Tuesday, 13 September 2016

TUESDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER 2016

TUESDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Obituaries

Edward Gale Latter

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I regret to inform the House of the death, on 29 August 2016, of Edward Gale Latter MBE, ED, who represented the Marlborough electorate from 1975 to 1978. I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask that members stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Motions

North Korea—Nuclear Testing

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate regarding the recent nuclear tests conducted by North Korea.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Dr SHANE RETI: I move, That this House condemn the recent nuclear tests conducted by North Korea in clear defiance of the United Nations Security Council, and that all efforts be made to bring North Korea back to the disarmament table.

Motion agreed to.

Fiji—Detention of Opposition Party Leaders, Academics, and Union Representatives

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate expressing concern at the detention of Opposition party leaders, academics, and union representatives in Fiji.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: I move, That this House express its concern at the detention of Opposition party leaders, academics, and union representatives in Fiji over the weekend, noting that their alleged offence was to have held a public meeting about Fiji’s constitution without a police permit, and express support for the efforts of Fijian citizens to exercise their right to freedom of expression and assembly.

Motion agreed to.

Points of Order

Parliamentary ICT System—Email Security System

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you a very serious matter with regard to members of Parliament being able to conduct their business, and it does relate to the order of the House. It has come to my attention in the last 24 hours that the Parliamentary Service is using an email security facility that monitors the content of, and in some cases blocks, emails to and from members of Parliament on the basis of Government security classification. I had an email exchange last night with a journalist—a member of the press gallery—that was blocked, and I was not able to send it, because the document that I was attaching, which I had obtained under the Official Information Act, had previously had a Government security classification on it.

This is a very serious matter because it does not actually matter how I came to hold the document; the fact that the Parliamentary Service is monitoring the emails coming to and from the email addresses of members of Parliament is completely unacceptable. It is clearly a breach of privilege, and I ask that you investigate that matter with some urgency and ensure that that situation is immediately dealt with.

Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly look at the matter and come back to the House tomorrow. It is a matter of whether there is some encryption on that email, perhaps because it is used between Government members. Until I know more detail as to the source of the Official Information Act document, which I will obtain from the member when I catch up with him at the Business Committee later—certainly, once any information is released under the Official Information Act, it clearly is then free and available for distribution.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to be misconstrued. It does not matter how a member of Parliament comes to obtain the information; what a member of Parliament does with that information is then a matter for them and for the Parliament. It is not Government information, and Government security classifications do not and should not apply to any information held by members of Parliament who are outside the executive.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I agree with the shadow Leader of the House. This was actually very similar to the issue that was considered by the Privileges Committee in respect of the complaint by Andrea Vance and others, where it was very clearly found by the Privileges Committee that information belonging to members is actually the members’ information. It does not belong to Parliamentary Service, it does not belong to the Government, and it is for members to do what they think they should, pursuant to our rights of freedom of expression that are guaranteed in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: As I have said to both members, I will look into the matter and will come back to the House tomorrow.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Financial Systems—Money Laundering

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E māia ana ki ōna Minita katoa?

[Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?]

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in his Minister of Justice, who refused to fix the loophole that has allowed criminals to launder money through the housing market?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, on many fronts, including the work that she has done today on family violence, which I think both Parliament and the country will recognise as being some of the most important work that a Minister of Justice has done in a very long period of time.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that he supports the laws that allow crooks to launder $1.6 billion every year, including through the housing market?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. Part 2 of the anti - money-laundering legislation has been introduced to the House, but what we do know from the work that the Government has done is that it will have quite far-reaching costs and implications for a number of sectors in New Zealand. Of course, they need to meet those requirements over time, and we will be ensuring that that happens, but there will be a cost implication for New Zealanders and we are just trying to make sure we manage all of that.

Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister confirm that his Ministers have been aware of the real estate money-laundering loophole since 2009 and that they turned down official advice to fix that loophole in both 2014 and 2015?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think that would be an accurate summary of events.

Metiria Turei: Has the Prime Minister ever met with real estate agents or overseas property investors to discuss Anti - Money-Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act reforms; if so, when did those meetings occur?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Not to the best of my knowledge, but if the member wants to put it down in writing, I will have my office check.

Metiria Turei: Why is it that he is satisfied with his Ministers dragging their heels on fixing the housing market when, every day, Auckland first-home buyers are being outbid by speculators who, it turns out, may be laundering dirty money through the housing market?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not accept the member’s proposition.

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister commit to having phase two of the anti - money-laundering legislation in effect before the next election?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There will be a bill in the House by the end of the year, but it will go through the normal parliamentary process, and so that will depend, I guess, on the number of submissions. But also, as I said earlier, just before the member trips over her high horse, she needs to realise that there are far-reaching implications for a huge number of New Zealanders. I know there are a lot of New Zealanders she does not represent, but, nevertheless, that is the case.

Wage Rates—Growth

2. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on how rising wages and low inflation mean more money for New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand reports show that since the Government was elected in 2008, average wages have increased by 25 percent and today sit at just over $58,000—that is, $11,000 more than in 2008. This 25 percent increase compares with inflation over the same period of 12 percent. High wage increases do not necessarily mean high real wage increases. For instance, in the year to September 2008, wages increased by 5.1 percent, but inflation was also high and it increased by 5.1 percent in that year. So low inflation means that higher wages earned by hard-working New Zealanders are going further.

Andrew Bayly: What trends in the growth of after-tax wages can he report?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The money that households get to spend is their after-tax income, and the Government’s reduction in taxes on income and savings in 2010 have helped to lift take-home pay. Under this Government, after-tax wages have increased by 31 percent—that is, the average take-home pay for Kiwi workers is nearly a third higher than in 2008, an average annual increase of around 4 percent in take-home pay at a time when inflation was 1.5 percent.

Andrew Bayly: How does higher take-home pay for workers under this Government compare with previous Governments?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Since the Government was elected, real take-home pay—that is, income after taxes and excluding inflation—has increased by around 2.2 percent per annum. In the 10 years up to 2008, the increase was around 0.5 percent per annum, so take-home pay after inflation and after tax is increasing at around four times the rate in these 10 years than it did in the previous decade.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the minimum wage in 2008, when they became the Government, was $12 per hour, what is it now, and what percentage increase is that over 8 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm the figure the member used, but the minimum wage has increased roughly around the rate of inflation—a bit ahead of inflation—over the last 8 years, with the effect that New Zealand has one of the highest minimum wages relative to average wages in the developed world.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have asked him a direct question. I am asking him what the minimum wage is now, and we are still waiting for the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: That was not the question the member asked. He prefaced it with something else, talking about—[Interruption] Order! The member can resume his seat. He needs to go back and look at the Hansard, but his start to the question was around the minimum wage being $12 an hour in 2008. The Minister certainly addressed that part of it.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on that matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know what the rules are about arguing with the Speaker’s ruling. My point—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just have the point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point is that if it was, as it was, $12 per hour in 2008, when they became the Government, what is it now?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has put that into his question, giving the Minister the opportunity to answer that part of the question. If the member wants to ask simple, concise questions, I can help him to get the answer, but when he asks a question like that, it has been addressed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that he has been in that position, as the Minister of Finance, for 8 long years, what now—right now—is the minimum wage in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is $15.25 an hour.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is the very point I sought to make. He did have the answer but he would not give it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I explained to the member. I tried to assist him with questions, but the first answer that was given certainly addressed the question in the way it was raised. The member then asked a supplementary question and got the answer he wanted.

Andrew Bayly: How have the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to stand and withdraw that remark immediately.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise if you took offence. I am talking about the Minister’s answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand now and withdraw, without any addition, otherwise he will be leaving the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, I do not wish to waste this Parliament’s time by apologising beyond that matter. It was crap and it is crap.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Was the Rt Hon Winston Peters ejected because he called an answer from the Government “crap” or did you take it to be a reference to yourself? I would have thought a reference to the Government answer being crap is not outside the Standing Orders. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any assistance. I took it to be very much a criticism of myself. I asked the member to withdraw. He withdrew and embellished that. He then decided that he would not withdraw in line with the Standing Orders and chose to leave the Chamber.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I hope the member is not going to be continuing the argument.

Hon David Parker: The Rt Hon Winston Peters made it clear that it was not addressed to you, and I do not think it unambiguously was.

Mr SPEAKER: I found it, the way it was addressed, offensive. I took offence at it and I asked the member to withdraw. That is the end of the matter.

Andrew Bayly: How have the most vulnerable in our society benefited from improving economic conditions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They have benefited from an increase in the minimum wage, which is now $15.25 per hour and is one of the highest minimum wages relative to the average wage in the developed world. Also, families with children on benefits had the benefit of a $25 increase in their rate of benefit on 1 April this year, the first such increase over and above the Consumers Price Index in 42 years. Of course, because we have a growing economy and the Government’s books are in surplus, with surpluses likely to increase, the Government has choices in the future—for instance, about better public services that may enable us to better support the most vulnerable.

Grant Robertson: Does he really think the most vulnerable in New Zealand are benefiting when the New Zealand Income Survey last week said “…there is evidence of higher [after housing costs] income inequality in the last few years as compared with the mid 2000s and earlier.” and when Tracy Watkins in the Dominion Post said that it is now “…a clear picture of who is shouldering the biggest burden of the housing crisis in New Zealand - the poorest households…”?

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

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am pleased the member now agrees with the Government position on this. The Government has been pointing out for some time that poor planning and an ideology that says all cities should be small and dense hurts low and middle income New Zealand families because it drives up the cost of housing. I am pleased to see that Auckland City, for instance, has adopted a new, much more expansive plan, which provides hope for low and middle income households that, in the longer term, housing costs will be more reasonable.

Housing Affordability and Availability—Children

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Has he had any meetings with his housing Ministers regarding how the housing crisis is affecting children?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I disagree with the member that there is a housing crisis, but, of course, housing is a key area of focus for this Government and I have had a number of meetings with Ministers on housing and how it affects New Zealanders and their families. That is why the Government has a comprehensive housing plan to address the issue of rising house prices.

Andrew Little: Before he gets on his high horse—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Can I just ask the member to start the question.

Andrew Little: Yes. Fair enough, Mr Speaker. Why has the number of homeless families with kids surged by 44 percent on his watch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to check the validity of the member’s number. What I can say, though, is that the Government is moving more people into social housing more rapidly than we have seen for a long period of time and is providing nearly $2 billion in housing support and accommodation supplements. I am pleased to say, on a somewhat related issue, we have insulated nearly 300,000 homes across New Zealand.

Andrew Little: I seek leave to table a Parliamentary Library report showing a 44 percent increase in the number of homeless families with dependent children.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information from the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It can be tabled.

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

Andrew Little: Given that his Government has reduced the number of State houses available by more than 2,500, does he take responsibility for the fact that there are now 10,000 homeless kids in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is quite incorrect on both parts of his question.

Andrew Little: What does he say to Jan Tinetti, principal of Merivale School in Tauranga, who says of her kids: “Some are dead in the eyes, they have no emotion at all. This is happening on a daily basis at my school. I dread families telling me they have no housing. There is just no housing left. I feel hopeless. Mums [are] in my office in absolute tears because they don’t know what to do …”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What the Government has been doing for the most vulnerable New Zealanders in that area is making sure that they get the support that they need, and that includes the additional $50-odd million that we put into the Budget. We are seeing more people moving on to social housing—about 150 extra a week. But, of course, if the person that the member mentions does not have a house to live in, then I suggest that, in the first instance, they go to Work and Income, and Work and Income will be providing them with support.

Andrew Little: When he gives advice to the people whom Jan Tinetti was talking about to go to Work and Income, what does he say to those who have gone to Work and Income and, 217 days later, are still waiting to be placed in suitable housing?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is the very point, is it not? When people go to see Work and Income, if they register that, for instance, they are in the most vulnerable of living conditions—a house or a tent—what in fact happens is that Work and Income do move them into a form of accommodation. It could be a motel, it could be some other form of accommodation—it depends on their circumstances. But then, ultimately, over time they get into a permanent residence, and that is happening more quickly. So, in fact, that is the very point: by going into Work and Income they do get the support.

Andrew Little: Why did he vote last week to protect offshore property speculators while children in this country are sleeping in cars and garages?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is making it up.

Andrew Little: With Paula Bennett admitting that there is a homelessness crisis, and Nick Smith finally conceding that he has lost control of the Auckland housing market, why will he not just adopt Labour’s comprehensive housing plan, which will see 100,000 houses being built, 1,000 State houses being built each year, and 5,000 more places for emergency housing each year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, we may as well adopt Labour’s housing plan. We can also adopt Labour’s internal polling, and, by the way, we will be living in fairyland, pixieland, or Disneyland—I do not know which, but you can choose.

Family/Whānau and Sexual Violence—Law Reform

4. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding reform of New Zealand’s family violence laws?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Today the Prime Minister and I announced sweeping reforms to our laws that will build a better system for combatting abuse. The reforms are underpinned by a strong focus on early intervention to prevent repeated violence, stemming from our review of the Domestic Violence Act. They will help ensure that opportunities within the justice system to intervene as soon as possible to curtail violent behaviour are identified and fully utilised, that family violence is recognised as a pattern of behaviour that can be predicted and prevented through timely and effective interventions, and that perpetrators are held to account and their violent behaviour is contained in a way that increases safety for victims, so that victims do not alone carry responsibility for keeping themselves safe.

Jacqui Dean: How will these law changes support victims?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Amongst the more than 50 legislative changes we are proposing, the safety of victims will be made central to bail, sentencing, and parenting orders. A number of measures will mean that it will be easier to get protection orders. There will be more opportunities to get help sooner to stop escalating violence, and the reforms will better protect the rights and needs of children. In addition, property orders will be made more usable to help keep victims safe in their own homes.

Jacqui Dean: What will the changes mean for perpetrators?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The changes mean there will be stronger ways to hold perpetrators to account for their behaviour, that their risks will be better identified and managed, and that there will be more opportunities to better connect perpetrators to services to help them change their behaviour. Prosecuting family violence will be strengthened by introducing new offences, such as non-fatal strangulation, forced marriage, and assault on a family member, to recognise the seriousness of these behaviours. An additional aggravating factor will be added to capture offending that occurred while the offender was subject to a protection order.

Childhood Obesity—Government Response

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied his response to the childhood obesity epidemic is fit for purpose; if so, why?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, tackling the issue of obesity is a key priority for this Government. That is why we launched the Childhood Obesity Plan, with a range of interventions across Government, the private sector, communities, schools, and families. The package has three focus areas made up of 22 initiatives dealing with food, the environment, and being active at each stage of life, starting during pregnancy and early childhood. Development of this initial package drew on recent New Zealand and international evidence, including the interim report from the World Health Organization’s Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity. A technical advisory group also provided advice to the Ministry of Health on evidence for effective interventions and targets.

Hon Annette King: If the initiatives his Government has put in place to reduce childhood obesity since 2009, including dumping tuck shop food guidelines, have worked, why has obesity in children aged between 2 and 14 increased from 8.3 percent to almost 11 percent under this Government’s watch?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member needs to remember that this is a long-term challenge. Governments across the world are facing up to the issue, but it is not an easy one to turn around, and I welcome her constructive comments in the wider debate.

Hon Annette King: If he backs his recently announced New Zealand Health Strategy, which states that it focuses on evidence-based initiatives, will he now adjust his 22-point plan following research from Auckland University, which said his plan was “just business as usual and unlikely to make a difference”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I will be backing our plan, and I do not intend to readjust it—unlike Mrs King, who last November ruled out a sugar tax and then recently said that, actually, they might do a sugar tax.

Hon Annette King: Why don’t you answer your own question?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Because this is a chance for the Opposition to ask Ministers questions.

Hon Annette King: If he believes in an evidence-based approach, will he heed the warning from Consumer New Zealand and public health experts, who say the star-rating model he is promoting is flawed and is misleading parents into thinking they are giving their children healthy breakfast food when it is loaded with sugar?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have not seen those comments from Consumer New Zealand, but what I can tell you is that the Health Star Rating has had an interim assessment, and it is going to have a full assessment in 2019. We are constantly looking at ways in which we can make sure that we turn this problem around. Rather than criticism, I think Mrs King should get on board and come up with something constructive.

Hon Annette King: I have, Mr Speaker, plenty—if you want me to table it?

Mr SPEAKER: No, but I would be interested in the supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Is Healthy Families, a programme that was brought over from Australia, a success, when so far it has spent $14 million, with one provider collapsing, and its main project appears to be implementing water-only policies in schools—something that could have been done for nothing if the Government had been prepared to show some courage and commitment?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am very pleased that the member brought up Healthy Families. I invite her to come with me to visit any of those 10 programmes in places like West Auckland, where Labour is trying to get its polling rate above 26 percent, or places like Invercargill, which used to be a Labour stronghold—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —because there is a lot of good stuff that is going on there. I invite her to come to places like the East Coast, where, of course, no one votes Labour any more. But she should come and see the wide variety of initiatives bought into by communities that used to vote Labour.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need that as part of the answer. [Interruption] Order!

Subsidised Medicines—Access

6. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that New Zealanders received 44 million subsidised prescriptions in 2015/16, and that this is over 10 million more compared to eight years ago—an increase of 30 percent?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, I can. Last year 3.5 million individual New Zealanders received a subsidised medicine. That is more than three out of four Kiwis. One million more subsidised prescriptions were issued in 2015-16 than in the previous year. On top of this, more than 51,000 New Zealanders benefited from new and widened access to 21 more medicines. This is a Government that focuses on the issues that matter.

