Thursday, 8 September 2016

THURSDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2016

THURSDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Acting Prime Minister.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Very kind of you, Mr Speaker. You will be giving yourself one of your own prizes shortly. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 13 September the Government will look to complete the first reading of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill and the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill, and to progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I wonder whether the Leader of the House can indicate whether the Government intends to make further progress on any of the other omnibus bills on the Order Paper; if so, would he be willing to indicate which ones, so that we can get the amendments drafted up in advance?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): It is an interesting question. Quite clearly, the Government is here to advance the interests of the nation; the Opposition members are here simply to amuse themselves.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Inequality, Economic—Household Incomes Report

1. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Finance: How is the growing economy, which is delivering higher employment and rising wages, helping to reduce hardship and child poverty in New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): Earlier today, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) released its annual household incomes report on the material well-being of New Zealand households. Across a large range of measures, the report finds that household incomes have been growing solidly since 2011 in real terms—that is, after inflation—with slightly higher gains for lower-income households. The report also finds there is no evidence of increasing hardship or child poverty; in fact, there is evidence pointing to falling hardship and child poverty rates. The report also points to the cost of housing and housing quality as significant issues. However, the report covers the year to 30 June 2015, and so does not take into account recent increases in benefits and Working for Families.

Chris Bishop: How are rising household incomes helping to reduce poverty for New Zealand households and families?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Although we have seen reasonably significant wage growth under this Government—up 25 percent since 2008—the report by MSD says household incomes are growing faster than wages, in part due to rising total hours in paid employment per household. This reflects rising female workforce participation. Higher household incomes are translating into moderating or improving household poverty rates. The report by MSD concludes: “There is no evidence of any rise from 2008 (just before the GFC) in income poverty, either before or after deducting housing costs.” It also says there is no evidence of any increasing depth of relative income poverty over the last two decades, and there is no evidence of any sustained rise or fall in household income inequality before housing costs in the last 10 to 15 years using a 90:10 incomes ratio, or in the last 20 years using a Gini measure, or in the last 25 years using the top 1 percent share of incomes.

Grant Robertson: Does table D.9 on page 84 of the report show that the top 10 percent’s incomes in New Zealand are a record 9.82 times larger than the incomes of the bottom 10 percent?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I cannot in the short time available locate that exact graph for the member, although I note it took him until page 84 to find the thing that he was looking for to point out that things were possibly getting worse when most of the report says that things are getting better.

Chris Bishop: What are the main drivers of falling hardship, as reported in the household incomes report, particularly since 2011?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The household incomes report says the impact of the global financial crisis (GFC) on New Zealand was relatively muted and New Zealand’s recovery from the GFC has been relatively strong. MSD says the effects of the recovery from the GFC on hardship are clear, with a substantial fall in hardship between 2011 and 2015. The report says: “The general state of the economy (wages and employment especially) has a rapid and noticeable impact on those in lesser hardship and those just getting by.” However, the report goes on to say the effects for those in deeper hardship are less noticeable, and that is why the Government is taking steps to increase support for the most vulnerable New Zealanders, such as by insulating every State house that is possible to do, delivering free GP visits for under-13s, and increasing childcare assistance for low-income working families alongside benefit increases.

Chris Bishop: How do New Zealand rates of poverty and inequality compare with other OECD countries?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The household incomes report says New Zealand compares reasonably well with other OECD countries across a range of measures, particularly since the global financial crisis. Real household incomes in New Zealand have grown by around 12 percent since 2011. Income gains have been right across the income spectrum and, in fact, are slightly higher for lower income households. By comparison, the UK’s median household income fell through the GFC and has only just returned to its pre-GFC level. Incomes in Italy, Spain, France, and Germany were flat through the GFC, and have remained so, and the US median household income has been flat for many years.

Grant Robertson: Does page 15 of the summary document—which I am sure the Minister has read—say “There is evidence of higher after - housing cost income inequality in the last few years as compared with the mid-2000s and earlier.”, and, along with the fact that the top 10 percent of incomes are now 10 times higher than the bottom 10 percent, does it not show that under National the rich are getting richer and everyone else is getting poorer?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I do not agree with the member’s contention. If he looks at the graph on page 19, he will see that housing costs as a proportion of income for the bottom quintile have been rising steadily since around 2000. Nobody is arguing that the issue of housing costs is not an issue, which is why the Government has a comprehensive housing plan that is lifting the supply of housing. In reference to the member’s earlier question, I note that table D.9 in the incomes report is, in fact, a before - housing costs measure. The average since 2008 is 8.5, not 10, and the ministry would note that you should not take 1 year alone, as the report warns against doing exactly that.

District Health Boards—Resourcing and Staffing

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What is the total amount in efficiencies that district health boards have made in 2015/16?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The figure for 2015/16 has not yet been finalised, but we have set a very clear expectation that there will be around 1 percent in savings, as in every other year. That is not unlike the automatic efficiency dividend that was required of district health boards (DHBs) before 2008.

Hon Annette King: Is it acceptable to him for DHBs to make the efficiencies that he has demanded, by requiring doctors to work up to 12 days without a break and with seven back-to-back night shifts, because DHBs cannot afford additional staff?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, as the member will know, there are ongoing discussions between DHBs and the doctors’ unions about their working conditions, and this is nothing new; it has been going on for years and years. But, overall, doctors’ conditions have improved over the years. I can tell her that from personal experience.

Hon Annette King: What is his reaction to overworked doctors reporting 1,162 adverse effects on patients, because they were tired, and 275 admitting that they had fallen asleep at the wheel on the way home because DHBs cannot afford to ensure safe staffing levels?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, obviously they are still forming part of their negotiation strategy, and, as I said, DHBs and the doctors’ unions are currently in discussions around these very matters.

Hon Annette King: Does he disregard nurses when they said just a week ago that staffing levels and working hours do not meet the best and safest standard of care that patients should expect?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No. I meet and speak with nurses regularly, and they were very happy with the negotiations and the settlement that they achieved last year, which was enabled through very constructive discussion on both sides.

Hon Annette King: Does he think that Capital and Coast DHB, which has been required to make $148 million in efficiencies since 2011-12, could have made better use of that money on primary mental health services, which it is now cutting to meet his demands?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to check the facts around that, but it is providing an excellent service for people in the Capital and Coast catchment area. Obviously there is some financial pressure there, but the good news is that the $60 million deficit that it did have under Labour has now been reduced to $10 million, and we expect that to continue to come down. At the same time, there are more operations, there are more appointments, and there are more doctors and nurses servicing that DHB.

Schools, Funding—Review

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): My question is to our fabulous Minister of Education, and reads—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will have just the question without any additional emphasis.

3. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Education: At what stage is the Education Funding System Review at, and how is the education sector being engaged?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Following requests from the sector to be engaged in education policy development, I established the funding advisory group to consult in the pre-policy stage. This is only the second time we have done this on a major piece of education policy. The group is made up of 18 sector leaders, including the presidents of the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute. In addition, there have been over 90 meetings held with teachers and principals across the country to discuss the proposals, including extra meetings held on request. The funding advisory group provided its final advice to the ministry early this week, and provided it to me overnight, and in the interests of transparency I have released it to the public today.

David Seymour: Very informative, but has she made any decisions on the outcome of the review?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No decisions have been made on any of the proposals. As is the usual Cabinet process and as the Cabinet paper released publicly in June made clear, I will report back to Cabinet on next steps, informed by the funding advisory group’s report, the regional engagement, and with the Ministry of Education’s analysis and advice.

David Seymour: In light of her answer that the report is being released only today and no decisions have been made, does it not appear premature for teacher unions to hold stopwork meetings about funding changes before this information was even released? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question has been asked; I now want to hear the answer.

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Mr Speaker, under the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have a point of order from Denis O’Rourke.

Denis O’Rourke: Surely the Minister is not responsible for the unions—has no responsibility for that at all—and the question should be ruled out of order?

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I certainly accept the point that the Minister does not have responsibility for the unions, but the question as asked is in order, and now we want to hear the answer.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Under the collective agreement, union members may attend up to two paid union meetings a year as long as the union makes such arrangements with the employer as may be necessary to ensure that the schools remain open for instruction during any union meeting, including, where appropriate, an arrangement for sufficient union members to remain available during the meeting to enable the school to remain open for instruction. In the past, paid union meetings have often been held outside of schools hours to avoid disruption to students and parents.

David Seymour: In light of that answer, in this instance, were any reasons provided why the paid union meetings could not have occurred after school or during the school holidays that will occur within 2 weeks?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No—the way that question is worded, it is not in order. If the member wanted to ask about any reports received, etc., I could consider that, but the way it was asked was definitely out of order.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the question because, in my view, the Minister does have responsibility. She is responsible for one side of the collective agreement—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Now the member is very much in danger of arguing with the Speaker, which is a very serious offence. I have ruled it out of order, and I have given the member an opportunity to rephrase it. He would be very wise to use it; otherwise, I am quite happy to move on.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify something that has transpired, and I do note that you had your head down and you were concentrating at the time that these words were said—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the point of order now.

Ron Mark: The point of order is this: is it now, given that this has happened twice under this member’s questioning, acceptable for the members of this side of the House to preface the question with “In light of that answer”?

Mr SPEAKER: No, it is certainly not within Speakers’ rulings to use “In light of that answer”, but I would more commonly hear that type of supplementary question coming from my left. If the member wants me to toughen up, I will do it, but I will do it fairly to both sides. I suspect that if the Opposition wants to reflect on that for a while longer, it would be advised to leave the status quo as it is. That is the indication I am certainly getting from some of the senior members to my left.

David Seymour: In light of her answer to my earlier supplementary question, has the Minister seen any reports as to whether or not these particular meetings this time could not have been held either after school or during the school holidays, which will occur in 2 weeks’ time?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have not seen any, and, as I have already indicated in the past, these paid union meetings have often occurred outside school hours so that parents are not inconvenienced. It is particularly surprising in the context that all of the union leaders have been involved for 3 months in discussing the report. They have reported their—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: There have been 90 regional engagement meetings, all outside of school hours.

David Seymour: What disruption will holding the paid union meetings during class time cause to students and parents?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is a disruption to students, but it is also a significant inconvenience—

Dr David Clark: Sort out the education system and then you won’t have that problem—if you sort out the education system.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon HEKIA PARATA: That is what the funding review is all about—it is sorting out the education system.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If Dr David Clark wants to ask a supplementary question, that is in order. But he does it in the way that everybody else does—he rises to his feet if he has a supplementary question. Would the Minister now complete the answer, without interjection from the front bench of the Labour Party.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, it is an inconvenience to parents, particularly in the context that I have already explained. These issues have been the subject of discussion by 18 sector leaders and union leaders for the past 3 months, 90 engagement meetings have been held with teachers and principals across the country, and the review is reporting only this week, after the union meetings have begun.

Chris Hipkins: Has the Ministry of Education instructed student school transport providers not to collect students earlier on the days when their schools will be empty of teachers; if so, why is she putting student safety at risk?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have had a report that the ministry inappropriately advised a school in Palmerston North. It has since corrected that. And no, I am not happy about students being put at risk. The ministry has publicly apologised for doing so. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection now coming from both sides of the House is excessive, and it must calm down.

SuperGold Card—Transport, Auckland and Funding

4. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister for Seniors: Does she stand by her statement, “we’re very in favour of the SuperGold Card and there are absolutely no plans to downgrade it in any way, shape or form”?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Seniors): As the Minister for Seniors I am 100 percent behind the SuperGold card, as has been my predecessor, Jo Goodhew. We believe that seniors who pay taxes all their lives deserve to have discounts and concessions. I absolutely approve of the way in which they get transport entitlements, and I think the system is working really well. We have added to it in a meaningful way, from extremely humble beginnings in 2007.

Denis O’Rourke: As the SuperGold card can no longer be used in Auckland without buying a HOP card, is this not downgrading the value and universal aspect of the SuperGold card?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: In a word, no. The Auckland Transport HOP card, as of 12 August, had 97 percent of SuperGold card public transport users signed up. That represents 108,303 SuperGold card holders so far.

Denis O’Rourke: By capping the funding and by transferring SuperGold card responsibility to regional councils, is this not just a way of downgrading the SuperGold card free off-peak transport by stealth?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Indeed, it is not. This National Government is absolutely committed to the SuperGold card and to the transport concessions. The changes to the bulk funding are outside my ministerial responsibilities, but they did not change, in any way, the entitlements. Seniors can continue to use their gold cards as they always have. In fact, by lifting the moratorium—which was also part of the changes that we brought in—we have enabled a lack of monopoly, and there is now the possibility that there are places all around New Zealand that are able to offer the transport concessions that were not able to be offered in the past. So we have improved the access to transport.

Denis O’Rourke: By capping SuperGold card funding, how does this allow for the increase in the number of senior citizens and therefore their increase in off-peak transport usage without, effectively, downgrading services?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: We are aware, as that member appears to be as well, that we are an ageing population. We will continue to fund access to all discounts and all concessions that SuperGold holders—and superannuitants, indeed—are absolutely entitled to. This Government is completely committed to helping ensure that New Zealand superannuitants continue to be able to get discounts and to travel, and we will continue to ensure that they are well supported because it is a system that we have supported—unlike that party, which did very little. From 200 outlets that offered concessions, we have put it up to 12,000.

Inequality, Economic and Social—Household Incomes Report

5. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding the material well-being of New Zealand households?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): This morning I welcomed the release of the Ministry of Social Development’s latest household incomes report and the companion report on material well-being using non-income measures. I applaud the ministry’s work in this area and its role as the social sector leader on the measurement and understanding of trends in income inequality and material hardship. Very few countries collect as much detailed and in-depth information on this subject as New Zealand, which highlights this Government’s commitment to address the long-term drivers of poverty and hardship. This is the 10th issue of an ongoing series of incomes reports, and it provides the Government with valuable long-term analysis that lets us gauge the effect of the work we do to support New Zealanders.

Jono Naylor: What do these reports say about the long-term trends in material hardship and inequality?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is good news. In regard to income poverty, which has traditionally been used as a basic measure for poverty, there is no evidence of any rise in recent years. In fact, depending on whether you look at measures before or after housing costs are deducted, recent trends are all either flat or falling. There is also no evidence of a rise in poverty and material hardship trends for children, and it is important to note that this data was collected before the Government’s $790 million child material hardship package came into effect in April this year. In terms of inequality, the report finds that there is also no evidence of any sustained rise or fall in household income equality before housing costs, and there is also no evidence that the income share of the top 1 percent has risen in recent years.

Jono Naylor: What is the Government doing to support people in material hardship and people on low incomes?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Although there is a lot of good news in these reports, the Government would like to see the levels of poverty and material hardship come down further. We know that the best way out of poverty is work, which is why this Government is focused on growing the economy and helping people get off the benefit and into sustainable work. We have also introduced free GP visits and prescriptions for under-13s, served over seven and a half million breakfasts in schools, put social workers in all low-decile primary schools, introduced the Youth Service for young teen beneficiaries—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is now getting to the stage where the answer cannot be heard because of the interjections. It is to cease. Would the Minister complete her answer.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: —and insulating every State house that can be. The $790 million child material hardship package, which came into effect in April this year, saw core benefits for people with children increase in real terms for the first time in 43 years. It increased Working for Families payments for those on the lowest incomes and increased childcare support.

Growing Up in New Zealand Study—Contract Negotiations

6. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: Can she confirm that the contract with the Growing Up in New Zealand study, the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal study undertaken in New Zealand, is currently being renegotiated, and will she guarantee that this process will not lead to their contract being cut?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Social Development): I can confirm that the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) is currently in contract renegotiations with the University of Auckland to ensure maximum value from the Crown’s investment in the Growing Up in New Zealand study. As these renegotiations have not yet been concluded and the details of the contract negotiations are commercially sensitive, I am unable to provide any further details.

Jacinda Ardern: Can she guarantee that the Growing Up in New Zealand study will receive the $15 million that was already allocated to it—

Hon Steven Joyce: That’s what the negotiation said.

Jacinda Ardern: —and was included in a contract, Mr Joyce, that was signed in February, which was allocated to it in Budget 2016? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need the interjection coming from my right-hand side.

Hon JO GOODHEW: As I have already said to the member, and she has acknowledged in her primary question, there is currently a renegotiation.

Jacinda Ardern: When was she advised by SuPERU that it wanted to cut the funding and contract for the Growing Up in New Zealand study, meaning it will now end in 2018, when the children it is tracking will be just 8 years old; and what was her response?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The nature of the question is related to the renegotiation, and I refuse to speculate on the outcome.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she agree with SuPERU’s current demands that the Growing Up in New Zealand study must now cut 4,500 children from the study, meaning it will not be able to reliably evaluate life in New Zealand for Māori and Pasifika children?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The message seems not to be getting through. There is a renegotiation under way and I will not speculate on that. That is good negotiation practice—perhaps something that is unfamiliar to the member.

