on taking this country down. Government members were trying to pretend that this is about a question of choice. What choice is there in someone working hard and being able to be paid less than the minimum wage, because that is what the National Government is arguing for. That is what it is arguing for. And that is the very reason the Labour Party has brought this bill before the House.

As it stands right now in New Zealand, it is legal to pay an independent contractor, a self-employed person, below the minimum wage, and in this day and age, in 2016, in Aotearoa New Zealand, that is morally and ethically wrong. The fact that the laws book allows this to happen under a National Government is ethically and morally wrong. Forty percent of the children living in poverty in New Zealand are actually living in families where there is a parent in paid employment. I will say that again because it is a national disgrace. In terms of the 40 percent of children living in poverty in New Zealand, one of their parents actually goes out and works hard and tries to earn a decent living. But it is because of the attitude of the National Party that those parents often cannot make enough money to actually ensure that they are paying the rent, that they are putting decent food on the table for the children, that their children are going to school with a pair of shoes on their feet and going out with a warm coat in these cold temperatures that we are suffering right now in New Zealand. These are the effects of that Government and its inability to actually address issues like the one we are putting in front of this Parliament this afternoon.

So what are we asking for? We are not asking for a lot. It is the fact that anyone who may be employed as an independent contractor has the right, as every other worker does in New Zealand, to be paid the minimum wage. It is an audacity for the National Party to argue that this would be far too onerous because it might require that employers have to understand and know the hours those people are working. It is just an outrage. It is not that long ago that that same Government passed a piece of legislation to improve health and safety in this country, and I say good on it. But for goodness’ sake, if Government members think it is OK that employers can pay people a paltry amount without understanding the number of hours they are going to have to work to earn that paltry amount, then they have no understanding of the issues that drive bad health and safety practices in this country, either.

They talked about piece rates. I want to say that the piece rates that are paid in the forestry industry are probably one of the main drivers of bad health and safety in that sector. That is right, Mrs Goodhew—do not raise your eyebrows and look like it is the first time you have heard it, because you will know all about it. The fact that people have to chop down X-number of trees—

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koe e Te Whare. Tēnā koutou e te whānau o Te Whare Pāremata. Kia ora mai tātou, tēnā tātou katoa. Members, when we adjourned for the dinner break, we were debating the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill. Sue Moroney was speaking. She has exactly 5 minutes remaining.

SUE MORONEY: I do not intend to take the full 5 minutes, because this is a members’ day, which means that the really great legislation is in front of the House today because it is largely from the Labour Party. So the things that are really relevant to New Zealanders are being debated on members’ days. The good news is that next year the New Zealand voting public can make members’ day become Government bill day, where the really relevant issues will be debated.

Tonight it is about ensuring fairness—fairness in work. That is the sort of thing that the New Zealand public can expect to see from a Labour-led Government. What we are talking about tonight is the right for people who are self-employed, independent contractors, to be paid at least the minimum wage—not a big ask. That should just be a basic entitlement, but not according to National members. They are voting against this because they do not believe in fairness at work, and they do not want self-employed people to be paid at least the minimum wage. But the rest of us do, and I am hoping that the Hon David Parker will get this bill through its second reading, because he certainly got the support of the House on its first reading. I believe that he is going to get majority support again. I certainly hope that he will, because I think that most New Zealanders would agree with the Labour Party that it is just a basic right for people to know that when they work they should expect to be paid at least the minimum wage.

National members brought back the ghost of Bill Birch before the dinner break. They brought back the ghost of Bill Birch. Apparently they are voting against this because it is all about choice; the choice to be ripped off, the choice to be exploited, the choice to work hard but not even get the minimum wage. Well, the Labour Party is on the side of hard-working people. We are on the side of the self-employed people of this country. We are on the side of the families who want to feed their children and make sure that they can go to school with shoes on their feet and a warm coat. We are on the side of hard-working New Zealanders who believe in justice, who believe in fair pay for a fair day’s work. We are on the side of the majority of New Zealanders.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Well, what a lot of pious, sanctimonious commentary in the last couple of minutes from Ms Moroney that she knows best, she knows what self-employed people would prefer. They are self-employed because they want to be self-employed. They are independent of other employers. They want to go out and work for themselves. They want to take the risk and better themselves and their families.

Sue Moroney: Not to have the minimum wage?

ALASTAIR SCOTT: At some point they will have to—they do. People make a sacrifice when they start out in a business.

I will give you an example. Let us imagine there is a builder who is enjoying being part of this construction boom that we are in. It is the biggest construction boom that we have had ever: more apprentices in construction than ever before; more money in construction, building houses, than ever. So we have got a young fella and he wants to set up his own business. He wants to be one of these self-employed people whom Sue Moroney wants to protect. So he goes out and he decides that he wants to set up a business. He has not done it a lot. He has not done many houses himself off his own bat, because he is a journeyman. So he contracts. He writes a contract with someone who wants to build a house. He makes a few mistakes and he takes a bit longer than his uncle, his father, or the people before him. Heaven forbid he does not—

Sue Moroney: $15.25.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Not only does he get less than $15.25 an hour, he gets less than zero. He might lose money on that contract. He might lose money on that contract because he is starting out, he is taking a risk, and he wants to give things a go. But he has learnt from that. He has learnt from that mistake. And then he goes out again and he does not give up. He gives it another go.

Just imagine if that poor fella—according to Sue Moroney, the poor fella; but I say good on him—was obliged to be paid $15.25 an hour. Just imagine if he went to the customer—this is who it is—on a fixed-price contract for a house and he said: “I’m sorry, mate. I have taken a bit longer than I expected. I’m sorry it rained for a week and I could not put the concrete pad down. I’m sorry—the law says I deserve $15.25 an hour.” What is the person who wants that house built going to say to him? He is saying: “Sorry, man, I am not going to reference you. You have not done the building on time and at the right price. You are going out of business.” That is just an example.

So my point here, Ms Moroney, is that there is confusion on your side of the House whereby you do not understand the difference between a minimum wage, an employee-employer relationship, and a contracting relationship where one pays for services. It does not matter how long they take to complete the job—they get paid for the job, whether it is pruning a row in a vineyard or painting a house. It is not about the time that you take; it is about the job that you complete. If you can do it faster, if you can do it more efficiently, good on you; you will get paid very well. But if you do not, I am sorry—

Sue Moroney: Might risk your health and safety. Yeah, well.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: That is right, but it is for you to decide how fast and how slow you go. We heard from—you were there Ms Moroney; you were there listening to them—people who deliver pamphlets, who said: “We do not want to support this bill because we will be out of a job if this bill is passed, because we want to take our time. This is a social occasion. We want to walk and take our time—walk the dog and talk to our friends. While we are doing that we can be paid something for delivering these pamphlets.” We know that if we make the employer pay those people $15.25, which they have no interest in receiving because they want to take their time doing it, they will not be in a job—they will not be in a job.

So there is confusion about the minimum wage, which I absolutely support. The minimum wage at $15.25 is not what this is about. But a lot of speakers on your side have talked about the minimum wage. Waipareira Trust was talked about. Mr Henare was talking about how the trust was paying a living wage, I guess: $19 an hour. Good on them. Fine. Go for your life. Pay the people whatever you like, but this is about contractors and contracting for service. The only way we are going to increase the minimum wage—and I agree we want the minimum wage to be higher; we want people to be paid more—and the only way we are going to get people paid more is if we become more productive, more efficient, we export more stuff, and we sign free-trade agreements.

This is what it takes for minimum wages to be raised. You cannot legislate for it. You have got to support water storage projects. You have got to encourage people to say “Yeah, we want irrigation.” The Green members are your partners. They do not want water storage projects. These are the things that we must do to raise living standards in this country. That is the only way you are going to raise the minimum wage. You cannot legislate for a minimum wage just like that. It does not happen like that.

See, this is the benefit of being in Opposition. You can shoot from the hip, you can say all these things and make a headline, but there is no consequence for the Opposition members, is there? It does not have to deliver. It does not have to deliver on the other side. “Let us make everyone get $15.25 an hour, whether they are slow or fast.” I mean, how fair is paying $15.25, in the pamphlet example, if someone takes a long time, and then you have got some young fella on a bike and he delivers those things at twice the speed. That is not fair. That is not fair on the guy who ends up making $16 or $17 an hour. So that is the point: there is only one way to increase the minimum wage, and I agree the target and the aim on both sides of the House is to increase the minimum wage or standards of living—call it what you like—of all New Zealanders, but the advantage, I guess, for the Opposition, is that those members do not have to think about the consequences of their policies. So, again, they do not have to think about free tertiary education. Who pays for that? It does not matter. It is bums on seats—everyone is entitled to free education. Here we go again—we have got 100,000 houses. Where are they going to come from? Who is going to pay for that? It is another badly thought-out policy—and, again, for the headline.

This bill is simply for the headlines, and there is a confusion on that side of the House about—I will come back to the point—what we agreed is the minimum wage. And remember, of course, that there are a lot more labour inspectors in the market place, so if there is an issue around employers or employees then there are a lot more labour inspectors to reinforce the law. I agree, people should not be taken advantage of. People should not be paid below $15.25 when they are entitled to be paid $15.25, but do not go and force a young fellow who wants to get on with it to be paid $15.25 when he is quite willing to take the risk. He is quite willing to work slower, and he is quite willing to build up a business on his own account, take the risk, and even make a loss. There is nothing wrong with that, and that is why we cannot support this bill, because this bill is trying to fix a problem that simply does not exist. This bill is trying to fix the wheel that is spinning very effectively and efficiently today.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Oaths and Declarations (Endorsing the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill

First Reading

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I move, That the Oaths and Declarations (Endorsing the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. It is with somewhat of a heavy heart that I stand in the House of Representatives tonight to speak to this bill, knowing full well that it does not have the numbers to succeed beyond its first reading.

It is with a sense of bewilderment and extreme sadness that I speak to the simple yet powerful provisions encapsulated in the 16 words of the text that I seek to have added to the Oaths and Declarations Act. Tonight I speak to the collective conscience of this House, and do so as many of my predecessors have done, and compel that conscience to act in the interest of our nation and vote in support of this bill, to swear a commitment of faith to our beloved Treaty of Waitangi. Tonight I ask us to put aside our philosophical positions, our polls, and our party spin, and replace them with honour to maintain, affirm, defend, and give support to the notion that in fulfilling our public duty we act in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. And if you cannot do this, if you cannot bring yourselves to vote in favour of this, then vote for others who seek it in their hearts to do so, and allow us the choice.

This bill follows on from the Māori Party’s previous efforts in 2012 to have the Treaty honoured during the taking of an oath—nothing more, nothing less than simple acknowledgment that, if you so desired, you could add seven simple words at the time, saying “I will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi” when you pledged your oath of office. At that time when the bill was heard, the Hon Tau Henare cautioned us with this statement in this House: “This bill is not some sort of procedural motion that we are talking about. We are not talking about some minor procedural motion. We are talking about something that goes to the heart of the identification of this country.”