Simon O’Connor: How has this significant increase in access to medicines been achieved, and what details can he provide on this increased access?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Over the past 8 years, the Government has increased Pharmac’s budget by $200 million, to a record $850 million in 2016-17. Over that time, nearly 170 new medicines have been subsidised and access has been widened to 245 medicines, directly benefiting over 800,000 New Zealanders. New medicines that are now available include Opdivo and Keytruda for advanced melanoma, Harvoni and Viekira Pak for hepatitis C, Atripla and Truvada for HIV, and many, many more medicines.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon Annette King.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Glutton for punishment.

Hon Annette King: Oh, you are enjoying that. What does he say to the pharmacists in places like Kaeō who report that they have patients who cannot pick up all of their prescription because this Government has increased the cost of picking up that prescription?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, what I would say is, look, there has been a level of 6 percent of people who have reported affordability as an issue. That has been consistent for many years. But, as the Minister of Finance was saying earlier, this is the first Government to raise benefits above the rate of inflation in four decades, as well as having wages growing ahead of inflation. So, overall, I reckon it is a pretty good package.

Economic Growth—GDP Per Capita

7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Is GDP per capita growth what matters most for achieving higher material living standards as stated in Budget 2016; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes; because it is a measure of wealth per person, but it is only one measure of material living standards. There are others, such as levels of employment, wages, and economic growth, all of which add up, for New Zealand, to a positive package of reasonable outlook for the economy and, therefore, for household incomes and jobs.

Grant Robertson: Is ANZ chief economist, Cameron Bagrie, correct when he describes an annual per capita GDP growth rate of 0.7 percent as “lacklustre”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a matter of opinion, and sometimes I agree with what the ANZ Bank economist says and sometimes I do not. It is not a surprise, though, that at the moment, per capita GDP—its growth rate—is lower than at some previous periods because we are having a strong growth in population. New Zealand has become a place where Kiwis want to stay home and others want to come and live, and so population numbers are growing just a bit faster than GDP. In time, though, that growth will slow down and GDP per capita will pick up.

Grant Robertson: Is Westpac wrong when it says that the picture is “far from perfect” when it comes to growth, because it is forecasting per capita growth in the June quarter to amount to 0.6 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Where I would disagree with Westpac is relying on quarterly numbers. I mean, GDP per capita matters in the long run. In the short run, we have got a surge in population. That is a good problem. We would have high monthly GDP per capita if lots of people were leaving, and, of course, that would be a much bigger problem than the problems of growth, which we have and are positive problems.

Grant Robertson: Why is Paul Glass from Devon Funds Management wrong when he says: “You do need to strip out population growth because the number that matters is real GDP growth per capita. We only grow our share of the economic cake when GDP per capita grows, otherwise we are running hard to stay still.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is up to his old trick, and that is that if you take out all the things that are growing, then there is no growth. So it used to be too much dairy—you would take that out and there was no growth—too much tourism, too much construction, and now it is too many people. But, actually, if we include all the things that are growing, then, yes, we have a growing economy.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Does the Minister accept that a feeble real per capita growth rate and a persistently low inflation rate, by definition, means that many people are unnecessarily underemployed and unemployed right now?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some people are unemployed and some are underemployed. Our unemployment rate is, I think, in about the top half-dozen of the developed world, and the underemployment rate—it has got a new name now, but if you want to compare it, the New Zealand rate is 12 percent and the Australian rate is 20 percent. That is why New Zealanders are staying home in their thousands. Things simply look better here than in other parts of the world, and that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Grant Robertson: Is Paul Glass from Devon Funds Management not correct when talking about GDP per capita growth being lacklustre and saying: “That is why people don’t really feel like the economy is growing strongly because on a per capita basis it isn’t.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a sweeping generalisation. For instance, as we have explained earlier in answers to questions in the House, real wages are growing at a rate better than quite a lot of times in the past. If you take GDP per capita, the dairy sector incomes, for instance, which are 6 to 7 percent of GDP, are way down on where they were. That does not mean everyone’s income is down; it holds the average down, but, actually, wage and salary earners have significant and persistent real wage increases. They are doing well. They are doing pretty well. Farmers are not doing so well at the moment, but the bad news for the member is that if dairy prices pick up, per capita income will also pick up, and when he asks the question for the 12th time, I think, or the 13th time, the answer will be: “Pretty good.”

Youth Crime—Measurement

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

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Yes, in the context that they were given.

Darroch Ball: How does the Government measure the “youth crime rate”, as described in her statement that the youth crime rate has dropped by 38 percent?

Hon AMY ADAMS: That member has asked me a very similar question in a written question, and we have gone back to him with the evidence that supports the measures underlying the Better Public Services target. We stand by our statement that the youth crime rate has dropped 38 percent since 2011 and more than 60 percent since 2007-08.

Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked how the Government measured it, not what the rates were.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened to the question and I listened to the answer, and on this occasion I am going to invite the member to re-ask the question.

Darroch Ball: How does the Government measure the “youth crime rate”, as described in her statement that the youth crime rate has dropped by 38 percent?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The Government has a number of measures of youth offending, from police statistics to Youth Court appearances, to youth reoffending rates. There are a number of measures we use that inform the youth crime information.

Darroch Ball: Is the Minister aware that the National Government measures youth crime not by the number of youth offences or arrests but instead by “the number of first appearances in [a] court”?

Hon AMY ADAMS: As I said, we use a number of measures, and the number of appearances in the Youth Court is one of those measures.

Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table a document that states that youth crime is measured only—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need the source of the document.

Darroch Ball: It is the Minister’s own website.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to continue to play with the House like that, he is likely not to get any more supplementary questions.

Darroch Ball: Is the Minister satisfied that, currently, youth are committing multiple crimes and being dealt with outside of court on multiple occasions before their first court appearance is ever recorded as part of this Government’s youth crime rate?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The practice of using alternative actions than simply taking every young person, putting them in court, and convicting them has been the process in New Zealand for many years. It is a process that is heralded around the world, and it is part of the reason we have been successful in reducing not only the youth crime rate but the crime rate of young people as they graduate into the adult system. So, yes, I am very well aware that not every commission of an offence ends up charged in the Youth Court. That has been the practice for many years.

Darroch Ball: How can the Minister be satisfied that the youth crime rate is accurately measured when 75 percent of youth who actually commit a crime do not even appear in court and are, therefore, not included in her crime rate at all?

Hon AMY ADAMS: That is exactly the point. We want young people to be dealt with in the way that is most likely to ensure they do not reoffend, and, actually, everything tells us that the system is far more effective at reducing future offending, far more effective at stopping youth graduating to becoming long-term criminals, and far more effective at keeping New Zealanders safe.

Darroch Ball: How can this Government consider extending the youth justice system to include 17-year-olds when the Minister knows that 50 percent of youth who are dealt with by an alternative action reoffend within 12 months, that more than half of the current adult prison population has been convicted in the Youth Court, and that 80 percent of all youth convicted in the Youth Court reoffend within 2 years, demonstrably showing that the youth justice system is failing?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I simply do not accept that. The evidence is quite clear that the youth justice system is far more effective at reducing reoffending. We are not saying that every young person who appears in the youth justice system will not reoffend; we are saying that it is a very effective way. In terms of extending it, those decisions have not been made. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is little point, Mr Ball, in continuing to ask supplementary questions and then continuing to interject right through the answers.

Electric Vehicles—Uptake

9. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Transport: How is the Government supporting the uptake of electric vehicles in New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): On the weekend I launched the Government’s electric vehicle (EV) information campaign, which coincided with the start of National Drive Electric Week, which has over 50 events planned across the country to promote the benefits of electric vehicles. The information campaign will put better-quality information about electric vehicles and their benefits into the hands of people and encourage New Zealand households and businesses to choose an EV as their next car. Electric vehicles are a big part of the future, and that is why the Government is committed to accelerating the switch sooner rather than later.

David Seymour: What reports had the Minister seen that New Zealanders were not aware of electric vehicles prior to this initiative?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Many, but can I say the issue is not so much awareness as also getting action. We are seeing really good momentum in that regard.

Todd Barclay: What measures has the Government announced to support the uptake of electric vehicles in New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Since May the Government has extended the exemption on road-user charges for light electric vehicles until 2021, meaning EV owners could save up to $3,000 over 5 years. A joint Government and private-sector approach to the procurement of electric vehicles was recently announced, along with an EV leadership group to champion the programme of work. National electric vehicle - charging signage has been issued, a nationwide information campaign launched, and tomorrow the first round of funding will open for the Government’s contestable fund to encourage and support innovative low-emission vehicle projects. These are just a few of many measures.

David Seymour: Why does the Minister consider enormous savings in fuel costs an insufficient incentive for people to buy a better technology?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not—I think that is very much a strong part of the rationale. But, of course, there is also an advantage to New Zealand in terms of the energy and the emissions and the ability to plug in with home-grown, clean, green New Zealand energy rather than the imports.

David Seymour: Is the Minister saying that savings on fuel are a sufficient incentive to buy EVs, and yet he still needs additional programmes as additional incentives?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am saying that, at the moment, the purchase price of an electric vehicle is higher, but, actually, over time the proposition is becoming more and more compelling. I think that is why the targets here are 2 percent of the fleet, not more. I agree with the member that, over time, what we will see is that electric vehicles will be much more than a compelling proposition; they will be the vehicle of choice, without any sort of Government intervention.

State and Social Housing—Availability and Emergency Housing

10. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: How many of the 1,000 new social housing places she says are in the pipeline will be delivered by the end of the year, if any? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Is the Minister going to answer? [Interruption] Order!

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Sorry, Mr Speaker. But I have got good news for the House. Might I let the member know that we have—[Interruption] no, here we go; this is good news. We have new houses literally coming on every single week: more than 14 through Housing New Zealand. Actually, I want to—right now the Waimahia development, which your leader actually went and visited, is being done by social community housing providers. It is a combination of affordable and social houses. There are houses coming on board literally every week. It is a fantastic development, and there is more of that coming our way—from us. You can also see some of those others that are coming through from the Social Housing Unit fund. Of those extra 1,000 that we announced just last week, which we changed, they will be coming on board. There are new houses coming on board every week, every month, and even over the next few years.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it help if I repeated the question? She clearly did not address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I certainly will give an additional supplementary question. The member can use it in whichever way he wants. The question has not—[Interruption] Order! The question has not been answered.

Phil Twyford: What responsibility does she take for the fact that it now takes an average of 217 days to house families who have been living in cars, up from 108 in December last year?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We were actually housing around 140 a week; we are now, on average, housing 158 people a week. As I say, we have got new houses. To be very clear, and as we have stated to the member—both in writing and orally, as well—those people may have gone on saying that they are living in a car; they are certainly not in a car for those 7 months. They can now access, of course, that Special Needs Grant where they can get emergency housing immediately if they need it. But we are housing more people each week than we were even just 6 months ago. We have also got new houses coming on board all the time.

Phil Twyford: Why is she trying to claim that people in cars and tents are being helped in the interim, when her own answer to the written question providing the data shows that this is not the case, stating “It is based on the last reported accommodation of the main applicant prior to being housed.”, which means they were still in a car or a tent at the time?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have quite clearly said, there is now the Special Needs Grant available from 1 July, so people can get access, if they have to, into motels and the Ministry of Social Development picks up that bill—effectively, the taxpayer does. We have got, literally, hundreds who have taken that up and are doing it. We are also housing more people every single week, and I simply dispute the way that the member is choosing to read that.

Phil Twyford: How can the stock of social housing be so tight that a person who is living in a tent or a car is categorised as priority B on the waiting list and not priority A?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: On the whole, I would expect them to be at least a priority A, and a high one at that.

Phil Twyford: How does she expect just 300 new emergency housing places to make a difference to the housing crisis when there are over 4,000 people in New Zealand living without shelter?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have good news for the member: the member will see announcements in the next few days of where we are now—at over 3,000 that have been contracted for the year. We have also got a whole work programme that is going on around the new places that we are bringing on around emergency housing. As I said in the House last week, for example, Housing New Zealand has just signed a contract for a motel that we are taking over to turn into emergency and transitional housing. We are also working with community group houses—some of those around the country—that might have been set for sale. So that has doubled now—more than doubled. So I am just trying to update the member if he wants to listen. [Interruption] If he wants to listen—more than doubled since then. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is complete. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] No. Order! I want both sides to settle down.

Marine Protected Areas—Policy

11. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he support a target of protecting 30 percent of New Zealand’s marine environment, including the Exclusive Economic Zone; if not, what target does he support?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The Government’s commitment is to a representative network of marine protected areas covering the full range of biodiversity from New Zealand’s subtropical to the sub-Antarctic waters. This is more important than achieving some arbitrary percentage of marine area, although I do know this Government has, with the inclusion of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, increased the area of marine protected areas from 0.5 percent to 15 percent.

Eugenie Sage: On whose advice did the New Zealand Government delegation to the recent International Union for Conservation of Nature congress refuse to support a motion passed by majority to set aside 30 percent of the marine environment?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: By Ministers.

Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand, which called his Government’s refusal to support the International Union for the Conservation of Nature motion as being “out of step” with marine science and with the 96 percent of Kiwis who want more than a third of New Zealand’s environment protected; if not, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not agree with that assessment. With 15 percent of New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, New Zealand will have a higher proportion of its ocean area in reserve than any country in the world, and I note that it would have increased by more than thirtyfold under this John Key - led Government.

Scott Simpson: How many marine protected areas has this Government established, and in what areas?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We have established 11 new marine reserves: three in the sub-Antarctic islands, five on the West Coast, as well as reserves in Kaikōura, Akaroa, and in North Auckland, totalling an area of more than 450,000 hectares. That does not include the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, which we intend to have in place by 1 November and which will actually provide for an area of marine protection more than twice the total land area of New Zealand, or equivalent to the area of France.

Eugenie Sage: Does he still agree with the advice he provided to a Cabinet committee last year that a “key shortcoming” of the Marine Reserves Act is that it “does not provide for marine protection in the vast majority of our ocean environment, the EEZ, and the continental shelf”; if so, why will his proposed bill not fix this key shortcoming?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because the member overlooks the very significant decision by Cabinet to establish one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, in the Kermadec Islands, which makes up 15 percent of New Zealand’s EEZ. In anybody’s terms, it is a huge contribution by our Government, both domestically and internationally, to marine protection.

David Seymour: Will the establishment of these reserves be accompanied by a reduction in overall fishing quota issue, or will they simply displace fishing effort into the remaining parts of the EEZ?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is only 20 tonnes currently of fishing in the Kermadec area out of a total fish take per year of 600,000 tonnes, so the shift in any fishing effort is quite small. The bigger issue is that the price of fish increases as does the technology to be able to fish further away—this is the reason why it makes sense. Just in the same way as our forebears set aside areas like Fiordland and Tongariro on land, equally it makes sense for us to set aside this very special part of New Zealand’s ocean area.

David Seymour: Is the Minister saying that it is OK for the Government to confiscate your property if you are not using it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, it is not, and I recall very specifically at the time when the quota management system was established and when the Māori fisheries settlement was done, that the Government made very plain—in fact, I personally at the time questioned whether it was proper for the Government to be able to create marine protected areas, whether they are the individual transferable quota system or the Māori fisheries settlement, and the answer at the time was, very clearly, yes. That is, when the Government set those systems up, it quite deliberately continued to allow the Government to create areas of marine protection.

Kiwifruit Industry—Exports

12. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in kiwifruit exports?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Recently I was in Tauranga with trade Minister Todd McClay and local MPs Todd Muller and Scott Simpson to attend the Zespri AGM dinner. This is an industry that has bounced back strongly from Psa and is in very good heart. Zespri’s annual return shows that total sales revenue for the latest growing season grew by a record high of $1.9 billion. This is up 22 percent from the previous season. The total fruit and service payment to growers for New Zealand - grown fruit also grew by 22 percent on the previous year, to $1.143 billion, with an average return per hectare reaching a record $60,758—fantastic news.

Todd Muller: In what ways is the Government supporting this extraordinary growth in the sector?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Very good question. The Government will continue supporting this sector through research and development, through market access, and through the recent changes we have made to kiwifruit regulations. These updated kiwifruit regulations will allow Zespri shareholders to consider setting rules around maximum shareholding and the eligibility for dividend payments, and provide more certainty about the activities that Zespri can undertake as a matter of core business. This will give Zespri greater certainty for investing in the marketing of New Zealand - grown fruit as well as research and development.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Minister consider a slump of 29 percent in the value of lamb exports in July and a slump of 25 percent in the quantity of lamb exported from New Zealand a success for the New Zealand meat industry?

Mr SPEAKER: That is a very, very long way from the original question, but if the Minister wants to answer it, he is welcome.

Hon NATHAN GUY: If the member kept up to speed with questions on the sheet, he would have realised that we are talking about kiwifruit, but I am very happy to answer his question. Of course—

Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister, in attempting not to answer my question, has ignored the reality that exports—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I have allowed the question. It is very wide of the original primary question—I have been very generous to the member. I would now suggest that he allows the Minister to address it.