Jacinda Ardern: Is it good practice to renegotiate a contract that was signed and agreed in February and to undermine a study that has had millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money by cutting a cohort by more than half, making it completely unethical and unreliable?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Renegotiations to contracts never happen unless both parties come to the table. This debating chamber is not the place to do it. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are now moving to Question No. 7.

Freshwater Management—Water Quality of Rivers and Lakes

7. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he considering a national requirement for all water bodies to be swimmable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): There were no national requirements for water quality prior to this Government. We introduced the first national standard in 2011, and in February we initiated a consultative process on how it could be further strengthened. We are considering changes to improve water quality, specifically for swimming, but it would not be possible to require all water bodies to be swimmable all the time. The challenge is in extending the national requirements in a practical way that increases the frequency and the number of places where water quality is suitable for swimming.

Catherine Delahunty: Is the E. coli reading for human health the only definition he is considering of a swimmable river?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, there are a number of ways in which water bodies would be unsuitable for swimming. For instance, if I take Lake Rotoiti in the North Island, it was a lake where cyanobacteria made it not only unsuitable for swimming but also for wading. Actually, this Government has invested tens of millions of dollars, and that lake is now in better condition than what it has been in 30 years.

Catherine Delahunty: What percentage of the time are rivers required to be wadeable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The current national policy statement does not set down specific percentages of time, but where I have asked my officials to do work is that, if we are going to improve water quality in a way that clearly can be measured, we need to focus not just on the E. coli count but how frequent it is, because it is actually the improvement in both the number of areas that are swimmable and how frequently they are swimmable that the Government wants to achieve.

Scott Simpson: What specific programmes is the Government advancing to improve water quality for swimming, and can you give a practical example of where it is occurring?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has increased by sevenfold the funding for freshwater improvements, and we are strengthening the national regulations, with a requirement from 1 July next year, starting with dairy farms, that all lakes and rivers need to have stock excluded from them with fencing. There are many practical examples around the country where the Government has improved freshwater quality. Lake Rotoiti in the North Island is well on measure. I was recently with the list MP on the West Coast, and Lake Brunner—we were able to identify good progress that was being made there.

Catherine Delahunty: Can he explain whether birds are more of a problem for water quality than effluent from 10 million cows across the country?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have noted the member has tried to claim that in the lecture I gave at Lincoln last week my only focus was birds. I would point out that, actually, I made reference to agriculture 20 times in that speech, but it is true that there are water bodies like Washdyke Lagoon, where there are thousands of birds, where the E. coli count is very high, as Jo Goodhew knows, and with the Washdyke it would not be possible for it to be swimmable unless you actually had a bird cull.

Ron Mark: What reports has he seen about the potential impact on our economy of banning all livestock farming in New Zealand, as some people would, it seems, prefer?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is a party that is blue-green. It stands for economic growth, for a strong agricultural sector, but it is also a Government that wants to look after the great lifestyle and clean environment that we have, and we are proving in our programme that a country can both improve the environment and have a strong, growing economy, including in crucial sectors like agriculture.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister for Primary Industries shared with him this Waikato land users group letter dated 23 August 2016 that points out that Waikato Regional Council’s healthy rivers plan would not only ban hill country farming in the Waikato but cost that region over a billion dollars a year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member mischaracterises the work that the Waikato Regional Council is doing in that area. It is true that there are parts of New Zealand where there will need to be limits on intensified farming, if we are serious about improving freshwater quality. But this is a Government that is committed to a balanced and practical approach, and that is where we will be working with the national policy statement and those rules on stock exclusion to ensure that we can have a strong, growing agricultural sector as well as clean water.

Catherine Delahunty: Will he stop making excuses for polluters and set a national standard for swimmable rivers, which is what New Zealanders want, or will he keep blaming the birds for poor water quality?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When the member claims that all New Zealanders want it, I think there is a member of Parliament two seats away from her who holds the opposite perspective. What it reflects is that this Government is taking a balanced perspective that is improving water standards in a practical, sensible way. What we are not going to do is as the Green Party suggests and require that all water bodies be swimmable all of the time, because it is simply unachievable and impractical.

Catherine Delahunty: Will he listen to the people of Havelock North who marched on Saturday for swimmable rivers and safe drinking water, and set a date for a more ambitious bottom line for water than “wadeable”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have the national policy statement in front of me. The member does not characterise it correctly. Swimmability is clearly one of the priorities in that document. The second point I would make is the member should await the conclusion of the inquiry in Havelock North. The GNS Science carbon dating of the contaminated water was less than a year old in an aquifer where it should be more than 50 years old. That would actually suggest there is an issue of well integrity rather than actually the aquifer itself being polluted.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked: “Will he set a date”—

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! That was not the question at all. The question started with “Will the Minister listen to the Havelock North people who marched the other day.”

Students at Risk—Funding

8. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about funding to support students at risk of educational under-achievement?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): This morning I announced that almost every State and State integrated school and kura will receive a share of an extra $12.3 million to support students most at risk of underachieving. This extra funding represents a 1 percent increase to the operations grant funding, taking it to a total of $1.35 billion for 2017, which demonstrates that despite what the unions and the Opposition have been saying there is no funding freeze for education. The increased money is being targeted for those students most at risk of underachievement. These are students from families on long-term welfare. We have identified around 133,000 students who qualify under these criteria. Schools were notified yesterday of the exact amount they will be receiving in the targeted funding.

Joanne Hayes: How will this additional funding support the investment this Government is already making in education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: This Government has a clear track record of increasing spending on education. Investment in education is up by 35 percent since 2008 and the early childhood education budget has more than doubled. With that increased funding comes the responsibility to ensure that the money is being spent in the best possible way for all our children and young people to achieve. Our social investment approach is part of that: identifying and investing early in those who are most at risk of not being successful in education. The education sector has been asking for more funding for students at greatest risk, which is exactly what we are doing with the targeted funding. This extra funding is a clear example of how our funding system could be improved to get more support to those students who need it the most.

Tracey Martin: Can the Minister explain why her Government has made a funding decision based on adult-focused markets, such as the educational achievement of the mother, rather than expanding screening tools and centrally collected school entry data to equity fund children on their identified actual needs, including those children who are gifted and talented?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We have not done that.

Tracey Martin: How will her funding announcement assist those students whose families do not match her four external predictive markers, but still require additional assistance to achieve their academic best, such as those with dyslexia or dyspraxia, or those who are on the autism spectrum?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: In Budget 2016 I announced that rather than there being a universal 1 percent increase across all schools we would use one factor to target. That factor is children who have spent 75 percent of the first 5 years of their life, or 75 percent of the most recent 5 years of their life, in long-term-benefit-dependent households. That is because the evidence is emphatic that that can lead to underachievement. In answer to the second question—

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific around—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was far from specific. I am in some difficulty because, actually, it was so long and lengthy that I could not understand it. Can I invite the member to ask the question again? It would be easier if it was more concise, but the member has the opportunity.

Tracey Martin: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. How will her funding announcement assist those students whose families do not match her four external predictive markers but still require assistance, such as dyslexics, dyspraxics, and those on the autism spectrum?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I answered in the primary question, the particular funded targeting amount that is to go to schools next year is but one part of $1.35 billion that will be shared out between schools in 2017. In addition, in Budget 2016 we announced $43 million for special education, including a further 550,000 hours for teacher-aide support.

Chris Hipkins: Why does the increase in funding for schools amount to just under 1 percent when inflation is expected to be 1.5 percent over that period, meaning schools are facing a funding cut in real terms?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: There is no funding cut. In the period from 2010 to 2015 CPI inflation amounted cumulatively to about 9.6 percent. Over that time this Government has invested in operational grants at a rate of 15 percent.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister might have misunderstood the question. I was not asking about the historical funding profile but the future funding profile.

Mr SPEAKER: No. I listened to the question. I may well have misunderstood it as well, but the way I heard the question from the member, it has certainly been addressed by the Minister.

Earthquake Commission—Internal Reporting Systems and Remedial Repairs

9. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister): On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes. [Interruption]

Dr Megan Woods: Does he—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want to hear you, you see, so I am waiting for a bit of hush.

Dr Megan Woods: Thank you. Does he believe that Cantabrians having to sue the Earthquake Commission (EQC) 263 times since the 2010 earthquakes began, at a cost to the taxpayer of $31 million, is a good use of taxpayer money and a sign of success for people wanting to move on with their lives?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This Government is not going to deny anybody their rights to claim what they think they are entitled to through the court system. What is salient here, of course, is that there has been no success experienced by anybody in any of that litigation, other than the EQC. So, given that the EQC protects the entire obligation of the wider taxpayer, it is totally appropriate.

Dr Megan Woods: What was the Minister’s explanation of the robustness of record-keeping and accounting processes at the EQC, given that it discovered 2,200, or nearly 40 percent more, remedial repair requests in its self-titled bungle?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am informed that the Minister was not overly concerned by this, for two reasons. Firstly, there were no repairs of this nature that were unattended. They were simply not accounted for in an appropriate fashion, and that matter is now being dealt with. The second point that I think is worth considering is that anybody who does have an issue in Canterbury with an EQC repair does have a place to go to make that complaint. Had the EQC exercised, as the Act allowed it to, the opportunity to simply pay out cheques on the basis of its assessment of damage, those people would not have had that same recourse. It is also important to note that the call-back rate on EQC repairs is dramatically lower than it is on new builds. It is a very successful programme.

Dr Megan Woods: Has he seen examples of other Ministers losing nearly 40 percent of a data set from their internal reporting systems, or is the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission currently winning the botched systems award?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member is trying to make an issue out of something where no issue exists. The reality is that those repairs were in the programme. They were being dealt with. There was a data mismatch between Fletcher EQR and EQC. The fact that it was found would indicate that the system is robust.

Dr Megan Woods: Has he asked the Minister whether he is sufficiently “annoyed” to finally call for an independent inquiry into EQC and get to the bottom of this mess?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am extremely satisfied with the way the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission is handling that portfolio. It is, quite frankly, outstanding, and I wish the Opposition would take some lessons from him in terms of how it might itself make assessments about its contribution to Parliament’s work.

Homelessness—Government Response and Community Housing Providers

10. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister for Social Housing: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tōna whakaaetanga i tuhia, kua hē kē atu te kore-whare, i raro i ngā whakahaere o Te Kāwanatanga nei?

[Does she stand by her reported admission that homelessness has got worse under this Government?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Yes, in the context that it was given.

Marama Davidson: Exactly how many people have all of her proposals actually removed from their inadequate housing situation and put in a decent home?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Without that question on notice, the best answer I can give the member is that we house about 150 people each week.

Marama Davidson: Given that there are 42,000 New Zealanders facing severe housing deprivation, why did the Government wait for years while the homelessness crisis got this bad before doing anything?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I thank the member for acknowledging the huge work programme that is going on at the moment, and has been for the last 2 or 3 years. As we have said, we do have an increase in demand and we have had supply issues. What we have done is fast track all of that work. We are seeing more permanent housing through social houses, and, for the first time, an emphasis on increasing emergency housing beds as well.

Marama Davidson: What is her response to the community housing providers that told the Cross-Party Homelessness Inquiry that the Government’s “make it up as you go along” approach to housing policy was difficult to work with, and that they needed secure, stable funding over a period of up to 10 years?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I imagine that they were very pleased with the announcement that was made this week, which showed that they could then get up to a 50 percent grant for building new premises and also leasing current ones, and still get the income-related rent (IRR), which this Government introduced to community housing providers and which they were unable to get before. It gives them a certainty of income on a weekly basis and will help them provide services.

Marama Davidson: How can she say that the Government is taking this problem seriously when the Ministry of Social Development’s Household Incomes Report that came out today shows that 110,000 children are living in overcrowded conditions, including one in every five Māori children and two in every five Pasifika children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is why our focus is on getting more places, more beds, every single day. We are making progress in that area, and it is a key focus for this Government.

Marama Fox: Will the Minister consider allowing community housing providers to apply discretion to award income-related rents to current tenants so that they will avoid being evicted for not being able to pay the rent, only to come back and then have the IRR applied?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are two parts to that question. One answer is that we have now introduced that fund where we can help tenants who are getting into arrears instead of the arrears leading to eviction. We can then put an iwi or a community housing provider alongside them to actually help them get through that and not get evicted. The other answer is that there is discretion. Under certain circumstances it is quite tight for those who currently are not eligible for the IRR because they were in the place previous to it coming over.

Building Financial Capability—Money Week

11. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What initiatives is the Government involved in that support the Government statement on building financial capability in New Zealand?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This week is Money Week, and so the theme of Money Week is “Show me the money”, with the aim of focusing New Zealanders on planning for their futures and achieving their financial goals. Research released today by the Commission for Financial Capability found 86 percent of New Zealanders are apprehensive about their financial security when they reach 65. This research highlights the importance of planning to ensure you have enough money set aside to lead the lifestyle you want in retirement. Money Week is a great opportunity for New Zealanders to take stock of their current situation and put plans in place today that will benefit them in the future.

Paul Foster-Bell: What can New Zealanders do to get involved in Money Week?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Money Week website, moneyweek.org.nz, has a wide variety of resources available that are free to download, including information on events that are being held around the country. There are about 73 public events and 571 private events that have been organised. For example, the Raglan Budget Service has held daily workshops this week, and there are plenty of opportunities for everyone to get involved in Money Week this year. I would encourage Kiwis to find out what events are on in their neighbourhood.

Paul Foster-Bell: What else is the Government doing to help the residents of Wellington Central, and, indeed, all New Zealanders, to get ahead financially?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government continues to invest in ways to improve the money skills of Kiwis. Since the Government’s statement on building the financial capability in New Zealand was launched last year there has been a considerable increase in collaboration between Government agencies, the private sector, and the community groups. It has seen the delivery of key projects, such as financial capability programmes tailored to Māori and Pacific people, some of which have been scaled up to reach more people in 2017.

Marama Fox: Can the Minister explain how he intends to assist the hundreds of thousands of children and their families currently living in poverty when they cry “Show me the money.”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think the best thing that the Government can do is to generate a productive and competitive economy that creates good incomes and jobs for all New Zealanders, and that is what this Government is doing every day.

Immigration—Policy Review and Migrant Workers

12. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Immigration: Why is Cabinet reviewing the number of Permanent Resident Visas it plans to issue, given that he does not expect that review to result in any policy change?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): In response to the first part of the member’s question, from time to time the Government is required to review the residents programme planning range. Typically this takes place every 2 or 3 years. The second part of the member’s question is quite incorrect. I have indicated that there are unlikely to be material changes to the quantum of the planning range, but Cabinet also considers matters pertaining to, for example, the proportion to be allocated to the various residents streams.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Will he commit to a wider review of immigration policy—

Hon Steven Joyce: No.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Iain Lees-Galloway: Oh! Steven Joyce seems to want to answer on the Minister’s behalf.

Mr SPEAKER: This question is to the Minister of Immigration.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I am happy to ask Mr Joyce, if he would prefer. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: We will have some order, please. Iain Lees-Galloway, if you want to ask your supplementary question, get on with it.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Will he commit to a wider review of immigration policy, given the variety of concerns people have expressed about current immigration settings, including the exploitation of foreign students, the exploitation of migrant workers, and the number of work visas being issued for jobs that Kiwis can do?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The three examples the member gives in his question have nothing to do with the permanent residents planning range, but I would say that the Government is constantly reviewing immigration settings in both the permanent and temporary spaces to ensure that they are fit for purpose. A big bang review, which the member somehow thinks would be necessary—we are constantly refining policy.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why will he not carry out a review, in light of the report issued by Caritas Aotearoa titled Stand up for what’s right: supporting migrant workers, given that that report details ongoing exploitation of migrant workers, such as paying below the minimum wage, failing to provide written employment agreements, and failing to pay wages for work done?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The fact that the second supplementary question also confuses permanent and temporary migration suggests that the member does not understand the policies himself. But in respect of the very serious concerns raised by Caritas, I can assure the member and this House that both Immigration New Zealand and the labour inspectorate take any reports—however anecdotal—of migrant exploitation extremely seriously. That is why, 2 years ago, I asked them to work much more closely together and to create a more synergistic response, and why this Government in Budget 2015 significantly increased the labour inspectorate’s resources.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that we need migrants to fill low-skill, low-wage jobs because a lot of Kiwis have a poor work ethic, use drugs, and do not have the skills to do the most basic of jobs; or does he think that Kiwis do not want to expose themselves to the kind of exploitation that migrant workers are experiencing?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there; the Minister can answer either.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Both of those supplementary questions refer to temporary migration—a million miles away from the residents planning range question that was part of the primary question. But, yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister. There are significant barriers to employment for some young New Zealanders, but we should not give up on them. We will remove those barriers, one by one. This Government has done more than any previously to ensure that New Zealanders are at the front of the queue for those jobs, but, I reiterate, in the strongly growing economy it is going to be necessary to call on the international labour market, at least for the foreseeable future.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why does he not stop attacking the people who have been so badly let down by this Government, and admit that National’s abuse of the immigration system is keeping wages down, encourages poor employment practices, and allows the exploitation of vulnerable migrants?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I suggest that member take those views out to the regions—to the Blenheims, to the Te Pukes, to the Invercargills, and to the Christchurches, and encourage them to have a serious conversation with business about what is really going on in this country.