I feel glad that I live in this country where I can send my kids to a total immersion school, and where I can get up and speak my own language in the House of Representatives. There are three languages in the House of Representatives—what a great democracy. What a great place. And we could have gone just that little bit further tonight, by saying that if you want to—if you want to—you could swear allegiance not only to the Queen, not only to the nation, but also to the founding document of our nation, the Treaty of Waitangi.

At that time there were calls to have more discussion about our constitutional arrangements and to await the outcome of a constitutional review. There were fears—irrational fears, I would call them—and concerns that there was not enough certainty about what was actually meant if you gave an oath to support our Treaty and someone else did not. There were other concerns raised about how consistent the bill was with other Acts, such as the Citizenship Act. There were even comments made that the bill is not the right platform, as the status of the Treaty is still evolving and that a wider discussion should involve all New Zealanders.

I consider it entirely inappropriate to enslave the debate for this bill to the confines of half-baked arguments that offering this choice for those who accept to take up the option will result in some sort of binding contract between the Treaty and the giver of the oath. Our founding document deserves more and we deserve more. To suggest that because some do not know what the principles of the Treaty are they should not be included at all, ever—I ask this House to remove the shackles of politics and to emancipate itself from the rhetoric that the Treaty has no place in this House, and, instead, to consider it an honour to be afforded the opportunity to swear an oath of faith in all that it means to be a representative of our people through the premise and the promise of our Treaty relationship.

To be truly representative of our people, we must be representative of our founding history. Burying our heads in the sand and relegating the Treaty to the too-hard basket is just not an option. Worse, relegating constitutional discussions about the Treaty to being only about Treaty settlements is unfortunate. We cannot rewrite history, and nor should we try. We know that change and enduring change is a lengthy process. History tells us that it is with small, sure, incremental steps that a vision for unity in diversity can be realised. We are not there yet by any means, and this bill is an example of how far we have to travel before our potential for partnership is actually achieved. And what are we if we are not a House of Representatives? So many times I have sat as an observer in this House and have wondered at the courage that it will take to bring these fundamental issues to the forefront of our debates.

What is so wrong with supporting this bill to its first reading so that it can be sent off to select committee for the debate to be heard, so that it can receive submissions from the New Zealand public? And that is why we have brought this bill back to the House. In fact, I have brought this bill back to the House with the changes that I believe allay any concerns that have been expressed earlier. I have, for example, awaited the constitutional review, which is now complete. I have offered to work to ensure consistency with other Acts and that the additional oath given will be for parliamentary purposes only. I have agreed to maintain section 4 of the Oaths and Declarations Act, which allows for alternative affirmations in place of the oath. I find it quite remarkable that you can choose to take an oath and omit God but not the Queen, but yet here it is, and yet we choose to omit the Treaty. And yet, despite all of this, I cannot get the agreement of the House to get the bill to a select committee.

The Māori Party will not resile from the challenge of this or any other issue that advances the interest of tangata whenua in the interest of our nation. The irony is not lost on me that today we have one of the most significant days of our history. Today in the Māori Affairs Committee we got to discuss the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill. That bill will recognise the awa in its own entity, and today we got to discuss that in the select committee. It is partnership in true action, and yet here we are—here we are—about to turn down this bill, which simply seeks to allow every person who takes an oath, in addition to repeating the words of the oath, to elect to state that they will perform their duties in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

That means that any person who elects to state that they will perform their duties in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi may do so by making the following statement, either before the words of the oath or at the end of the affirmation: “I will perform my duties in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” or “E ai ki ngā mātāpono o Te Tiriti o Waitangi ka whakatutuki ahau i ōku mahi.” And what can be so hard as to agree to give people the choice as to whether they wish to act in accordance with the principles of the Treaty? Some might ask what that means in reality. Well, in reality it simply means giving expression to partnership, being cognisant of our duality of nationhood, and being understanding of our diverse cultures as we discharge our obligations as servants of our people.

I want to finish with the prophetic words of our founding Māori Party co-leader Dame Tariana Turia, from a speech that she gave in Dunedin in 2004: “The Māori Party is committed to ensuring all New Zealanders have an understanding of and respect for the status of tangata whenua and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Treaty is the ultimate key to an effective relationship between our peoples. It should not be used to defy or destroy us. Our tipuna—those of the Crown and those of tangata whenua—embraced it as a strategy to live together peacefully in this nation.” We should honour their intention, and I recommend this bill to the House.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. Ā, huri noa i Te Whare nei. E mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. It is my pleasure and my honour to be able to stand here as the first speaker for the Government for the Oaths and Declarations (Endorsing the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill’s first reading. I want to start by acknowledging Marama Fox for the work she has done to get this bill to the House and, of course, for her good fortune in having drawn it from the ballot. I consider Marama Fox a friend and a colleague in many ways. We are Māori MPs. We have come to this House to achieve the best outcomes for our people and for all New Zealanders. We are partners in the most stable and successful coalition Government that this country has ever seen, and we are members of the Māori Affairs Committee, which, I humbly submit, is the most collegial and cooperative committee in Parliament. But we all do not agree, and today, on this issue, we are going to disagree.

This bill had its genesis before either Marama Fox or I were members of Parliament, when my old school friend Hone Harawira caused somewhat of a disturbance by defying the law as it is and reading out his own oath, which included swearing allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi. So I want to acknowledge that Marama Fox is going about this the right way: by seeking, through the democratic process, to change the law and, therefore, the tikaka of Te Whare Pāremata. I commend her for her efforts and congratulate her on getting this far with her bill. But that said, I also disagree with her and with the Māori Party on this issue.

This is certainly a well-intentioned bill, as Marama Fox has just said. But speaking for myself, I see the Treaty of Waitangi as central to what we do here in Parliament. It is our duty to examine every piece of legislation that comes here in the light of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to ensure that the Treaty and its principles are upheld. This is something that I take very seriously, and particularly in my role as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee because every piece of legislation we examine involves interaction between the Crown and Māori and, therefore, plays some part in the Treaty relationship. Every agency of executive Government that we review each year has some responsibility as a representative of the Crown. But even in my other committee responsibilities on the Local Government and Environment Committee, I see the Treaty at play on a day-to-day basis. Whether we are considering resource management, water issues, or wider conservation issues, the Treaty is always a factor and we are always tasked with ensuring proposed legislation upholds its principles.

Every day that I serve in this House I am committed to performing my duties in accordance with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is my personal commitment; one that I know is shared by colleagues right across this House. I see this responsibility as being intrinsic in the oath that I took. I have sworn my allegiance to the Crown and, thereby, to serve the people and the country of New Zealand. To me there is no question that in swearing that oath I undertook to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi and the laws of this country.

I understand the desire of some members to recognise their personal commitment to the Treaty when making their oath or affirmation, but I cannot see that this is what the oath is actually about. The oath is not about declaring the particular issues we feel most passionate about. It is not about that. [Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member has the floor. The member is giving a speech in a solemn tone. For that member to continue to barrack during the course of that does not show respect to this House or that member, and I would ask her to stop.

NUK KORAKO: I understand the desire of some members and the passion of some members to recognise their personal commitment to the Treaty when making their oath or affirmation, but I cannot see that this is what the oath is about. The oath is not about declaring the particular issues we feel most passionate about. If that was the case, I would choose to signal my commitment to upholding the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But that is not what the oath is for. That is not what the oath is for. The oath is something that is prescribed for each one of us in this House to take, or for those who are in other positions who are required to take an oath.

It is right that a very minor variation be allowed for those who have an objection or preference for affirming rather than swearing. Whether sworn or affirmed, the statement contained in the oath or affirmation has the same meaning, which is loyalty to our country, symbolised by the allegiance to the Crown. But there should never be substantial differences between the oaths required for holders of the same position to take. There should not be.

All of us, as members of Parliament, should be serving here on the same basis. We should be here on the same basis. I do not think it would be desirable to have a situation where some MPs have taken an oath to uphold the Treaty and some have not. Upholding the Treaty is the duty of every member of Parliament. That would not change based on whether MPs chose to swear a particular oath or not. It would not change—it would not change. But the implication of having different oaths would be that some MPs are sworn to uphold the Treaty and some are not, as I said. Some are not and some are, if they want to uphold the Treaty. Acting in accordance with the principles of the Treaty would then be very subjective.

We are all familiar with the established principles of the Treaty, but how they apply in each situation continues to evolve through the application of legislation and court rulings. That is, in some ways, the essence of this. The Oath of Allegiance should not impose responsibilities that are not clearly defined on those who take it. It should not impose different responsibilities on holders of the same position. For these reasons, I cannot support the bill.

Kelvin Davis: What were they again?

NUK KORAKO: These are them. Taking an oath or declaration is a significant part of New Zealand’s legal framework, requiring a standard of national approach. The status of the Treaty in New Zealand’s constitution and the duties flowing from it are a matter of law and Government policy. Just to finish, this is my point also: National is committed to ensuring that Māori and all New Zealanders can enjoy a successful and a more prosperous future. Kia ora.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Well that was a kete full of hōhā if ever I heard a speech. Here we have the National Government, which has just spent the last hour championing choice, and what happens? It is denying Māori the choice to stand up for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Māori members of the National Party must be quite embarrassed by their party’s stance.

It is not a well-known fact that Queen Elizabeth II and I are, in Māori terms anyway, quite closely related. She does not actually mention my name often; I guess that proves that she is not a name-dropper. But the reality is that my great-great-grandfather’s first cousin was godson to Queen Elizabeth II’s great-great-great-grandmother. So, if we overlay the Māori whakapapa framework, that basically means that we are whānau. But, despite the fact that we are whānau—Queen Elizabeth II has been to New Zealand a number of times, and each time she heads up to Waitangi and drives right past our marae. She has never once swung in to her whānau’s marae. You know, whānau is whānau; my marae is her marae. Not once have I seen her turn up. Not once have I heard her karanga. Not once have I heard her waiata. Not once has she peeled a spud or washed a plate or opened kinas whatsoever. When, on the odd occasion, I have been over to England, I turn up to her place—no pōwhiri, no karanga, not even a whakatau. In fact, there is this big wrought iron fence out in front of her marae, with these guys with red jackets and big woolly hats on and guns keeping me out. She does not know anything about whanaungatanga or manaakitanga, or anything like that.

The point of the story is that Queen Elizabeth II has absolutely no understanding or any ability to relate to who I am and where I am from as a Māori New Zealander. I have absolutely no ability to relate to her and where she comes from. Yet when I walked into this House here and I had to put my hand on the Bible, I had to swear allegiance to a lovely great-grandmother who lives over in England. I did not have the opportunity as a Māori member of Parliament to swear allegiance to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles—and that is really unacceptable. The National Government has an opportunity today to change that.

I can relate to the Treaty of Waitangi because I grew up in the place where it was signed. My great-great-great-great-grandfather was one of the signatories; he was the grandfather of that godson of Queen Victoria. I ran around and played, as a kid, on the place known as Tau Rangatira, where the chiefs sat on 5 February and debated and discussed the Treaty of Waitangi before heading over the river to sign it the next day. We used to walk freely all around the Waitangi Treaty Grounds when I was a young person, until Pita Paraone and Peeni Henare and all the other members of the Waitangi National Trust actually put a charge on it. I have even hit a few golf balls up the fairway that runs parallel to the Treaty Grounds—in fact, probably more of my golf balls have landed on the Treaty Grounds than have landed on the fairway. But the fact of the matter is, as a Māori I can relate to the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; I cannot relate to a lovely great-grandmother who sits in her house at the end of The Mall in London. It means nothing to me, and it means nothing to many of my Māori compatriots—and even to non-Māori members of Parliament.