Bills

Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider the bill. This bill will provide key Government agencies with more of the information and tools they need to keep New Zealanders safe. It will improve the safety of New Zealanders by streamlining how agencies work together to establish and share the identity of offenders and use that information to ensure their sentences are properly carried out. It implements a shift away from name-based records held by individual agencies, to a single, shared, anchor identity based on unalterable information. It implements the remaining aspects of the Government’s response to the inquiry into the matters concerning the escape of Phillip Smith/Traynor. That inquiry called for a step change in the way identity is verified and shared in the justice sector. That step change is delivered through this bill.

Before I discuss the bill, it is worth casting our minds back to the events that led to the inquiry. Phillip Smith was a serving prisoner convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, and convicted and sentenced for child sex offending, extortion, and kidnapping. While on temporary release from prison, he went missing and was able to leave New Zealand on a flight to Chile, unimpeded. Had it not been for a single, sharp-eyed staff member in a Brazilian youth hostel, he might even now be unaccounted for. That is totally unacceptable. The public quite rightly expects the Government to be able to collect and share identity information quickly and accurately to protect them from the risk of harm.

The subsequent independent inquiry made it quite clear that justice sector agencies “have coped with constraints on their ability to share knowledge, manage information and exchange data with one another. But the constraints created risks for them and other agencies and stakeholders.” It is therefore not surprising that the inquiry saw the lack of information sharing as a failure to protect the public against risks, particularly those arising from confusion about criminal identities. The inquiry highlighted that this incident was more indicative of systemic failings to share information between relevant agencies.

There have been a number of changes to operational practice in the way serious offenders are managed, but we also need an improved legislative mandate to ensure that other offenders and mental health patients subject to the criminal justice system cannot exploit the same weaknesses in the system. This bill enables justice, border, and identity sector agencies to manage the ongoing risk posed by offenders. It enhances border processes, to better identify people who are not permitted to leave the country.

The first of the changes in the bill that I would like to highlight is the authorisation for specific agencies to share identity information with one another. The inquiry outlined the need for agencies to efficiently share and manage identity information to address the risks associated with multiple identities being used by offenders and others subject to travel restrictions. The bill provides clear authorisation to share and use identity information to verify people’s identity in certain circumstances. These provisions focus on identifying people who are subject to the criminal justice system, to ensure they cannot breach their conditions or mislead Government agencies. This includes where the police are charging someone, where the Department of Internal Affairs is issuing passports or other identity documents, and where an offender is attempting to abscond from New Zealand.

We need to move away from name-based records held by individual agencies, to a shared anchor identity that is based on unalterable information. Accordingly, the bill enables the use and disclosure of a range of identity information, including biometrics such as photos, fingerprints, and facial recognition.

I would also like to draw the House’s attention to amendments that will enable specified agencies to access key identity information for harm prevention and law enforcement purposes. Both the driver’s-licence database and the births, deaths, and marriages database have important identity information. The inquiry noted that access to this information for law enforcement and harm prevention purposes is unduly restrictive. The bill makes the changes needed to ensure that agencies are authorised to access the information they need to protect the public and enforce our laws.

The information-sharing provisions in this bill have built-in safeguards to protect against inappropriate sharing. The primary safeguard is that the bill sets clear parameters for the circumstances in which information can be shared. It has a clear focus on maximising public safety through effective verification of offenders. It means the bill will not allow the trawling through the records of New Zealanders who are of no interest to the criminal justice system. Alongside these safeguards, existing privacy protections will continue to provide information security and management safeguards. This means Government agencies will have to protect information from unauthorised access and they will have to take reasonable steps to ensure information is accurate before they use it. They will have to take care not to attribute the wrong identity to the wrong person.

The bill also introduces explicit provisions that offenders being managed by a probation officer must not leave or attempt to leave New Zealand without the prior written consent of their probation officer. This amendment gives the operational practice established following the inquiry the force of law. This law change is necessary to ensure that offenders can be effectively managed while on supervision. The bill will make this prohibition on travel without approval a standard condition for offenders on certain conditions, including those on parole, intensive supervision, and home detention.

In the same vein, the bill will also make it explicit in law that mental health patients subject to the criminal justice system and held under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act and the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act may not leave hospital or depart from New Zealand without permission. These individuals are held in secure facilities to protect themselves and the general public from harm. Mental health providers will be clearly authorised to prevent these individuals from travelling unless they are granted leave.

We cannot allow unduly restrictive privacy laws to operate to prevent our border and criminal justice systems from knowing who they are dealing with. We must ensure that the imposed sentences cannot be defeated through the use of multiple aliases. The inquiry made clear what needs to be done, and this bill makes the necessary legal changes to allow Government agencies to work to prevent such incidents from occurring again. I commend the bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I thank the Minister of Justice for her précis of the bill. Labour supports the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. I think it was only going to be a matter of time until this sort of legislation was going to have to come into effect, regardless of the Phillip Traynor/Smith incident. That was a real catalyst, I have to admit, but we were always going to have to upgrade our processes and our systems to ensure that offenders or people who need to be in certain places are always going to be kept there.

We have relied in the past on paper identification, signatures, passwords, PIN numbers, and those sorts of things, and now we are having to move to the next level, with biometric identification such as retina scanning and thumbprints. The classic example of biometric processes is at the airport, of course. We have a passport with a photo in it. Now you can go up to the SmartGate, take off your glasses, and a machine takes a photo of you. The machine itself can compare your photo, taken as you are standing there, with the photograph in your passport and make sure that the face that is in front of the machine at the moment and the passport photo actually are the same person. That will avoid, certainly for people like myself—the customs officer used to hold up my passport, look at me, and go: “Oh my God! You’ve aged in 3 years.” That will not happen. The machine will not give that brutal feedback to us.

We have to understand that the catalyst for the report was the Phillip Traynor/Smith escape. On 6 November 2014 Phillip Traynor/Smith passed unimpeded through immigration and security checks at Auckland Airport. He carried a New Zealand passport that had been issued some 16 months earlier in his birth name, Phillip John Traynor, and yet he was known by the Department of Corrections as Phillip John Smith. The fact is that he was able to sit in prison and apply for a passport under a name that he had used as a child, and it was not picked up was because of the fact that the Department of Internal Affairs, the Customs Service, and the Department of Corrections were not on top of the aliases he had used.

Let us understand that there are many people in prison and in the community in general who go by a number of names. Some people have been adopted and have got a different adult name from the one they were born under. There could be any reason why they have different names, but it is important that our system keeps track of these names. Previously, we just relied upon the honesty of people, and, of course, many people—or most people—in prison are in fact there because of some form or dishonesty.

So Phillip John Traynor was released on a Release to Work programme. It was some 74 hours, I think, before anybody realised that the man who was meant to be on this Release to Work programme and out in the community on this was, in fact, halfway across the Inca Trail and still climbing. The big issue for Phillip John Smith, or Phillip Traynor/Smith, was that he had an ego, and once he got to Brazil—via Chile, I believe it was—he felt he had to call back to New Zealand and email to let everyone know how smart he was. That was his downfall, because I believe that even though he was in some backpackers in some town in Brazil, he was actually recognised because of the media attention over there. If it had not been for the fact that he had an ego that got too much for him, he would probably still be somewhere in South America.

The biometric identifiers, as I say, track facial features. Iris and retina scans, thumbprints—it is all done by computers. If someone turns up at the border, customs officers can actually identify that the person they say they are and the person standing in front of the camera is the same person who is in the passport. A recent example was an Australian man who used his brother’s passport to depart Australia to fight for a terrorist organisation in Syria. The visual check—like I say, the guy at the customs hall held up the passport and said: “Oh yeah, it looks like him.” The customs officer obviously thought the photo looked like the man standing in front of him, and he was able to abscond. A biometric check would have probably prevented that from happening.

I can actually understand that, because people say that my brother and I look very similar. Obviously, I am a lot trimmer and less grey than him, but still, many people mistake us—

Hon Annette King: And better looking.

KELVIN DAVIS: And better looking—thank you, Mrs King. I can only concur with that.

Tim Macindoe: He must look like me.

KELVIN DAVIS: So this guy was able to use his brother’s passport—oh, I look like you?

Tim Macindoe: No, he must.

KELVIN DAVIS: Ha, ha! Yes. So he was able to use his brother’s passport to abscond over to Syria and fight for a terrorist organisation, which is exactly the sort of the thing that we do not want to have happen or to reoccur.

This bill actually amends a number of Acts, but the current Customs and Excise Act allows a customs officer to require certain information from a person crossing the border in order to establish that person’s identity, including any prescribed document that the officer may specify. This includes a passport and the information contained therein, but the Act does not currently explicitly state that biometric information is included in this authority, and that is what this bill is doing. In all the Acts that it is amending, it is making it explicit that biometric information can be used.

The Immigration Act provides the clear authority to collect biometric information from all travellers on arrival to establish or verify their identity to check that they may enter New Zealand, and from foreign passport holders on departure to verify their identity and confirm they have departed. However, in order to act upon border intercept alerts, the Customs Service also needs to be able to use the biometric information of New Zealanders on departure, so this bill is making a number of points explicit in the Acts that it is amending.

I believe there are some seven or so Acts that are being amended, including the Parole Act 2002, the Sentencing Act 2002, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, and the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act. Those Acts are there because there are some people who may need to be in secure facilities because they have a mental health issue or a disability. I can think, for example, of my dearly departed father-in-law, who had Alzheimer’s. I guess there is a tendency for some people with dementia to wander, and somebody like my father-in-law may have been able to get out somehow, and it would be easier to identify that person and show who he was—certainly, because he was not able to actually recall his own name and explain who he was. The bill also amends the Customs and Excise Act, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, and the Privacy Act, as well.

Labour supports this bill. We believe it is something that was going to have to happen, regardless. Even if the Phillip Traynor/Smith incident had not occurred, this was still going to have to happen at some stage in the future to make sure that our borders are safe, to make sure that people are where they are meant to be. We commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. Before I speak regarding the bill, I would like to greet you in Mandarin and say ni hao, because this is Chinese Language Week. I would also like to greet you in Hindi, because this week is also being celebrated as Hindi Language Week—so namaste for that. I would like to congratulate Satya Dutt, the President, and Praveena Prasad, the Secretary of the Hindi Language and Culture Trust of New Zealand, who have been very passionately working on this and celebrating Hindi Language Week for many years.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice on her leadership in bringing this bill to the House. I hope that it will have widespread support from all the parties.

As the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, mentioned, Labour is supporting this bill because technology is changing and we need to upgrade our technology as well as our by-laws so that we can take advantage of it. An example given by Kelvin Davis was that previously names were kept in a register to identify whether someone was required under some offending, but now the technology has changed and people can be identified with biometrics and fingerprints.

Ever since this Government came into power, it has continuously focused on the areas that the public has got concerns with. We have put in place legislation based on need, or as soon as we have realised that amendments to the current process are needed to strengthen our system. This bill in the name of the Hon Amy Adams is another example of needs-based legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to strengthen the power of our front-line staff so that they can identify offenders and provide this information to agencies, so that they can avoid any risk to the general public. This legislation, like many other pieces we have introduced earlier, is part of our promise to deliver better public services.

The need for this bill arose from this Government’s inquiry into the matter concerning the escape of Phillip John Smith from prison. Mr Smith was in jail serving a life sentence for murder, child sex offending, extortion, and kidnapping. Due to the lack of information sharing between agencies at that time, Mr Smith managed to plan his escape from prison. Without doubt, this shows that we need to improve our existing legislation. We need to improve on our failings around adequate information-sharing between agencies along with operational practices, so that dangerous offenders like Mr Smith do not succeed in escaping from prison.

The main focus of this bill is to authorise specific agencies to access and use identity information, including biometrics information, to verify the identity of individuals within the justice system as well as at the border. It is very important to understand that these agencies need to share this information so that a good support system can be provided. Clarifying the ability of the Customs Service to collect, use, and disclose biometric information about persons arriving or departing from New Zealand is another important factor. Authorising the sharing of birth, death, marriage, civil union, and name-changing information with a specified agency for law enforcement purposes is again important so that we can upgrade the information on a particular person.

The last point that I would like to emphasise is that this means that this bill will help mental health patients held in the criminal justice system under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act who may not leave their hospitals or New Zealand without permission because it can be dangerous to the safety of the public.

With these words, I commend this bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I just want to reinforce the comments that were made by my colleague Kelvin Davis around this bill and Labour’s support for it. I do just want to acknowledge that, obviously, the system surrounding offender and prisoner management does need amendment and updating. It is, of course, more than unfortunate that the proof and demonstration that we had of the need to update our legislation was quite a serious breach of the law. The ability of a prisoner to escape not only from prison but from New Zealand—you cannot really get much more serious than that. But what I think we need to remember though is that although we now know that there are a number of things that did not prevent a prisoner from making an escape like that—although there were a number of things that were not in place to do that—actually, there were some really basic failings that occurred that meant we should never have seen some of those mechanisms tested.

So what do I mean by that? Well, sure, we know that, for instance, there are no comprehensive systems in place where the Department of Internal Affairs is routinely supplied with information about New Zealand citizens who are not allowed to leave the country. We also know that the Customs Service was not routinely loading information about those not allowed to leave the country into its border alert system. So those are two obvious things we need to make sure are happening now.

But, actually, before Phillip John Smith even arrived at the airport, there were a number of things that should have happened that never happened. For instance, he was being released to a nominated sponsor. He had been part of a release training run that we use in our corrections system. He was due to be released to a sponsor, but no one informed the nominated sponsor of his pending release, so, therefore, there was no expectation by that sponsor that he would arrive, and no call to the corrections system when that individual did not arrive. So, yes, we have some failings at our border, but actually some of those failings—those fundamental failings—occurred right at the beginning and were failings within the corrections system of the most basic nature. Of course, the Department of Corrections—I acknowledge—responded quite quickly to that and acknowledged those failings.

One of the concerns that I think we need to have though is about things like Release to Work, which is, by and large, a really well-run, well-utilised way of slowly working towards reintegration. While a prisoner is still behind the prison wall but getting close to the point at which they will be released, and they are assessed as being ready for work and being in a situation where the Department of Corrections feels able to monitor them outside the wall for work, then such prisoners are able to go out and do that, and come back into the prison grounds in the evening. Release to Work, by and large, works really well, but my understanding is that as a consequence of some of these issues that were raised by Phillip John Smith, we had a complete, complete shutdown of Release to Work. That is a real shame because, actually, when monitored well, when we do a proper risk analysis of the individuals to whom it applies, it works. It is a good tool. So we do not want to see a complete knee-jerk reaction, and I would implore the Minister to work with the Department of Corrections to make sure we get some of those useful tools back into play.

I want to come to what the bill fundamentally does for the Customs and Excise Act, Birth, Deaths, Marriages and Relationship Registration Act, and the Privacy Act across the board, around the way that biometric information is used at the border. As I say, Labour supports this bill, but we do want to check some of parameters of it once it gets before a select committee.

The best example of some of the things that we want to have a bit of a discussion around is the way that biometric information will be used, for instance, by the Customs Service. When we are referring to biometric information, the Immigration Service obviously uses biometric information already. It includes, basically, the ability to scan the iris, and it includes photographs and fingerprints—not necessarily all of them, but that is the cohort that we describe as biometric information. In New Zealand, when you apply for a passport you do not automatically provide all of that information. Obviously, you provide a photograph, but some of that additional information is really—kind of—checked on a voluntary basis on the return into New Zealand. So, as a New Zealander, when I exit New Zealand the only information that is used for me is a photo. But if we use—as I understand it, if you opt to use the e-gates, then you are providing greater information at the border.

One of the things that this bill will allow is, say, for example, in Subpart 2, “Amendments to Customs and Excise Act 1996”. If you get down to the amendments that this bill will make, it allows biometric information, which, as I have mentioned, is one or more of the following kinds of information: a photograph, impressions of the person’s fingerprints, or a scan of the person’s irises. Then in clause 15 we go on to new section 32D, where it talks about how that information can then be legally used. It states: “The Customs may, for the purposes of monitoring the movement of craft and persons, passenger and crew processing, and border security, collect and use the following information about craft and persons arriving in or departing from New Zealand: (a) details of craft movements …”—that is less useful—“(b) personal information including the person’s name, date of birth, gender, biometric information, passport number, nationality, and travel movements.” It then goes on to new section 32E and states: “(1) A Customs officer may, during the processing of a person’s arrival in or departure from New Zealand, request that person to verify his or her identity by providing biometric information …”.

It then has a series of provisions around what happens if you fail to do that. Those are quite broad, sweeping provisions. At the moment we are basically allowing the Customs Service to, at its discretion, access or request biometric information for anyone who arrives or departs. I want to point out again that that is actually not commonly what is practised, other than a photo. The Customs Service is currently not able to do that with everyone who comes and goes.

It may be the will of the House that we consider it to be absolutely fine to broaden that power, because, actually, the status quo provides some powers for entry but not for departure, and this is obviously where our concern exists—around people who are seeking to depart from New Zealand, and not just arrive. It may well be that we want those broad, sweeping powers to be available to border control, but that is a discussion we need to have, because in the regulatory impact statement it has acknowledged that the Customs Service has actually said that its preferred option is not to check every single person at departure, but to allow the discretion. Well, actually, in allowing the discretion, is that enough to make sure that we pick up everyone who might have a false passport or be using an alternative identity? There are arguments on both sides. We really need to test that we have got the balance right in the powers that we are handing over at the border to border security and to the Customs Service.