Motions

Misuse of Drugs Act 1975—Approval of Order

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That, pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply—25B-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 251-NBOMe) Order 2016, made under section 4 of that Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill be now read a third time. This bill will enable the establishment of the Child Sex Offender Register. The register will address the current information gap around the movements and activities of child sex offenders living in the community, particularly after the child sex offender has completed his or her sentence. The ability for specified agencies to share a centralised source of information, coupled with the ongoing risk assessment of registered offenders, will allow agencies to effectively monitor and manage child sex offenders in the community. This inter-agency process, operating alongside other Government initiatives like the Vulnerable Children Act, will reduce the opportunity for child sex offenders to reoffend, and increase the safety of our children. As set out in Supplementary Order Paper 183, which was introduced during the Committee of the whole House, the legislation shall now come into force 30 days after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, rather than on 1 July 2016. Can I take this further opportunity to thank the members of the Social Services Committee for the way in which they have dealt with this bill. I believe the resulting amendments have strengthened the bill.

As we all know, child sexual abuse is a serious problem in New Zealand. It is also a complex problem that requires a careful balance to ensure the maximum effectiveness of measures aimed at reducing offending. The bill enables the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections to establish a child sex offender register for offenders aged 18 years or older at the time of committing an offence who are convicted of a qualifying offence against a child under the age of 16 years, and who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment or sentenced to a non-custodial sentence and directed to be registered at the discretion of the sentencing judge; or convicted of a child sex offence in an overseas jurisdiction, if that offence is similar to a qualifying offence in New Zealand and if they intend to reside in New Zealand; or if they are currently serving a custodial sentence, including parole, or are subject to an extended supervision order or public protection order, including an interim order, for a qualifying offence on the date that the Act comes into force.

In summary, the bill prescribes the duration of an offender’s registration based on the class of qualifying offence in schedule 2 and the sentence received. If an offender is sentenced to imprisonment, the duration will be for class 1 offences, which are non-contact enabling offences: 8 years. For class 2 offences, which are indecent assaults and indecent acts: 15 years. Class 3, which are sexual violations, sexual connection offences, or attempts: life. If an offender receives a non-custodial sentence and the judge orders registration, the offender will be on the register for 8 years regardless of the offence committed.

Registered offenders will be required to provide a range of personal information upon their release from prison, their commencement of a non-custodial sentence, or arrival in New Zealand, if they intend to reside in New Zealand—and then annually. They will also need to report any changes to their registered information and any intended travel from the registered address.

The bill provides for authorised information-sharing of registered offenders’ personal information between specified agencies: New Zealand Police, the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Social Development, Housing New Zealand Corporation, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the New Zealand Customs Service; between the Commissioner of Police and overseas law enforcement agencies; and between police and third parties or affected persons, where it is deemed necessary to protect the safety of a specific child or children. The information on the register will not be available to the public.

The bill establishes offences for failing to report or provide the required information, or providing false or misleading information. There is an offence of unauthorised disclosure of information on the register by agencies or affected persons to whom information has been disclosed.

The bill emerged from the Social Services Committee with a number of changes as a result of the committee’s careful consideration. As I said earlier, this has strengthened the bill. In the bill as reported back a registered offender convicted of a class 3 offence, registered for life, will be able to apply to the District Court for a suspension of their reporting obligations after 15 years on the register. The onus will be on the offender to prove that they no longer pose a risk to the life or sexual safety of a child or children.

Another amendment to the bill is that registered offenders will be required to seek the approval of the Commissioner of Police prior to applying to the Department of Internal Affairs for a change of name. The bill provides a list of the matters that the commissioner must consider prior to granting approval. The bill also now includes matters that the court must consider when considering whether to order an offender sentenced to a non-custodial sentence, for a qualifying offence, to be placed on the register.

The Attorney-General presented a report on this bill pursuant to section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, advising that he considered that the bill as introduced was inconsistent with section 9 of that Act, which is the right not to be subjected to “disproportionately severe treatment or punishment”, and with section 26(2), which includes the right not to be subject to retrospective penalties. The bill now goes some way to addressing these concerns. The Attorney-General’s report in respect of section 9 commented particularly on the lifetime reporting obligations of offenders sentenced to imprisonment for a class 3 offence. This has been modified with the new provision I discussed earlier, enabling those with lifetime reporting obligations to apply after 15 years to the District Court to have those obligations suspended. The bill, in my view, rightly has retained the substance of the retrospective application to remove the immediate risk of previously convicted child sex offenders who are still serving a sentence of imprisonment when the legislation comes into force.

The bill presents a careful balance that recognises the rights of children and the community to be protected from child sex offenders, as well as the rights of the offender and their families. The bill requires child sex offenders to report a comprehensive range of personal information to police annually, and upon any change to the information provided. The bill also allows agencies to share this information even after the offender has completed their sentence with corrections. This information will assist agencies to protect the community from the risks posed by child sex offenders. At the same time, the bill recognises the rights of offenders and their families by prohibiting public access to the information on the register and allowing for those on the register for life to apply to the District Court for a suspension of their reporting obligations. I commend this bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to begin by putting on record the strong view of the Labour Party that the primary goal in this debate, of course, needs to be protecting children from harm, protecting children from becoming victims, and, as much as possible, reducing the potential of future offending from those who are found to be child sex offenders. There is absolutely no dispute from us that that has to be the aim when debating legislation like this.

I have heard some commentary in the media, that, somehow, what has been prioritised in the debate are issues of privacy and confidentiality. The primary driver for us has always been protecting children. That has to mean making sure that we make the most of the evidence and research that is available to us around what works best when it comes to protecting children. Sometimes that research might tell us something that will seem counter to our intuition. But that does not mean we have the luxury of ignoring it.

I want to go into a bit more detail on that. Essentially, what the Minister presented to us, with this bill, is set out in the purpose clause. What she was trying to achieve were admirable but broad aims. The purpose clause reads: “The purpose of this Act is to establish a Child Sex Offender Register that will reduce sexual reoffending against child victims, and the risk posed by serious child sex offenders,”. Those are absolutely the aims that we should have. But the question we need to ask is how best you achieve that, when what you are simply doing with a register like this is ensuring you keep up-to-date names and addresses that are shared between Government departments.

We are not arguing that that is something that should not happen. In fact, most people would probably think it already does. Keeping names and addresses and up-to-date information, but just within Government agencies, is useful information, for instance, to make sure that they are complying with their parole requirements and that they are following conditions, as in not being located close to schools and areas that would inhibit their rehabilitation and potentially put children at risk. That is useful information. We need that information. No one is denying that. But does it reduce sexual reoffending against children?

For us, the add-on that has always been most important is the kind of rehabilitation and community focus work that happens around the offender upon release. Not every child sex offender receives a charge that allows them to be kept in prison for life. Let us be honest. There are some for whom we absolutely need to do a proper risk assessment to know for sure whether this is someone who should even be released. But after that point there will be those who will come under the view that they can be reintegrated if they are monitored correctly and if they have access to programmes that are proven to work. A database on its own does not achieve that. Our contention in this debate has been: what are we doing beyond the database? What are we doing beyond the register?

I want to speak to that using the evidence that was provided to us at the Social Services Committee, and in particular the submission that came to us from Ms Gwenda Willis. She is a registered clinical psychologist and senior lecturer at Auckland University. She was awarded the prestigious Rutherford Discovery Fellowship for her work on what stops convicted sex offenders from reoffending. If we are going to listen to anyone, it should be to this individual.

Her first point to us was how important it is that we take into account individual differences and risks in sexual reoffending. We have tools available to us in New Zealand—are used in New Zealand—that can reasonably successfully analyse the risk of reoffending for different offenders. However, what this bill did was just, carte blanche, use conviction and put anyone within particular categories of conviction on to the register. That is one way of doing things, but the argument that was being made here by Ms Willis was that we actually have much more accurate tools, and those tools can also tell us whom we need to target the most, who might actually be a higher risk offender, and whom we need to monitor to an even greater degree than others, and to what degree we are using that information and that research. There was good reason for that. Even the New Zealand Police vouch that “The Register would be supported by an offender risk management framework … that targets resources to where the risk of re-offending is greatest …” It would have made sense if we integrated that risk assessment into the register system as well, but we did not do that. So that is perhaps a missed opportunity.

Remember, the register that this bill establishes costs $146 million. This is not a cheap exercise. That is money that we forgo out of the corrections budget, and it is money that potentially we are forgoing out of rehabilitation, which is something that we absolutely were very keen to make sure we placed greater emphasis on. Why is that? Why would we be so keen to focus on something that people will, no doubt, say is airy-fairy, it does not protect people, and it does not prevent people from harm. But, actually, the reality of this—it is not great politics—is that it does far more than registers do. Here is the research and evidence: “Circles of Support and Accountability is an example of an alternate measure for reducing sexual reoffending that has produced much more promising results. … Research has demonstrated that [this programme] is associated with reductions in sexual reoffending exceeding 70%.” That is higher than for any of the rehabilitation programmes in prison, and is a much better result than we ever achieved behind the prison gate. It proves that, actually, there is work that we should be investing in that will make a difference.

The STOP submission outlined this also. It stated that “Community based sex offender interventions have a key role in contributing to the assessment and management of risk of those offenders required to notify. Research has consistently found that contemporary cognitive-behavioural treatment is associated with statistically significant reductions in recidivism …”. So we can reduce recidivism. In fact, it found a reoffending rate of only 3.2 percent on 534 treated sexual offenders—a reoffending rate of 3.2 percent. You will not get reoffending rates reduced to that extent almost anywhere else. If we make sure we invest in programmes that we know work, we can reduce harm and we can prevent risk. These, again, I want to reiterate, are for those who have not got, for instance, preventive detention—the ability to keep them behind the prison gate.

The other point that I want to make, because this came up a lot, is: should this be a public register or should this be a register for only Government departments? We felt so strongly about ensuring that this stayed a Government agency register only that we said to the Government “Please entrench this in the name of the bill.”, and I give credit to Anne Tolley for agreeing with that. The bill was renamed the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill to ensure that you cannot, by the stroke of an amendment, change the bill to make it public. It is entrenched in this bill that it is a Government department - only register. Why is that important? Because evidence shows that you can get a nominal reduction in harm through a Government register that is only for agencies—a small reduction in harm. The moment you make it public, you increase risk. All of the evidence that has been undertaken overseas, where they have created publicly available registers, has increased the likelihood of children being harmed and sexual offenders reoffending.

Darroch Ball: Rubbish. That’s rubbish.

JACINDA ARDERN: Darroch, it is not rubbish. I could quote you the number of—

Darroch Ball: I’m going to quote you some when I stand up, so just wait.

JACINDA ARDERN: Go right ahead, but our eminent researcher in reducing sexual offending presented evidence to the select committee that said it increases harm.

It might be good politics, for some members of this House, to play into the idea that simply giving this information will make everybody safe, but we have a responsibility in this House to not play politics with children’s safety. We know from what has been presented to us that making it public would put kids at risk. That is why, ultimately, we have supported this bill, but we want to make sure that we do more—much more—to protect children.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call in this third reading of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill. I want to agree with the comments that were made by the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, that this is too serious a bill for us not to contend with it with the most serious concern. It is to ensure that we do the appropriate and right things in regard to the safety of and concern for our young people, our families, our whānau, our children, and our tamariki inside our communities. We know that, just of late, there have been heightened concerns from communities—like my good friend and colleague Chris Bishop down here in Lower Hutt, and other members of Parliament who are here who have had concerns from their communities—when there is a reintegration of a sexual offender into their community, and the concerns that that raises.

The intent of this bill is to ensure that, with what we can do in our roles and our responsibility to ensure that legislation plays its role—to ensure that safety concerns are at the heart of this bill. The heart of this bill is to both enable and establish what I would say is another tool. I know that the comments from the previous speaker were around the register on its own. A register on its own will not solve the issue; we do acknowledge that. Instead, what this tool does is it adds to a suite of other tools to ensure that there is adequate information. In 2013 the Centre for Impact on Sexual Offending was established. What was clearly realised in that period of time, leading to the initiation of this legislation, was the lack of current and up-to-date information, so that is the reason this register plays an important role in that regard.

We had over 140 submissions—22 oral submissions—and a number of those submissions addressed a number of key issues, and I want to just highlight some of those. Some of the concerns that were raised—and I am sure that my colleague Darroch Ball will raise them—were in regard to making the register public. When we think about judiciaries across the world, there is not an example of one single judiciary that is able to give information about how the registry will play its important role, as far as whether it is confined to Government agencies or open to the public. But there is enough information to say that the registry, in itself, plays an important role to reduce offending, and it does that by providing information with which the Centre for Impact on Sexual Offending will be able to create a profile of risk and then initiate a management profile and opportunities to ensure that it addresses these key issues. That is the key role of this register—that is the role it will play.

I do hope, though, that in the seriousness of this, New Zealand First will consider not voting against the bill because of this one point of the register being public, because there is so much more to this that actually makes sense. There is so much to this bill that actually makes a difference, and I want to highlight some of those points if I can.

One of the things that came out of the recommendations from the Social Services Committee was around the importance of the information for a judge’s notes. We know that when this information is put forward, often the profile agencies of the police and corrections are not privy to that information, so those notes are important because they not only give extra guidance to the judges but allow, in the making of a profile, for some of the inherent details that are quite critical in the importance of that profiling.

The other important aspect of this register is that it also ensures that up-to-date information around the children who may be around the offender, both in the house and in the surrounding areas, and also when the offender is travelling—if there are children at the residence of the offender, where they may be, that has to be notified. So we are gaining more information, and that information is going to be critically important as well. We have covered issues around, for instance, access to social media and internet accounts. Those are going to be critically important, too, to ensuring that the information is updated in the risk management profile—this profile is important as well.

We have also ensured that all the conditions that are part of the offenders’ non-custodial duties are in the bill as well, to clarify when offenders must report, to clarify reporting obligations, and also to allow offenders who are on the register to also apply to the district court—due to the fact that the suspension of their appearance on that register is available for them as well. I do want to commend this bill to the House. I think it is an important bill. As I have said before, it is part of a suite of tools that are critically important. It is not the silver bullet. It will not answer all the questions.

The last thing I want to address is the comment that Jacinda Ardern had made that maybe there was a missed opportunity. I do understand the point she is trying to get across, and one of the tools is around predictive profiling, which means that we can gather that information. For those who have a tendency and could be prone to this sort of behaviour, we can potentially short-circuit that by putting some wraparound support and looking at ways in which we can divert that type of behaviour. There is still the provision to be able to do that within those different current agencies. This register, again, is a register—it allows for updating of information. It is going to be critically important. It is part of the suite of tools that are critically important to the child sex offenders unit and we think that is important.

Just one last comment: people were talking about the $146 million. We in the select committee know—members may have forgotten, but we were informed—that two-thirds of that cost actually is already consumed in current operational costs at the moment. So we are not talking at the larger end of this. In fact, it is only one-third of the $146 million, which we think is well spent on this register. I do commend this bill to the House.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I am just supporting all of what the last Labour speaker said and also most of what the chair of the Social Services Committee, Alfred Ngaro, said as well. This bill does address a really emotive issue, and the submission process and the submissions that we received on this bill were at times incredibly emotional. We got submissions from a range of different people: people who work with sexual offenders, people who have been convicted of sexual offences, people who have been victims of sexual crimes, and people who work with those victims. So I think the submission process allowed us to actually explore this area quite thoroughly and we all got to the point where we thought that, OK, this is one measure but, as Alfred Ngaro said, it definitely is not a silver bullet to resolving the issues that the bill seeks to address.

I need to say that one of the things we need to keep in mind here is that the purpose of this bill is to decrease the chances of reoffending. The concern that was raised the whole way through the consideration of this bill is that we are actually talking about a very, very small group of people, in the scheme of sexual offending. We are talking about the fact that only 1 percent of sexual violence cases will actually lead to a conviction, so we are talking about a very small group of people who have actually been found out for having committed a sexual offence.

The concern when we were discussing this was really that we do not want to give people a sense of false security—that actually somehow their children will be protected because of the fact that we are now going to have better data-sharing between Government departments. In fact, the reality is that, although we all hate to acknowledge this, the real risk lies with close friends and family who have never been convicted or suspected of a sexual offence. That is something that we need to ensure that families remember—that it is not actually the ones who have been convicted who pose the biggest risk; it is the people in our own circles who pose the biggest risk to our children. So we do support this bill with reservations, as has been mentioned before.

We support it now because it is much clearer around the fact that this is a register that will be about data sharing between Government departments. As has been raised earlier, it would not do us any favours if we had a public register. The research and evidence show that that actually does increase the chances of reoffending, and we do not want that to happen. I know that there are lots of people out there and many in the general public who would think they want to know and that there should be a public register so that they can find out.