I remember, as a teenager, when I signed up for teachers’ college in 1984, having to go down to the local chemist because there was the justice of the peace, George Barke. He made me put my hand on a Bible as well and swear allegiance to that same English great-grandmother. It just did not mean anything to me then. It was a bit embarrassing, because he made me do it in the middle of his shop with all of the customers walking around, and I just thought it was ridiculous. The Treaty of Waitangi is something that I can relate to, that I can swear allegiance to, that all New Zealanders can swear allegiance to if they want. Marama Fox is only asking for us to have the choice. Thank you.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a short call on the Oaths and Declarations (Endorsing the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill. It is quite interesting, I can put my hand on my heart and say that the Treaty was not signed where I was brought up—I did not live there; I lived in a little place called Rangiwāhia—and at that time we did not know a lot about the Treaty. But let us take a little bit of a look at the history of how the Treaty got here. It was Queen Victoria, that great-grandmother over there in England, who actually brought that Treaty, through her representative, Hobson. When we start to look at what the member Marama Fox is trying to do here in getting people to swear the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, we need to start looking at what those principles are and how they play out with every individual person.

Let us start with the members in this House, because what partnership means to me is very different to some of my colleagues. It means very different things to different people, and how do we judge that? How do you judge that when somebody swears in their oath to that particular principle? Who judges it? Who will critique that? How will we know that we have done this in the duties that we are swearing to? I believe that we already do that. We do not need to swear that. That goes with the principle of protection and the principle of participation, because we do that. Look at the number of Treaty bills that have been signed through this Government: 54 since 2009; a total of 80 Treaty bills that have gone through here. As my colleague Nuk Korako so eloquently put it in his speech, there is nothing in our bills that we do not consider in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

When we start to look at all of these things around “How do we know that? How do we judge it?”, it does put a lot of people into a precarious situation, and then there starts to be some competition about who does it better than others, because it will happen. If this particular bill is going to go forward, you need to have a lot more discussion around how it is going to be applied and what kinds of standards are going to be put in place, because they will come out regardless of what people say. You can stand in this House today and say no, it will never happen—but it will happen, and every single one of us will be judged by it, should this bill be passed. It is interesting that many people on the opposite side have a lot to say about it—a lot to say—and yet, have they thought about the future consequences of what that may mean for other MPs, other representatives across various organisations who take various oaths, what that means within their duties in doing whatever it is that they are doing?

I believe that there needs to be a lot more thinking going on around this, and I can see that when we start looking, everybody is saying: “Oh, National doesn’t care. It has no good affinities with Māori.” That is rubbish. It is a lot of rubbish. We look at the principles that we have within our side of the House as recognition of property rights and economic independence. That is what those Treaty bills are all about. That is what most of the bills that involve Māori are all about. Strong, capable families and whānau—that is what this side of the House does with working with Māori and delivering the various bills and policies that we have.

If we start looking at cultural diversity, once we start looking across the House—yes, New Zealand has that. We have a broad church of a number of cultures here in New Zealand, and every single one of those ethnicities actually acknowledges that Māori are the mana whenua. That is what they acknowledge—and they do, they uphold the Treaty within their own ways. We do not need legislation around this. We do not need an oath to actually say that we support things like this, because we do it. It is the doing, not the saying. It is the doing that counts, and that is exactly what this side of the House does. We do it. Let us start talking about going down the alleyway of the foreshore and seabed. It was not this side; it was the other side. We actually model what we do with Māori on this side, and I cannot support this particular bill tonight.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Kia ora tātou katoa. He mihi nui ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I am very glad to be here tonight as well as very ashamed, because I am afraid the bill is going to go down, and the consequences of not doing it send a very strong message. They send a message that the Parliament is still not ready to grow up and recognise that we are not in London, we are not in Westminster—we are in Aotearoa. We can take what is good from our colonial history and we can take what is good from our founding document and we can create a better country, but we do not do it by voting this bill down.

I want to just acknowledge Marama Fox and the Māori Party for bringing this forward. The Green Party is very proud to support a bill that would allow people to take their oath on Te Tiriti. I have experienced the humiliation in this House of trying to swear on Te Tiriti. It is not just about tangata whenua, because Te Tiriti is needed more by Pākehā than anyone else. It is the founding document that affirms our right to live with honour in Aotearoa with respect to the people who never ceded their rangatiratanga. That is why this option should exist.

When I have tried to swear on Te Tiriti in this House, it is because it is the meaningful founding document. The Crown is only one part of the bargain. If people find it meaningful to swear to the Crown, they are welcome to do so, but in Aotearoa the fact that the option does not exist is bizarre. We support the bill because sovereignty—or if you want to call it tino rangatiratanga—in article 2 was never ceded. Go and ask Ngāpuhi. I have been to Waitangi every year for 16 years, which is nothing compared with those who are from there. Every year I have been to Tou Rangatira and listened to the kōrero about what Te Tiriti means. Although I support the bill, I do not actually support the principles. I support the articles because the articles make it very clear: kāwanatanga, the governance of Pākehā by Pākehā, and ngā tauiwi katoa for our diverse nation. Article 2: tino rangatiratanga. The absolute chieftainship of the rangatira, given by their people to them, was never ceded.

So the Crown and this Parliament have no right to say that we cannot swear on Te Tiriti o Waitangi or that the Parliament is sovereign without Te Tiriti. It is about the relationship, and if people do not understand that it is about the relationship, no wonder they do not understand about power in relationships, which means recognising and respecting people’s right to honour their most solemn values. That is what an oath is supposed to be: we swear on our solemn values. For many of us and, increasingly, for a younger generation who have had the benefit of some Te Tiriti education, Te Tiriti is the foundation. And there is recognition that prior to 1840 there was also a process, including Te Whakaputanga, but also a long-term process whereby people of the North, in particular—and, I believe, Kahungunu—travelled to talk to the British Crown about the relationship, not to cede sovereignty.

This bill offers people the opportunity to swear on what they hold valuable. The future of this country and the past of this country cannot be separated from Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Why would we want to do that? In terms of leadership—and I have taught Te Tiriti workshops for 20 years now—people look to this Parliament to see symbolic action showing genuine respect and recognition. Yes, we have made progress in some areas but in this area we seem to be blocked. We seem to be locked into a fear-based approach—a fear of diversity, a fear of so-called choice, but also a fear of upholding what is most important to a very, very significant part of our population, including many Pākehā who believe this is really important. So I do not know what these people are afraid of, I really do not.

I also do not understand the arguments that have been put forward about how this might undermine the clear purpose of Parliament or it might create division or confusion. I personally had a member’s bill that every citizen would have the opportunity to swear an oath on Te Tiriti in the citizenship ceremony and that each citizen would be told who the mana whenua were. So I am sorry, Marama, but we do definitely support your bill. I am sorry the others do not—I mean the other, the National Government.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ā, tēnā tātou e noho tahi i roto i Te Whare nei i te pō nei. Ēngari, i mua i te haere tonu o tōku kōrero, e hiahia ana au kia mihi atu ki tetahi o ngā kaimahi o Te Whare nei i hinga atu i tērā atu rā. Nā reira, e Tuhi Hauiti Parapara, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe, takoto mai rā i runga i te ātamira o ō mātua tupuna, nā rātou i tākiri mōu i tēnei wā. Nā reira, ahakoa he poto noa iho tēnei mihi, ka nui te aroha ki a koe me tō whānau. Nā reira e kara, haere, haere, hoki atu. Hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to those sitting here in this House, tonight. But before I continue with my contribution, I want to pay a tribute one of the workers of this House who passed away the other day. So to you, Tuhi Hauiti Parapara, I acknowledge you lying there upon the elevated platform of your ancestral forefathers that they laid out for you at this time. Despite this being a brief tribute, there is much compassion for you and your family. So farewell dear friend, depart and return. I come back to us the living and accolades to us all.]

We have had six speakers from both sides of the House, two supporting the bill and the rest, obviously, opposing. It is about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and yet not one speaker has articulated what those principles are. So I want to quote from the Good Book, Mr Deputy Speaker—and you will appreciate this—it is taken from 1 Corinthians 14:8: “Ki te kahore hoki e mārama ki te tangi o te tēpere, ko wai e takatū ki te whawhai?”. Ka pai—I will translate it: “For if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?”.

I use that quote because of the uncertainty as to what those principles are. Mr Bennett may know those principles, but then, if I go back to the early settlement bills, reference was made to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, yet none of those principles were articulated in those pieces of legislation, and yet recent settlement bills make no mention of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as part of the legislation. Maybe they do as part of the explanation, but certainly not in the body of the legislation.

So New Zealand First’s position has always been that because of the uncertainty of just what those principles are, then we would not be supporting legislation like this—No. 1. No. 2—the bill talks about “elect”, thus giving an option. So what happens if half the team chose not to take that option and only the other half does? If the sponsor of this bill was serious about the intent, then she would have used the word “must” rather than saying “elect”—but she did not—so even she has some uncertainty about it.

The other thing is that if you look at the explanatory note, in the third line from the bottom—and the member who sponsors this bill might want to read the word—it says “Treaty of Waitingi;”, instead of “Treaty of Waitangi;”. So that suggests to me that this has been put through with some haste, without even being able to spell the word “Waitangi” properly. You are talking about an oath. Should it not be correct in every sense of the word? So until the actual principles are articulated, New Zealand First will certainly be opposing the bill. Thank you.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I was just doing my House duties, sitting in the House minding my own business, reading my Treaty of Waitangi negotiations folder for tomorrow’s work—including a very interesting reference to a meeting with a professor from Oregon to discuss the Whanganui River and Urewera settlements, which are becoming rather well-known overseas for their innovative approach to Treaty questions—when I heard the debate on this particular issue, so I thought that I would give a brief speech to comment on it because, in a word, although I have huge respect for Marama Fox, who is an excellent colleague with whom I enjoy working, I do think the bill is unnecessary.

It always seems to be my miserable fate to follow Pita Paraone on these matters, and he may recall—in fact, hearing the great man speak made me run out to the lobby to obtain the debate on his bill, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill of November 2007. He looks a little bit quizzical, but I remember it very well, and maybe I could get him to read the excellent speech I gave on the subject, which can be found in Volume 643 of Hansard—I know Mr Faafoi will be fascinated to read it—at page 12880, where I set out very clearly an excellent and succinct summary—

Kris Faafoi: I’ve already got a copy of it. I use it to go to sleep.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —of what the principles of the Treaty were. Yes, it is very good. If ever you are feeling tired, or jetlagged, go to page 12880 in Hansard and you will be riveted. But there you are. The principles are actually reasonably well-known, and so Mr Paraone’s constant complaint about the principles not being well-known is, with the greatest of respect to my friend, a little bit off the mark, but there we have it.