One other point that I want to make is that with these kinds of bills it is always incumbent on us, as the Opposition, to make sure that we do look at every implication. As I have said, we support the bill. The intent of it is absolutely necessary. But, as a House, it is really important that we also make sure that we look at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) implications. Sometimes we do pass in this House things that do encroach on an individual’s privacy. It is always our job to check that that is done in a proportionate way and that we have analysed it, we know the implications, and that we are comfortable with a breach if, indeed, a breach has occurred.

I try to make a habit of checking a section 7—a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment—against legislation like this. I have not been able to find the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis for this bill. We checked online today; it does not seem to be available. I personally think that is unacceptable for a bill that does undertake some of the functions that this one does. So I make a plea to the Government that if, indeed, a BORA analysis has been undertaken—which I can only assume it has; unfortunately, the departmental disclosure statement made it very clear that it was not available at the time that that was drafted—I would implore the Government to make that available to the Opposition. We cannot do our job without information like that. Otherwise, I look forward to the scrutiny that I know the select committee will be able to provide to this bill to ensure that we get the balance absolutely right.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand and speak in support of this bill, the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. I appreciate the comments of the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, and I think that there will be some good discussions in the select committee around those issues about where the lines are drawn. I think today we do live in a world where security, of course, is becoming incredibly important for the safety and the well-being of populations.

What this bill does is include safeguards against inappropriate sharing of information by providing clear parameters for the circumstances in which information can be shared. Alongside the existing privacy protections outlined in the Privacy Act, these parameters include limiting information that can be shared to identity information, and only certain named agencies can share that information in specified circumstances. The occasion of the escape of Phillip John Smith created the necessity for an investigation into how that happened. The Government inquiry into the matters concerning his escape found that there were failings around adequate information-sharing between agencies, as well as operational practices. We do see that there were gaps and flaws that needed to be addressed that had been there for many, many years. It took that situation, that instance, to bring to light the questions that enabled us to have this inquiry and come back with recommendations, and the Government fully supported 39 of those, which were quite significant ones.

As I said in my opening comments, around the world the necessity for security is increasingly there. It is like a net that is there, and if there is a hole in the net, then that is where the fish will swim through. So it is important that New Zealand’s security measures, particularly around border entrance and exit, are consistent with other security measures around the world. Otherwise, we become the weak link. We become the vulnerable place. We become the place that can become a safe harbour. So let us be aware of that. No doubt we want to have the great Kiwi way of life that we love and appreciate in this place but at the same time have the security that enables that way of life to be enjoyed by our citizens. I am very happy to support this bill. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I stand on behalf of the Green Party. We are opposing this legislation before the House today. This is the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill.

This bill is in fact a response to a single event, which is of course when Phillip John Smith, who was on short-term release from Spring Hill Corrections Facility, was somehow able to leave the country for South America. We absolutely will enforce and will always stand for safer and secure communities, countries, and passage. However, a number of flaws that allowed Phillip John Smith to be able to get away from the country, and indeed be released from prison, have in this instance seen a sort of a knee-jerk reaction as well—a sort of a twin towers reaction, if you like—where everything is tightened up. The screws are put on, and in that process—and I acknowledge what my colleague Jacinda Ardern has been highlighting in terms of the privacy concerns and the civil rights and liberties that are being thrown out, which we need to be really concerned about.

If this bill does go through to the select committee stage, I will also really look forward to any sort of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, human rights, and privacy concerns analysis, because all citizens of New Zealand need to be considered—there are considerations—but, particularly, Māori are overrepresented in the prison population and will be disproportionately affected by the collection of prisoners’ biometric data. So that is, essentially, our primary concern in opposing this piece of legislation. We would like clear and robust analysis, and it is actually concerning. I myself, having come from a Human Rights Commission background, have been trying to search for whether or not there is a justification for impeaching upon civil rights liberties and privacy rights, as well.

My other point is that what happened here in the release and departure of Phillip John Smith was a number of things that could be solved without the breaching of civil liberties by collecting biometric data—so, for example, just picking up on the fact that the prisoner’s birth name and passport name were different from the name that he was convicted under. I think immediately of my own father, who has a birth name on his birth certificate that is very, very different from his public and stage name and, therefore—this is someone who has just this year finished travelling to every single country in the world over the past 2 years—he himself has had to negotiate, at every border and entry into every single country, the difference between his birth name and his passport name.

Something as simple as having a register whereby you have all of the names of the prisoner registered as a person who is not able to leave the country would have, just on its own, been able to pick up that flaw in the system. For example, if there was any sort of comprehensive system in place to ensure that the Department of Internal Affairs knew about citizens who were not allowed to leave New Zealand, that could have happened without the quite huge consideration of the collection of biometric data. When we are talking about biometric data, we are talking about things like fingerprints, retina scans, DNA, and palm veins, and, as our technology increases, there are more and more ways to collect biometric data. It is now starting to include heart rhythms, as well—that is the sort of new development. So it can be quite intrusive, and the concerns about that include, for example, firstly, consent. I note a concern—and I am happy to be corrected on this by the Minister—where perhaps mental health patients could have their data collected without consent. So consent is something.

The privacy concerns about biometric data also refer to an unintended function or scope. This is where the authentication goes further than what was actually intended—for example, finding a family tumour—in the process of collecting biometric data. Or another concern is where there is unintended application scope, so this is where the process correctly identifies the subject when the subject did not want to be identified, and it possibly could be for a reason that has nothing to do with a security or safety measure. Then, thirdly, there is covert identification. So, for example, that is where the subject is identified without seeking identification, in a crowd somewhere, and I am thinking of situations where that could actually impinge on the well-being of anybody, as well. So there are huge privacy concerns.

As a democratic country and as one that has a reputable position on human rights—a longstanding one—we must always keep the civil rights and other considerations at the forefront. Another one is whether or not it will be counteractive—whether or not the collection of biometric data will be counteractive to bringing down recidivism, or reoffending. So, for example, we must ask whether the collection and sharing of data will take into account any change of behaviour with any prisoner release—whether or not there has been genuine change of behaviour in any prisoners who are released and who are trying to move around—and whether or not we are disproportionately applying the legislation as a sort of a knee-jerk response in a situation where it could also be quite counteractive.

So we are opposing this bill today. We will be keeping a sharp eye on it, if this does go through, and we will want departmental reports and thorough investigation as to any unintended consequences specifically around the gathering and the sharing of biometric data.

I have looked through the recommendations of the report when the Government did an inquiry into what happened with Mr Smith, and I can see the logic and the security measure contained around sharing information—absolutely. As I said before, something as simple as having a register of who should not be allowed to leave the country could be quite a logical recommendation to adopt, but we absolutely must always be reasoned and calm in any situations where we are about to just fling away a whole load of civil liberties with regard to privacy, because that will concern all of our citizens as well, and it will impact on the future of how we organise and govern our country—whether or not we are going to be counteractive and be creating further harm in our communities and in any prisoner release situations where they actually are trying to integrate fairly and genuinely back into the community. Thank you.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. As we are all aware—and various speakers have spoken about it—the case was where Phillip John Smith, who was serving a long sentence and was on a 74-hour temporary release from the Spring Hill Corrections Facility, managed to get a passport issued in his birth name. He went to Auckland Airport, unhindered and unstopped, and managed to flee right out to Brazil.

A Department of Internal Affairs inquiry was held, which identified a number of shortcomings, and it came up with an equally large number of recommendations. So, operationally, Phillip John Smith should have been on the victim notification register, but clearly he was not. What happens when an offender applies for a temporary release is that he or she is assessed by the prisoner manager, assisted by other officers. In this case the victim notification register clearly was not applied to Phillip John Smith, and that is the reason that his temporary release was wrongfully approved.

After getting his temporary release approved, Phillip John Smith went right out to Brazil, and by successfully escaping from our borders he actually stopped being our problem and became somebody else’s problem. But we are a responsible nation and it was not acceptable to us that he had become somebody else’s problem. We have a reputation to protect in the international arena. To his bad luck—and to our good fortune—Phillip John Smith was apprehended in Brazil and brought back to New Zealand. By the time he was brought back to New Zealand our reputation as a law-abiding country, and as law-abiding people, had taken a serious beating in the international arena. Our law enforcement agencies and border control systems had also become the laughing stock of the world.

The multi-agency review came up with a number of recommendations and observations. Some of them are really, really damning for the Department of Corrections and the police. I would like to read out a few of those—“Corrections’ staff failed to adequately assess the extra risk Smith posed on temporary release”. As I mentioned earlier, he was meant to be on the victim notification register but clearly was not, and that victim notification register was later on, as a knee-jerk reaction, amended to read that he was actually on the victim notification register. So the assessment system itself had failed.

The second thing is that his sponsor for the temporary release was unaware that Smith was supposed to be with them, so there was a huge lack of communication between the Department of Corrections and the sponsors themselves. Had the victims of Phillip John Smith been notified prior to his temporary release, as the system demands, I am sure they would have objected to his being released in the community, even if it was for 74 hours.

The third thing, which the police are being blamed for in this whole saga, is that the police checked the wrong address. The police are actually responsible for checking the address of the sponsor who sponsors an offender in jail and is responsible for their stay and their well-being during the time of temporary release. This clearly did not happen, because the police checked the wrong address twice. When the Department of Corrections realised that Smith was not with his sponsor, it was slow to tell police that he had escaped. This was, again, unacceptable. After learning that Phillip John Smith had indeed escaped the country, the police were too slow to alert Interpol, which, again, is a huge shortcoming.

This bill is actually a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk reaction. The inquiry, or the review, was a knee-jerk reaction to the escape itself, and this bill is the fallout from that review. The review gave 39 recommendations, out of which the Government has accepted, in principle, 34 recommendations. How much work will go into that, into fixing those shortcomings, is yet to be seen. However, the intent of this bill is to enable agencies such as the police, the Customs Service, and the Department of Corrections to have instant access to jointly held information on serious offenders and mental health patients who have figured in the criminal justice system. As to the information so held, it is expected that it will be more technical and more accurate, and, hopefully, it will not infringe upon the basic human rights of any individual.

By successfully escaping, Phillip John Smith taught us a few lessons. I hope that we will learn lessons from that escape. Because the intent of this bill is to strengthen interdepartmental information and the sharing of information, including technical data, New Zealand First will support this bill. Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Just as I start a short contribution on this bill, I am disappointed, I guess, that the Greens have taken an opposing view to this bill. They believe that it has all been brought about as a result of the activities of one person—in fact, Kelvin Davis supported this view in his earlier contribution on this bill. This piece of legislation probably is necessary. It was triggered by the activities of one person. As is so often the case, it is either a crooked person, a clever person, or just an ordinary person tripping up who causes legislation to come before this House, and this is no exception.

Since 2008 the Government has worked very hard to ensure that its agencies share information where relevant and useful. This is just another case of there being significant advantages in agencies sharing information and in making processes a whole lot easier for all of those agencies trying to either enforce legislation or enable people to come and go as they please. It is a most essential part of what we do as a Government, and I think we have got to a very good space with some of this sharing of information.

I do accept that there is some risk in sharing information, and, obviously, the select committee, as it moves through this process, will ensure that all possible safeguards have been put in place. The bill itself includes built-in safeguards against inappropriate sharing by providing clear parameters for the circumstances in which that information can be shared. Alongside the existing privacy protections outlined in the Privacy Act, these parameters include limiting the information that can be shared to identifying information. Only certain named agencies can share that information, and in specific circumstances. I think that is a very good start to the safeguards we need to ensure are in place to protect those people. We have got to remember that, on the whole, these laws are not being put in place to protect people who are perfect angels, so we need to make sure that we deal appropriately with those people. That then enables everyone else in the country to move about with a great deal more freedom than they previously had.

I think the ironic thing about technology is that as we enable technology to participate in our regulatory environment, it actually frees up life for the rest of us. Access through customs, for example, is a very good example of this. Some of us recently had the opportunity to visit Auckland Airport. We were on a Ministry for Primary Industries agenda more than a customs agenda up there, but it was really very interesting. Despite the assertions of the last speaker, Mahesh Bindra, on our border control and Customs Service, they are not the laughing stock of the international community. In fact, our Customs Service and border control are probably as good as, if not better than, anywhere else in the world, and I think we should be very proud of them. This bill will give them just a little bit more horsepower when it comes to making sure that those people whom we want to make sure are where we think they are, are where they are.

So I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting this bill, and I look forward to the discussion in the select committee as well. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The stated aim of this bill is to amend various statutes to provide for better information flows between agencies in relation to personal information, including biometric information. This is to enable better identity verification of individuals for the purpose of preventing offences and, when offences have occurred, detecting, investigating, and prosecuting them. The Minister of Justice publicly explained the bill as being in response to the Smith/Traynor inquiry of last year, which called for, as she put it, a step change in the way identity is verified and shared in the justice sector. That entity, she said, was to be based on unalterable information such as fingerprints and facial recognition rather than paper records.

The bill would allow agencies access to the driver’s-licence photo database and birth, death, and marriages information of offenders and mental health patients subject to the criminal justice system. The move towards a single, shared record of photographs, fingerprints, and facial recognition would, she said, equip New Zealand law and border enforcement agencies with the best tools in identifying offenders and absconders.

Our concern is that the bill permits the widespread collection of biometric data on the basis of a single incident involving an escaped prisoner. I pick up on the point made by the previous speaker, Mr McKelvie, who was lamenting the fact that the Green Party is pinning its opposition purely on that. But, in fact, that is not an accurate portrayal of our position. The essential opposition we have to the bill is triggered not by one person. The main reason is the fact that what the Minister of Justice calls unalterable information is, to us, unacceptable information in terms of its intrusive nature into privacy laws. The ability of the Customs Service to collect biometric data is not limited to people suspected of having traveller restrictions, though the bill’s regulatory impact statement suggests that it would be used sparingly. It is not clear how the information would be shared among agencies, given that the Department of Corrections already possesses this information.

The scope for further information gathering from patients—for example, in mental health care—and sharing with foreign enforcement agencies may pose privacy concerns, as Marama Davidson, my colleague, pointed out in some detail earlier. I will not spell out those details again. But, as our Labour colleague Jacinda Ardern said at the beginning—and this is not the first time this issue has come before this House—this issue is a balance between, on the one hand, national security concerns and domestic security concerns and, on the other hand, privacy laws and the right to avoid unnecessary intrusion.

As Jacinda Ardern put it, she searched and could find no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis. For the record, the Green Party sought a briefing from the Ministry of Justice on this issue and was refused. For these reasons, the Green Party will, at the first reading, oppose this bill.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): It is a pleasure to take a short call on the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. I just wanted to start off by saying, as my colleagues have said, that Labour will be supporting this bill to select committee.

I want to express what we do know about the circumstances around this bill. First of all, we know that there was an inquiry. We know that there have been a number of failings in the systems, including in the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Justice, Customs Service, and the Department of Internal Affairs. We know of the perpetrator who got himself over to South America, but what we do not know is exactly how many other people have managed to do the same thing. This person got himself caught, and so maybe there have been others who have not been caught. It just occurred to me that that is something we do not know.

As my colleagues Jacinda Ardern and Kelvin Davis have pointed out, we will support this bill at first reading because there are clearly some systemic failures within the processes being used at the border, and with the sharing—or lack of sharing—of information. But I do want to acknowledge that in this ever-changing world, with the technology changes that we have, it is appropriate to also ask the question: does the magnitude of the response match, or is it appropriate for, the size of the issue that exists? I think that is an issue that the select committee ought to look at, around all of those issues within this bill.

It is a very powerful bill, I believe. With anything that changes the Privacy Act, there is, to me, a very high threshold of consideration that needs to be met. I believe that is the appropriate place to make it—at the select committee. Changing the use of information and, as I said, the technology around that information, and biometric information being transferred or shared amongst agencies for that purpose—and I have listened carefully to the concerns that others have around this very issue. I have to say that I have heard some valid issues around the use and potential misuse of this biometric data. We certainly do need to tread very carefully, but I also think we need to have every tool that we can have in the tool box to protect our borders—to protect and enforce the laws of our country so that people who are not supposed to leave New Zealand cannot leave New Zealand. I am very happy to support that.

I have read, in view of my portfolio being internal affairs, the specific parts around the changes to the Passports Act, and they all seem to me very appropriate to have within the processes of issuing passports. It still comes down to the ability to give effect to these new changes. The only way the Department of Internal Affairs is able to issue a passport—it actually needs the information from those other agencies.

I am happy to support this bill. Kia ora.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): This bill responds to legislative weaknesses around offenders and special or restricted patient management. These weaknesses were identified in the Government inquiry into matters concerning the escape of Phillip John Smith, or Phillip John Traynor. Agencies have since been working hard to implement the inquiry’s recommendation to improve operational practices. However, we need to keep supporting that work with legislative changes to ensure something like this example cannot happen again.