Of course we can understand why people would think that. But we have the privilege of getting information, of having the evidence put in front of us, and we have to make the decisions that are best for New Zealanders and actually do protect the people whom we are setting out to protect. That means, actually, that it should not be a public register. That is the conclusion that the committee got to and that is definitely what the evidence that we were presented with said. So we are at the point where we agree that it is just a data-sharing register between Government departments, and that is OK with us.

It is just that we need to be clear, as Alfred Ngaro said, that this is not a silver bullet and it is not going to have very much of an impact at all. There may be a nominal impact but it will have very little impact in respect of reducing sex offending against children. We did raise the concern around the false sense of security—I have spoken about that.

But also there were other concerns, and one of them was actually just the sheer amount of money that is going to be put towards this. Looking at it, the budgets that will have their base lines affected are these: $70.6 million from the corrections system, $14.1 million from police, and then $380,000 from the courts system. So that is $14.1 million. It is a lot of money for something that actually, as I said before, may have a slight impact but will not really do much in terms of reducing actual sex offending against children.

We needed to take that into consideration as a committee when we were considering this bill, particularly in light of the fact that it was not that long ago when we had the inquiry into the funding of the sexual violence sector. So many recommendations came out of that, in terms of what should be funded, how things should be funded so that the sector can be more effective and address the needs of the people concerned. Unfortunately, there was very little that came out of that in respect of Government action and Government taking up the recommendations that came out of the inquiry, and so that is disappointing.

Poto Williams: A missed opportunity.

CARMEL SEPULONI: It was a missed opportunity, as my colleague Poto Williams has just said. It was a missed opportunity, and we have seen, I think, a slight injection of funding into the sector.

Poto Williams: About $10 million over 4 years.

CARMEL SEPULONI: About $10 million over 4 years, but here we are taking about a data-sharing register that is actually going to cost $14.1 million—[Interruption]—a year, Poto is telling me. It is $146 million over 10 years. So Poto Williams is part of this process too, so we are just having a conversation as I do this speech in the House.

Sue Moroney: Talk amongst yourselves.

CARMEL SEPULONI: We are talking amongst ourselves. So $146 million over 10 years is a lot more than the $10 million that we have seen injected over 4 years for actions that actually have been advised on and that we have evidence to support would actually be much more effective than this particular measure. That is disappointing.

I am not completely disregarding the work that the select committee has done on this bill to bring it to this place because, as I said, we will be supporting it. It is just when you weigh it up with regard to the other actions that could have been implemented, and the need for that sector to have a much larger injection of funding, then, of course, you cannot help but wonder how we reconcile these two things a little bit. That was a concern.

Our other concern was that the submitters did articulate the need for the Government to place a high emphasis on investing in research and evaluation of other means of reducing offending, such as specialist offender treatment, primary preventative education, as well as working with children, young people, families, and communities about recognising harmful behaviour. That all makes sense to us, but there is money required in this sector to ensure that those things can be done better.

I am going to leave it at that, and just say that I actually really appreciated going through this process with the select committee. I think that we did a good job considering this bill. We do support it with reservations and I have explained why, and, you know, if it does have a slight impact, then even a slight impact with regard to our children and what this is attempting to do is worth something. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am taking this call to support the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill in its third reading. When this bill came before the House, it was called the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill and now it is called the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill. Often we say: “What’s in a name?”. For the Opposition, the name of this bill was important, and, yes, as a result of that, we have changed the name of this bill, and I want to thank the member, Jacinda Ardern, for her contribution. I also want to thank all submitters for their contributions. I also want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Anne Tolley, for this very, very thoughtful bill, because this bill is focused on the safety of our young people.

Sex offending against children is a serious crime, we all agree. It does a huge amount of damage to our society, and we want to do things to stop the damage that is happening in society because of these criminal activities. As we have heard from other members, this bill is going to be a tool that will help us reduce offending and reoffending by child sex offenders.

This register is not going to be publicly available, as is now very, very clear from the name of this bill. The objective of this bill is not naming and shaming, as the New Zealand First Party wanted. The objective of this bill is the safety of children. Naming and shaming, in my view, is a very, very short-sighted objective, because we need to look at the wider picture. We need to think about people related to offenders; we need to think about long-term consequences of making their information publicly available. We need to look at the wider picture, and that is why we think that this register should not be publicly available. On the other hand, information on the register will be available to third parties if it is felt necessary. It does cover that bit—without the unwanted consequences of making it publicly available.

We have heard about the funding that will go into setting up this register. Budget 2016 allocates $8.2 million for the development of this register, and also goes towards the operational cost—and, yes, there will be ongoing costs, but the safety of children is important to us. This National Government is very responsibly managing its finances, and so we have choices, and we can invest in things such as improving public safety. Thank you. It is a great bill. I commend this bill to the House.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): As we have heard this afternoon, the purpose of this bill “is to establish a Child Sex Offender Register that will reduce sexual reoffending against child victims and the risk posed by serious child sex offenders”. I think the deeper purpose of the bill is, of course, to protect our children from a particularly abhorrent form of offending, which is sexual offending against children. The register in itself is purported to be a mechanism to achieve that outcome. Nobody in this House, I am one hundred percent convinced, from any political stripe or colour, would argue with that very worthy intention—to protect our children from this form of offending.

Sadly, we have no confidence at all that the establishment of a register will take us one step towards protecting the well-being of children, particularly not when one does consider the financial cost of it. We think the opportunity cost of spending on this form of response, or this mechanism, is simply taking funds and resources away from programmes and interventions that actually would have a much, much higher likelihood of protecting our children and ensuring their well-being. We see this as a particularly expensive means of delivering, at best, a false sense of security, and we have heard that phrase used already.

Members of the public might believe, and in good faith, that having a list of names will somehow protect children from or prevent this form of offending. Sadly, there is no good, compelling international evidence to that effect. The false sense of security I refer to—too often people assume that children are attacked or offended against by somebody unknown to them. The very sad truth is that most sexual offending is done by people who are known to that child, which makes it all the more offensive, obviously. Nevertheless, it is true that this is a form of offending that is often concealed under the guise of family or friendship. The whole “stranger danger” concern, while not entirely discredited by any means, is certainly to be downplayed. That is not the trouble. That is not typically the source of the offending.

As I have said, we see this register as being a particularly costly way, particularly in an environment—I think Jacinda Ardern in her very useful contribution mentioned the circles of support and accountability, which are a means of ensuring that when people are released from a custodial sentence there is a group of people who share responsibility for looking after that person, in the sense of keeping them out of situations where they might offend, doing some monitoring of them, and encouraging them into positive behaviours. At the same time that we are about to invest—or spend, I would call it, rather than invest—close to $150 million over 10 years, some $15 million a year, on this register, one very good community entity delivering a programme of Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) has stopped delivering that programme for want of about $25,000. That is most unfortunate—25 grand, against $14.6 million a year, for a programme, the CoSA programme, with, again as Ms Ardern said, an extremely high, unusually high, rate of success in reducing reoffending. Where are our priorities? We believe that that money could be much better spent elsewhere than in creating this register, which in itself is going to achieve very little.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act section 7 critique from the Attorney-General, which the Minister referred to, did say that the Attorney-General’s position was that the bill as originally drafted did compromise section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to the extent that the punishment was disproportionate—the fact that a person could find themselves on this register for life with no means of appeal or review to be taken from that register. That is particularly so when you consider the level of intervention into a person’s life. It is extraordinarily intrusive. There will be very little privacy for people who are on this register, to the extent that if they even choose to spend a night or two away from home they are obliged to give advance notice of that to say where they are going, who will be in that house, and whether or not children, particularly, will be present. If they are online their digital world or footprint will be entirely available to authorities—so it is an incredibly intrusive means.

The so-called compromise, or the way of meeting the Attorney-General’s concern, was this right of appeal after 15 years. On the face of it that seems not unreasonable, except that after 15 years there is no obligation on the Crown, or the Department of Corrections, or the Parole Board, or whomever to prove that that person is a risk, but, in fact, that person has to prove their innocence. There are very few points in our statutes where people are obliged to prove innocence. How does one prove that they are not going to offend tomorrow? How many of us can prove that we are not going to commit some form of criminal behaviour tomorrow? It is an unreasonably high bar, and I think it really does not meet the objection of the Attorney-General in terms of compromising the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The Human Rights Commission said in its submission that the implementation of this register would be costly, and suggested the money would be much better spent on preventative and treatment measures. That is a position we entirely agree with. Treating offenders is costly. It is long term. It requires very close supervision. It requires ongoing, highly skilled treatment. It is not cheap, but it does get outcomes. We think the money would be much better spent there, and also, as I think one other speaker mentioned in terms of community education, in educating people how to keep their children safe and what risky or inappropriate behaviour looks like, because it is not always apparent or obvious to people.

The Law Society, equally, came out expressing serious concerns. In fact, it expressed opposition to the bill as it was drafted, on the grounds that it did not see a particular likelihood of it succeeding, and it proposed what we consider a much more appropriate response, which was to give judges and the Parole Board the authority or the right to put individuals on a register if it is deemed that those individuals do present a significant risk, and that risk is likely to be ongoing. What we have now is more or less a blanket approach. Anybody convicted who serves a term of imprisonment, for example, will immediately go on to the register for periods of 8 years, or 15 years, or up to lifelong—whatever it might be. We think the Law Society came up with a much more workable and a much more appropriate level to say: “Yes, we know that some people are going to continue to be a high risk. Let’s put those very few individuals on a register and continue to monitor them.”

We have heard some extraordinary claims from some organisations I will not bother to name that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. That is patently wrong. There is a small minority of offenders who do not respond to treatment and will continue to be risk factors over their lifetime, but there are also many more instances where that sort of behaviour can be changed, where people can be removed from that sort of behaviour and can become trusted citizens again.

Finally, I would say that we support Labour’s intervention in terms of the name of the bill. It does nail down very clearly that this is intended to be a register that will be shared only within and between Government departments. Our confidence in the likelihood of that information remaining secret, actually, is very, very low when one considers that the agencies that currently will have access to that information include police and the Department of Corrections, which both have a culture of securing information as well as people. We also have the Ministry of Social Development, which, sadly, does not have a great history of protecting private information. We have the Housing New Zealand Corporation. Again, I do not know how many people work in that organisation. I suspect it would be many hundreds, potentially thousands, and I do not believe that within that organisation there is a particular culture of securing information well.

Alongside those agencies there are the Department of Internal Affairs, the Customs Service, and “any public sector agency … that the Minister, after consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, identifies as a specified agency”. What that says to me is that literally tens of thousands of people, potentially, will have access to this register, and we do live in a village, and in villages people gossip. I think it is inevitable that individuals’ names at least will be leaked from this register, and the likelihood is that blocks of the register will at some point become available. Again, as Jacinda Ardern very rightly pointed out, when the names of people are released, that increases the risk factor. The Greens, with some regret, cannot support this legislation.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the third reading of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill. I will be addressing a few points of the bill. We will be supporting this bill. I will be addressing some of the points that we do agree with. I think it has mainly been said by previous speakers that New Zealand First would have liked this register to become public and publicly available to parents and to communities in order for them to be able to protect their children.

Before I do that, I would just like to highlight something that I did highlight in the second reading, and in the Committee stage as well, and that is something that is in the departmental report. It is about all of this research and the evidence that we have been hearing that a public register does not work, and, in some instances, we have got some members who have been saying that a register itself does not work. I would just like to read this. It says: “There is a wide range of international research available … against the effectiveness of sex offender registers. However, most of the evidence that is available comes from the United States, which is not a jurisdiction that is fully comparable with New Zealand. … There is little evidence available that pertains specifically to child sex offender registers in like jurisdictions.” It is talking about “like jurisdictions” being New Zealand, because we are quite unique in the way that we run our jurisdiction compared with other jurisdictions that run child sex offender registers, whether they be private or whether they be public. I cannot stress that enough, because even after I mentioned this in the second reading, there are multiple members from the Labour Party, National, and the Greens standing up and directly quoting research and evidence from the United States about how ineffective it is for a public register, but it is right here in the departmental report. I would just like to say that first.

Secondly, a number of the Labour members also talked about this not being as important as rehabilitation and reintegration. That may be true, but this is not what this discussion is about; this is not what this register is about. This register is a monitoring tool that will be used in conjunction with a myriad of other tools that are being used. If the Labour Party and the Greens want to concentrate on investing in and expanding the current rehabilitation and reintegration programmes that there are, then that is fine, but that is an absolutely, totally, mutually exclusive issue to this register and what this register is intended for.

The purpose has been mentioned about what this register is about. When it boils down to it, it is about protecting our children. It is about ensuring that our children are safe. No matter which way you spin it, no matter which way you look at the register, it is about the information. It is not about how the information is collected or what the information is, necessarily; it is about the information. The information is what keeps the children safe. At this stage, and the way that this legislation is written, the officials are making those decisions based on the information in that register to keep our children safe. What New Zealand First is saying is: why is it only the officials have access to the information to keep our children safe? Why can parents not have access to the information to keep our children safe—because that is what it is. The rest of what the Labour Party and the Green Party are talking about is the fact that it is a register. What we are talking about is that it is information that parents have the right to know, to ensure that they make proper decisions about the protection of their children.

I, for one, would want to know if a convicted child sex offender was living next door, living down the street, living next to one of my daughter’s or son’s schools, or living in our community. I would want to know—not because I want to go down there and beat him up, not because I want to go down there and burn his house down, not because I want to hurl abuse at him, and not because I want to name and shame. The only reason why I would want access to that information and to know where they live is to protect my children. I challenge anyone in this House to stand up and say anything different, because everyone in this House would want to know where the child sex offenders are in their communities—not for any other reason but to protect their families and protect their children.

I also mentioned in past readings—and Alfred Ngaro mentioned this—that we had 147 submissions, and 125 of those wanted this register to be public. They could see the need to have that information available to them, to protect their children. But more than that, we had a number of victims of child sex abuse give evidence. Every single one of them, bar none, wanted this register to be public, because they knew what they went through, and that if their parents had had the information publicly available to them, they may have been protected. They were firm on that. We also had a number of convicted child sex offenders give evidence. Every single one of them, bar none, did not want a register. They did not want this register made public. Too often we have comments from the public that politicians are out of touch with what the public wants and what the public needs. Here is demonstrable evidence that there is overwhelming support and need for a public register. Every single other party in this House, apart from New Zealand First, continues to be out of touch and ignoring them. This is not about rehabilitation or reintegration, it is not about punishment, and it is not about naming and shaming. It is about listening to the public, it is about listening to the victims, and it is about ensuring that we put the protection of our children first. The only way that can happen is if this is a public register.

There are a couple of issues about why there is actually a need for it to be a public register. I would just like to highlight that not every single convicted child offender will be on the register, only those who have been given a prison sentence or a non-custodial sentence that is directed by a judge. That means that the only offenders who are on this register are either high-risk or they have committed a high-level offence. Yet we have got parties and members in this House who do not even want a register of those high-level, high-risk offenders who are living in our communities.

In addition, one of the great concerns that we have is the fact that the offenders themselves are the ones who have to update their own information. They are the ones who have to let the officials know where they are, where they are travelling, or which children they are going to be associating with, if they are. In fact, it is not until something happens that the police or the officials need to react to that anything is done. It states here in the actual bill itself that if the Commissioner of Police believes there to be an offender who “poses a threat to the life, welfare, or sexual safety of a particular child or particular children”, affected persons such as parents, guardians, or teachers could be informed. But not until that child’s safety has been put in danger does this monitoring tool, or this register, actually fulfil its purpose, whereas if it were public, the public would be the eyes and ears for those officials, and they would know who offenders were and what they were doing at all times. This register will not work if it remains the way that it is written in this legislation, which is that the register is restricted from the public.

I would just like to finally say that at the moment we hear arguments against it being public because there is some sort of ideology that the rights of the offender to privacy, or the human rights of the offender, come anywhere near the rights of the child. What New Zealand First is saying is that if we are serious about this issue of child sex abuse then we must make the child the centre of that conversation, and the only way we can do that is if we make this one public. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand to speak in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill today in its third reading. I would like to begin by acknowledging the work of the Hon Anne Tolley and the Social Services Committee on this bill.

This bill provides for the establishment of New Zealand’s first child sex offender register, and its purpose is to give authorities another tool for preventing reoffending—with the ultimate aim, of course, of keeping our children safe. Currently, offenders can disappear back into communities when they finish a sentence or an order. This bill will allow for the ability to create a centralised inter-agency information database available only to a dedicated unit of police and corrections staff—and only this unit will have unrestricted access to the information contained on that register.

This register will not be made public, and there are really good reasons for that. Offenders have families as well, and they deserve to have their privacy protected. A public register would also increase the risk of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands, and the consequences of that would be that we would drive offenders underground and authorities would then lose the ability to manage and assess their risk. Of course, keeping the names confined to this register also helps protect the victims, and their privacy, I believe, is completely non-negotiable.