But I just want to go back to the wonderful day when we are all sworn in as members of Parliament and we enjoy that particular ceremony, and as Attorney-General, when I go down to the swearing-in of a judge I enjoy the ceremony where the Oath of Allegiance is taken. Everyone stands up, takes the oath or the affirmation, and they say “I … swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”—or, if you are an atheist, no “God”. I think that that is all very well, but the fact of the matter is we need to focus on that phrase “according to law.”, because part of the law of New Zealand is, in fact, the Treaty, and part of the Treaty, of course, is that we accept that there are principles of the Treaty that we regard as important, and I am forever going around the country apologising for breaches of those principles of the Treaty over the years—most recently at a fantastic ceremony in Dannevirke, where I apologised for the breach of the principles of the Treaty in relation to Rangitāne o Tāmaki nui a Rua and Rangitāne o Wairarapa. I did not see Catherine Delahunty there. I am sure she would have been invited. In fact, I like to see Catherine Delahunty at these functions because I know that she is very experienced as a Treaty educator and has a great interest in these matters, and that is splendid when she is able to attend. But the fact of the matter is that we say “according to law.” And, by necessary implication, we read into that the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

So the short point is that I respect Marama Fox and I look very closely at this issue, but if we incorporate a particular reference to the principles of the Treaty, frankly, to use the old phrase—and I am sure I say this for the benefit of Kennedy Graham, who understands the phrase—we are simply piling Ossa on Pelion, and it is basically a waste of space. We do not need it. When we swear that oath—when judges swear the oath, they are swearing allegiance to the Treaty and its principles that they will conduct themselves in accordance with those principles in public life, and that is a very good thing.

So that is the short answer. I know that there is a lot of noise that goes on with these things, but at the end of the day we as members of Parliament have to be logical, and we can agree that the principles are very important. Because of my efforts in 2007, we know what those principles are—

Sue Moroney: But you can’t swear allegiance to them.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —and I would say to Sue Moroney to stop whining and simply concentrate on the words, because words do matter. It is simply unnecessary. It is simply unnecessary, it is otiose, and it is piling Ossa on Pelion.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Otirā, tēnā tātou e Te Whare. I just want to acknowledge, first of all, Marama Fox for bringing this bill to the House.

It has been a very interesting debate. So far, all of the points that I have heard—I have heard a lot of points supposedly against this bill, but they sound like points that are for the bill, and the issues that are raised are issues that could be discussed at a select committee. That is why I stand in support of this bill. I think it is a great idea to have that discussion around what is the content not only of the oath that we take in this Parliament but of every oath and declaration. I think it is a discussion that we should actually have, and the right place for that to take place is at a select committee. I encourage everyone to actually vote for that opportunity. We should have that opportunity.

We have heard a lot about the Treaty of Waitangi and about irrational fear. In 1975 there was some irrational fear around the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which the then Labour Government passed, and there were a lot of things said at that time about what would happen. Then in 1985, again, when it was amended so that claims could be taken right back to 1840, there was some more irrational fear. At that time, people were talking about “It’s going to bankrupt the country. It’s going to do all sorts of things.”, and now we can sit in this House and have rational debates about Treaty settlement claims, which the whole House supports. That is the importance of the Treaty, but it also shows how our attitude towards the Treaty of Waitangi has changed over the last 40 years. This bill is another way that we can give expression to the Treaty of Waitangi.

I was really interested to hear my colleague Kelvin Davis talk about his whakapapa. When we swore allegiance to the Queen, her heirs, and successors, I did not realise that we might be swearing allegiance to his whānau, because if what he said is right, then he could very well be an heir or successor to the Queen.

I really support this bill. In 1996 Tariana Turia actually swore allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi. She was the first one to do that, and she got away with it.

Marama Fox: Did the House fall down?

ADRIAN RURAWHE: Did anything change? Well, no, not really, but it was an expression for her to let the whole world know that the kaupapa she was standing on was the Treaty of Waitangi. I believe that I should have that opportunity as well, and every other member who wants to express that should have that opportunity as well. When I did take the oath in this House, I put my hand on the Bible and in my other hand I held a copy of the Treaty of Waitangi. I wanted to give my own personal expression to both the Bible and the Treaty—my faith and my kaupapa that I believe in. That is the way I did it. I would have loved to have the opportunity to say those words—to say that I would undertake the work of a member of Parliament under the kaupapa of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I strongly believe that every one of us should have the opportunity to do that.

I also believe that those irrational fears that are being articulated belong in 1975, not in 2016. So I encourage every single one of us in this Whare to examine the words that are coming out of our mouths and match them up with our actions. The words that I am hearing from the members opposite about this bill do not match up to their action of not voting for it. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tēna koutou ōku hoa o ngā whare Pāremata.

[And so acknowledgments to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to my colleagues of the houses of Parliament.]

It is a great pleasure to be able get up and make a contribution on this bill. I have always had a little bit of a fascination with oaths and declarations: as a mayor I used to oversee a lot of people taking their oath of affirmation, or otherwise, during citizenship ceremonies; and, in fact, even going back to being a social worker, from having to go into court and give evidence and having to swear on the Bible. The good book has been mentioned by my colleague Pita Paraone already. The thing that has always fascinated me, actually, about oaths and declarations is that in the very Bible that people swear on often there is the Book of James, chapter 5, verse 12, which says: “Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Just let your yes be yes, and your no be no.” So, ironically, even swearing on the Bible is kind of counter to what it says in the Bible, but that is OK. That is just by the by—a little bit of a sidetrack. I am sure we can have the theological debate about the rights or wrongs of that argument afterwards. But there have always been views about oaths and declarations and the various aspects of them, and what is appropriate and what is not appropriate when making those oaths.

When I first heard of this idea, I thought perhaps this has some merit. There is no doubt that the Treaty of Waitangi actually has a very, very special and significant place in New Zealand’s history. No one is doubting that. No one is doubting that it was significant and that it is important that we take cognisance of it. As the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has said already this evening, he has spent a good part of his time here, in that role, settling some of those grievances that are around the Treaty of Waitangi. So, absolutely, is this Government committed to the Treaty of Waitangi? Yes. Is it committed to settling grievances around it? Yes, it is. Is it committed to ensuring that our laws and our statutes reflect aspects of the Treaty of Waitangi? Absolutely.

But where I started to come unravelled in my thinking—some of these people think I was coming unravelled in my thinking about this—and where it was that I actually started to have some doubts about this was the idea, the notion, that people would have an ability to make an oath in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. With all due respect to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Attorney-General, who obviously has a very clear understanding of the principles, actually, there are a lot of people who do not. In fact, I was one of those people and probably still am, to a certain degree.

In the year 1995 I took probably what was my most interesting ever university paper. It was 52.55 and something in the title referred to the Treaty of Waitangi. It was taken by Sir Mason Durie, who was the best lecturer I ever had. I had to do a very concise assignment one day, on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The difficulty I had at the time was choosing what principles to do. Because it was only to be concise, I elected to use the three that were highlighted in the Royal Commission on Social Policy of 1988, and these are the ones that are often commonly accepted by people: Partnership, Protection, and Participation. So I focused my essay on those three. Well, I got a C+ and not from Sir Mason Durie but from the guy who was the tutor for that paper. But anyway I got a C+. Thankfully, I made up for it at the end of the year because I got an A-. I got marked down because I picked only those three principles.

The issue I have with this bill is not the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi in our society. It is important. It is the vagaries and the lack of understanding by the general populace of what is meant by the principles. There have been some good arguments put forward as to why this bill is not necessary. I support those arguments and believe that going forward we do not need to incorporate this. We need to have oaths and affirmations and declarations that are easily understood, they are black and white, and they have no level of ambiguity, and so for those reasons I and this side of the House will be voting against this bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa; ngā mihi mahana tino tautoko e hoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker of the House, and to us all; warm acknowledgments to you, colleague, I truly endorse you.]

I really want to start with some information from a November 2004 Cabinet Office document that is entitled “New Zealand’s constitution – past, present and future”. Paragraph 6 of that particular document says: “New Zealand is one of only three countries in the world without a full and entrenched written constitution (the others are Britain and Israel).” What it says is that the law in our country is sourced from the following: the Queen, various statutes with constitutional significance—they include the Constitution Act, the Electoral Act, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and also the Magna Carta. It also says that the courts and the Treaty of Waitangi form New Zealand’s constitution. I bring that up because the interesting point to raise, after Minister Finlayson’s comment, is based on the fact that the law is something that we all swear to, and if that includes the Treaty, well, it actually also includes the Queen, and we do swear allegiance to the Queen. Therein begins my assessment of this piece of legislation.

So in 1957 the Oaths and Declarations Act was created. It was the Act that thereby gave us, as office holders, the words to say when we were elected to certain offices. Forty-eight years later, on 17 May 2005, we actually decided to review it. The Minister at that time was Phil Goff; he was the Minister of Justice. We did that, through the Oaths Modernisation Bill, because we thought it was about time that we modernised that piece of legislation. What did that result in? It actually resulted in the affirmation. What else did that result in? It resulted in the use of Te Reo. So now, when we come into this House at the beginning of each term, we can say the oath or the affirmation in English or in Māori.

An interesting thing that happened during that process was we actually did have a discussion document and we did ask the public. The public did feed back. They said that, yes, they wanted to keep the reference to the Queen, and that, yes, they wanted to keep the reference to religious beliefs. So some of us do say “so help me God” after we say the oath. That is great. That is fine. So to say that the oath does not evolve, or it does not reflect society is actually completely incorrect.

What is an oath? Let us get to definitions. An oath is a solemn promise. It is also a commitment to one’s future action or behaviour. That is what an oath is. That is what we all swear when we come into this wonderful institution that we are all so privileged to represent. We are here for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. All we ask, and, I think, all they ask of us, is that we evolve with society. I think that the proposition in this piece of legislation is something that merits support at first reading—I really do. Things that have been brought up—we can fix them. That is what the select committee process is all about.

I actually think we are completely undermining this institution by not supporting this piece of legislation. The interesting thing is—if you look back to 2005, guess who voted against modernising the oaths? The National Party did. It did not support creating an affirmation. It did not support enabling us to say either the oath or the affirmation in Te Reo. For them at that time, reading through the Hansard, it was all about republicanism. We were on the path to republicanism. That seemed to be its biggest issue for not supporting—after 48 years—a piece of legislation that this Parliament supported. It was a Government bill; Labour led that process.

My colleagues, I just cannot for the life of me see why the National Government will not support the piece of legislation that Marama Fox has brought to this House. That would enable the select committee to fix up any issues. But, at the end of the day, give us the choice as New Zealanders to pledge allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi. We could get rid of the principles then. Let us all just have an ability to pledge allegiance to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So I will take this opportunity: I pledge allegiance to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kia ora tātou.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a little bit bemused. In fact, I wonder at this House in 2016—how we can continue to bathe in the lack of understanding and ignorance that engulfs our country in respect of the Treaty. For all of these people to stand up and say: “It is not necessary; it’s in the law. It’s not necessary; we don’t understand what the principles are.” Educate yourself. We have been told by the Hon Chris Finlayson that he has clearly articulated it for the benefit for all New Zealand, and we are eternally grateful!