I will go very briefly through the main provisions of the bill in its first reading. The key changes authorise specified agencies to access and to use identification, including biometric information, to verify the identity of individuals within the justice system, as well as at the border. It clarifies the ability of the Customs Service to collect and use and disclose biometric information about persons arriving to, or departing from, New Zealand. It also authorises the sharing of birth, death, marriage, civil union, and name-change information with specified agencies; clarifies that special care recipients and special patients and restricted patients may not leave their secure facility—or New Zealand—unless authorised; provides for the collection of biometric information from offenders to better identify those offenders at New Zealand’s borders; enforces the conditions specified for those individuals; authorises the sharing of photographic images of driver’s licence holders for law enforcement and identify verification purposes; and strengthens the standard release conditions to stop offenders on sentences or parole conditions from leaving New Zealand without written consent from their probation officers.

All these measures require a number of legislative changes, and so here we are, debating at first reading the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. It is another example of how this Government responds to issues quickly and effectively. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to speak in support of this bill, the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill, at its first reading.

I note that the speaker who has just resumed her seat, Jacqui Dean, mentioned that this is how the Government responds. In a way, it is sad that the Government is responding to this, because this piece of legislation has come about because of a succession of huge blunders that were made by a succession of Government agencies. If we look at the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Justice, the Customs Service, and Department of Internal Affairs—all of those agencies dropped the ball. They dropped the ball and allowed a very serious convicted criminal, who was still carrying out his sentence, to be issued with a passport, cross through the border, jump on a plane, and end up on the other side of the world in South America. That was a huge blunder. Yes, we know that things need to be fixed, but we do not want to be seeing these blunders happening all of the time. We are seeing it too often in food safety areas, and now we are seeing it in border protection areas.

Therefore, I do acknowledge the good work by the retired High Court judge Dr John Priestley QC and Simon Murdoch, who conducted this inquiry—after the debacle of Phillip John Smith, also known as Phillip John Traynor—into the failings of our Government agencies in preventing a very serious criminal from jetting away overseas.

This bill gets to the nub of one issue, which is the issue of aliases—“also known as”. We had Phillip John Smith, also known as Phillip John Traynor. The fact that his identity information from his birth—he had a heinous criminal career under the family name of his stepfather. So those failings led him to be able to apply for a passport under his birth name, and no one knew otherwise—no one within the Government agencies knew otherwise. So this bill does crack down on that. It does allow the agencies to share more information to ensure that we do not see these events happening again.

There are operational changes that I understand the agencies concerned are already carrying out. This bill just implements the changes that are needed at a legislative level. So we do welcome these changes, but I do note the concerns of the Green Party that whenever you are looking at sharing of private information, we need to make sure that the systems are robust.

We obviously note that there was—as was identified in the report—a complete failure of or lack of comprehensive systems in place, in the case of Mr Smith. We do want to make sure—and I think that is why this bill needs thorough examination and consideration by the Law and Order Committee—that the right balance is struck. At the end of the day we want to get it right. We want to make sure that the bad persons of high interest in the criminal justice system are not allowed to just jump on a plane and just fly out of the country, but we also want to ensure that it does not unnecessarily intrude on those people who are not of high interest to the criminal justice system.

These are some long-overdue measures that we do welcome. I was interested to note the use of biometric information—we are talking about retinas, thumbprints, and various other unique identifiers that we do have. I am pleased that although biometric systems were not in place, there certainly was a biological impact on Phillip John Smith when he was intercepted in Brazil and brought back and thrown back into prison here, because he went away with what seemed like a full head of hair and came back completely bald. I think that it was good that our law enforcement folks, whether they were in Brazil or our own police, were able to yank him back to prison here in New Zealand. I understand he is awaiting further charges and the outcome of his brief South American escapade.

We do support this bill. We do look forward to examining it further at the select committee, and I commend it to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): This bill is a very important piece of legislation for verifying who offenders and potential offenders might be, and then sharing that information appropriately. Identifying who someone is is the process of authentication, and generally there are two factors to authentication. The first is something that you have—for example, a swipe card, a passport, or a cellphone—and the second is something you know, such as a PIN, a password, or a security question. Both of these factors come with problems. The something you know—a password can be hacked, it can be guessed, or it can be stolen. The something you have can also be stolen, it can be copied, it can be falsely created, or it can actually be legitimately created—and this feeds into what my colleague was just saying about aliases and identity theft. Name changing can be legitimately done and new identification documents established.

This leads me to talk about another Smith. The focus here today has been around Phillip John Smith, but I want to give the case of another Smith: Michael Richard Smith, who, in 2015, was convicted of theft by a person in a special relationship and jailed for 5 years. He changed his name and identification many times. He was also known as Michael Weaver, Michael Levertoff, and Michael Fresnel. While he was on bail awaiting trial he changed his name, set up new companies, and continued to defraud innocent New Zealanders. So name changing is definitely a tool that offenders use. To pick up from my colleague from the Greens, who also suggested that one case has generated this legislation, I would point him to examples of fraudsters and criminals who have recently changed their names. I would point him to Paul James Bennett, also known as Paul John Williams—this is all just in 2014—Phillip John Smith, whom we know of; Cristian Dario Alcalde; and Glenn Green, also known as Dallas Deangeles. So there is actually quite a body of work and case law to substantiate this legislation.

In fact, in 2012-13, 7,422 New Zealanders changed their names—of course, many did it legitimately, but some may have done it for illicit purposes as well. What this bill does then is allow biometric authentication. So we have got what we know and what we have; this adds what we are. That is the third factor, which biometric authentication adds. I think it is very important to add to that toolset, and I believe it will probably be a combination of all three that will be the most effective. The ultimate effective authentication is DNA, and, at some time in the future, this bill futureproofs that possibility—that DNA actually becomes our biometric assessment. Anyway, I think this is very good, very important legislation, and I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill be now read a first 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.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.

Bills

Education (Update) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education (Update) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Science Committee to consider the bill. Our Government has a clear expectation of an education system that meets the educational achievement challenge for every child and young person. The update of the Education Act 1989, along with the review of funding systems, will provide a framework for an education system focused on student achievement and progress that is given expression through communities of learning, schools, kura, and early learning centres. The changes this bill proposes will put student progress and their learning environment more firmly in the centre of education legislation. The underlying drive for this update is a more flexible and innovative education system, a system that serves all our children and young people. This bill will help to encourage and enable cooperation, creating a system where teachers and principals can focus on inspiring our young people, rather than being distracted on to administrative tasks.

The current Education Act 1989—the Act—focuses on how schools are run, rather than on student learning and achievement. It currently provides little guidance to schools on what education success or student well-being should look like, or how schools can best meet parents’ expectations. The Education (Update) Amendment Bill makes the most significant changes to the Education Act since it was passed 27 years ago. It is consistent with the fundamental principles of self-management established by Tomorrow’s Schools, but is being amended in a way that signals my expectations of collaboration between education providers, for the benefit of children and young people.

This bill is also about equipping students with skills and qualities they need to thrive in an increasingly complex global and digital society. It is about giving students the information they need to successfully understand and navigate the opportunities that are available to them through education and into the world of work. When we consulted on the update of the Education Act, 1,854 submissions were received. In addition, hundreds of principals, members of boards of trustees, representatives of national organisations, students, parents, family, and whānau, as well as other members of the public, attended workshops and presentations held throughout the country. Throughout the wide range of views expressed, the common theme was the importance of education to providing better personal, economic, and civic outcomes for our children and young people.

The Act as it stands is focused on the administration of schools and is not explicitly focused on the learning of children and young people. This bill will bring the achievement and learning of children and young people to the centre of the early childhood education and compulsory schooling parts of the Act. This includes, for the first time, setting out in the Act what New Zealand’s education objectives are, and how communities of learning, early learning services, schools, and kura can contribute to, and are accountable for, achieving those objectives. These objectives will inform a statement—the National Education and Learning Priorities statement—issued by the Government of the day, setting out what is important to that Government for education.

This bill strengthens accountability and reporting in the education system. It will ensure that school boards know what they are required to do and are focused on what is most important: children and young people, and their learning and educational outcomes.

Most schools in New Zealand are doing a very good job already, but a small number need extra help from the Government. This bill creates additional interventions to enable faster, more tailored responses when schools are struggling, to ensure the achievement of all children and young people. It will allow a Government to step in earlier to assist schools, with minimal intervention, to support operation of schools and to protect the education and welfare of students.

One of the most important contributions this Government has made to the education system is introducing communities of learning. These communities of learning are made up of education providers, including early childhood education, schools, and kura, which track an end-to-end pathway through a neighbourhood or a particular kind of education. They come together to raise achievement for children and young people by setting shared learning and teaching objectives based on evidence, and working together to achieve them by sharing expertise in teaching and learning, and by working together to ensure a child’s journey through the entire education system is successful and no longer truncated by only sectoral imperatives.

I am pleased to advice that more than half of New Zealand schools are now working together in communities of learning, with 148 formed to support more than 410,000 children and young people. For these schools, kura, and early learning services that have formed communities of learning—and for those who wish to join—this bill will further support them by providing an enabling framework for the evolution of communities of learning. This bill allows for the formalising of agreements among members of a community of learning, which will support that community to explore shared packages of support. This will allow teaching professionals to focus more on what only they can do: the magic and the core purpose of causing learning to happen and raising student achievement.

This bill will enable those schools that wish to, to enrol new entrants in groups at the beginning of each term, rather than on their individual birthdays, provided that the school or community of learning has consulted with their communities first. Many primary schools have expressed interest in adopting cohort entry requirements or arrangements for new entrants, suggesting that it would enable them to better manage the transition to school, simplify school and classroom planning, and minimise disruption for existing new entrants.

Regular attendance at school or kura is a significant factor in student achievement. To establish good attendance habits, the Act will be changed to make attendance at school and kura compulsory once children have started, should they choose to start before the age of 6.

This bill will also update aspects of education law that have become outmoded and inefficient. It will update and streamline the legislative framework of the State integrated schools by transferring the provisions of the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975 into the Education Act, by improving the way enrolment schemes are managed, and by updating Part 12 of the Act relating to the opening, closing, and merging of schools.

This bill will create a framework for online learning, making it easier for students to study online. Online learning gives students more flexibility, more personalisation, and more options about what and how they learn. This bill will let students choose whether to study some subjects, or all of them, online, as an alternative to face-to-face education, as a supplement, or as a complement. It also provides an innovative digital option to engage students who may be struggling in the traditional school environment. New providers will be able to enter the market as accredited communities of online learning, and a wide range of potential provider types can seek accreditation.

The bill establishes a Competence Authority in the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. This will improve the time it takes for competence complaints to be resolved. The Competence Authority will ensure that these complaints are dealt with by professional leaders who have expertise in relation to teachers’ competence, while allowing the council to focus on all of its other strategic governance.

The bill will increase the effectiveness of the New Zealand careers system, to help drive improvements in achievement for all learners. The bill will achieve this by disestablishing Careers New Zealand and creating a refocused careers service within the Tertiary Education Commission. This will consolidate in one place all of the careers information that users need, enable better integration of the online careers planning tools that are currently offered by the Government, and establish clear lines for accountability for the delivery of careers services. It will also enable the Government to better incentivise connections between educators and employers, and ensure that students are supported to successfully transition to further study and employment.

The Act has been amended in a piecemeal way over the last 27 years. We have the opportunity to undertake the necessary updates to provide a more coherent framework that meets the needs of communities of learning, early childhood, and schooling environments now and into the future. I now commend the bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before I put the question, I am going to refer the Minister of Education, as I have referred the Minister once previously, to Speaker’s ruling 53/4 relating to reading speeches. There is an understanding that Ministers with highly technical matters—or matters where, for example, in the case of the Minister of Justice the courts are likely to, if you like, hang on every word—have a lot of flexibility with regard to reading speeches and can read their entire speech. The speech that the Minister just read was one that, I think, it could be fair to say was not highly technical. Therefore, although it is appropriate to refer to notes and sometimes to quote numbers in a similar way, I would certainly prefer it if Ministers could take some care to acquaint themselves with their speech notes rather than just read them.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): The education legislation—there is absolutely no question that it desperately needs updating and consolidating. I know that the education community, including parents, teachers, school trustees, principals, and students themselves, has welcomed the opportunity to discuss the objectives of our education system and the purpose of education. Why is it that we spend $11 billion a year on a public education system? Why do we make all kids after the age of 6 attend school? I know that people have welcomed that debate, and I know that that has been a wide-ranging debate, and that is one of the reasons why, when I sat down with this bill, I came to the debate wanting to support what the Government may have come up with—I know there has been wide-ranging discussion about it. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed because the bill reinforces the worst aspects of what we are doing now, and the one future-focused thing that the bill has in it is so far out there and so far based on no evidence at all that it is almost impossible to support in its current incarnation.

But let me begin at the beginning with the education system objectives and priorities and the associated changes with school planning and reporting that this bill necessitates. The current Government—and this, in my view, reinforces one of the worst aspects of the current Government’s policy approach—has taken the view that the only learning that matters is the learning that can be assessed, that the only assessment that matters is the assessment that leads to the accumulation of standards or credits, and that the only credits that matter are those that contribute directly to a qualification.

I think that the education system needs to embrace a much wider definition of learning and of student success than that very narrow one that is being now locked in in this bill. That is why the planning and reporting requirements—the very bureaucratic planning and reporting requirements—being imposed by this bill could be very damaging to the education system. We know that despite the focus on qualification attainment and standards attainment that the Government has had in recent times, kids are still leaving school without the basic literacy and numeracy requirements that they need to succeed after they leave school. How do we know that? Because Bill English, the Deputy Prime Minister, told us that when he described young New Zealanders as “pretty damned hopeless.”

I think that we have got to be better than that, and we have got to have an education system that is better than that. We know that kids are not getting the literacy and numeracy skills they require, because when international, objective studies are done, like the Programme for International Student Assessment study, we find that our rankings are going backwards, not just in terms of where we sit relative to other countries but where we sit in terms of our own performance. Comparing ourselves against our past performance, we are going backwards. Constantly testing kids, which is what this bill focuses on and locks into the education system, is not going to improve student learning.

Then we come to the communities of learning proposal. I passionately believe that greater collaboration and cooperation between schools and educators will be good for kids’ education, but the communities of learning system imposed by this bill is heavy-handed, it is bureaucratic, it is managerial, and it is not in any way focused—to the extent that it needs to be—on quality teaching and learning. It is also not fair. Go back to July this year when I got data from the Ministry of Education that showed that 32 percent of all of the funding that has gone into communities of learning thus far has gone into decile 10 schools whilst only 1 percent has gone into decile 1 schools. The communities of learning proposal, therefore, is reinforcing inequality in the education system rather than tackling it, and that has to be one of our key objectives.

The bill introduces a new proposal that allows students to start school in cohorts closest to their fifth birthday. I am open to the debate around that, and I am looking forward to the evidence that kids starting in cohorts are going to be better off than if they simply start on or nearest to their fifth birthday. I absolutely do not support a proposal that would allow kids to start school earlier than that. If it is a matter of weeks either side of their fifth birthday, then I am open to a debate about that, but if it goes earlier than that, then that is something for which I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that that is going to be good for kids’ education.

I am also interested in the debate around the establishment of a competence authority, and I will very much look forward to hearing what the profession has to say about that, but it is a problem when the body that is going to oversee the teacher competence authority is completely appointed by the Minister. If this is a self-governing profession, then surely teachers should have the ability to elect their own representatives. At the moment, this Government will not allow them to do that. They pay the full cost of the Education Council through their registration fees, and yet they do not have any say in how that council is run or what it says on their behalf. At least allow them an election for some of the members on the council so that they have a say in how it is administered.

Then we come to the proposal that has perhaps resulted in the most debate, and that is the establishment of communities of online learning (COOLS) which could, of course, see students sitting at home with a computer, doing all of their learning at home without the peer-to-peer interaction that they get at school and without the face-to-face interaction with a teacher. It completely ignores all of the research that says that even in an online learning environment the quality of the teacher and the quality of the interaction with the teacher is still going to be the thing that has the biggest impact on student learning. This bill does not take that into account in any way.

Kids learn a lot outside the classroom too, which is not purely academic but actually contributes a lot to what they can achieve later in life. This bill does not in any way accommodate that. It does not look at research that is coming from other countries. Look at the United States, where they do have fully online, private charter schools. An evaluation carried out in the United States—and it was a pro - charter school foundation that conducted this research—found that students attending these schools lost an average of about 72 days of learning in reading and 180 days of learning in maths during the course of a 180-day school year. That basically meant they lost all of their maths, and they lost roughly half of their learning. That is simply not a good basis on which we should be experimenting with kids’ education in New Zealand.

There is no real evidence base to support what the Government is doing around COOLs. There is no doubt that online learning within schools is taking off in New Zealand in a good way and in a positive way. The idea that schools can be sharing teachers and sharing resources using online learning is good, and it has already been embraced by the education system without the need for legislative change. This bill goes much, much further than that.

I have a couple of other points to raise before I conclude, because we are going to have plenty of opportunity to get into the details of this bill when it gets to the select committee. I am interested in the proposal that the Minister has put forward to bring the legislation concerning integrated schools into the primary Act—the Education Act—and we are very much looking forward to hearing what the integrated schools have to say about that, because they are the ones who will be most affected by that.

We support the changes that the Government has made around the provision of career services and the disestablishment of Careers New Zealand, because we certainly need to do a much better job of careers advice in schools. At the moment the system is not working the way it should. This is one step. We need to go much, much further. The Labour Party has already set out a pretty concrete proposal to significantly improve the quality of careers advice in schools, and we certainly welcome the opportunity, as this bill progresses, to debate how we can further build on that and do that even better.