Cabinet has dedicated $35.5 million to the ICT for the implementation of this register over the next 10 years, and I understand that work on this ICT work is already under way in preparation for populating the register. At the end of the first year of implementation, there will be approximately 568 names on that register. This is a fabulous tool for the team to be able to monitor and protect our community with.

This bill also ensures that the legislation balances the rights of the offenders with the absolute rights of the victims and the children to be kept safe. By having a repository for the information on convicted child sex offenders, authorities can keep track of these offenders, be alert to any changes in their circumstances, and thereby assess whether any action is required. This bill is a sensible way of giving authorities another tool for keeping communities safe, and I take pleasure in commending it to the House.

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

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call for the Green Party on this bill, which we are, unfortunately, unable to support. I would like to recognise that we are the only party in this House voting against this bill, also recognising that I am sure every member in this House has the best intentions and is wanting to protect the rights of victims of sexual violence, and that includes us. The Green Party has taken a very, very strong role in this House on advocating for victims of sexual violence and domestic violence, and I have a very long history of working alongside victims of sexual violence. That is where I am standing, in that knowledge and experience, in my opposition to this bill.

I do want to talk about the reasons and explain why we are opposing it on the grounds of concern for victims. The evidence was provided to the Social Services Committee from one of the services, START, which works with sexual violence offenders and supporting children, in particular, as well as adult survivors of sexual violence. It opposed the bill, and it opposed it on the grounds of US research, and it outlined that this model was not effective. I have heard New Zealand First members speak and say: “Yes, but the US jurisdiction is very different to ours, and we do not have any evidence that says that this does not work in like jurisdictions.” We do not have any evidence that it does work, either, and there is a very real concern, with a 1 percent conviction rate, that this will create a sense of safety for other offenders who have not been through our courts, which is 99 percent of them—that it will actually give them a cloak.

Another very real concern with this is that it will cost $146 million to implement. That is about three times the amount of funding that we got out of the sexual violence victim survivors inquiry, and that was based on years of evidence and advocating for survivors. Here we have an unproven concept—that will look good politically—that is getting about three times the amount of funding than is going towards victim survivors. We also have $86 million of that coming from the existing police baseline.

I really want to remind members in this House that in the front page of the Dominion Post today was a report that showed that detectives in this country are swamped with increasing numbers of child abuse cases, with 313 cases yet to be assigned to an investigator—with 40 officers trying to investigate five or more cases. So within that budget, the police are now being told to take resources from an essential part of our systems to hold perpetrators to account, and to put it into a register that has absolutely no evidence that it will provide any value in terms of protecting the victims in our society.

Now, I call that out. That is not what is in the best interest of victims and survivors in this country. When we have a 1 percent conviction rate and a proven programme called Circles of Support and Accountability, which was costing $25,000, I understand, and it had that funding withdrawn even though there is evidence to prove it works and when only 1 percent of Government funding is spent on prevention and the national roll-out recommended to the Government from the select committee inquiry has gone to 10 percent of our high schools when what was recommended was a consistent programme from early childhood right through—I call out the spending of $146 million on something that has no evidentiary basis. This Government says it is all about an investment approach and putting money into what is proven to work. There is no evidence that this is proven to work, and the Government is taking money from things that do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Kelvin Davis—5 minutes.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): When I was the principal of Kaitāia Intermediate School I heard in the course of 3 weeks of 13 instances of sexual violence against children—not all from my school, but across the Kaitāia area. In every single one of those 13 cases of sexual violence against children, not one of those children was offended against by some dirty, sleazy person in an overcoat jumping out from behind a bush in a park. The offender was somebody whom they knew, whom they loved, and whom they should have been able to trust. All they wanted was for the offending to stop. They wanted to feel safe. They did not want their family’s name to be dragged through the courts or put on a register that is open to the public. They did not want themselves to be identified as children and have their character, perhaps, put under the spotlight. They simply wanted the offending to stop and to be safe. If this register was to be made public, it would be a disincentive for people, for children, to report that someone in their family or some friend had offended against them. It would be a disincentive and, therefore, it would, in fact, make children across New Zealand even more unsafe.

We want children to be safe, but doing something or implementing something that has no research to back it up is just silly. According to the member from New Zealand First Darroch Ball, we have research, albeit from overseas, that does not back these registers, but he did not present any evidence saying “Here’s the evidence that says that these public registers actually work.” When we walked last year from Auckland to Cape Reinga to raise awareness around sexual violence we had three mantras. We want people to speak out if they are survivors of sexual violence, we want people to speak out if they are bystanders around sexual violence—so if they see something they speak out—and we want people to speak out if they are perpetrators or have harmful sexual thoughts and are at risk of actually harming. If somebody is going to disclose “Yeah, I actually have really inappropriate thoughts about my grandson or granddaughter.” or “I’ve actually offended against them.” but they know that their name may go on a public register, that will be a disincentive to people saying “Hey, I need help. I need help. I want to stop this offending.”

Darroch Ball: Who says that, Kelvin? Who says that?

KELVIN DAVIS: Who says that? Go and talk to Russell Smith from Korowai Tūmanako. Talk to WellStop. Have you spoken, Darroch Ball, to anybody who actually works with offenders? You are standing up there and you are spouting off about research that does not exist, and I am saying to go and talk to the people who actually work in the field, who actually work with offenders, who actually know what they are talking about. I will give you Russell Smith’s phone number right now, and you go and talk to him. These people know what is going on. They work with offenders. They work with teenage offenders.

I know that this bill would not put a child, or someone under 18 years of age on a register, I believe. But Russell said to me: “Kelvin, this is a really complex issue.” There is no sort of silver bullet. There is no sort of blunt instrument that can be used, because when we are talking about sexual offenders, what do we label the 8-year-old child who has actually offended against somebody? Do we label them? Do we put them in this box of a sexual offender when they can actually—if you work with them early and rehabilitate them—grow up to be perfectly functioning adults. But if you put this label on them, and that label sort of sticks, it just absolutely makes it impossible for people to be rehabilitated.

The practical application of a public register would be really difficult. In my street there are about 40 houses. What happens if a neighbour moves out and another neighbour moves in—do all 39 other households then go and check this register? What happens if the person is not an offender, then another neighbour moves out—do we go and check the new neighbour? It just ends up being almost impossible to manage checking every single person who moves into your street or into your neighbourhood—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry—the member’s time has expired.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Family violence, sex abuse, and elder abuse are three of the most dastardly crimes that I can think of. I think anything that we can do to deal with a crime, with the partial protection of a victim, and even with the rehabilitation of an offender, has got to be positive. It was Alfred Ngaro earlier who said that this bill is not the answer to the problem; it is a piece of the answer—and I am quite sure it is.

I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points that have been made. I have to agree with Kelvin Davis: I think that the issue around having a public register for this is that it would just be far too dangerous, in my view, for the victims of this crime—and it would preclude, in many ways, I think, a satisfactory resolution or satisfactory opportunity to rehabilitate sexual offenders. Whatever we think of these people, we have to give them an opportunity to rehabilitate in our communities and to lead a life as normal as possible. So I certainly support the fact that this register is not public. I think that it is common sense in many ways.

I also just wanted to very briefly refer to some comments that David Clendon made earlier on. He thought that this was a very expensive way of dealing with this issue and that we could do a lot more with that money. I think whatever we do in public policy around this type of offending is always going to cost us a lot of money. As I said myself earlier, I think that when picking up the bits of it and making it all work, we do not know what is going to be effective sometimes when we put these bits of legislation in place. But collectively they all play a part in it.

I certainly—with what experience I have in this field—support this bill. I think it is a very useful piece of legislation, and I think it will play a part in what can only be considered to be one of the worst types of crime, I think, people could commit against a human being. I support this bill as it becomes law. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Firstly, I want to commend all those fantastic women and men who work in the sexual violence prevention sector, because there is no doubt that their job is one of the hardest jobs there is—supporting the victims of sexual violence to be able to feel whole and well again after the trauma of what is probably one of the most horrific personal crimes that can happen. So I send my awhi and my aroha out to those people who work in the sector.

Secondly, I want to say that child safety is paramount, and that this Parliament should ensure that all of its efforts go into the most important of jobs, and that is protecting our children. In this regard, as a party, we are supporting the efforts, with regards to this particular piece of legislation. But we have some significant reservations around the full impact of this legislation and the cost.

There is nothing that is more emotional to a parent than the harm that can come to their child. When we look at the impacts of recent news events about sexual offenders who have been housed in the community—and I reference Māngere and the Hutt when I am talking about that. The news reports that we got about the emotions of those parents who were concerned about having an offender within their community. They were very compelling. They were very compelling stories. But the perception of safety that a register may give to a community does not ensure the safety of that community.

When we look at the impact of spending $146 million on a list that gives us an idea of people who have offended in the past but does nothing to support the prevention of future harm, we have got to question the validity of that wisdom. It is very difficult to move past that hugely emotional barrier of thinking that a list that has someone’s name on it is going to keep your child safe, when the evidence was not compelling at the Social Services Committee. What was compelling was what our sexual violence prevention sector told us about what they could do with $146 million. That was compelling evidence, when we consider what is actually being funded to our sector.

I had the privilege of hearing part of the submissions that were made to the inquiry into funding for the sexual violence sector. The hundreds and thousands of people who work across this country—not only to rehabilitate offenders so that they can become fully functioning members of our community, but to actually prevent the harm from happening in the first place. What has been missing from this debate—and I really support my colleague Kelvin Davis, because he brought this into sharp relief—is where the money is to support the children who are victims of sexual violence. Where is the money to support the children who are victims of sexual violence? I do not see evidence of that.

There was limited discussion by the Government when we were looking at this bill, but there is the opportunity that has been, sadly, missed by us all. Unless we do everything we can to help these children get some relief from the trauma of their experience, those damaged children will grow up to be damaged adults, and we will perpetuate the cycle of sexual violence in this country. Where is the $146 million that we are committing to our children who are the victims of sexual violence? That is the missed opportunity.

When we talk about public registers, what we are talking about is the ability to identify people who have offended in the past. When we looked at some of the evidence that was presented to the select committee, it told us quite clearly that reoffending rates do not warrant the register of sexual offenders—reoffending rates do not warrant it—and that, actually, what we do know is that the harm of sexual offending comes from people who are close to that child, whether they are family members, part of that social circle, or people who are professionals who work close to the children. My colleague Kelvin Davis spoke about the incidents that happened in Northland. We know that there are teachers, coaches—people who are close to children—who harm our children who will never make it on to a register, but that will not prevent the harm from happening in the first place.

In summing up, I want to call on this Government to actually put its money where its mouth is and do the right thing by putting money into the prevention of harm, into the rehabilitation of offenders, and into supporting our children who have been victims of sexual offending. We are supporting this bill. It will have some small measure, but $146 million could do so much more in preventing this from happening in the first place. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 14.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 108

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

Noes 13

New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health): I move that the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Malo e lelei, in Tongan Language Week. Before I speak on this bill I just want to send my best wishes out to a friend and a colleague, Nikki Kaye, and wish her well for her full recovery from her current ailments. I just want to wish her well and send our love to her.

I want to thank members across this House for the wide support that this bill has received up till this point in time. Today is a historic day, and I do want to acknowledge Dame Tariana Turia for her stewardship of this bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. I have just picked up that when you moved the motion you called it “Plain Packaging”. The actual title of the bill is the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill, so I just ask that you—have you got the copy of that? If you just move that again, and then carry on.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: OK, thank you, Mr Chairperson. I move that the Smoke-free Environments (Standardised—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No—“Tobacco Standardised”.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Sorry. I move, That the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I want to acknowledge Dame Tariana Turia for her stewardship of this bill in its early stages, and particularly her compassion, her commitment, and her aroha as my predecessor in bringing this bill to the House. I also want to thank the House on behalf of all the individuals, the families, and the communities around this country who see the harm that smoking causes every day and who want it reduced. Also, I want to thank members for voting for this bill on behalf of the young people who will no longer be subject to glamorous branding that may entice them to take up smoking. I also just want to thank all those who work every day in the tobacco control sector—the GPs, the nurses, and the counsellors—who save lives on a daily basis and who work towards the goals that we share in this House today.

We also know that there is no other product that is as widely used and that directly poses as high a level of risk to users as tobacco. This standardised packaging bill is the next significant step to reduce the devastating harm that leads to between 4,500 and 5,000 premature deaths every year. It is true that there are already significant restrictions on advertising and promotion. There are increases in taxation that I brought to this House earlier this year, and we also have a consultation paper out on e-cigarettes, which is being consulted on currently, but we know that much more is needed.

In 1996, 25 percent of adults in New Zealand smoked on a daily basis. Today, that figure is around 15 percent, and we are heading towards 5 percent, which is deemed to be the smoke-free target. This bill takes away the last means of promoting tobacco as a desirable product. It stops the promotion of smoking as cool, fun, and glamorous, and it sends a clear message—a clear message—that this Government is serious about ending premature deaths related to tobacco use. Around 13 people die prematurely every day from smoking-related illnesses—that is, 13 per day.

Since the passing of the Smoke-free Environments Act in 1990 we have seen a shift in the way that tobacco is being marketed in this country. Often the choice of pack design and colours distracts attention away from the important health messages that are contained on packages, which reduces their impact. Standardised packaging ensures nothing on the pack undermines the impact of the mandatory graphic picture warnings. This is a bill to protect children and young people from being tempted to try smoking cigarettes. In far too many cases a quick puff leads to a lifelong struggle with nicotine addiction, with subsequent major health consequences.

For long-term smokers the chance of premature death from a smoking-related cause is over 50 percent. That is a coin toss that no one should have to make. Many of those who die from smoking-related illnesses are still in the middle years of their lives. On average, middle-aged smokers who die prematurely lose over 20 years of their lives. A detailed consultation document was released at the end of June, and in it there are proposals for mandatory health warnings to cover at least 75 percent of the front of the packs. It also proposes to remove all tobacco imagery from packets. Although the proposals allow for brand names to be standardised, they also standardise the way, and how and where, they are printed on each of those packets.

I just want to show an example to the House of what standardised package branding looks like on a potential packet. This is what will make a difference. This type of packet will make a difference to the lives of many New Zealanders. A final decision on those detailed regulations is still to come and will happen after submissions have been carefully considered. We want to get the detail right. We also want a set of regulations that puts the intent of this bill into effect.

When cigarette packs come out of a smoker’s pocket or are left lying around on a table where others can see them, there will be nothing but a drab, ugly background colour and large, prominent, graphic pictorial warnings, as I have demonstrated with this packet next to me. This will put off our young people from taking up smoking and will also help encourage existing smokers to quit. As a consequence it will reduce everyone’s exposure to tobacco smoke and secondary smoke, including those who smoke.

The bill allows manufacturers to print information and brand names on the packs, but only in a tightly controlled way. Along with the existing suite of tobacco control measures and quit-smoking services, standardised packaging is a logical step towards our 2025 goal. In passing the bill, this House will be on the right side of history and in good company with other countries that are going down the same path.

We know that the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, and Canada are at various points in their journey towards standardised packaging. Australia has had standardised packaging in place since December 2012, and in less than 4 years this has already reduced the number of smokers by at least 108,000 people. These results come from an econometrics study published in the Australian Government’s post-implementation review. The study found the move to plain packaging, or standardised packaging, with large health warnings was responsible for 0.55 percentage points out of the 2.2 percentage point decline in smoking prevalence over the study period. In other words, standardised packaging alone was responsible for one quarter of the measured decline, and that is a measure that is making a real difference to our friends across the Tasman. Standardised cigarette packs are already starting to appear on shelves in France and the UK in advance of them coming into full force in January and May of next year, respectively.

We too will have standardised packages starting to appear in New Zealand next year, by passing this bill into law today. They will be stripped of bright colours, and there will be no glamour. The bill will undoubtedly improve the health of New Zealanders and save lives. Along with tobacco excise increases and restrictions already in place, this move towards standardised packaging will help people to quit and prevent others from smoking. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I too commend this bill to the House on behalf of the Labour Opposition. I agree with the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga that this is a very important day in the fight against tobacco and the use of tobacco and its impact on the health of New Zealanders. We join with the Minister in congratulating this House on reaching the third reading and the final passage of this long-awaited bill.

The Minister has set out what this bill is about. It is about to give effect to a decision that was made on 18 February 2013 to introduce a plain packaging regime for tobacco products in New Zealand. In fact, it was in a speech that the Associate Minister Tariana Turia made on 17 December when she introduced this particular bill. I thought it was worthwhile going back and looking at Tariana Turia’s press release because she has been, and was, a very, very strong advocate for reducing tobacco consumption in New Zealand. She was when she was in the Labour Cabinet and worked closely with me and with Stevie Chadwick to have tobacco control and a number of measures; she continued when she came into coalition with the current Government.

What she said on 17 December 2013 was: “I look forward to taking the legislation through its Parliamentary stages in 2014. That will include a select committee phase and the opportunity for people to make submissions on the bill.” She went on to say the Government was pushing forward with the legislation without delay because it was convinced that plain packaging is an important step and it will stack up against our World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations.