Mr Pita Paraone, there is no substance to your argument in not supporting this bill tonight. Your argument is, in fact, more critical and political than anything of any substance.

Mr Nuk Korako stood up and said: “I’m committed. I’m committed to carrying out my duties in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” So then let us take an oath to say so.

Despite the fact that it is enshrined in the law, until 1975—as pointed out by my colleague Mr Rurawhe—there was great debate about whether or not we should even recognise the Treaty. It was declared a nullity in the law. So now we have it, and the true expression of rangatiratanga for the people who are partnered to the Treaty should be allowing them to take an oath to do so. But people say it would confuse us. Well, tell me what is not confusing about swearing an oath on the Bible, or swearing an oath to God? Tell me how many Christian religions there are who argue about the face of God and what that might look like? Yet, how do we uphold that? We stand up here and swear an oath of allegiance—doing so—and that is not confusing? We do not hold somebody to a standard different to someone who does not swear an oath to God. We do not stand up here and say: “But the Queen is higher than God, therefore you can admit God, but not the Queen.” And we do not find that confusing? The ignorance that this House continues to be bathed in just defies belief.

This country is held up as a beacon to the rest of the indigenous peoples of the world, as a way forward because it is founded on a treaty. Today I gave an interview on Sky TV in Australia as they debated whether or not the Aboriginal people in Australia should have a treaty. They go: “Look at you, New Zealand, you have one—aren’t you great? Haven’t you come so far.” Well, obviously not far enough—not far enough. I am disappointed by Nuk. In fact, I think that he must have choked on his words—Mr Korako—as he struggled to say them today.

My colleague Jo Hayes, whom I sit next to, talked about the confusion of those who might and those who will not, and yet confusions over the interpretations of the Bible exist. Do you know that the Judicature Modernisation Bill is about to come up? In the modernisation of that bill they wanted to take out the Treaty clause. Because we as a party of independent Māori voices uphold the principles of the Treaty, we went to the Minister and implored her to retain that clause, to ensure that anything relating to this in that bill does relate to the Treaty. She has put the clause back in. Imagine if we were not here to do that—imagine if we just left it because “it’s in the law; we don’t need it.”

We do need it. We need to show that we are progressive. We need to show that we are committed. I challenge every member of this House who has sworn to vote for this bill—the next time, when they come to swear an oath of allegiance—to stand up and do so to the Treaty whether or not we are thrown out for it. It is abhorrent to me that we cannot do this simple thing. I am disappointed in this House, and its continual bathing in ignorance.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Oaths and Declarations (Endorsing the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 50

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

Noes 71

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill

First Reading

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I move, That the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider this bill. It is with great pleasure that I get to make the opening speech on this bill. I certainly look forward to hearing from my good friend and colleague Kelvin Davis, who I am sure will get up in support of the bill. I want to acknowledge the chair of the Social Services Committee, my good friend Alfred Ngaro—and I see his deputy, Matthew Doocey, is in the House as well—who will be receiving the bill.

This bill amends the Social Security Act of 1964. It enables the Department of Corrections to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to withhold all or part of a person’s benefit where that person has repeatedly failed to comply with a community-based sentence. The bill seeks to provide the Department of Corrections with an additional tool, short of prosecution, to encourage compliance with community-based sentences. By withholding benefit payments after a prior warning, this bill will enable the department to manage offenders without burdening the court system. This bill will operate alongside a new measure implemented by the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Act of 2013, which has effectively managed persons with outstanding warrants for their arrest by withholding their benefit payments.

When this bill is implemented the Department of Corrections will be able to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to withhold part of or all of a benefit paid to an offender. The Department of Corrections will also be able to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to restore benefit payments if it is satisfied that the offender is complying with their sentence.

The bill enables the Department of Corrections to give a written warning if it reasonably believes (1) that it has exhausted all options other than prosecution in attempting to get that person to comply with that community-based sentence or instruction, or (2) that the person breaches or fails to comply with any term of the community-based sentence, or (3) fails to comply with an instruction from the Department of Corrections that relates to their community-based sentence. The warning must instruct the person to comply with a further instruction and warn that non-compliance with the instruction may result in the withholding of any benefit. A second written warning may be issued 14 days after the original warning. The bill provides that if the person fails to comply with the instruction within 14 days of the date of receiving their second warning to comply with the instruction, the department may instruct the Ministry of Social Development to withhold all or part of their benefit payment.

Section 17 of the Sentencing Amendment Act 2007, No. 27, states that in handing down a community sentence a court must take regard of the impact on an offender’s future work and living skills. Further prosecution for non-compliance will negatively impact the offender’s future work and living skills; hence, prosecuting an offender for non-compliance with a community sentence defies the initial purpose of the sentence in the first place. The bill considers the potential impact, both negative and positive, on the offender and their family. The deduction amount is to be determined by the Department of Corrections. However, the department may not deduct more than 50 percent of the gross benefit where that person is responsible for the care of a dependent child.

One of the intentions of this bill is to decrease the likelihood of offenders going through the court system again for non-compliance. As of Monday, 8 August there were 28,562 offenders on community sentences. Up to 50 percent of offenders on a community-based sentence are receiving some form of benefit. This bill is in line with National’s welfare reforms, which saw an offender with an outstanding warrant to arrest having their benefit suspended until they cleared that warrant. I believe this process should be extended to include those offenders who repeatedly fail to comply with their community sentence. This is a bill that is a sensible and much-needed addition to our current system.

I would also like to very quickly refer to the advice that I received from the office of the Hon Christopher Finlayson, as our Attorney-General. It relates to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It states: “The proposed amendment is similar to an amendment made in 2012 to the Social Security Act, which enabled the chief executive of the ministry to suspend a person’s benefit for failure to comply with a court warrant. Although that amendment possibly raised a prima facie issue of discrimination, it was considered that it was not discriminatory or, alternatively, that the discrimination was justified.”

The bill’s objective, to ensure compliance with community-based sentences, is sufficiently important to justify some limitation on the right to freedom from discrimination. New sections 183 and 185 of the Social Security Act, inserted by clause 5 of this bill, which limit the right of freedom from discrimination, are rationally connected to the objective of incentivising compliance with community-based sentences or related instructions issued by the department. This is because removing entitlements creates an incentive for compliance. Further, the limit operates under the rationale that taxpayers should not be financially assisting persons not complying with community-based sentences or related instructions.

New sections 183 and 185 impair the right to freedom from discrimination no more than is reasonably necessary because (a) compliance with a community-based sentence is a court-imposed penalty, and any individual subject to the sentence has an obligation to comply with its terms; (b) the benefit withholding measure is imposed only once an individual has not complied with both the community sentence or related instruction and two written warning notices that have been issued; (c) where the payment of a person’s benefit is withheld and the department is thereafter satisfied that that person is complying with the sentence or instruction, the department may instruct the ministry to restore that benefit; and (d) the bill prevents the department from issuing instructions to reduce a person’s benefit by more than 50 percent of the gross benefit where the person is responsible for the care of a dependent child—as I stated earlier in my speech.

The limitation is proportionate to the importance of the bill’s objective because of several safeguards: new section 184 requires the department to issue written warning notices only when it reasonably believes it has exhausted all options other than prosecution in attempting to get a person to comply with a community-based sentence or instruction and when that person has, in fact, breached or failed to comply with that sentence or instruction.

Although there is no right of appeal the department must issue two warning notices before it can instruct the ministry to withhold the benefit, and an affected beneficiary may bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the department’s decisions. It is therefore considered, to the extent that the new sections 183 and 185 do engage the right to freedom from discrimination, the limitation is justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): We have given this bill much consideration, and, as most people in the House would know, when it comes to members’ bills we are actually quite fair-minded and usually are quite open to the idea of a bill going to select committee so that some consideration can be given to it. But, actually, after going over this and having some discussions with colleagues like Kelvin Davis and other colleagues, we have decided that this bill is a waste of time and does not deserve the attention of the Social Services Committee, so we will not be supporting this to select committee.

Firstly, the reason that this does not deserve the time of the Social Services Committee is that, actually, we have got a lot of other major issues that need to be considered at that select committee. We have got 305,000 kids living in poverty in this country. We have got a major housing problem on our hands. We have got a complete overhaul of Child, Youth and Family that is going through the select committee at the moment, and that member brings us a bill that will address a handful of people who may have issues. He is trying to use the stick on them when, in fact, the real implication of what that member is offering up is just further stigmatisation of beneficiaries—an absolute waste of the select committee’s time—so we are not going to support this bill.

If this issue was of significance to the Government, then we would not be seeing it brought here by Mark Mitchell. We would have seen the Minister of Corrections or the Minister for Social Development taking it through as a Government bill, not having it presented here through Mark Mitchell. I do wonder what the backbench members over there think. You know, they are sitting there, they have got time on their hands, and they get the opportunity to put a bill in the ballot and to make real change to the lives of New Zealanders. Then this guy, Mark Mitchell, is like: “I’m going to put in a bill that is stopping benefit payments for offenders who repeatedly fail to comply with community sentences.” This really implies that this is a major issue but we know that, actually, it is not.

Someone should tell Mark Mitchell that, actually, the vast majority of beneficiaries are not criminals. They are not going through the criminal justice system. This is not a big issue, Mr Mitchell, and so I am sorry that someone has given you the impression that it is, and that you took the time to draft this meaningless bill and bring it to the House. But, as I said, we will not be supporting this bill to select committee. And I do hope that other political parties in the House have the same level of common sense and will not be supporting this bill, either.

It is really worrying that we see the lines blurred so often by the National Government. Here we have an issue around corrections. We know it has a problem with corrections—it has really struggled to look after that portfolio, and so its only way of trying to address that is to do it through the social development system. So National cannot look after the corrections portfolio—we know the National Government has failed on that front—and so it is like: “OK, what do we do, how do we fix this? OK, we punish people through the social development portfolio and that will fix everything.” Well, actually, it will not. As I said, this is such a minute issue that it is embarrassing that we are even having a debate on it in the House tonight.

There are other major considerations that we should have a conversation about in the debate, and one of those is one that many NGOs, social services, and children’s advocacy groups have brought up, and that is with regards to the sanctions that have been imposed in lots of other different areas, and the implications that those sanctions have on children. It is really unfortunate that the whole time the National Government has been in, pushing its reforms, implementing these types of sanctions, it has never stood back at any time to actually monitor the implications of those sanctions on those children. That is concerning. And here they are looking to roll out another raft of sanctions in an area that is completely unrelated to social development, and undermines what our social security system was set up for in the first place.

I am not going to give this any more attention. I am not even going to let my speech get to the bell of 8 minutes, because this bill does not deserve further consideration, and should not be allowed to continue to the select committee. I do hope that the next bill Mark Mitchell puts in has a little bit more substance, and is a little bit more meaningful to New Zealanders, than what we have before us tonight.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on this bill, and I want to acknowledge my good friend and colleague Mark Mitchell, whose name this bill is in. It is the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill, under the name of Mark Mitchell, the National MP for Rodney.