So, overall, there is much in this bill that is worthy of debate, that is worthy of scrutiny, and that will lead, I think, to some improvements to our education system, but there is more in the bill that is backward-looking, that is overly bureaucratic, and that locks in some of the worst aspects of what we are doing now. Unfortunately, those negative aspects of the bill make it impossible for us to support at this stage.

We will continue to engage with this bill as it goes through the select committee. We will improve it if we can. We will look to the submitters for their very practical suggestions. We will look to the Government for evidence to support the proposals it is putting forward. The Government has yet to put forward robust evidence for many of the proposals that are contained in this bill, and, of course, we will keep an open mind as that process continues to unfold. But at the moment, as the bill is drafted now, in an overall way, it is not going to be good for teaching and learning, and that is the thing that is going to have the biggest impact on student achievement and on what students end up leaving school with. As a result, the Labour Party will not be supporting the bill’s first reading.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): The previous speaker, Chris Hipkins, mentioned that there were some good points and good ideas in the Education (Update) Amendment Bill, and this side of the House will engage with the member and with members on the other side during the committee stage to further strengthen the bill.

The Education Act 1989 is 27 years old and needs to be updated. The Act focuses on how the education system or schools are run, instead of on student achievement. We want to shift the focus of the Act from its concentration on schooling and compliance, to raising student achievement. We believe that the Act should clearly say what is expected of boards, and allow the Government to set out a statement of national priorities. We believe that the education system needs to be more flexible, innovative, and responsive, to cater to the needs of students, who are not currently well served. We need to encourage more cooperation between schools, early learning, and tertiary providers.

It has been said before in this Chamber that education is a huge responsibility for any Government. Students are our future citizens and future workers. In that sense, they are the future of the country. National is focusing on improving performance in the schooling system, to ensure every child has the opportunity to succeed. The National-led Government has not only invested heavily in education since it came into Government in 2008; it has also made a huge effort to ensure we have a modern education system that reflects New Zealand, now and in the future.

This is the most significant update to New Zealand education in nearly 30 years. It is about enabling schools and early childhood centres to provide a flexible 21st century education, focused on the achievement of every young New Zealander. The current Education Act is focused on administration and compliance with schools. It is not conducive for schools to make innovative changes to suit a 21st century education. We do not think that is right, so that is why we are making changes.

For the first time, early childhood education providers and schools will have clear objectives, with clear accountabilities. The bill will support the creation of a more flexible and innovative education system. In terms of encouraging cooperation between schools across the country, more than 1,200 schools and 18 early childhood education centres have now formed communities of learning and will work together to raise student achievement. More than half of our schools are now supporting more than 410,000 Kiwi kids. This bill allows members of communities of learning to formalise agreements.

This bill also increases the accountability and reporting in the education system. We want boards to know what is expected and required of them, and for them to be focused on making sure their schools deliver the best teaching opportunities and outcomes for their students.

A key proposal that will affect parents is the option for schools to enrol children in the term nearest their fifth birthday. The previous speaker mentioned that if it was too early, he might not support it. But this one is just up to 8 weeks. Some schools have told us that they think it would be less disruptive for all students and would enable a smoother transition for new students to have new entrants able to start each term, instead of on their birthday. Under this bill, the earliest that children could start school is up to 8 weeks before they turn 5, although parents can still delay their child starting school until their sixth birthday.

I commend the bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Once again I am going to issue a comment on the reading of speeches. That member, Dr Yang, is now quite an experienced member and should be beyond the period where the inexperienced member exemption applies. The member did have some figures in his speech, and it would have been appropriate to refer to them, but he gave himself away when he regularly looked at his speech, for just about every line, and then shuffled his pages as he finished one and moved to another. I am watching now, quite carefully, all members and applying the Speaker’s rulings, as agreed at the Standing Orders Committee at the end of the last Parliament.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for the opportunity to debate the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. I also will try not to read my speech, as much as possible. Labour wants to be supportive of a bill like this. It has been 27 to 30 years, and this is a huge undertaking that the Government has taken in rewriting the Education Act. However, there are so many things in this bill that we just do not agree with, unfortunately.

The first is the communities of online learning. When this proposal was first debated in the House, what I know from the coverage, both in the media and just from listening to a lot of interviews after it was first proposed by the honourable Minister, is that even though this bill has been consulted on for over 18 months, the communities of online learning, however, was not one of those proposals that was taken out to those in the sector, to ask them for their opinion about whether or not it was a good idea. Right now we already allow, via charter schools, the privatisation of education. The Government already allows charter schools to hire teachers who are not registered. But with the communities of online learning it goes even further than that. So not only are we saying, if this bill passes, that schools do not even have to have a registered teacher, what the communities of online learning will allow for, because the change in the law will allow it, is that you do not even need a teacher. That is something I am fundamentally opposed to.

I am a person who went through all of her schooling having been led by a teacher. From preschool, primary school, intermediate, and right through to university I had a teacher of some kind. Just knowing and seeing a lot of the schools in my area in South Auckland, seeing how the students interact with their teachers, I say that having teachers is a crucial thing. I quote the vice-chancellor of Massey University, the Hon Steve Maharey, who once observed: “Technology is merely a delivery mechanism. On its own it changes nothing.” I agree. Technology is a good thing to have, and, yes, we are going through a revolution in technology—automation; technology is a way of life. However, one of the other reasons why communities of online learning just will not work for all of our students is that we know that not all of our kids actually have access to a digital device. There are some schools, a few schools—

Hon Member: It’s called infrastructure.

JENNY SALESA: Oh, infrastructure; that is right. There are some schools, via Manaiakalani, where parents can, by paying $3 or $4 or $5 a week, access a digital device. However, not all of our schools have access to Manaiakalani. So my question is: does this Education (Update) Amendment Bill allow for ensuring there is equal access for all of our children? The answer to that is no—not when there is something like a community of online learning that allows a whole school to be registered.

We are told by the Minister of Education that there will be a rigorous process that a private entity will have to go through, a school will have to go through, and even a tertiary education provider will have to go through before it can become a community of online learning. But my question is: will it be more rigorous, or will it be just as rigorous as when this current Government chose Serco? We know how that panned out, when we allowed a private provider like Serco to run our prison systems.

The other assumption that communities of online learning have us questioning—because it is definitely privatisation of education; it is the market model—is whether it is a market model that says to us, in terms of education, that the competitive market is what will deliver better educational results. Has it delivered better educational results? If we just look at the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results internally here in New Zealand, the honourable Minister will probably say: “Yes, it has delivered.” But what do those NCEA results actually mean when we have so many of our students graduating from high school with NCEA level 2, and some of them with NCEA level 3, but they still do not have a job? There are still over 87,000 who are not in education, training, or employment.

Do those NCEA results actually mean that our students are more successful now? When we are not filling our own jobs here, when we are going overseas, hiring people from overseas to fill in the huge skills gap that we have in this country, are we actually successful in our educational system? Not for all of our students, and I say that this education bill does not actually make sure that all of our students are going to be equally successful. This current Government has taken the attitude that the only learning that seems to matter is the one that can easily be measured. However, it also says that the only measurements that matter are the national standards and NCEA, and I do not agree that those are the most crucial of learnings for our students.

The other thing that this bill proposes is that our students can start school as early as 4 years old. Labour is open to the debate of whether or not we allow kids to start school as early as 4 years old. However, we would like to see the evidence and research to back that up.

The other question I would like to pose this Government is: what about those poor, vulnerable students—the young students who are not currently enrolled anywhere, the ones who are living in cars, garages, or tents? We know from Te Puea Marae that of the families with young kids that they served, about 50 percent of them were not actually enrolled in any formal education, whether it be preschool, primary school, or high school. Why? Those parents told us that they were moving so often that they did not quite see why they would actually enrol their children when they would just have to move them. So my question to this Government is: will this bill deliver for our most vulnerable and poor children? I am not so sure.

In terms of State integrated schools, we welcome the move to consolidate education legislation by moving the law so that it allows for integrated schools as well. There are some really good, well-integrated schools in my electorate over in Manukau East. Many of them are Catholic integrated schools. They deliver really good results for our students, and so we welcome the move to include State integrated schools.

The provision under this bill that we agree with is the fact that Careers New Zealand is going to be disestablished and moved into tertiary education. We know, just from the consultation that we have had with the Future of Work Commission—a lot of people have told us that the career services advice at the moment needs to be really looked at and needs to be addressed. We, of course, have our own proposal, which our leader has announced. We believe that it is the best way forward to professionalise careers advice. It is not something that I have seen in this particular bill, and so that is something that Labour will do. Thank you very much.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): A few weeks ago I had the great privilege of going to the United States and viewing the two conventions. One of the things that struck me when I was over there was how intensely divided that country was, and as I reflected on the cause of that division, it was clear that there is a significant portion of that country that is anti-establishment, is anti-globalisation, and has sensed that the world is changing at such a fast pace that they cannot see how they can find a way forward for themselves and their families. For those people—and you see that not only in America but in other parts of the world as well—their natural reaction to that pace of change and globalisation is to put their hands up and to say “No, let’s just stick with the status quo.” or, even more nostalgically, “Let’s just see if we can return to 20 or 30 years ago.”

That is why I am so supportive of this piece of legislation. What this piece of legislation does is talk to this Government’s fundamental view that we best prepare our children by giving them the tools to embrace change, because the change will be the constant in their lives and we need to ensure that we have an education system that is fit for purpose and can evolve with the trends that are happening around the world. When you look at what we have put in this document, where we emphasise the importance of collaboration, where we emphasise the importance of getting careers advice—which we all know, in this House, needs to be tuned to the reality of today’s and particularly tomorrow’s job environment.

The other area for me that is of particular interest is our thinking in respect of communities of online learning. We cannot, as members of this House, be absolutely sure that all the future permutations can be captured in this bill, and that is what I would like to spend a few moments on, particularly directing my comments to my fellow Education and Science Committee members who are from the other side. Let us see if we can have a conversation in respect of what is in this bill that actually leaves some of the historical legacy ideology at the door. Let us not reference this document through the debates of the 1980s and 1990s, where all change needs to be resisted, where the only difference between today and success is more money—that the structure does not need to change. Let us leave that at the door. Let us also try not to focus simply on the shadows that, through your own particular perspectives, you think this legislation might cast, and actually look at it through the lens of opportunity.

This is what this legislation is doing—it is putting on the table how we intend to frame our education sector and delivery for the next 10 and 15 years, and it actually needs us to be open-minded, as opposed to closed-minded. In particular, I would like to ask all of the select committee, but, again, particularly my colleagues from the other side—let us not be caught in having to imagine every permutation and variation that might come through changing a piece of legislation as substantive as this. There seems to be a desire from some quarters that whenever change of a structural nature is proposed, every permutation, choice, and consequence needs to be codified and noted down, and any change to a delivery, therefore, needs to be negotiated to that granular degree. With respect, I believe it misses the point.

My challenge to the select committee is that we take in good faith the purposes that are listed in this bill and debate a structure of education that can enable our children to achieve, for learning to be delivered, and for the system to breathe and be as flexible as it needs to be in the 2020s. If we do that well, we deliver for our children and, in time, our children’s children. But a yesterday view simply will not suffice and that is why I am so keen to be able to support this legislation and look forward to the conversation in the select committee. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I will just follow on from the member who last spoke, Todd Muller. There is a debate in the media at the moment around whether we have hit post-politics in terms of Trump and everything else. We heard a new phrase here, which is “post-history”. According to that member, we should put aside 30 years of history and the debates, the big challenges we have faced, and the opportunities that have arisen from history. Let us put them all aside and let us “embrace the lens of opportunity”. This sounds like something out of The Thick of It, the British TV show. It sounds like something that has come out of the brainstorming message room and been intensively polled by David Farrar. The “lens of opportunity” is how we are going to talk about it in the future.

We have to take history into account because it is important, but also it is something Minister Hekia Parata referenced in her speech and in all the media around this bill. She is describing this legislation as the biggest update to education in nearly 30 years. You could also call it one of the biggest risks to, and biggest experiments on, our children’s education in 30 years. You would not know it, though, from the Minister’s speech, as she read it in her bland monotone. It was no doubt written by advisers. She did not have any passion in her presentation. If this is the biggest change in 30 years, I want to see some passion from the Minister. I want to see a sense that there is a vision, because what we heard from that last speaker, Mr Muller, is that change is coming globally, and it was an argument for change for change’s sake. How about change that is based on international best-practice literature, change that looks at the trends around the world and brings in the best and discards the worst? The fear with this bill is that we are bringing in the worst and discarding some of the best of our current system.

As a dad to two kids currently going through the State education system, I want to start this contribution by saying what a fantastic job our teachers, our principals, our boards, and our schools do. We have a tremendous education system. Collectively, we should be incredibly proud. Just last Friday night I got an email from my child’s teacher—in the evening, just a short update about what had happened. I cannot say how proud I was of our education system, how impressed and how good I felt as a parent to have that level of teacher interaction—updating me on what I care most about, which is my kids and their future. I thought it was a fantastic example of our education system. We have got a great start, but let us make sure that we are delivering for all New Zealand students and that we are building an even better education system.

In this contribution I want to touch on three areas of this legislation, which are the communities of online learning, the so-called COOLs; secondly, Te Reo and the Treaty of Waitangi; and, thirdly, the careers advice.

The Green Party is opposing this bill because of the huge risk to our children from these so-called COOLs, which I do not think are particularly cool at all. There are some good parts and some neutral parts to this legislation. It is a big change to the Education Act. But it is these COOLs, these communities of online learning, that are quite worrying, as a parent and as a member of this Parliament. When you look at what the headlines and what the experts in the sector are saying, you see words such as “gobsmacked”, “incredulous”, “Principals hot under the collar”, “out of line: principals”, “Education reforms half-cooked and not so cool”, and “The risk of harming learning”. This is what our educational experts are telling us. We saw the president of Tai Tokerau Principals’ Association say: “I would abhor the day when a computer and programme could replace the teacher—the importance of socialisation hasn’t been considered. The really rich holistic parts of education cannot be learned from a computer, but from interacting with people.”

The risk is that through this legislation we are, basically, opening up online charter schools. It is socialisation that is so important to children’s development and so important to the educational experience and those educational outcomes.

Minister Parata says that the guidelines and eligibility criteria around these COOLs are going to be rigorous. I have got no confidence, when we saw those exact same words applied to the likes of Serco and applied to the likes of Novopay—I have no confidence we are going to see it. This is the Government that has delivered charter schools and private profit to the education system, and now it is trying to do the same thing via the online environment to more of our kids.

When you look around the world, this approach has failed in the US and it has been tried in the UK to a large scale. There is a huge risk that what we are doing is simply opening up our educational system to these private, for-profit companies, and I think you have got to ask the question why. I think Angela Roberts put it quite well when she said what the assumptions behind online learning were: “One is that online learning can substitute for face-to-face, and the other is that a more competitive market in education is going to lead to better results. Both of these fly in the face of all the evidence.” Let us not have change for change’s sake because we know that change is coming; let us have change based on the evidence. Pound for pound and page for page of the international reports, you will see the risks of going down this approach.

The Minister said that COOLs are about embracing online digital fluency. This is something the Green Party takes seriously, something it has advanced in Parliament for many years. We have got a great opportunity to not only build a more digitally fluent country and society but also have a better educational experience for our kids. The problem is that just teaching them online is not digital fluency. That is not teaching them—that is focusing on the means of delivery, the mechanism, and the technology, which is not digital fluency. I would point out—and I know this from my own experience—some excellent programs such as Reading Eggs and Mathletics, which my kids really enjoy, where the appropriate technology is used as a tool to further enhance existing learning and stuff that they have done in class. When you just put a kid on an iPad or in front of a screen, that is not teaching digital fluency. Our schools are doing that at the moment—there are no barriers to it at the moment. It is simply a way to open up classrooms to private providers of online education.

If we did want to have a debate about digital fluency—which is something I am always up for and think this Parliament needs to spend more time on and take more seriously—let us also look at the way the Government has recently decided, after 7 years of consultation, multiple meetings, and rounds and rounds of consultation, to just make digital technology on a par with sewing and woodwork and metalwork. It is just making it another vocational side thing. Digital technology is something that our tech industry, which is crying out for workers and is seeing the largest growth as a percentage of GDP of any OECD country since between 2002 and 2013, wants to see as a stand-alone subject. If we were really going to be focused on digital fluency, that is what we would be doing—not just putting kids in front of a screen and letting overseas for-profit providers teach regular classrooms.

So we have got some very big concerns. We note the concern that, although there was considerable consultation about these changes—I believe there were some 1,800 submissions and 120 meetings—online learning, the most controversial and the most far-reaching provision in this bill, was not one of those topics that was consulted on. That is a worry, but I am sure those 1,800-plus people will no doubt be making a submission to the select committee, and we welcome that. We look forward to getting into the detail.

I have run out of time to talk about the other issues, but it is good to see the Treaty of Waitangi in this legislation. We want to work out through the select committee what that means exactly and what the actual outcomes are going to be.

When it comes to Te Reo, our vision is that every New Zealander has the opportunity to learn what is a taonga—something that is unique and exists only in Aotearoa New Zealand—but, unfortunately, in the way this bill has done it, it is basically up to parents to choose whether they want Te Reo. The fact is that when you look at the status quo, it has not really worked out, and we see so few speakers.