I have quoted those words from Dame Tariana Turia’s press release on the introduction of this bill, and it was her dream that we would have passed this before the 2014 election. Certainly, Kevin Hague, me, and Barbara Stewart—we did our best to try to get it through before the election in 2014. We sat through those submissions. Particularly memorable ones were in Auckland, where we had an overwhelming number of people—the majority, except for the tobacco companies—who came and said we need to pass this legislation.

So, Minister, if I am going to make a criticism at all—and you know it has to be made—it is about the delay in passing this bill.

Hon Simon Bridges: It doesn’t. It doesn’t, Annette.

Hon ANNETTE KING: It does need to be made, because although the member opposite, Mr Bridges—“Mr 10 Bridges”—says we do not need to make the point, it does overlook, Minister, how many people’s lives could have been saved by more measures to reduce consumption of tobacco. That is something that I know, from the Health Committee, is very important to members on both sides of the House—an extremely good select committee.

I have to say at this point, and it is perhaps the only time that I will be able to say it, that we are going to miss Kevin Hague. He has been an amazing member of the Health Committee, and, Kevin, I have to say that I was looking forward to, in Government, having you as my associate in health. You would have made a fine Associate Minister of Health. But seriously, Kevin’s influence and impact on health policy in New Zealand has been huge. He brought with him a very down-to-earth, can-do approach to health, and one of the issues he was promoting along with the Health Committee has been this particular legislation.

My disappointment, Minister—it is not this Minister’s fault. I am going to give that to him, because he got the job only late in the piece. He probably wondered how the hell he got it, actually, but he got it late—

Grant Robertson: We were wondering.

Hon ANNETTE KING: And we are wondering. That is true. But he has been hamstrung not by his own desires but by the desires of his Cabinet. This is where Cabinet did not show the internal fortitude that was needed to get this bill through in a timely manner. Unlike Tariana, who said that we are convinced that plain packaging will stack up against our WTO obligations—she said that. She believed that as an Associate Minister. She came up against a Cabinet led by Mr Key and Mr McCully and Mr Joyce that would not allow us to pass this bill just in case the Australians were found to be in breach of WTO regulations.

I sometimes have a dig at the Australians, even though my grandchildren are now Australian, but I have to say that I felt rather miffed that the Australians beat us in a health policy, because we have led them for generations. They have followed much of what New Zealand does because we are a small, nimble nation that is able to do things as a nationwide service. We do not have to worry about state and Federal Governments, and some funding for hospitals, some funding for primary care, and some funding for elder care in different jurisdictions. We can go ahead and put together the sort of health policy we want to implement. They have admired us, and when I went to those ministerial councils, they were a little jealous that we are able to do so much because we are a small, nimble country.

But we were beaten by the Australians in the passage of this bill. They said: “We couldn’t give a damn what the WTO thinks. We believe that the health of our Australians is more important than what some tobacco company might think.” So they went ahead and they passed the legislation. Well, I have to say—

Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Why are you being so political? Celebrate. Annette, just celebrate. Be happy.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Do not worry, Minister. Do not take it personally. Whenever you are in a third reading, you rehearse what has gone before. You say what has happened, and this is what has happened. Minister, your name will be on a piece of legislation, and there are not going to be many members opposite who will ever have their names on a piece of legislation. It will go down in history as a very important tool that was put in place to meet our obligations that we signed up to many years ago under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. It is an important day, but it has to be said that when we come to the next measures to reduce tobacco consumption, let us not wait to see what some other country does. Let us be the first movers—the first movers—not the slow second, third, or fourth movers.

Minister, I know you have got a few other things up your sleeve to try to reduce tobacco consumption. The Minister has told me in written questions that he is interested in stopping smoking in cars with children in them, and I would have thought that would be the next cab off the rank from the Minister. Oh, the other one, Minister, that I hope that you are looking at is stopping duty-free cigarettes. That has been put up as a proposal. Why do we allow people to bring in duty-free cigarettes? There is no gain for New Zealand in that except cheap fags, and we are arguing that they are not good for your health. So there are a number of measures. I am sure you have got some of them there, Minister, and you are going to share them with us over the next year as you run out of time to hold this portfolio.

So well done—well done to this Parliament that we are passing this bill today. It is not the panacea; it is one of the measures, and it is a measure that is going to ensure that regulations can be put in place that will set out the detailed requirements for design and the physical appearance of any packaging used or intended to be used with tobacco products. The Minister has shown us—and, Minister, you might want to hold that up again for people who did not see—the kind of plain packaging, or standardised packaging, we are going to have. For those who are listening, I have to tell them, it ain’t plain. It might be standardised, but it is not plain. It is graphic, and the photographs that will be on tobacco and cigarette packets show what can happen to people who smoke.

In conclusion, I want to congratulate, as I have said, the passage of this bill. But let us not rest here, because we are now being told that unless we take some more measures, that lofty goal of smoke-free 2025 will not be achieved. Already we are falling behind meeting that target in 2025. That is not said by me, but said by those who are monitoring it, Minister. We are falling behind. We will not be smoke-free in 2025—more measures like this will be needed.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call on the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the two speakers and, particularly, the Associate Minister of Health Sam Lotu-Iiga who have spoken, but we have, effectively, just had an issue raised that we are behind the Australians and that we should be the first movers, so I thought I might just attempt to impart a little axiom that might help. It is quite true that the early bird catches the worm, but it is actually the second mouse that gets the cheese. So I think that in this case we are in a good space.

I begin by acknowledging the Minister for the work that he has led to bring this bill to the House—I think in a timely manner but also very quickly. We have moved through a very good and thorough select committee process and so, in thanking the Minister, can I thank also all the members of the Health Committee not only for their support of this bill but also for the process as a whole. As I often try to do as well, I thank the officials and advisers who have played their part.

But I want to also echo Sam Lotu-Iiga’s thanks to those who are working out there in the sector, day after day, to reduce smoking in New Zealand. We have a real and excellent goal in making New Zealand smoke-free by 2025. We in this House have a small part to play in this legislative approach, but it is actually the hundreds, if not thousands, of Kiwis who are working every day in our hospitals, GP clinics, health outreach, and Quitline, who are doing an amazing job. I want to thank too the various public health lobbyists. I am not going to name all of them. There are a good number who have emailed, phoned, tweeted, and the like to me, so I want to thank them for their advocacy as well.

This is an important piece of legislation. This is the legislation that stands beside a whole raft of dynamic approaches the Government has taken. We had some in urgency earlier this year as well, around the Budget—changes there, once again targeting smoking. I think that is important. I was going to say “smokers”, but actually this is not targeted at people per se; it is targeted at the action of smoking.

So one of the first and important elements—and it has come out from both speakers so far—is the whole semantic change between talking about plain packaging and standardised packaging. Fortunately, the Minister has been very kind to give me what is a very dramatic example—this enlarged cigarette pack. Fortunately, packs are not this big, although if we made all packs this big we might actually see a bit of a reduction as well.

Importantly, this is about standardised packaging. We initially had it around plain packaging. It is very clear, certainly for those who can see this visually, that this is not a plain pack. Really importantly, as with current cigarette sales, there are very graphic warnings that are going to be there so people can understand the consequences of what they are doing. What makes it standard though is basically the text and the format, to try to ultimately take away any attraction that can be associated with the difference between brands. I certainly know through talking particularly to young people, but not exclusively to them, that there can be a play-off between different brands: “Well, I am smoking this versus that.” We want to take the glamour away.

We also are very conscious that there is still a battle. The figures overall are very good, and I have said it in earlier speeches that the overall numbers for smoking decline are excellent, but when you de-aggregate, there are some sectors in society that we still have to keep working with. I want to stress that—not working at, but working with. I want to again acknowledge the work that Ministers lead in that space, right across our various age groups and ethnic groups.

I also want to just talk very briefly around what is sometimes called a wash-through period. This is a transition period. Once this bill comes into force and the regulations are in play, obviously this product is still out on the shelves. So, importantly, I think 6 weeks—well, it is a 12-week wash-through period. In other words, from the time when this becomes a law and is in play, there is going to be a total of 12 weeks to get the old stock off the shelves. It is not going to happen overnight. Distributors have about 6 weeks to get their product out into the stores. They have got that 6-week period, and then 6 weeks after that the actual suppliers—so dairy owners, service stations, and the like—have 6 weeks to clear the shelves.

It is something that we have thought about and discussed. I think it is actually a very prudent model. We still respect, to a degree, people’s choices in this space and the need for businesses to prudently destock, but we are looking forward to having this law in play soon. I am very pleased to commend this bill and the Minister’s work to the House.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Phew! We have finally got here, to the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill. It only started 3 years ago and we have moved through the process at lightning speed, and a mere 3 years and 15,000 deaths later, here we are at the third reading of this piece of legislation.

I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time this afternoon because we have already taken long enough getting to this point. But I just want to reiterate what others have said about the importance of this measure. This is about getting rid of that last bastion of advertising. We got rid of tobacco advertising a few decades ago, then we got rid of the tobacco displays, but still, having the packets out on the kitchen table or on the table at the pub was, and is, a form of advertising, and it is important that we eliminate that.

One thing that has not been spoken about so far is the very clever ways that the tobacco industry already uses what limited opportunities it has to advertise. Even things like using different colours—this has been done deliberately to convey particular messages about different brands of tobacco and different brands of cigarettes. So red, for instance, connotes a strong flavour; green is coolness or menthol; white packs connote being low tar. You hear words like “slim” or “mild”, which are intended to project an idea that somehow some cigarettes are less harmful than others.

All of these methods are used to try to encourage people to smoke, and to try to convey incorrect and inappropriate messages about tobacco. This standardised packaging will eliminate all of that. All tobacco packets are going to look the same—all cigarette packets are going to look the same. They will have a different name on them, and that is about it. They will have a very large graphic warning.

The other thing that the evidence shows us—and there is really strong evidence in favour of standardised packaging, no matter what the tobacco industry tries to tell us—is that people who see a plain packet remember the message in the graphic warning a lot more clearly than they do when it is jumbled in with the branding of the cigarette brand itself. That is really important, that we can actually use these packets as a way to convey the messages that we want people to see about the impacts of smoking tobacco—messages like “Smoking can kill you.”, “Cigarettes are addictive.”, or “Tobacco causes fatal lung diseases in non-smokers.”

The messages that we have been putting on those packets for years are actually going to be a lot clearer, now that we will have standardised packaging. It is a lot more than just trying to make them look less glamorous; it is actually about conveying the messages that we want people to hear about this product.

Why do we do this to tobacco and why are we not doing it to any other product? Well, tobacco is unique in that when used as the manufacturer suggests you should use it, it kills half of its users. There is no other product that does that. Yes, other products can be abused and misused, but this product—tobacco—when used as directed kills half of its users. This is a unique product, and it should be treated in a unique way.

I have no qualms about any affronts to the intellectual property rights of tobacco users. I do not know whether David Seymour is going to vote for or against this legislation. He seems to have lost his principles around property rights in the last few days. Maybe he will demand a sunset clause on this piece of legislation.

This is a good move. We have taken long enough in getting it here. Let us crack on and get it done. Let us take the next step in making New Zealand smoke-free by 2025.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to also be standing here and taking a call on this Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill in its third reading. It is a historic day, as Minister Lotu-Iiga mentioned at the start of the reading. I would also like to acknowledge Dame Tariana Turia. Although I did not work with her in this Parliament, I know it is a very special time for her, knowing that this bill is going through. I would also like to acknowledge the work of previous Health Committees. The Health Committee is a good committee to be part of, and it is good to be standing here today, doing this.

We have heard a lot about people being young and impressionable, and the previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, spoke about the language and calling cigarettes “slim”, and “mild”, and all of those sorts of things. We have been shown the packaging today, and if you look at the likes of some of the language that is likely to be on them in the future—talking about toxic chemicals, talking about damaging your body’s cells, talking about breaking down your immune system, and looking at some of these pretty ugly pictures that are going to be on this standardised packaging—I think it is really important for our young people to be seeing that on a regular basis. It is that space repetition, and if you are constantly engaged in language, or are looking at graphics of something that looks very, very bad, then it is going to ultimately—hopefully—put people off.

So it is really important that these messages and these pictures get across. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and health loss in New Zealand. We have heard that up to 5,000 people die prematurely every year. It is avoidable. It is something that we can save, not only for our health system but we could actually save lives. I am sure that every family in this country who has lost somebody to lung cancer or some other form of cancer could identify with this. Not only that, there are also people who currently are living with emphysema and with some diseases that are really, really not nice to live with.

The day that we get to smoke-free Aotearoa 2025 will not be a day too soon. It is still a wee way away yet, but I think we have to work together collectively, and we have to make a really big effort to make that happen.

I also would like to say that the only term that we are using is “standardised”. We have made it pretty clear that it is not the word “plain”. The reasons that we have used “standardised” have been well explained today. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): As I think members know, I will be leaving this House in a couple of weeks’ time. I would like to thank the Hon Annette King very much for her kind words in the debate, and I also thank the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, the Associate Minister of Health, for doing me the favour of bringing this bill back so that I could speak on it one last time before I go. It is great to be able to see this bill enacted before I leave. It also gives me one last chance to give the House a bit of a lecture on health promotion—you know I cannot resist the temptation.

The fundamental thing about health promotion is the understanding that people do not change their behaviour because of information, by and large. So the idea that “Homo economicus”—the rational economic decision-maker—will translate Adam Smith’s 1776 theory into their health behaviour and weigh up the pros and cons of different behavioural choices, and thereby choose the option that is going to produce the best health results, is just nonsense. It does not happen that way.

If one thinks about the processes of choosing food, or smoking—as in this case—or alcohol, or sexual behaviour, these are not, in fact, rational choices. So imagining that we can change people’s behaviour by giving them better information is fooling ourselves. It turns out that the things that do actually work empower those communities that are most affected by health problems. Those communities will tend to be most affected not only by one particular health problem but by every health problem. There is a clustering of health problems in particular communities that are marginalised and, as it happens, those same communities will be particularly adversely affected by problems in education, or justice, or social development. So empowering communities to design and implement their own interventions is one of the fundamental things that we can do.

The second thing that we must do—and this applies particularly to this House, to Parliament, to the Government—is that we must create supportive environments around those communities through legislation, public policy, social and physical environments, and economic environments. That is the formula.

As Iain Lees-Galloway has said, in this bill we are dealing with standardised packaging. We are removing the last opportunity that tobacco companies have had to market and advertise their products through visual means, using the very packets that their products come in. So this is an intervention that is about creating an environment that is more supportive of good health outcomes.

Other speakers in this debate have talked a little bit about the history of this country, of Aotearoa, being a leader in tobacco control public policy. It is a legacy that political figures from several parties actually have the right to feel proud of—for example, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, the Hon Annette King, Stevie Chadwick was mentioned, and, appropriately so, the Hon Tariana Turia, Hone Harawira, and Tau Henare. Actually, I want to also praise Paul Hutchison, who had a history of crossing the floor of the House to support sensible tobacco control measures. That was a brave thing for him to do.

But I wonder now, after all the delay on this bill, whether the delay was caused not so much by the Government being scared of being sued by tobacco companies, as the Government said at the time—using investor-State dispute settlement provisions and going through proxies in the World Trade Organization—but whether it was not prepared to be the leader any more, like the kid in the classroom who does not want to be the first to put their hand up. Actually, we have seen this in other areas of public policy as well, where our country has moved from being a leader internationally, or even a fast follower, to becoming a slow follower, a laggard, internationally. That is a change that I regret.

In that fine tradition of leadership I wonder where the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is going to rank—and, Minister, I urge that you step up to that leadership role because the goal of having a smoke-free Aotearoa 2025 is a laudable and necessary goal. We have just heard Barbara Kuriger, in fact, from the Government side, eloquently making the case for urgency in tobacco control and for a comprehensive suite of measures, yet we have had a Government that has said no to many of the measures that could have taken us there. We have had a Government that has dragged its heels on this bill, on this measure, which actually had a really important contribution to make. So, Minister, I hope that you will be the person who will lead us in that comprehensive plan for tobacco control and to achieve a smoke-free Aotearoa, because right now we are not on track for doing so.

That plan has got to include things like smoke-free cars, like smoke-free parks, and like licensing retailers of tobacco products. It has got to include the public health advocacy—and it was interesting to hear Simon O’Connor praising the public health advocates that he has been hearing about in relation to this bill, because the Government has chosen to cease the funding of most of those public health advocacy organisations. The people whom Simon O’Connor has been hearing from probably do not have jobs any more. The plan also needs a massive injection of funding into services for quitting smoking, and I look forward to seeing that from the Government. To do that, to show leadership in achieving a smoke-free Aotearoa 2025, will require considerable courage.