There have been some very unkind comments about the sincerity, and the intent, of Mr Mark Mitchell in regard to this bill. We know that his past history is that he has been involved in the police as a dog handler, and he did actually tweet about an incident then—there was a moment there—but he was very involved in the police. So he knows the importance of the role that both the police and the Department of Corrections play in our communities. I do think the comments were very unkind.

The previous speaker, Carmel Sepuloni, spoke about the lack of support from Labour. I know that Kelvin Davis, the Opposition spokesman on corrections, actually looked at us, and in his eyes he was saying: “I actually support this bill. I support this bill.” In fact, that member, I must say, goes to very unusual lengths to investigate the role of the Department of Corrections. It was some 3 months ago that we did the Shave for a Cure, for Leukaemia and Blood Cancer New Zealand. Both Mark Mitchell and I believe it was a way for him to have an inside job, a way of getting into the corrections system, into Serco, so he can get some added information. I am not sure whether it worked.

But back to the scope of the bill. We do know that there are 28,562 offenders who are on community service.

Hon Members: How many?

ALFRED NGARO: There are 28,562. We are talking about those with a non-custodial sentence. We are talking about those whom the court felt it was appropriate not to incarcerate. Instead, it gave them a non-custodial sentence that gives them an opportunity. It mitigates the offending, allows them to have a process of rehabilitation, and allows them to reintegrate into the community and have a normal way of life. At the same time it implies that there are some conditions that are really important. Those are often bail conditions. Most of us would agree with that. In fact, all of us would agree that that is really important.

I cannot quite understand why there is not the support, because this is a tool that, in the hands of the Department of Corrections, along with the Ministry of Social Development, ensures that there is some compliance. There are those out there who say that this is not right. In fact, the member who spoke previously said that this is—again—about beneficiary bashing and being unkind. But, in actual fact, the member needs to realise that we are talking about those who have offended, who actually have broken the law, but have been given an opportunity, with a community sentence, to be able to comply, reintegrate back into the communities, and become normal citizens in our communities.

We are talking about a situation where they do not comply—not just the first time and not the second time, but the third time. We are talking about three times when there has been non-compliance. We are talking about a tool that the Department of Corrections has tried to engage. It has tried to ensure that they have complied. When does it get to a point where even Kelvin Davis will know that putting this bill through is simply saying: “You have got to be compliant.”? In other words: “If you do the crime, you have to do the time. If you’re not doing the time, then you have to comply. ” That is the simple basis of this bill. OK?

All this bill does is amend the Social Security Act 1964 to ensure that they comply. What is wrong with this bill? Nothing—absolutely nothing. I would like the next speaker from the Labour side to tell us the essence of what is wrong with this bill. They cannot. Instead, they go outside the scope of the bill and fluff around on a whole lot of other ideas, but when it comes to the intent of the bill, there is nothing wrong. [Interruption] Kris Faafoi knows that Mark Mitchell is right about this bill. This is a good bill.

I finish off with a little bit of the facts and figures. Here are some numbers for you. In 2014, the bill that Mark Mitchell talked about in regard to the welfare reforms, for the social sanctions, ensured that there were 2,804 benefits suspended When you think about a figure of 2,000-odd you see that this is not hard or mean-spirited. This is ensuring that we make people comply. As the chairperson of the Social Services Committee, I look forward to receiving Mark Mitchell’s bill. I look forward to ensuring that we do due diligence, hear the submissions throughout this process, and ensure that it returns back to the House in a way that will make a difference. It may be a small and simple bill, but what we are doing, along with with Mark Mitchell and his support, will truly make a difference. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to speak on the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill. The Green Party wholeheartedly opposes this bill, and I share the sentiments of my Labour colleague Carmel Sepuloni about what a waste of this House’s time this bill is. The issues facing the Social Services Committee—this should not be taking up our time. Like so much legislation introduced by this Government, this bill is more about image than it is about content, and certainly more than it is about care.

This bill promises to give the Department of Corrections the power to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to stop benefits to people who have been sentenced to community-based sentences who may have failed to comply with the terms of that sentence—

Alastair Scott: Who may have? Who have failed.

JAN LOGIE: —or who have failed—but it will be determined by a parole officer whether there are reasonable or unreasonable grounds, according to this legislation, when it would otherwise be decided by a judge. This puts court decisions in the hands of parole officers. It is changing the basis of the way our legal system works, I would argue. It also puts in place a double sentence, so that somebody who fails to comply who is in paid work will not get their paid work taken away from them, but for people who are beneficiaries it will take away their ability to feed themselves.

I really want to just address how misnamed this bill is as a social security bill. We have to recognise that the point of social security is that we have a safety net through which no one can fall. We are not living in Victorian times, when there was a concept that only the deserving were able to have an income. We have learnt as a society that when we have those basics provided only to people whom we believe deserve them, we all suffer. We end up with people committing crimes to be able to feed themselves. We end up with more people on the street. What this bill does is another deep attack on our social security system. It is bringing back Victorian values into our society. It is completely unworthy of this House and of our time.

I really want to recognise, as well, that there was a comment made before of “Well, these are people who have offended. They have committed crimes.” I want to point out that other people who have committed crimes and offended who are put in prison are given a warm roof over their head and three meals a day, because we recognise as a society that it would be inhumane for that not to happen. We have prison inspectorate systems set up to try to enforce that, because we recognise that as a society all of us are less human when other people are treated inhumanely in our care. Well, why should those who are sent to prison be given more protections than these people? When we take away people’s right to an income, we put every single thing in their life at risk. We force them into places where they have no other choices, and that destabilises our entire society.

The Green Party wants no part of this. I would recognise that this, a Government that has characterised beneficiaries as work-shy, baby factories, bad parents, drug takers, and criminals—even this Government would not support this bill as its own. That is how bad this piece of legislation is. I am very sorry, Mark Mitchell. I quite liked you, but this bill is rubbish and the Greens will not be supporting it.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I am feeling slightly uncomfortable in the middle of something there. It is a pleasure to rise in support of my colleague Mark Mitchell on his bill, the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill, in its first reading.

I would like to acknowledge the very hard-working member of Parliament for Rodney. I had the experience of going up there for a day and joining Mr Mitchell. We visited many health and social care services. It was very apparent from the response that we received from the people on the streets and the health and social care workers—the acknowledgment of the work he does in his electorate. He is someone who is known as caring for the people in Rodney, and he cares for all people in Rodney.

I would also like to acknowledge Alfred Ngaro as the chair of the Social Services Committee. Although it has been pointed out by the Opposition that it is a very busy select committee, it would be fair to say he is dispensing the work with ease, and very much we have got time and space for this very important bill. So I am looking forward to it coming into the select committee, where we will get submissions and kick it round the legislative process.

But let us be very clear. This bill is about crime, and this Government is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Let us be very clear that criminal behaviour is a blight on our communities. There are many small towns in my electorate of Waimakariri and they talk to me about how all it takes is a few people in those small towns to participate in this criminal behaviour and it is a blight on the whole community. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in public sector expense, expense to private individuals, and very much there are the social and emotional costs to those people in those small towns.

So what we are doing today with this very succinct bill is enabling people to do the work that they are employed to do—giving them the tools that enable them to make a difference in those people’s lives. Because I have no doubt that the people whom we are talking about today do not want to carry on with this criminal behaviour. They want to get rescued from this pattern of behaviour. For some people it is about compulsion. Unfortunately for some people they hit rock bottom and then it is the only way up. For some people it is about compulsion. This process will allow this.

Kris Faafoi: What process?

MATT DOOCEY: When we look at the process that they ask about, across the House—will they bother to read the bill—it is a very clear process. People will be given a warning only if all other avenues have been exhausted, only if there have been breaches of or failures in their community-based sentence, and only if they fail to comply with instructions. I would call that a very clear process. Not only that but they get another warning. So they get two warnings, and then it takes 14 days. If that is not a careful process I do not know what is.

So people understand very clearly what is expected of them. Because in the end what we are talking about here is rehabilitation and public safety. So that Opposition, in voting down this bill, does not believe in rehabilitation and does not believe in public safety. That is why I support this bill and commend it to the House.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill. I just want to make it quite clear that New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill through this first reading. There are a couple of very important reasons why we are not.

First of all, before I get into those reasons, I would like to make it clear that this is not a social security matter. This is a corrections matter and it should not be brought to the Social Services Committee. The fact is that every single National member who has spoken on this bill has spent 99 percent of their time talking about corrections matters, talking about community-based sentences, community detention, or the compliance. The only words they mention about social security are in terms of when they take the benefit off them. That is the only time that they speak about social services.

This is not a social services matter; it is a crime matter. But once again this is a reactive policy from the Government and, basically, it is an admission of failure. It is reacting to the Government’s failed law and order policies, and it has to come up with this type of legislation to fill the gap—reacting once again. The fact is it is reacting to the consequences of its failed policies and the consequences of its failed policies are the consequences of those offenders who are repeatedly breaking their community sentences. That is the purpose of this bill.

The second reason why New Zealand First will be opposing this bill is that the Government is using the basic safety net that is provided as a tool for punishment. There is a minimum social floor that the Government and the State provides for our citizens, and the Government decided to use that as a punishment. That is the second reason why New Zealand First is not going to be supporting this bill.

Here is a question for Mr Mitchell: what happens to those people who are on community-based sentences who fail to comply but are not on a benefit? How many warnings do you give them? One? Two? Three warnings—three warnings? So if you have got such great interventions and processes in play that stop these people who are on community sentences and are not on benefits from reoffending in the first place, why do you have to extend and make an extra one for people who are on a benefit? Answer that question—answer that question. The fact is that, like I said, this legislation is an admission of failure by this Government.

Community sentences are a privilege for those who are given community sentences instead of a jail term. The fact is if they abuse that privilege they should go to jail. They should be prosecuted—that is plain and simple—not given one warning, not given two warnings, not given three warnings. This Government wants to stand up and say that it is tough on crime, but it is giving one written warning, 14 days later they are giving the second warning, and then only the third time do they strike. This Government is soft on crime. Just like the National Party is soft on crime, and just like the Labour Party is soft on crime.

The fact is that crime has been increasing in New Zealand and the reoffending rates have been increasing, and this Government has increased the number of offenders who have been given community-based sentences. Ever since 2008, this Government has increased the number of sentences that have been community-based. But I would just like to look very quickly at the explanatory note because it highlights quite a number of the flaws in the bill itself, and the actual reason for the bill. It is talking about “without burdening the court system”. So the bill wants some other steps in play without prosecuting and burdening the court system. That is the real reason this legislation is here: to stop the court system being even fuller than what it is at the moment because of the failing law and order policies of this Government. The priority is not justice, it is not about accountability; it is about keeping them out of the court system.

One last thing, it says here that they will be kind enough not to take more than 50 percent of the gross benefit for anyone with a child. I would like to know how the Government expects an individual or a family to live, when they have got a benefit and half of that is taken away. I want any National member—backbencher or Mark Mitchell, the author of this bill—to stand up and say how that individual would survive on half of the benefit. This bill will not be supported by New Zealand First. Thank you.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Well, it has been an interesting evening so far, when we have been debating this bill. I have heard people from the other side of the House say we are being too hard on criminals, and then we have heard from New Zealand First members saying we are too soft on criminals. We have just had a really interesting challenge from my colleague Darroch Ball who sort of dared any of us on this side to say how somebody would survive on half of their benefit, or survive on none of their benefit.