When it comes to careers advice, I think there is consensus in this House that we are not doing it as well as we should be. It needs to be modernised. A key thing that we need to be doing is professionalising it—taking it much more seriously. I want to make sure that every kid in New Zealand gets the best, high-quality, most in-touch advice, from someone who is taking it seriously, who is a professional, and who is up to date with best practice so that they are giving the best advice. A concern with putting it through the Tertiary Education Commission is that we are simply going to get more of a focus on some of the STEM subjects: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The arts are incredibly important. A general educational background and critical thinking are so important. In fact, that is what people tell me in the tech sector, as well. It is one thing being able to code; it is another thing being able to code and explain what you are doing, to a customer or to someone else.

So there is a mixed bag in this bill. The reason we are voting against it, primarily, is because of these not-cool COOLs. We cannot be gambling with our kids. We are using digital technology; we could be doing it better, but let us have that conversation in a select committee. Thank you very much. Kia ora.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. Can I start by saying how much I miss Nikki Kaye as the chair of the Education and Science Committee. There was a woman who actually knew collaboration. There was a woman who should have been the Minister of Education, because she knew how to listen. She knew how to work with the sector. She knew how to actually be a visionary and take people with her.

Mr Muller’s contribution was condescending and paternalistic. Basically, it laid out the way that the Education and Science Committee is working at the moment after what the Government did with regard to the Education Legislation Bill and after what happened at the select committee. The Government made sure it loaded that select committee so that regardless of the conversation that took place, regardless of the openmindedness of the Opposition and the attempts to work across it, the Government has the numbers, and the Government knows it. I also want to say how much I miss Cam Calder. He was a gentleman who was the chair of the Education and Science Committee, and he also knew how to reach out to Opposition parties, to politely and respectfully have discussions about something that is incredibly important to our nation, and that is the education of our young people.

If we get back to this bill, I just make a couple of things clear. It has been mentioned this evening that one of the things this bill does is allow cohorts of 5-year-olds, or children 8 weeks before they turn 5, to enter the school system. They have always, for the last 27 years, been able to do it. Every board of trustees has had the opportunity to make that decision for its community. This bill does not do that, I say to Government members. What this bill does do means that if a school decides to have cohorts begin at the beginning of a term, then once those children are signed into the school they must attend every single day or they will be part of the truancy problem. So be clear, please, Government members, with what it is that you are actually talking about. Go and read the 13 regulatory impact statements before we end up in the Education and Science Committee and the Opposition has to explain it to you, and then you condescendingly just vote past it.

Secondly, the Minister of Education has mentioned—and other members have taken her at her word—that consultation took place and 1,800 people submitted. I was part of that consultation process as the chair of the board of Mahurangi College. Let me describe it to you. It was a 1-hour consultation meeting called at regular places around the country. The first 30 minutes was when the Ministry of Education official explained to us what the Minister wanted and what was out of scope—governance was out of scope, other things were out of scope. Once they had finished, they broke us into small groups of three or four people with the bullet points that the Minister had given us and we had 20 minutes to write it on a large A3 sheet of paper before they were collected up. Then it was: “Thank you very much. There’s a scone over there, and off you go.” So it is all very well and good to say that there were 1,800 people who participated and that there were 120 meetings throughout the country, but it is the quality of consultation that actually makes the difference, not the fact that you have marked it off on a book or ticked it off on some sort of check sheet.

This bill is the largest update to the Education Act 1989 in 27 years, and it is a terrible one. It is one of the most terrible updates that could have happened to education in this country, and New Zealand First will fight it every step of the way. We want to make sure that not only the public understand what is going on here but that the members of the Government understand—maybe; just maybe—even though Mr Muller has already outlined the fact that if the Opposition objects it is, apparently, because we are closed-minded. So Mr Muller—or Mueller; I am not quite sure of the pronunciation—has already decided and already laid out the fact that if the Opposition objects, then apparently the Opposition is closed-minded.

Let us also be a little bit clear that online learning is not blended learning. This bill makes it 100 percent clear that you can replace face-to-face or blended learning with 100 percent online learning for 5-year-olds through to 18-year-olds. Let us be very, very clear. This is not home schooling. Home schooling will still remain. This is not blended learning, which we currently have going on in our school system. This is 100 percent online learning, and it opens the door up to bodies corporate and corporates. This is why you need to know your history. Where did this come from? In the last Parliament there was a digital literacy inquiry that Google and Microsoft presented at. Read their submissions. Go back and look at your history and see where this came from. The Khan Academy, for example, also presented.

David Seymour: Oh, no.

TRACEY MARTIN: Oh, yes. Mr Seymour knows all about it because Mr Seymour works for those corporates. Mr Seymour understands those corporates. Mr Seymour is confident that those corporates will get his vote. He believes that business is everything. He has absolutely no regard for the young people involved here. And even with regard to the parents of children with special needs he has basically said: “Vote with your feet. If you don’t like this school, we’ll give you a voucher and vote with your feet.” He has complete disregard for the communities of learning that actually take place. But let us be clear that that is where this came from—from the digital literacy inquiry in the last Parliament.

One of the other things that this bill does is it repeals the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975. Why have we not heard anything about this from the integrated schools? Has anybody actually read the regulatory impact statement? Are they aware of what this does with regard to the taxpayers’ property dollar for those private assets? Has anybody over the other side of the House read it? No—right. So that is what it does. It repeals the Act and it gives more taxpayers’ money away and it ties the hand of any future Government with regard to any amendment to how education will be delivered. It will have to pay the integrated school providers for their private assets from the taxpayer fund. But did anybody read that regulatory impact statement? It does not appear to be so.

The other thing that we have got going on here is “strengthening collaborative governance”. What this does is actually set out a process by which boards of trustees, somehow, can sell their services to other schools, other corporates, other trusts, and goodness knows whom. These are individual people who have got elected on to school boards of trustees—there is nothing to stop them now, individually, contracting out their skills, but this creates the opportunity for a board of trustees to sell its services, except that if you keep the principal on those boards of trustees and the staff trustee on the boards of trustees, they become too big and unwieldy. So the suggestion is that when you have an amalgamation of a couple of school boards, or whatever, you remove the staff trustee and you remove the principal because they are too unwieldy. So, let us take the voice of those people away, amalgamate some boards of trustees and allow them to sell their services, but make sure that the principals’ and the staff’s voices are not inside that process. Interesting, is it not? Did anybody read that?

There are another 11 regulatory impact statements and each one of them does something very, very, very interesting, but the Government is hoping that you will be distracted by the communities of online learning (COOLs). The Government is hoping that everybody else will be distracted by the COOLs. The fact that the COOLs do not go anywhere near actually providing the digital literacy or the digital understanding, comprehension, and coding background that we require of our 21st century students appears to have been lost.

The Government has given Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu (Te Kura) as the reason why we must have these online learning facilities, these COOLs. It is because, apparently, Te Kura has become too unmanageable. It is too big. There are too many students in it—23,000 students. Can we just make sure that we know the data here—11,000 of those 23,000 students are currently in New Zealand schools, usually taking around one subject, and the problem is that the Government cannot charge for it, because they are in a State school. This is about money. Do not make any mistake. This is about the ability to set fees and charge.

The other thing is that there are 7,400 young adults who are over 16-years and adult learners. Why are we putting through legislation to change everything inside the State system when those 7,400 young people could be with private providers somewhere else under a different system? There are 800 early childhood education students who are actually part of Te Kura. How about we just fund playcentres? How about we just fund playcentres, or kindergartens, or playgroups, or something like that, rather than changing the whole of the education system to allow privatisation? So New Zealand First will oppose and continue to oppose this bill. That is the start. There are another 11 regulatory impact statements for further speeches. Kia ora.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is Chinese Language Week, and I would like to first of all greet everyone in the House: Da Jia Hao [Hello everyone] ni hao, ni hao.

Earlier, the Assistant Speaker made a comment to some members, criticising their so-called reading of their speeches, and I would just like to make a comment that for some of us who actually speak English as a second language, it does take a little time to process the written word sometimes, and sometimes we do need the visual aid to actually get the thinking process done. Sometimes it is, in fact, a requirement for us to actually read some documents, because what we think in our language and what we say out loud are not necessarily the same language, and there is a process that happens. So I just want to seek the Deputy Speaker’s indulgence if we do, in fact, refer to our notes occasionally. Also, some members—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Reference is fine.

MELISSA LEE: I would just like to acknowledge Tracey Martin, who spoke passionately about this bill. Sometimes she speaks so passionately that she does it at such a speed that we have the same problem—we need to process that information, and it just sounds like noise sometimes, so she needs to slow down a little bit. So—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: So back to the bill.

MELISSA LEE: Back to the bill. This bill is part of the Government’s work to provide the best education service for our children. As members said earlier, our children are, in fact, the future of this country. We need to provide them with the best possible education system, and this update—the first update in 27 years—has been a long time coming. When you think about 27 years, it is almost as long as I have actually lived in this country. New Zealand—

Hon Member: As long as Todd has.

MELISSA LEE: Oh, that is true, Mr—

Stuart Smith: It’s longer.

MELISSA LEE: It might be slightly longer than Todd Barclay has been alive, actually. But, you know, if you think about the changes that this country has gone through in that time, I remember mobile technology being introduced. Mobile phones were not that—

David Seymour: Are you that old?

MELISSA LEE: They were very expensive, Mr Seymour, back then. They were not as cheap or as easily accessible. I am talking about the lovely cuisines, the variety of cuisines that currently exist, which did not exist back then either.

So times have moved on. Education needs to move on, as well, to make sure that we provide the right education system for the time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you actually said bring it back to the education system. I just want to say this legislation will update the Education Act 1989 to be more relevant to modern schools. It will deal with the areas in law that are now obsolete, out of date, or insufficient for the needs of 21st century learning, and it will put better practices into place. The current rules do not actually work effectively for our children. I think this is a great bill, and I look forward to the submissions during the select committee process. Thank you.

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

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party on the Education (Update) Amendment Bill to register, again, our opposition to this bill. This is yet another omnibus education bill that has some reasonable clauses in it and quite a few more that represent significant harm to our world-class education system.

I have to acknowledge up front that I am not the Greens’ education spokesperson and this is not a usual area for me to be speaking on. But I am aware of our particular concerns about online learning, and the way that the Government has been representing it as getting up-to-date digital learning, yet when you understand some of the content of the bill, you realise that it actually has nothing to do with digital literacy at all, but is, apparently, just opening up and creating a new market for education. This for us is a real concern, particularly the provisions, as mentioned by others, that this will enable full-time, online learning for children from the age of 5, when, you know, connecting to other people, learning how to interact in the world, learning how to ask questions, and clarifying information from other people and learning how to do that in a way that people will respond to are core life lessons that are learnt seamlessly in our education system at the moment through the interaction with other students and the teacher. This bill potentially removes that from children’s educational journey and puts the primary relationship of those students as being with a screen. It is hard to see how that is going to enhance their learning, let alone their skills for life. I do not think the goal of opening up a new market in education is really one that overrides the welfare and the educational integrity of the system for our children—it really does not, for us.

I was paying particular attention to the speech previously from New Zealand First’s Tracey Martin and to some of the other concerns that she raised on reading the regulatory impact statement about the potential removal of staff and principals from boards of trustees in the situation of amalgamations, and the boards of trustees selling off services. Again, it does seem to be about the money and not the kids, and not the strengthening of our education system.

I also note in here that it will enable private schools to be able to get more money from the taxpayer, when we have had this diverse educational system for quite a long time. I remember one of the first things that this Government did when it came into power was to take money away from adult education and to open it up for the equivalent amount of money to go into private schools. At the time, I had a real problem with that, because we have this great State sector, which is world leading, that needs some love—that really does need some extra resource in there to support those schools to be able to help the kids who are coming into the classroom with a lot of disadvantage, which could be ameliorated in the classroom context if more resource was put in. This seems to be, again, removing that money and that opportunity for us to get around those kids and support their learning, and it is putting that resource instead into the private sector, which does not sit with our values and I do not think sits with the values of most New Zealanders, who care deeply about all of our kids having a good education and all the opportunities in life. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the ACT Party—David Seymour.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. One of the reasons that I support it goes back to a high school student I spoke to a couple of years ago, who made the observation that he had greater access to information with his phone, on the school bus, than he had in the classroom.

Fundamentally, what this bill is about is—there are several aspects, but the most important is opening up access and competition within the digital learning space. We have heard all of the conspiracy theories about how it is terrible that the Khan Academy might get more involved in New Zealand education or Google might get more involved in New Zealand education. They used to say in Russia that Americans do not have real problems, so they have to invent them. I say to the Opposition, if your biggest problem is the idea that world-leading, innovative organisations might get more involved in education, then I envy the smallness of your problems.

The question that teachers face with a diverse range of students is: which student, exactly, is the average? How do teachers time their lessons so that they are progressing at the correct rate, in the correct subjects, and with the correct material for every single student? We are enormously fortunate in this country to have some of the most outstanding teachers in the world, who do a very good job of balancing that out, but online learning has the ability to further tailor and customise the learning for each student.

Online learning can allow individualised, customised tuition, with real-time tracking of learning. It can allow students to access a broader range of subjects, no matter what school they are attending. As we heard from the Prime Minister in this House a couple of weeks ago, students on Stewart Island, 26 of them, are learning Chinese.

Todd Barclay: That’s right.

DAVID SEYMOUR: And there is the member for Clutha-Southland; he knows. What a great story to tell in the week of Chinese Language Week: students on Stewart Island are able to learn Chinese online.

Online learning can connect students with innovative new subject experts—no matter where they live. It can empower students by giving them some control over what, when, where, and how quickly they learn. It can provide one-on-one tuition. It can help students who are struggling and extend students who are bored. Online learning is using the technology that has revolutionised so many sectors to get the best results for every individual student.

What are the objections that we hear from the Opposition? Apart from its philosophical allergy, which I have touched on, to any kind of successful organisation that is not from New Zealand, they are absolutely paranoid that if parents and teachers in New Zealand were given choices, they might take those choices. We heard it from Tracey Martin, droning on about “What if a particular student was to choose totally online learning?”. We heard the Green Party complaining “What if people were to start learning from a screen?”. Well, I regret to say that the public gallery in this House today is nearly empty, so anybody who is lucky enough to be watching this speech is watching it on a screen, and only the Green Party can be so out of touch with reality that it complains about screens while being watched upon a screen.

The reality is that parents and children in New Zealand have the right to make choices. Our education system should be giving them choices that include the best of modern technology available in 2016. Archaic, inflexible arrangements that do not allow students to access the best technology is not just negligent; it is actually withholding our young people from accessing the best of the 21st century.

For provisions for communities of online learning alone, this bill is more than worthy of support. Is it not a teachable moment when we see that the Opposition’s greatest fear is that one day, just one day, maybe that student I spoke to will be able to access the best technology in the world, and access just as much information in the classroom as he can access on his phone, on his bus, on the way to that school? Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koe, Marama Fox—a 5-minute call on behalf of the Māori Party.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Well, the time has arrived when we drag the education system, kicking and screaming, into the new digital age, and it is about time. It is about time, because if I think back to when I was at school and I did ICT, I had a flashing neon light on a black screen, and I spent 3 weeks writing code into that little computer to get an outline of a house with a roof and a chimney—mine was pretty flash, because it had smoke. We have come such a long way that, in fact, I have a child, who is now 5 years old, who at 18 months old was learning to speak Spanish, because I put a Spanish-speaking app on my phone. She was watching—oh my goodness, that was a foreign language that she was learning through the reality of online digital technology.

I am so pleased to be able to support this bill. Why? Because one shoe does not fit all feet. I know that might be a revelation to some people, but, in fact, it is true. One shoe does not fit all feet; we need alternative models. Why? Because for far too long young Māori and Pasifika in this country have been left behind by teachers in the classroom, and systems in the schooling system, and education that forgets who they are—language, culture, and identity. It forgets that they might want to look at the world through a different world view. Where is that information held? Well, you can access a whole lot of it online—funny that.

When I was in the wharekura o Wairarapa, we wanted to access pūtaiao. What about that—a science curriculum in Te Reo Māori. Could we find a teacher who had the skills to do that? Well, we tried long and hard, and we could not. We tried a whole lot of alternative methods of trying to educate our tamariki in a way that supported their language, culture, and identity. We went across the road to the local high school. We tried The Correspondence School. We tried a raft of different methods, and, in the end, do you know what we found? We found a group of wharekura around the country, connected through the Virtual Learning Network, so our tamariki could access pūtaiao by one teacher who taught from Hicks Bay—that is right, from Hicks Bay—connected to the rest of the world through digital technologies.

We must be able to provide for the alternative forms of education that our country needs, so that if you live rurally you can access, through an online portal, the education that will help you, so that if you want to home school your children in your own town you can access greater mediums of support through online technology, and so that if you are a Māori-medium kura with limited resources, you can access online technologies and information through that online portal.

I have no fear whatsoever in supporting this bill, this update, which is going to bring us forward into the future and provide a suite of alternative methods, because the traditional ones for too long did not work—did not work. Less than 3 years ago, the pass rate at the National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 for Māori in education was 48 percent—48 percent. So you could stand up in front of any school, at any time, and look at them and say: “Half of you are going to fail. If you’re Māori or Pasifika, half of you are going to fail.” We cannot do that today, because we have dragged our system, kicking and screaming, into the future through the aid and the addition of online learning and a raft of alternative models of education that support—that is right—alternative ideals and mindsets and ways of thinking.