In the submissions that the select committee heard, the ones from the tobacco companies themselves and from their proxies were notable because they illustrated a strategy that the tobacco industry has followed since the 1950s, when Doll and Hill first conclusively showed the link between tobacco consumption and lung cancer. First of all, tobacco companies denied that such a link existed. They then tried to throw into the mix their own research, to add confusion to the picture. We actually see the sugar industry following precisely that path now, and we see the oil and fossil fuel industries doing the same on climate change. They are following the game plan of the tobacco industry, and right now the tobacco industry has got to the point where the phase of the strategy they are pursuing is delayed.

So that is what sits behind the delay that we have seen on this bill. The tobacco industry, which has opposed every single measure intended to curb tobacco-related harm in this country, will do the same on all of those other measures intended to reach a smoke-free Aotearoa 2025. It will require leadership and courage from the Government to stand up to those tobacco companies. Does the Government have that? I wonder.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill. I think that in this House today all of us are in agreement as to the damage that smoking can actually inflict on one’s health. We all know somebody who has been affected in some way. Whether it is cancer, whether it is heart disease, or whether it is lung disease, we know someone who has been affected. However, as New Zealand First has said all along, we are opposed to this bill.

From the very beginning, when this legislation was first introduced back in 2013, New Zealand First voiced our concerns about the lack of clear evidence to demonstrate that plain packaging itself was effective. We also talked about the unintended consequences we could foresee that were likely to happen when this bill comes into law. We are quite perturbed at the expenditure that is being directed towards a legal product. We have to remind people that $1.6 billion in excise tax is going into the Government coffers every year, and this is due to rise to $1.8 billion in 2020. There is a clear ulterior motive here, and it is not public health, as it should be. Those dollars could be invested into smoke-free programmes.

In New Zealand First we remain unconvinced that plain or standardised packaging is effective in reducing the level of tobacco consumption. The evidence from Australia, which introduced plain packaging in 2011, indicated that there has been a steady decline in tobacco use over a long period of time and, basically, that plain packaging has no real effect on that. A survey that I read showed that four out of five states had actually increased rates of tobacco use in the year immediately following the introduction of the legislation: Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and South Australia all showed increases. South Australia’s tobacco usage rose from 16.7 percent to 19.4 percent.

What they found over in Australia was that there was a different way of using tobacco. People’s tobacco use continued, but rather than buying packs of cigarettes, people were purchasing roll-your-owns. Basically, they were purchasing based on price. So we do not believe that the evidence is sufficiently there to support this bill. Additionally, we are concerned about the potential increase in illicit tobacco, which is currently estimated to be about 8 percent of tobacco sales. We believe that it is likely to increase as a result of this legislation and the continued increases in excise tax.

In all the time that we have spent in this House looking at this legislation, we believe that we have underestimated the intelligence of smokers here in New Zealand. Many of them will go out and buy their cigarettes; they will also buy packages to put them in. I myself know of people who go out and repack their cigarettes into something that is different from the cardboard packet. From the smokers’ point of view, it is easily solved—I know this, as I have already been told it. I cannot say that I have seen it, so I will not be saying that. We also know that these cigarette packets carry very graphic health warnings—horrible pictures with the adverse effects of smoking. However, over a period of time, people do not even notice these pictures. Therefore, making these images a little bit bigger is not really going to have the effect that it should have.

Education on the harms of tobacco smoking is what is really required in this particular instance. So, if we are doing it for cigarettes, why are we not doing it for other products that are causing New Zealanders harm? We know that there are a lot of them: alcohol, sugar, fat, and salt. Many of us can be considered to be obese in New Zealand, and that actually costs the health system a conservative $868 million every year. So why are we not targeting some of these other products? We believe that it is an area that demands attention before it is too late. We owe it to our health. We owe it to the health of Kiwis, and we know that the health system is already struggling to cope.

In New Zealand First we are very concerned about the harmful effects of alcohol on our society. We know that it is hazardous. We know that the hazardous rate of drinking is actually increasing year upon year, and it is alcohol that causes so much more harm than tobacco. So why is the Government not focused on this as well? If the Government is so concerned about our health as New Zealanders, why did it not support the introduction of a complete ban on sunbeds earlier this year, when it had the opportunity?

We have heard supporters of this bill say that tobacco companies use packaging to make their products more desirable. Yet, when we go into a shop—into a dairy, into a supermarket, or even into a petrol station—we do not see any packets of cigarettes or any packets of tobacco because they are in a locked cabinet, away from the public’s view. I understand that people say that a few cigarette packets left lying around may entice young people to smoke, but if they are going to smoke, they smoke anyway, because most of them—and I have seen it myself—do not smoke the packet; they smoke what is inside the packet. That is what is attractive, not smoking the actual packet. We were quite concerned—

Hon Simon Bridges: You don’t want to smoke the packet, Barbara.

BARBARA STEWART: No, we will not smoke the cardboard.

We put through two Supplementary Order Papers to try to ensure that there was reasonable lead-in to this legislation for the manufacturers and for the dairy owners, but, of course, that got voted down. We know that many of these businesses are quite dependent on the sale of tobacco products and it is difficult to estimate the quantity that is required. I will emphasise for Mr Bridges that we are not in the back pocket of the tobacco companies, or in any pocket. We sought to introduce common-sense measures to ensure a smooth transition when this bill comes into force.

I would like to conclude by saying New Zealand First does not support this bill. We know that smoking is a huge issue, here and around the world. We know, too, that the goal of a smoke-free New Zealand in 2025 is just about impossible. We know that we sell a lot of cigarettes at the border, and that we depend on tourists to come in. Will they follow our law in this area? We do not believe they will. We will be following this legislation and its introduction very closely and we will be looking at the subsequent smoking rates, and also looking to determine whether or not this legislation is going to slowly creep into other products that are harmful for all New Zealanders. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is good to see that most of the parties around this House want to do something to reduce the incidence of smoking. I was very distressed to hear Barbara Stewart’s speech because she seems to be proposing—in fact, the member just said—that New Zealand First does not support measures that are intended to reduce the incidence of smoking. Surely I did not hear right. Surely I did not hear that New Zealand First does not support measures to reduce the incidence of smoking.

Do we not know that smoking is highly addictive? Do we not know that almost all smokers take it up at a young age—9-year-olds, 10-year-olds, 11-year-olds? Do we not know that a high proportion of young people who take up smoking go on to become lifelong smokers, suffering then not only the expense but the deteriorating health issues, serious disease, and, in many cases, premature death? Do we not know that? Is that not a fact? Do we not want, therefore, around this House, to do everything we can to prevent youngsters from taking up this highly addictive and expensive habit? And why does this whole House not support this bill, which does exactly that?

The last remaining avenue that this House has—well, at the moment; we might think of something else—is to shut down the advertising of this product. Plain packaging achieves that. I simply do not accept the argument put forward by Barbara Stewart of New Zealand First that it does not matter whether there are branded packets of cigarettes lying around for young people to see, and that they are going to stuff them into other boxes—like, really? Are people really going to stuff cigarettes into other boxes? Come on! That argument does not hold water.

What we need to hold on to in this House is that any measure that gets us closer to the goal of being smoke-free in New Zealand by 2025 should be supported, should be strongly supported, and should be supported by this whole House, as it is by this Government. Thank you.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short call for the Greens on this bill. I am a quitter. I quit regularly. I remember the first cigarette I had. I was around about 10 years old. Every, every, every, every time the Government has moved to make smoking more difficult, I have welcomed it. Tobacco kills—we know this. That is why we support this legislation for standardised packaging.

I know that it has taken a long time to get to this last reading, and that this bill was originally introduced in 2013, but we welcome its passage, because half the people who smoke will die from it. It costs our country enormous amounts of money to deal with people who are suffering the effects of smoking, and that is not counting the people we lose along the way, and their potential.

I was raised at a time when smoking was normalised. It was advertised as a glamourous type of occupation. That glamour was used to attract and hook new customers. The tobacco industry has to attract new customers—of course it does, because half of those customers die. So I am a quitter—I keep quitting. Over 40 years I have quit many, many times, and over 40 years I have gone back to smoking, so I am living proof of the comments that my colleague Kevin Hague made about behavioural change not necessarily happening from simple measures but being an ongoing task. It is an ongoing task for the Government to continue to put measures in place that protect our citizens from smoking, because the tobacco industry needs more customers. Our job is to protect our citizens from dying, and that means we need to reduce the number of customers that the tobacco industry hooks.

As a quitter, I welcome every move the Government has made to discourage young people from picking it up and becoming smokers, and I welcome every move that discourages current smokers and encourages them to quit. I remember the Smoke-free Environments Act being introduced in 1990, and the start towards a smoke-free Aotearoa New Zealand. I remember the banishment of cigarette advertising from the sports arena, and that was a major thing as well. I remember, and I support, the introduction of graphic images and messages stating the reality of what happens to a smoker’s body, and having those images on the cigarette packets—I absolutely support that. I supported, and I continue to support, the fact that retailers cannot show cigarettes for sale in their shops. I support every single price hike we have ever had that takes smoking out of the reach of affordability for young people and acts as a further discouragement for people like myself.

I am a quitter, but I remember that my mum used to smoke Matinée Kings. It was glamorous—it had yellow packaging—and she felt glamorous when she smoked her 25 cigarettes a day, and she died at 64. I also want to reference the cigarettes that my sister smokes: Holiday. It is self-evident what the message is there from the brand, and brand is important. That is why I personally support this legislation.

The Greens support the legislation for standardised packaging because we want a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025. Thank you.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I come to this House to say hallelujah, hallelujah, and—one more time—hallelujah. I am going to congratulate the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga on his procrastinated bravery. The Government has finally come to its senses, and we stand here to pass the plain packaging legislation that was introduced by my predecessor, Tariana Turia. I am not going to take too much out of the Associate Minister, because actually we have engaged in some very good conversations about where we can go and the 10-year road map to take us to 2025—oh, except that a year has gone by since we started that conversation, so now it is 9 years. But that is all right. We are going to put some plans in place to bring us to that point.

But we are here today to celebrate the fact that we are going to usher in the next step, the next stage, for plain packaging and the fight against tobacco. And why? Everybody knows why: because half of smokers—as the previous speaker, Denise Roche, said—will die from smoking-related illnesses, and the other half will be sick. Of those people who smoke, half will die; half will be sick and lead debilitated lives.

Six million people die annually around the world from smoking-related illnesses. Recently, yes, I was confronted by the spin doctor who gets to trek from country to country to country. Everywhere a country wishes to make legislation to cease the march to the urupā, this man is sent around the world to try to dissuade the conversation, to convince people that the black market is going to open up and people are going to be hurt and, therefore, we should not do anything. We should just stop. We have been accused of being a kuia State. Well, I tell you now, to those members who accused us of being a kuia State, that our kuia were not impressed that they were being used in a derogatory way like that. They asked me to make that point clear, and so I do. We should be proud to be considered kuia in this country, because they are knowledgable, they are wise, and they have made it to that status because they are still alive.

There are a number of our whānau who are not alive. Just last night I was visited by Campbell Knox, who, 2 months ago, buried his darling wife, who had smoked for 40 years. He came to bring me his wishes to tackle tobacco control in this country. He said she tried everything. She was non-stop trying the e-cigarettes, she tried the patches, she tried cold turkey. She tried every cessation method out there and could not kick the habit, and eventually she died trying. Today I want to remember her and remember that conversation with her husband. Her name is Memory. Her husband said to me: “Marama, we must do more for our rising generation, so that they don’t have to make the choice that my wife could not.” The incentive for our rising generation is an incentive of hope and the brightness of a future where young people today do not have to choose to give up, because they never started. When we put taxation in place, we put it out of the reach of young people to spend $20 to $30 on a packet of cigarettes.

We must make further steps. If we pass legislation after the procrastinated bravery—but bravery none the less—of bringing in plain packaging, well, what about cars with children being smoke-free? What about voluntary smoke-free communities? What is the next suite of activities that we can herald in to ensure that our young people do not face the same future as Campbell Knox’s wife, Memory, who spent the last 2 years clinging on to every minute to try to spend some more time with her children and grandchildren? I commend the bravery of the Associate Minister to the House, along with this bill.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I too want to join with colleagues across the House who are supporting this third reading of the bill. I had the privilege of sitting on the Health Committee in the last Parliament, and during the time that this bill was being considered by the select committee in the last Parliament we also had an opportunity to visit Australia. The Health Committee was chosen to participate in a visit to Australia, and one of the things that the select committee focused on was discussions with various health organisations in Australia, and also the Australian Department of Health.

At that stage it had not actually been very long since the plain packaging legislation in Australia had been introduced, back in December 2012, I think it was. So at that stage the results were really still out in terms of whether the impact had been as great or as widely spread as was expected. I noted just recently that since that visit, actually, the statistics that have come out of Australia are now undeniable. Back in July of this year Kylie Lindorff from Cancer Council Victoria visited New Zealand. She was able to present to the public of New Zealand some really, I thought, useful statistics. Amongst them was that since Australia’s introduction of a similar regime to the one that we are about to implement, that legislation has now been credited with the largest drop in smoking rates in 20 years in Australia. It is simple, effective, and very meaningful.

Kylie Lindorff went on to tell New Zealand media that what Australians still refer to as plain packaging but we are now calling standardised packaging is working much better than they had ever expected. The number of Australians smoking since the introduction of that legislation had dropped by 13 percent in 2 years. It is perfectly logical to assume that we could expect similar results here in New Zealand.

Studies in Australia have shown since the introduction of its legislation that at least a quarter of that drop is down to making the cigarette packaging unappealing to the eye. When the select committee was considering and hearing submissions from a number of submitters, one of the submissions that I remember being of particular interest was from a graphic designer who gave us evidence on exactly what the packaging should look like. Of course, we came very quickly to an understanding that “plain” was not the right term. If we are to think about carrying this legislation further, we might like to, as a House, consider at some stage the actual cigarette sticks themselves. There was actually some quite compelling evidence that showed that if we were to change the cigarette stick from being white with a cork-coloured butt filter—imagine, if you will, a khaki, or a horrible colour. I dare not mention a colour, because it might—

Hon David Parker: Your tie—National Party blue.

SCOTT SIMPSON: Oh, no. I was thinking more of a khaki green or a shameless red, or something like that, with a black butt. If we were to change the cigarette colours to that then, in fact, that might have a further positive impact in terms of reducing smoking.

This is a good bill. I am very pleased to have been part of the select committee process that has brought it to the House. It has been a good process. I commend it.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very delighted to be able to speak in the third reading of this piece of legislation. This is a historic day. I do commend all of the contributions that have been made, even the contributions from New Zealand First, because there are different perspectives and views on tobacco control. But, certainly, when it comes to this piece of legislation, you cannot argue against it.

It is so ingrained in our culture that smoking is bad and smoking kills, and this is just the next step. This is just the next step that we need to do to reach our 2025 smoke-free goal. I want to commend, as we have heard throughout the contributions today, the whakapapa. There is a long whakapapa—history—to this legislation and to tobacco control measures across this country, from the Labour Governments through to the present Government, although, I must say, it has taken a while. It has taken a while to actually get to this third reading. I understand it was initiated in the last Parliament—you know, it has taken a few years. But it is no surprise—no surprise.

I am sure there may be a connection that two members of the current Government—National members—have been paid tobacco lobbyists. So draw all the inference, whatever you may, from that. But the fact that there has been such a long delay—I would not be surprised if quite strenuous debate and effort has been going on internally to delay and to hopefully prevent the passage of this bill, but, fortunately, that has been unsuccessful.

We have heard the heralding of angelic hallelujah and praise come forth from my tuahine over there, Marama Fox, and I too acknowledge her joy in the passage of this legislation. In terms of “kuia State”—I admit, that was one of my best tweets, ha, ha! We have got to read it in context, and we also have to look at things from the wider perspective of our people, the impacts that it has on them, and their desire to maybe have some enjoyment—granted, though, that this is not the way to achieve that. All I am going to say is that that is satirical, maybe comedic—a bit of a jab here. It does not detract from my wholehearted support for this bill. Have I gone over time, Mr Assistant Speaker? I have not.

I do want to hit on a very serious note, because I have been concerned that this bill, I believe, does not close down the purchase of tobacco-related products on the internet. How do I know? Well, I have done it, not once, not twice, but three times. I have ordered tobacco—little cigars, cigarillos—on the internet. They have come through and have not even been stopped by the Customs Service. Only one package was stopped. These are private importations that anyone can do—jump online. I am very concerned that the Minister of Customs has not clamped down. There should be restrictions. There should be restrictions on the importation, otherwise it defeats the whole purpose of actually having tobacco control. So that is one challenge that I want to put to the Minister—to really close that loophole.

I am not a smoker, but in receiving this assortment—this colourful array of flavoured cigarillos—what was I to do with them? What was I to do? In a generous gesture, I knew that a certain leader of a certain party in this House quite enjoys having the odd puff, so I generously gave a koha of these little cigars to such a leader. I will not name particular names. I am sure that they went through an intermediary. He did not acknowledge them, but I did get a response back that he did appreciate them and he did enjoy the flavour of that particular koha.