I think that is the point, actually. If somebody needs to take responsibility, as most people do, for ensuring that they continue to have income coming into their house, then, actually, there are some responsibilities that go with that. What we expect of those people is that they actually comply with their community sentence, and then they will never, ever, ever, ever have to worry about that issue that Mr Ball has just suggested.

Let us start with talking about offenders a little bit. Many offenders who are found guilty will find themselves in prison, and they will find themselves there because of the seriousness of their crime. There needs to be some sort of deterrent for them ever reoffending, or it might be for the sake of public safety or otherwise. But there are other offenders who in our wisdom over the years as a society, we have realised will actually do better by having a community sentence of some description, because their chances of being rehabilitated and reoffending are lessened than if they go to prison.

So we have community-based sentences for some people. But it is right and it is fair for society to expect that those people who have had the privilege of not going to jail and have had the privilege of actually serving their sentence in the community actually comply with that sentence. When someone is in prison it is pretty easy to enforce the rules and say what you can and cannot do, and that kind of thing. With community-based sentences there are fewer tools available to ensure that people will comply. This bill is about giving the Department of Corrections another tool in its tool box to actually ensure that people comply.

Let us think about why we want people to comply with those provisions. Why do people have provisions in their community sentences? The first one that I thought of was to ensure their best chances of rehabilitation. We put those conditions on them and they meet them, because we believe that by meeting those conditions we stand the best chance of rehabilitating them. Yet what I am hearing from the other side of the House is: “Let’s not make them, let’s not force them, let’s not make sure that they comply with those.” So, actually, by voting against this bill, what I hear from the other side of the House is: “We don’t care about rehabilitation; we don’t want to see these people rehabilitated, because we are not going to give probation officers the tools to have at their disposal to ensure that people will comply.”

The other reason we have those provisions in community sentences is to help ensure public safety. Therefore, why would we not want people to comply? Oh! So maybe the people on the other side of the House say: “We’re not going to give probation officers another tool in their tool box to ensure that people comply with their community sentences because we are not concerned about public safety.” Well, on this side of the House we are concerned with the rehabilitation of offenders, to ensure that they stand less chance of offending in the future. We are concerned with public safety, and we will do what we can—we will use the tools that are available to us—to ensure that people are being rehabilitated properly; that there is going to be public safety.

They do not just get that thrown on them straight away. As has been well documented, there are warnings in place and so this is not thrust upon them. We are not forcing people to not get their benefit. Those people are making that choice for themselves. At the point where they say “We are not going to comply with the orders that the court has put on us”, they are making the choice themselves not to bring income into their own household. I am not going to stand here and make excuses for that, because those people need to take responsibility for themselves.

Finally, the bill is coming to the Social Services Committee. Why? It is because this bill is an amendment to the Social Security Act. That committee is a hard-working committee that will not shy away from hard work—we are quite happy to engage with this. Yes, primarily the bill is to do with the Department of Corrections, but it is going to make an amendment to the Social Security Act, which we are more than happy to take our parliamentary responsibility for. I look forward to this bill going through, coming to our committee, and ensuring that New Zealand will be a safer, better place because this legislation is in place.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Mr Assistant Speaker, I believe I have got 5 minutes, and I have to say that it is going to take me all of 5 minutes just to read out the title of this bill: the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill. I stand with a heavy heart because one of my heroes in the golden oldies Parliamentary Rugby Team and one of our esteemed co-captains, Mark Mitchell—I thought that when he was not in the House he would be out there on the streets, pounding the pavements, working on his aerobic fitness, and getting a bit of bulk in the thighs, definition in the abs, and a bit of mass in the shoulders. But, no, instead he has been wasting his time instructing some poor official in the Ministry of Social Development to write his speech for him. I must admit—I will give him credit—he delivered it well. Well done there, Mr Mitchell.

Let me say that this bill is a total waste of time. All Mr Mitchell is doing is just heaping more and more woes and responsibilities on the poor Department of Corrections. They are the people who are going to have to administer this. They are the people who are going to have to round up all of those people who have been jaywalking, riding bicycles without helmets, and riding their cycles on the footpath. Those poor people who go down to the local park on a Saturday while the probation service at the Department of Corrections watches over them as they rake the sandpit, rake leaves, and trim trees and all those sorts of things—those are the people who are going to be affected by this bill.

But what is so inhumane about the bill is the cutting of these poor people’s benefits by half if they have a child and cutting the benefit entirely if they do not have children. I just wonder why Mr Mitchell has not written into the bill: “Corrections’ latest punishment for people who don’t conform to whatever they are meant to conform to”. Maybe the Department of Corrections has been trialling this on the side and it might be an amendment to the bill later on, but the department today is being had up because it has been tying prisoners to the beds—tying prisoners to beds. Now, would that not be a lot kinder to poor beneficiaries—that instead of cutting their benefits, they just tied them to the beds? This has been happening in New Zealand’s prisons.

I have to congratulate the Chief Ombudsman, Judge Peter Boshier, on the great work he is doing. He is rapidly becoming a superhero of mine because he is holding this Government to account. He is making it actually accountable for some of its silly decisions, such as tying prisoners to their beds. This poor prisoner actually had mental health issues, and so he has been punished for being unwell, and that is just another example of this terrible Government—an absolutely shocking Government—having its priorities wrong and punishing people instead of helping them, in particular this poor guy who was tied down simply because he was unwell. The prison inspectorate is now being made to account for this. The prison inspectorate was meant to actually write weekly reports to the Ombudsman on this incident, and yet it did not. I think the prison inspectorate has got a lot to hide. I asked the Department of Corrections if I could go and talk to the prison inspectorate last week on a totally unrelated matter, and I was blocked at every turn.

This Government has got its priorities wrong. When it could be dealing with the housing crisis and making sure people are not living in those mobile apartments—also known as motor vehicles—when it could be putting money into Te Puea Marae and other real issues that are facing New Zealand, we have my hero, the co-captain of the golden oldies Parliamentary Rugby Team, presenting silly bills like this to the House.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): It is a great opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill in the name of Mark Mitchell. I would like to start by congratulating Mark Mitchell on this bill. As far as I know, Mark Mitchell was in the police force before becoming a member of Parliament, and this reflects a lot on what police officers go through in their day-to-day life to keep crime down. There are people who keep causing trouble again and again and then we reach a point where we start thinking about other avenues.

This bill is to send a message to offenders, especially repeat offenders. It is important that we enforce compliance for community-based sentences. And to the member from the New Zealand First Party Darroch Ball, I want to clarify for him that it is the Ministry of Social Development that pays benefits, not the Department of Corrections, so it is relevant to the Social Services Committee. This bill will enable the Department of Corrections to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to withhold all or part of a person’s benefit when that person has repeatedly failed to comply with a community-based sentence. This National Government is highly committed to keeping crime down, and it is because of our commitment that crime is so low. Crime is low because we are harsh on criminals. Yes, we are harsh on criminals and we know how to use our resources efficiently. We are also ensuring that our justice system is focused on the rights of victims.

This bill will use benefit payments as a tool to improve compliance with community-based sentences. We do not want offenders to reoffend. We do not want to have more victims of crime. This bill will withhold benefit payments from those who repeatedly breach the conditions of their community-based sentences. It is really important that we ensure compliance, and by giving this power to the Department of Corrections, the Department of Corrections will be able to manage offenders at its level without sending all those cases to judges, because we do not want to burden the court system unnecessarily.

It does not seem just that we keep paying benefits to criminals on the run. But this bill is quite fair to criminals too, because they will be getting written notices. There will be enough warnings before their benefit payments are deducted, and also they will be provided help to comply with the conditions of their community-based sentence. After all that, if they still do not comply only then will their benefit payments be deducted. Also, benefit payments will not be deducted by more than 50 percent of their gross benefit if they have a dependent child or dependent children. So, overall, this bill is quite fair on both sides. This bill also provides for the Department of Corrections to inform the Ministry of Social Development if people start complying so their benefit can be reinstated. It is not a permanent reduction that is going to happen to these people, so the payment will be reinstated if they start complying with their conditions.

I fully support using welfare payment as a tool to improve compliance and also to encourage people to comply with their community-based sentence. The benefit system is to help people—those who are in real need. People who are on benefits have obligations towards the system. They have some conditions they have to meet to keep getting those payments. Similarly, these conditions should be introduced for people who are on community-based sentences so that they have to comply with their conditions, and if they do not comply with their conditions, their benefit payments will be deducted. This is a very effective tool, and this is also about sending the message to people that people have responsibilities to the system, people have to respect the system, and they have a responsibility to society too. I am looking forward to working on this bill in the select committee process. I support this bill. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I would just like to begin in the spirit of goodwill engendered by my colleague Jan Logie. In that spirit, I have tried very hard to find something good to say about this bill. It has not been easy, but I have managed it. This bill does identify a problem. That is its one redeeming feature. We do have a problem with non-compliance with community work orders. However, this bill is so far from being a solution that it cannot even see it over the horizon. Sadly, it has identified a problem and come up with utterly the wrong response to that problem.

I would pose a question. There is some irony in the fact that we are talking about giving the Department of Corrections an authority to withhold payments from people and to withhold from them their means of support on the very day when the Department of Corrections has been revealed to be failing to comply with the reasonable requirements of the Office of the Ombudsmen. Perhaps senior staff management at the Department of Corrections should have their salaries withheld until such time as they comply with the Ombudsman’s requirement for them to report about the well-being of prisoners.

I think there is an interesting differentiation being made here, and that point has been made, not least of all by our friend Mr Ball. If the intention of this bill is to gain compliance from people who are not complying, why limit it to beneficiaries? The Government already has the power to withhold wages from people who fail to pay their tax, for example, or who fail to pay fines. If the intention is gaining compliance, why specify only beneficiaries? Is it about beating people when they are down? Is it about punishment and stigmatising those people? Why not? If the logic of this bill is to force compliance, why do you not go after wage earners as well? Explain to me the difference and the logic between those things if it is about compliance and not punishment.

If you actually want to know how to improve compliance with community sentences, take a leaf and look at our own experience. In Nelson in April this year the reporting point for people on community sentences was moved from Nelson to Richmond. They immediately got an increase in non-compliance, because for some people that was a 20 kilometre journey. It was a 20 kilometre journey for people who do not have drivers’ licences and live where there is very little public transport—and the Department of Corrections ceased providing transport in a van for these people. That would be a really simple way to resolve that specific problem: provide a van, pick these people up and get them to the point where they can then comply with their service.

The Department of Corrections in Canterbury, in November last year, identified a serious problem with non-compliance. The compliance levels got so low that its solution was to fire some of the supervisors, because they did not need that many. What a perverse response that was. How about getting more supervisors—people who can monitor, inveigle, inspire, encourage, and harass people to turn up on the day—to be on their case and make sure that they actually come along and fulfil their sentence requirements? Would that not be an actual real solution, rather than this phony attempt at a solution, this punitive stigmatising solution provided in this legislation?

In Tauranga in 2013 this problem was in evidence. They discovered that a lot of the non-compliance was because people were choosing to go and do a day’s seasonal work rather than go and do their community work obligation. The rather enlightened response of the probation service in Tauranga was to accept that as a legitimate reason and endeavour to get the community service so that there was no conflict with the ability of these people to go out and earn money, particularly in fruit harvesting and these sorts of things.

We do have a problem in New Zealand. The number of people who comply 100 percent with community work sentences is something as low as 36 percent. Many more do ultimately comply, but it is a low compliance rate. We do need to address the problem. This is absolutely not a solution. There are some sensible, well-founded solutions that mostly revolve around investing in people, treating them well, and treating them sensibly. This bill is not a solution. We will not support it. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Mark Mitchell—5 minutes in reply.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I have made a point of speaking, because I do want to be able to make some serious responses to the issues that were raised by the members across the House. This is going to be somewhat of a challenge, to be honest with you. Carmel Sepuloni: her contribution was that she is too busy to really look at it. She did manage to make some comment around keeping them out of court. Actually, this bill, if you look at it, is about keeping offenders out of court. It is avoiding the stigmatisation that puts them back into court. Then we came to Jan Logie—that was a really interesting contribution. She is too busy as well to look at this, and I found out that she does not like me any more—somehow I am going to have to try to deal with that; I am not sure how. She felt that it was a deep attack on beneficiaries.

This bill is really simple. People who are actually on a benefit, I believe, have got a contract with the taxpayers of New Zealand, who are paying them. If beneficiaries are given community service as part of a sentence, often this is actually a real opportunity for them to get into their communities and do something positive. If they choose not to be compliant, then I think that we should take steps to make sure we encourage them to be compliant.

I will come to Mr Ball’s comments in a minute because he raised a very interesting point. He raised a question with me of what happens to people who fail to comply with a community sentence who do not collect a Government benefit. The answer is very simple: at the moment, if they are not a beneficiary, if the taxpayer is not funding them and they are getting their revenue from another source—whether it be the private sector or whether you are self-employed—then, basically, if they are non-compliant, they will be warned, and then they will be taken back into court, and they will be dealt with in court.

What this bill is actually doing, Mr Ball, is it is actually giving offenders who have been convicted an opportunity to come and engage in their community sentence, and it relates directly to people who are being funded and paid by the taxpayer. I come back to that social contract that they have and that responsibility that they have. This country is built on some pretty important values: personal responsibility and individual freedoms, Mr Ball. So I am very surprised that you are standing up and saying that you are tough on crime, and yet you want to let off offenders, whom the taxpayer is actually paying and funding. You do not want them to be held to account and to actually come along and engage in their community sentence. That is a very interesting position that you are taking, and I will be very interested to hear you get up in the House and try to defend that position.

So let us move on from Mr Ball, and let us go to Kelvin. Kelvin’s contribution: I was really looking forward to this, and he did not let me down, right? He spoke about the Parliamentary Rugby Team, which is very important, Kel, I admit that. Then he talked about tying prisoners to beds. I can assure you that there is nothing in this legislation that relates to tying prisoners to beds—thank goodness. Then, to give him his dues, eventually he admitted that he wanted to talk about things that actually were totally unrelated to the bill.

But Mr Clendon surprised me, and it was a pleasant surprise. He got up and it sounded like he was going to support the bill. He understood what it is about. It is about non-compliance.

Hon Member: Did he trick you?

MARK MITCHELL: He did. We thought he was going to cross the floor there for a minute—that is right. He did highlight that it is about non-compliance, and he is absolutely right. This bill is about non-compliance. It is about the non-compliant behaviour of offenders who have been convicted of a crime who are receiving a Government benefit funded by the taxpayer. The expectation is this: that they front up and do their community service. They get into the community and they take the opportunity that they have been given to do something positive. If they do not do that, then we will send a warning letter to them—not once but twice—to say that if they break the contract, then we will start to reduce their benefits. I think that is fair. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill be now read a first 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 first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.

Bills

Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill

First Reading

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.

I te tuatahi, ka tautoko ahau i te tangi mōteatea ki a Tūī Hauiti Parapara, tētahi o ngā kaimahi o Te Whare nei, kua hinga i ngā rangi kua pahure ake nei; e kara, haere, haere, haere. Whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou o Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Firstly, I endorse the expressions of grief accorded to Tūī Hauiti Parapara, one of the workers of this House who passed away in days just past; farewell dear friend, depart, return. I bring the focus of the contributions back to those of us of the House—greetings to us all.]

I am proud to bring this bill to the House this evening, as it represents a genuine opportunity to not just make a positive change here in Aotearoa New Zealand but to make a positive change globally. This bill has the potential to reposition Aotearoa New Zealand at the forefront of progressive social change again. Our history is filled with the great examples of brave, progressive social policy. This year we commemorate 123 years since the women’s suffrage petition was received by this House. More recently, in 2013 the marriage equality bill was received and passed by this House. Although this bill might not be a world first, it will go some way to restoring our reputation as a responsible and caring global citizen.

This bill seeks to prohibit the importation of goods produced by slavery into Aotearoa New Zealand, preventing slave owners profiting from their crime and encouraging the ethical production of goods throughout the world. Both the United States and Belgium have passed similar legislation, and it is now time for us to follow suit.

This bill is no stranger to this House. In 2009 the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee considered the petition of Geoff White on behalf of Trade Aid and 17,000 others requesting that this House legislate against the importation of products made by slave labour. However, the Government did not care enough to do the right thing. Later that year the bill came to the House thanks to the Hon Maryan Street, but, sadly, the Government once again was not brave enough to do the right thing and prohibit the importation of goods produced by slavery into Aotearoa New Zealand. Late last year, through what some might call luck and others call destiny, the bill was drawn from the members’ ballot once again, giving the Government yet another chance to do the right thing.

This bill presents the New Zealand Parliament with an opportunity to explore in good faith how free trade and human rights might be accommodated in a principled and thoughtful way. There is no doubt that this bill represents a position of ideology, but I do not make any apologies for that. Nor do I apologise for bringing this bill back into the members’ ballot and into this House, for we on this side of the House—the Labour Party—believe wholeheartedly that this is the right thing to do.

This is a position that Aotearoa New Zealand should be taking from here on out. Our country regularly claims the moral high ground. We take democracy from Western civilisation, yet we are not prepared to be brave enough to take a stand. I ask the House to allow democracy to take its role with this particular bill. I ask this House to accept this bill, vote for it, and allow it to go through the democratic process, which allows for robust debate and allows for submissions to be heard on such an important issue. In a time when trade is important to our country, are we prepared to encourage trade from a position that accepts that slave labour is OK in the modern world? Are we, as Aotearoa New Zealand, prepared to do that?

Slavery was abolished in Britain in the 18th century, and the ban on slavery is a foundation stone of modern international human rights law. Despite this, slavery continues in West Africa, Asia, and South America. In fact, some estimate that 21 million to 36 million people are enslaved worldwide, generating approximately $150 billion each year in illicit profits for traffickers. Of this, sadly, about 22 percent are children.

I bring this bill before the House in the hope that our country, with a proud history of trade and with an eye to the future prosperity of not just our country but globally, will take a stand as a responsible global citizen in the world. I bring this bill in the hope that it will progress through the democratic stages that bills in this country pass through, to allow for robust debate, for submissions to be heard, and, hopefully, for this particular bill to be enacted into law. I commend this bill to the House.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on this, the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill, and I want to acknowledge the member who brought the bill to the House, Mr Peeni Henare, whom I have a lot of respect for. I see that the select committee that I chair, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, has been nominated. If the bill does get to the select committee, although we have a big work programme, I can assure you that we will make time to examine this bill.

The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the importation of goods made in whole or in part by slave labour. I guess our key message would be that it is impossible to physically identify goods made by slave labour, so the effectiveness of this legislation is questionable. The bill, therefore, makes a mere cosmetic change that, if enacted, would undermine the development of a more effective regime of due diligence, which is undertaken by industry and encouraged by consumers, who these days are very informed in terms of the goods and services that they use.

New Zealand’s anti - slave labour laws are already in broad consensus with international standards and norms. The main provisions of the bill amend the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Clause 5 amends section 2(1) by inserting the words: “slave labour means labour by persons over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised”. Clause 6 amends the Act by inserting in schedule 1, after the second item: “Goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by slave labour.”

I guess the main debating point that I would make is that it is clear this issue is something we all struggle with—not just here in New Zealand but around the world. There is no doubt about the abhorrence of slavery. The problems are many and varied. The traditions of servitude and forced labour in many societies prove to be extraordinarily hard to eradicate. However, we just do not see that this bill is the solution, in and of itself, to a number of these issues.

The problems with this bill start with the definition. It is simple if we have a very narrow definition that would be associated with what I call a historical image of, say, slave ships. We can all have a mental image of the abhorrence of the slave trade and slave ships. But the moment we widen that definition, as the member’s bill does, we have some real problems with trying to target what is legitimate and what is realisable from what is illegitimate. It is deeply in contention by many, many developing countries, and it would lead to massive disputation were we to proceed down that track.

The second fundamental problem behind the definitional issues is that the very success of the spread of economic development and the growth of the global supply chain associated with its compounds are difficult. Many different products from so many different countries are incorporated in a final product, meaning that we have got a very complicated and complex supply chain around the world, with many different countries providing services and products that come together to make one product.

I want to use an example of what I just referred to, and that is the production of sugar. With that high-risk product, which would emerge in numerous foodstuffs, all imported into New Zealand, how would we ever be able to differentiate between products made from this wide definition of slavery and products made simply by poor people? We know and we understand that all around the world, unfortunately, there are labour markets where people are paid a far lower rate than, for example, our minimum wage here in New Zealand. It is simply impossible for customs officers to physically identify goods made by slave labour, so the effectiveness of this legislation is questionable at best.

Manufacturing in the world today is much more complex than it has ever been before. A single product is often made by various parts from various countries with different labour standards. It is nearly impossible to identify which aspects of a product might or might not have been made under which labour standards, or in which part of the world.

The bill makes a mere cosmetic change that, if enacted, would undermine the development of a more effective regime of due diligence, which is undertaken by industry and encouraged by consumers who are informed. If we were to pass the bill into New Zealand law, it is doubtful whether we would be able to police it or make it effective. Whether it would have any effect at all, it is admirable that we pay attention and give voice to this issue, but I think we need to look for real action that will have a real effect.

The bill is unlikely to add to New Zealand’s anti - slave labour laws, which are already broadly consistent with international standards today. It must be taken in the context of a 21st century world. There is no doubt that any MP in this House would support an action that would have a meaningful effect upon slavery—to prohibit it, to stop it, and to drive it out of countries elsewhere. But this bill will not do that.

Manufacturing in the world today is much more complex than it was back in 1930 when the United States originally banned slavery. That legislation was passed in 1930. If we were in the climate of the trade, trade law, and trade rules of the world that were in place in 1930, then this bill might have some effect.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.