In all seriousness, this is a very commendable bill and I do support it wholeheartedly. Kia ora tātou.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia ora. It is a little bit hard to follow my colleague Rino Tirikatene, after that very useful contribution—very useful contribution—to this debate. Firstly, some acknowledgments. I want to acknowledge Dr Paul Hutchison, who led the Health Committee when we first heard the submissions on this particular bill. I want to acknowledge Hone Harawira and Dame Tariana Turia for their pioneering work in getting us to the point where we are about to have the third reading of this particular bill.

There are a couple of points I want to make. The first one is the use of the vernacular “quit” in the legislation. It is something that I was really happy to advance, because the vernacular “quit” is something that we now associate with giving up smoking, with smoking cessation. We all know about quit coaches, we all know of Quitline, we all know about quitting in reference to smoking cessation, so I am really pleased that this piece of legislation has responded to the use of “quit”—the vernacular; the common term of the day—so that we know what we are talking about in this legislation.

The other thing I am pleased about is the use of the term “standardisation”, as opposed to “plain”, because the whole purpose of this bill is to reduce the impact of tobacco companies’ influence on the kind of latent advertising that is the packaging of cigarettes. So standardising the packaging really neutralises the impact of the individual tobacco companies’ influence on that packaging. The standardisation also refers to the types of messaging, the types of graphics, the size of the font, and the colour of the packaging, so all packaging will be very similar. The tobacco companies will still be able to put their name on it, but it will be in a format that is standardised across all of the products.

The importance of this piece of legislation is about prevention. It is not necessarily about getting people who are currently smokers to give up. That is not really the full intent of it. It is really about prevention. It is about ensuring that we prevent our young people from taking up smoking in the first place. There is one thing I do want to say: I am the daughter of smokers. Both my parents smoked, and both my sister and I were inevitably going to become smokers because we were in the environment where smoking occurred. But one of the biggest things that motivated me to change—I think many of us in this House who are parents will know that our children are the greatest motivators for change in our lives. The day that my daughter said to me “Don’t do that anymore, Mum, that’s yucky.”, was the day I said: “You know what? She’s right.” The other thing she said to me was: “I don’t want you to die.” That was pretty compelling.

The reason standardised packaging is so important is that we want our children to get the message really early on that smoking is “yucky”, because they will motivate their parents to change and they will not take up smoking themselves. That is really important when we look at Pacific rates of smoking, which have really gone through the roof. We want our children to motivate us as parents to change, and also to be leading the charge by not taking up smoking themselves. So I really commend what is happening with the standardised packaging—with the graphics and with the messaging. At the Health Committee we heard stories from previous smokers about the old packaging that they used to see in their homes—the colour of the packaging and how compelling that was. I am really pleased that the prevention aspect of this legislation will go ahead.

The one thing I do want to say in conclusion is that yes, I too was concerned when the select committee had done all this work and we were delayed in bringing the bill back to the House. There were a couple of reasons that were promoted. The first one, of course, was the impact of the litigation that was going through the World Trade Organization at the time, and the other one, which my colleague has rightly pointed out, was perhaps the significant influence of the tobacco lobby in delaying the passage of this bill. I can only surmise that it may have something to do with two current members of the House. Thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to take this, the last call on the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill. I too would like to acknowledge all those who have got it to this point in time, this momentous point. This bill adds further tools to the anti-smoking tool box, and if we look at some of the anti-smoking interventions that we can be a part of as legislators, it sits beside excise tax increases and smoke-free environments legislation.

Every speaker here today has talked to the imagery and advertising that is at the core of this bill. Dame Tariana Turia went further and said: “When tobacco manufacturers push tobacco, they are not simply selling a stick of nicotine; they are selling status, social acceptance, and adventure.” This bill uses imagery to convey the messages we want to convey, and the facts as we understand them. This bill changes tobacco’s status, social acceptance, and adventure. It changes it from what we heard from our colleagues in the Greens—the “glamour and the hook” were the words that were used. It changes it from the images of the Marlboro Man, the independent, rugged cowboy of the 1950s and 1960s—one of the most effective advertising campaigns ever, with what is considered maybe some of the most iconic and behaviour-changing influences ever in American society.

But, you know, things did not actually go well for the six people who acted as the Marlboro Man. At least four of the Marlboro Men actually died of smoking-related diseases. Eric Lawson, who was the Marlboro Man from 1978-81, started smoking at 14 and he died at 72 of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. David Millar was a Marlboro Man. He died of emphysema, another smoking-related condition, at 81. Wayne McLaren, tragically, died at 51 of lung cancer. David McLean died at 73. He died of lung cancer also—another Marlboro Man—and in his 1996 lawsuit it stated: “The commercials were very carefully [constructed], and David McLean was required to smoke up to five packs per take in order to get the ashes to fall a certain way, the smoke to rise a certain way, and the hand to hold the cigarette in a certain way.”

Standardised packaging removes all that imagery. We know that standardised packaging is effective. We also have the benefit of learning from the Australian experience—a 10 to 25 percent decrease in tobacco consumption—and I am pleased to see the images that we have here, which my colleague has shown today, to see what our eventual product is going to be like. But as we are extracting from the Australian experience, I was keen to see what it is actually doing. I was not part of the Health Committee, which visited, so I had a family member, who has an environment where there are smokers, send me some images of what Australian cigarette packets look like. They are very similar to ours—images of heart disease with a message, really compelling images, and, on the back, statements about why smoking is clearly harmful to you. It is quite desperate when it shows children on oxygen masks.

The Australians have been using this since 2012, again, as my colleague said, to get that sort of decrease. I would like to contrast this with what my colleagues across the House said. I do believe the Australian experience. I do believe that standardised packaging does decrease tobacco consumption. In summary, this is an important addition to the tools we have to prevent smoking. I commend everyone who has any sort of commitment to smoking to fall in line with this very important legislation. Again, I thank everyone who has got it to this stage. I commend the bill to the House.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): In light of the enormous progress the Government has made on its legislative agenda this week, I seek leave for the House to rise early for the week.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

Bills

Māori Purposes Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 August.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): When we were last considering this bill, Pita Paraone was speaking, and he has 3 minutes and 30 seconds remaining.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I had not realised I had that long, but never mind. This is democracy, and I want to thank the House for this opportunity. The last time this bill was before the House I expressed the view of New Zealand First at that time, and we are still of the same view, that we would have difficulty supporting this bill, particularly around the position it has in regard to the Māori Land Court and the pending legislation that is gaining points of discussion amongst the Māori World, and that is Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Our concern was the removal of the role that the Māori Land Court would play, and also our concern about the possibility of a number of the beneficiaries not being able to exercise their democratic right as beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust.

I understand that the Labour member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, the honourable Meka Whaitiri, has an amendment that will address one of the concerns that New Zealand First has. I just want to signal to this House, at this time, that we would be supporting that amendment. Again, we see this is as part of the overall influence of some people, described as the “Browntable”, on the future administration of Māori land entities. The Wī Pere Trust, as part of its $66 million asset value, has a number of Māori land titles included in its assets. So I just wanted to signal that. Tēnā koe.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Tēnā koe. It is a pleasure to speak to the Māori Purposes Bill. Often we have bills in front of the House that are fixing something that is fundamentally broken or fundamentally wrong; this is not one of them. The Wī Pere Trust is successful. There are 460 beneficiaries and $66 million in net assets. This is a successful trust. But what it wants to do is to be more successful, and it wants to move through into a modern world. What this bill does is it allows the Wī Pere Trust to do that. It allows it to adopt a more commercial model and to achieve greater economic autonomy. How does it do this? Well, it replaces the trustees with an incorporated trust board with a body corporate status and limited liability. The trust is able to acquire and to hold land. It removes ministerial involvement from the governance arm, and it allows the trust to maintain its own register of beneficiaries.

The Māori Affairs Committee suggested several recommendations: first of all, that the Māori Land Court, not the High Court, be the court to determine lineal descent from Wī Pere; secondly, that there should be disclosure of trust board members’ conflicts of interest; and, thirdly, a review of the new constitution that is being formed under this bill in 5 years’ time. This bill is also futureproofing for legislation in progress. Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is likely to require only consequential amendments to this, the Māori Purposes Bill. Together, this legislation will improve both the outlook and the benefit for Māori, and the Wī Pere Trust, with this bill, can embrace its new autonomy. This is a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koutou e Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā. I would just like to mihi to te Tairāwhiti iwi katoa, tēna rā koutou.

[And so, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you collectively, the House of Parliament today. I would just like to acknowledge the whole tribe of the East Coast, hello there.]

Having lived in their rohe, the statue of the tupuna with which this bill is associated stood down by the awa, so often we would be having rallies—sometimes protests, sometimes meetings, sometimes strolls along the riverbank—and there would be Wī Pere. So Wī Pere has always been a significant figure, whether the citizens of Gisborne understood it or not, for tāngata whenua in that rohe, and I am just acknowledging all of the whānau associated with it.

The Green Party would like to acknowledge the comments of previous speakers, and the Māori Affairs Committee, because issues were raised around the rights of people associated with the trust, in terms of access to information and the effect of further corporatisation. Issues were raised around the appropriate place for jurisdiction of disputes, and the Green Party would definitely support Meka Whaitiri’s Supplementary Order Paper around this. It is very important to recognise that there is law and there is law, and that the expertise of the High Court versus the Māori Land Court on customary law is an important issue. We look forward to and hope to see this proposed amendment go through.

We do support the right of the Wī Pere Trust to act independently—to have its independence separate from the interference of the Crown. This bill steps it out of the shadow of the Crown, if you like, into its own rangatiratanga jurisdiction. Stepping back from the detail of that, though, it is interesting because this trust has been in existence for a very, very long time—since 1899. But, in the end, whether it is 1899 or 2016, it is still the Pākehā legal framework dictating the process. It is still the issue of incorporation, the issue of trusts, the issue of Pākehā bankers’ models, in particular, defining land and the people’s relationship with the land.

In many ways, trusts such as this one have no choice; they have to stick within the framework that is available. But is that a framework based on hapūtanga and the opportunity for whānau? Nobody knows, because we have gone so far into the corporate reality that we do not ever question the way in which we do things. Many, many trusts like this have no choice; if they want to succeed, they have to play by the rules, they have to corporatise, and they have to create flexibility for themselves. But that is still reflecting the way in which law is interpreted very much from a colonial perspective.

In 2016, we have not actually moved very far, but we also recognise that this trust wants to do this. It wanted the Crown out of its business, so it is good that the Crown is out of its business, but we do think there are very real threats involved in the overall principle of corporatisation. A friend of mine who runs workshops on Māori structural models talks about the model of tangihanga. She is tāngata whenua, clearly I am not, so I am quoting her. She says tangihanga is the most intact structure that exists for organising, without corporate and hierarchical leadership, whereas most organisations are forced, if they have any financial status, to use the corporate model. And we all think there is no choice; there is no other way: TINA, there is no alternative, as opposed to TAMA, there are many alternatives.

So the challenge that we would put alongside the right of this trust to their self-determination is the challenge of whether this world is allowing hapūtanga to exist at all in any kind of meaningful way in terms of an economic base or an economic structure. Or do we dictate economic models through our judicial system and our legal system—including the Māori Land Court, which is not exactly an instrument of liberation, traditionally—or do we allow for a different way of doing things? That is a question for people who know more about these things than I do.

I am putting those questions because they have been raised with me. It has been raised with me whether the traditional governance models of the Pākehā world actually create the space for tangata whenua to do things their own way. Or is it just that we all have to do it the same and we all have to do it according to the dictates of modern hyper-capitalism, to put it bluntly. That is an interesting challenge. I do not have a quick answer to that. But when my friend says that tangihanga shows that everyone has a place, she says that everybody, without being told what to do, is valued, learns their traditions—I am interested in that as well—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Kia ora.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ā, kua tae ki te wā ki te tautoko i tēnei pire ō tātou o te whānau o Wī Pere. E haere ana mātou ki te whakarongo ki a rātou, ka haere ā-kanohi mai ki mua i te aroaro o te komiti, he aha ai? Ki te whakatutuki i ō rātou nā wawata. Ēhara nā mātou tēnei pire, ēhara nā Te Minita tēnei pire, nā te hiahia me ngā wawata o te whānau ngā take kai roto i te pire nei. Kai te hiahia rātau i ēnei tīnihanga kia tutuki ai ō rātou na wawata, ngā wawata ō tō rātou tūpuna a Wī Pere. Ēngari mō ētahi, ka tika, mō te nuinga, te nuinga ō rātou kei raro i te komiti whakahaere i te whenua o Wī Pere. Ka hiahiatia ēnei tīnihanga, he aha ai? Kia whai rangatiratanga, kia whai i ō rātāu wawata, kia tutuki ngā hiahia mō ngā mokopuna me ngā tamariki mō ngā tau kei te heke mai.

Nā reira, mehemea ka tiro atu ki ngā whārangi o te pire nei, kua kite atu i ō rātou tīnihanga e hāpai nei i ngā hiahia, kāre rātau e hiahia kia whai atu i Te Kōti Whenua Māori. Kai te pīrangi rātau ki te whakatutuki i ō rātou ake huarahi. Nā, i rangona au i te kōrero o tēnei o ngā wāhine o Te Rōpū Kākāriki e kī nei: “Hika! Kai te whaiwhai noa iho tēnei i te āhuatanga Pākehā.” Well, ki te hiahia rātau kia whai i taua huarahi nā rātou anō tēnā! Nā rātou anō te i whakatutuki ō rātou wawata, wērā te rangatiratanga! Mehemea kua kite rātou, he hua kai roto i te ao Pākehā hai whai, ā, kua maukētia, pērā ki ngā kōrero ō tō tātou tupuna a Apirana Ngata, kua hinga atu: “Kia mau tō ringa ki ngā mahi o ō tūpuna me tētahi ki te ao Pākehā.” Mēnā he hua kai roto, ka taea te whakatīnana ō wawata. Nā reira, kāre e kore me tautoko. Kāre e kore me tautoko Te Pāti Māori nei i ō rātou na hiahia.

Nā, koirā te take e āhua ohorere nei au i tēnei o ngā pepa Supplementary Order Paper 205, nā tētahi o te komiti tēnei i whārikihia. Ko wai tātou, ko wai mātou o Te Komiti Māori e tohutohu i te whānau, me pēhea te whakahaere ī ō rātou ake wawata? Nā reira, ka āta tiro atu, ka āta tiro. Ka whakarongo anō hoki ki ngā kōrero tautohetohe o Te Whare kia rapu i te huarahi whakamua.

Nā, i a au e maumahara atu ki te kōrero o Wī Pere, i tiaki pai tōna whenua kia whai rawa te whānau i runga i te whenua, kia kore rātou e pēhi ki raro i ngā ture o Te Kāwanatanga hou i roto i Aotearoa nei, kia kore ai rātau e pēhitia ki raro i ngā ture Pākehā kai runga i ā rātau. Ēngari, koinei te huarahi mā rātau i tēnei wā, kia haramai anō ki tēnei Whare o tātau. Kia hara mai ki Te Kāwanatanga, kia purua ki roto i te ringaringa o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, kia whai i te huarahi whakamuri.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. And so, the time has arrived to support this bill of ours of the family of Wī Pere. We will be going to listen to them when they come before the committee, and for what purpose—to fulfil their own particular aspirations. This bill is not ours, neither is it the Minister’s bill. The contents of this bill came out of the wants and hopes of the family. They want these amendments to fulfil their aspirations and those of their ancestor, Wī Pere. On the other hand, for some, it is fitting, for the majority; but for most of them, the land of Wī Pere is under an administrative body. Why are these amendments necessary? To gain autonomy, to follow their dreams, and to fulfil the needs of children and grandchildren in the future.

So if one looks through the pages of this bill, one will see their amendments accommodating needs. They do not want to follow the Māori Land Court. They really want to fulfil their very own procedures. Now then, I heard what one of the Green Party women stated: “For goodness’ sake, this is merely following a Pākehā way.” Well, they fulfilled their own aspirations; that indeed is independence. If you had not noticed, there are benefits in the mainstream world to pursue, and already grasped, much like the aphorism of our ancestor Apirana Ngata, who has passed away: “Ensure that your hand grasps the accomplishments of your forefathers, with a hand on the Pākehā.” If there is a benefit in it, your aspirations will be implemented. Without a doubt, it must be supported. The Māori Party will endorse their particular needs.

Consequently, that is the reason why I am somewhat anxious about this Supplementary Order Paper 205. This was tabled by a committee member. Who of us inclusively, exclusively of the Māori Affairs Committee can have the temerity to give advice to the family, and say how aspirations for them are to be administered? Therefore, it will be examined and scrutinised carefully. The debates of the House will also be listened to intently to find a way forward.

As I recollect from the account by Wī Pere, his land was well looked after so that the family benefited from it, and did not succumb to the new Government’s acts here in New Zealand so that they were not oppressed by mainstream laws over them. But, at this stage, this is the pathway for them, to come again to this House of ours; to come before the Government and place it in the hands of the Māori Affairs Committee, to find a way back.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting the member. She will have 50 seconds to go next time we come to the bill, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.