David Seymour: Uh, oh!

MARAMA FOX: Oh my goodness—I know it is a struggle! I know it is difficult, but there it is. That is what we have dragged ourselves into, and I have no problem in supporting this.

Lastly, I just want to say one thing: to those teachers who are out there in the classroom and who need support—they know that you know that they know that they can find that support through the net, and the internet has now become the new human right.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stuart Smith—5-minute call on behalf of the National Party.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): When I came down to the House to speak on this bill, I did not expect the passion that would come into this Education (Update) Amendment Bill. It is a great bill. Education is important to all of us, and it is important to our country—there is no doubt about that, and I do not want to minimise that, but some of the passion, I think, is being driven by fear.

Change is always difficult, I understand, for some to accept, but I think we really do need to drag this Education Act 1989 into a modern age. It has been amended many times over the 27 years, in a piecemeal way, as the Minister of Education said, and those things have to be sorted out into a logical form for the modern education system.

I think we just heard a very good example from the Māori Party speaker Marama Fox of the benefits that can come from this bill. This bill puts achievement and learning at the centre of the Education Act, and is that not, after all, what schools are about? It is about achievement; it is about learning. Unfortunately, in the old Act it is about the schools and the management of them, rather than what goes on there, so it is time for a change.

There is a fantastic community of learning (COL) in Marlborough. It is working really well. Those communities of learning really recognise what all the evidence shows: that the quality of teaching and the leadership of schools is what makes schools and is what drives achievement and learning. And the COLs are a—

Hon David Cunliffe: Actually, the decile area is the biggest driver.

Tracey Martin: And you’re going to remove them with COLs.

STUART SMITH: Well, I really find it quite strange. Again, you see the fear coming through from people afraid of change, and that is a shame, but, you know, we have to accept that. Perhaps through the select committee stage some of those members may actually learn what the change offers and what it could bring to our students, and, hopefully, they will see the benefit of it.

The communities of online learning seem to be a real touch-point for them, but I think, as Marama Fox pointed out, it is a fantastic way for some students to learn. It is not the way for everybody to learn; I accept that and it is not part of it.

It is not compulsory that everybody does take part in a community of online learning. But diversity drives innovation, and that is what we should all remember. Out of those innovations there will be some fantastic learning styles and disciplines that will come through. We will get a far better outcome for our students, and that is what it is all about. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A split call for the Labour Party—the Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I think one thing we can all agree on is that there is nothing more important than our children’s education. From an economic point of view, that is what is going to drive productivity growth, innovation, and high incomes for all New Zealanders in the future. From a social equity point of view, there is nothing more powerful to allow people to make the very best of their talents and achieve whatever they want to achieve than a good, sound education system that is future-focused, that is quality for every single New Zealand child. We welcome the opportunity to debate this bill. We are, however, opposing the bill based on what we see in front of us, because we think it has the balance wrong, between excessive compliance to one-size-fits-all standards and dangerous liberalisation and creeping privatisation of the education system, which undermines the core principle that education must be a right and of high quality for every New Zealand child.

But before I get on to that, may I quickly dispose of some of what have to be called straw man arguments from members opposite. The first is that members on this side of the House somehow have not discovered the internet. Well, you know, I was the Minister for Communications and Information Technology for 5 years, and I think our side really upheld its mandate of driving competition, innovation, and investment to get faster, cheaper broadband and internet access for all New Zealanders. That has been continued by the current Government—and good on it—and it is going to continue under the Labour-led Government that starts next year. We like progress, we like the internet, and we stand for approaching the future.

Secondly, is the argument that Labour and other parties on this side of the House just like opposing things for their own sake. That is nonsense. There is plenty of stuff in this bill that we are perfectly happy with. We like, for example, the idea of a teacher competence authority, provided it is democratic. We like the opportunity to have communities of learning. We like the fact that there is support and better legal codification of the rights and responsibilities of school boards.

There is a lot in this bill, and much of it is useful. However, there are several fatal flaws. Before I quickly outline them, let me just say that education in New Zealand is in a crisis, and I measure that by the feedback that I get from our local principals in west Auckland. I met with them a couple of weeks ago—the representatives of our principals’ associations. In my 18 years in politics, apart from the last time that National tried to introduce bulk funding, I have never heard them so aggrieved and worried about the state of the system. They have not had enough money in their operations grants, they are getting fleeced in terms of property funding, and they are desperately worried about creeping privatisation through charter schools, etc., etc. Special education is being gutted by the Government.

In this bill—and I know it is only one part of it—communities of online learning, so-called COOLS, are not cool, because they take away the obligation for high-quality teaching and face time. Let us not put up any false dichotomies here, because, of course, we all want access to the internet to assist student learning. Heck, we went to the last election underwriting a digital device for every New Zealand student, and we are going to make sure that they have the very best of digital learning. But that is not the same thing as gutting and filleting the State school system, which is the pillar, the bedrock of our education system, by privatising it and opening it up to people who can do what, frankly, too many cheap, shoddy private trading establishments (PTEs) are doing in the tertiary sector—having a sham online learning environment with massive drop-out rates and false student numbers. I think we have seen, allegedly, an institution in the media this week—an Auckland-based PTE called the International Academy of New Zealand—has come a gutzer because it has been doing things, allegedly, like that.

We have got to avoid making the same mistakes again in the compulsory education sector. We want education that is modern, that is world-class, that is available to every single New Zealand child, and that is there for the public good, not the private profit of a few mates of the Government. This is, potentially, the thin edge of a wedge. Yes, we will hear it out at the Education and Science Committee, but we are laying down a warning today that this bill should not proceed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Adrian Rurawhe—5 minutes.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I stand opposed to the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. I want to start off by reflecting on the last 27 years, because it was 27 years ago that the Tomorrow’s Schools kaupapa came out and the new Education Act, as it was then. That was visionary. That has stood the test of time, and that was a key policy at that time for the then Labour Government.

In reflecting on what became self-managed schools and everything that went with Tomorrow’s Schools, I want to say that this education update legislation does not really go where it should be going in terms of this Education Act. I support my colleague David Cunliffe, who has spoken and who has just resumed his seat—for example, on communities of learning. I was a member of a school board of trustees for 13 years. I chaired Te Kura o Rātana School’s board of trustees for that time, and I can tell you that a community of learning for a kaupapa Māori - based kura looks very different to the communities of learning outlined in this bill.

Here is one feature that it ought to look like. It ought to be naturally cooperative among schools. It should not be forced, it should not be over-managed, and it should not be bureaucratic. It should be done in a way that has its clear focus on supporting each other, as we would say in a kaupapa Māori way. I do not believe that this bill will achieve that.

There are other issues, like communities of online learning. Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi in Wanganui, in my electorate, were chosen and did a project there called He kura tukutuku, he kura tangotango [A providing school, a releasing school]. That was about providing lessons for their students, and others in other schools, online in Te Reo Māori—Māori medium. It was still teacher-directed, teacher-assisted. One of the key parts of that project was upskilling teachers to be able to use that technology to also be able to add to that programme—that application—so that they could insert locally relevant lessons into that computer program and then assist the children at school in front of a computer.

This community of online learning is a long way from that. Where is the teacher direction? Where is the support? Where is the consultation with parents—do they actually want their children to be staying home in front of a computer screen? I am not against computer screens, not at all. What I am raising is: where is the evidence to support that this will work? I have seen evidence to say that it does not work. The experience of others, particularly in the US, provides information that evidence does not exist to say that that type of learning will actually work.

The other issues are social issues. Everyday conversations, everyday interaction with other children and with their peers—how are we going to make Te Reo Māori a transactional language in our country, if a student is at home sitting at a keyboard? I cannot see how that is going to be helpful in making Te Reo Māori a transactional language. I understand that that might be helpful for some students, but for the majority of students, particularly the ones whom I represent, it will not help at all. Kia ora.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to be able to speak in support of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill, which is currently in its first reading. I think this is a real opportunity for us to futureproof the education system going forward, for the next 30 years. The Minister of Education has already remarked that over the last 30 years we have seen a number of amendments to the Education Act 1989, which has been a solid piece of governing guidelines, regulations, and laws guiding the system for the administration and the learnings of our 2,500 schools, our 64,000 teachers, and our over 40,000 support staff across the education sector.

But we need to be looking forward into the future. What this legislation does is it provides us with the next step in the next transition of education. I want to positively remark on the contribution that the Hon Hekia Parata has made to education over the last 6 years. I had the privilege of working for her for a couple of those years. I think that the sector has played a huge role in education transformation over the last 6 years. If you look at the Education Council transformation, if you look at the Canterbury earthquake-affected schools—the reformation there—and if you look at the performance mechanisms across all aspects of the education sector, the amount of contribution that the sector has had in that, through the Ministerial Cross-Sector Forum on Raising Achievement, has really demonstrated a new way of developing education policy in this country.

The Education Act and the funding review that is also going on are the next steps in that. It has really been sector-led and sector-driven, and I think it is a credit to what this Government has done, in terms of education. We have got a new way of looking at education going forward. This legislation will be good for our sector, it will be good for future learners in education in New Zealand, and I really look forward to seeing it progress through the House. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Update) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

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

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Education and Science Committee.

Bills

Māori Purposes Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 September.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a privilege to rise and speak in this, the second reading of the Māori Purposes Bill, a bill that is in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, Minister for Māori Development.

I did not sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, but I think that if we look at what we are looking to do here, we are looking to bring forward the nature of the governance and the operation of the Wī Pere Trust so that it can operate more effectively in a commercial environment—so it can operate without the direct or great oversight of Government and be able to operate better in the commercial conditions of this, the 21st century.

I congratulate the select committee on the work it has done. I look forward to this bill progressing through the further stages in this House. I particularly look forward to the opportunities it will give to not only the trustees of the Wī Pere Trust but also, of course, the beneficiaries. If we look at what we are seeking to achieve here, we are not seeking to achieve simply some dry, theoretical restructure of governance arrangements or even trust provision; what we are really seeking to do is to ensure that that trust is able to better fulfil the needs of its constituents and its beneficiaries now and into the future. So, on that note, I commend this bill to the House

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I want to speak to the second part of this bill, for Labour, and endorse, principally, the changes that were made as a result of some strong petitions and submissions to Parliament, and also the advocacy of the local member, Meka Whaitiri, which resulted in a different conversation around the Māori Affairs Committee table. It went like this: basically, beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust were somewhat sceptical about the moves to modernise governance without enough input from the grassroots. I think that if we were to simply accept the changes that were being proposed in the bill, without a real conversation around the content of the submissions from local people—beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust—we would not have got the proposed changes that the select committee has made or an additional Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) put forward by my colleague Meka Whaitiri.

So, in short, I want to comment on the changes that were substantially agreed to by the select committee, outline the reasons for those, and then come back, if I have time, to the SOP proposed by my colleague. We did consider at length the new constitution that was in the bill, and that it was very important to ensure that that constitution would be reviewed. The reason for that was that, again, in order to build confidence with beneficiaries—shareholders of the Wī Pere Trust—it would be only right that a period of review would allow for input on whether or not the constitution was achieving its intended objectives.

So you will see in new schedule 1, clause 15, a review period after 5 years of this legislation being in operation. We have made a suggestion in new schedule 1, clause 15, that that be provided for. What that will enable is a legitimate focus on the constitution as it was operating, whether it can be better, and then a blueprint to see how those amendments could be taken forward, so recommended changes can be advanced through this process. That was achieved, again, on the advocacy of the local member and the strength of the submissions that came through.

Also, another amendment that we were very keen to advance, which is contained in schedule 1, appendix 4, clause 2.11, is the ability of shareholders to get together, form a collective, and put forward, by special resolution, a change to the constitution. This is really important because there were a lot of, I think, dismissive comments that were made at the leadership level around various views coming through from beneficiaries and shareholders. So if those beneficiaries can get together, form a collective, and form, within their view, a crucial change that will help advance the interests of—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chamber for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora mai tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa. Members, when we adjourned for the dinner break we were debating the Māori Purposes Bill and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta had 6 months—6 months—6 minutes and 30 seconds remaining to speak.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: What a gift that might be. Generous as it is, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will pick up where I left off, and that was in highlighting some of the changes that the select committee recommended in response to the submissions that had been raised with us and also as a result of the strong advocacy of the local member Meka Whaitiri.

One of those changes was around the ability of beneficiaries being able to, by special resolution, recommend a change to the constitution. When the bill was originally presented to the committee, the only way changes to the constitution could be made was on recommendation by the board, and there was a clear process by which the board needed to consult and engage with beneficiaries. However, we believed that the representations were so strong that we should provide for an amendment to allow a number of beneficiaries who hold not less than 10 percent of beneficial interests to propose a special resolution. This, I believe, will be, again, a way to take on board beneficial interests and ensure that there is greater transparency in the decision-making process of the board at large.

One of the other key areas where we had some discussion was around the transitional arrangements of the new board. Originally when the bill came to us, it was proposed that the transitional board comprise three members to five members. We had some discussion—I recall that quite clearly—and we suggested that no, that needed to be increased from five members to seven members. The reason for that was around the quorum, to ensure that there was a reasonable number of members who would form the quorum. I am pleased that the overall view of the committee was to ensure greater transparency around the quorum arrangements and also the transitional provisions for the board.

The last thing of substance that I wanted to comment on was the issue of the corpus lands under the Wī Pere Trust. Those original lands that were a part of setting up the trust—there was quite a bit of strong emotional attachment to ensure that those lands would not easily be sold, could not easily be sold, and that the highest threshold should apply to these lands. After some discussion and clarity for committee members, it is very clear that the intention is to separate out these corpus lands as Māori land and to apply that high threshold.

With that said, I really want to now come back to Supplementary Order Paper 205, which was submitted by my colleague Meka Whaitiri, and the proposal to revert to the status quo, where the Māori Land Court would be able to determine any dispute relating to administrative and governance issues of the trust. The reason for that is, in some part, due to the cost of going to the High Court, and we were talking about a group of beneficiaries all at varying degrees of capability to address issues of cost. But the main reason is to improve access to a body, the Māori Land Court, which already has a well-documented institutional knowledge of the issues around the Wī Pere Trust in particular and also the dispute provisions. So I think that is a sensible provision, and it is something that the House at large could consider.

It is interesting that this particular bill proceeds the substantial changes that will be made to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. I say this because, in a sense, the Wī Pere Trust has got a specific dispensation for the way in which it operates. It is a very successful trust. We have been impressed by its operations and its futuristic vision for the capability of its organisation and the various interests that it has. We remain committed to ensuring that those concerns of beneficiaries in particular can be better reflected through the new governance arrangements, and in particular changing the constitution to make provision for those interests. I think we have achieved that in part with the constructive working around the select committee. We were well serviced, in fact, by our officials on this bill.

I want to make comment that we received such good advice and clarity on this issue that the purposeful amendments to the bill, I think, in the end were welcomed by the Wī Pere Trust, as they were by the select committee. We were ably chaired by Nuk Korako, who has a knack of being able to get some decisions across the table in a convivial manner, as Mr Deputy Speaker would know.

I do not have 6 months to be able to speak to this bill. I recommend the changes. I also recommend the strong consideration of Supplementary Order Paper 205, put up by my colleague Meka Whaitiri as a very strong advocate for the area in which the Wī Pere Trust resides. Kia ora tātou.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Māori Purposes Bill in its second reading tonight. Since 1899 the Wī Pere Trust has managed its affairs, after having been initially set up under the direction of a bank. Originally, the bank appointed a trustee, who had exclusive control over the lands, its management, and its disposal. But over the years, various Acts and orders have influenced the trust.

The Wī Pere Trust is a very mature organisation, and it wishes to operate effectively and independently in a commercial manner, in a commercial environment, and without influence from the Crown. This bill is essential for the trust to become truly independent, and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

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

Ayes 109

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

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Building (Pools) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 August.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Green Party supported this bill, the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill, to the Local Government and Environment Committee in order to hear from the experts, such as Water Safety New Zealand, those concerned with children, and from the public on what the real-world implications of the bill would be. Well, we have heard from those submitters and now the Green Party is opposing the bill. We understand the Government’s motivation behind the bill being to save money and reduce the compliance costs for pool owners and, supposedly, also for local authorities rather than the motivation being to reduce the risk of harm and injury and the number of swimming pool drownings. That is the motivation that the Green Party objects to.

This bill repeals the very specific Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and leaves it then to the Building Act 2004 to deal with the issue. The need outlined in the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act for fencing of pools is being replaced with much more general provisions around the need to have physical barriers that restrict access by unsupervised children to pools, rather than a specific requirement to fence. The reason the Government is giving for this is to “strike a balance between reduced compliance costs for residential pool owners and territorial local authorities and maintaining child safety.” In the Green Party’s view, the protection of children is much more important than reducing compliance costs for pool owners and local authorities. Toddlers far too often drown, very quickly and silently, in swimming pools. Each one of those deaths is a tragedy, but the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act has been a major tool in reducing the number of child drownings.

It was interesting to reflect on an article by the former Children’s Commissioner, who reminded the public of the genesis of the Act that we are now repealing, and of how in New Zealand we had a truly awful rate of child drownings in the 1970s and 1980s. In the worst year, 1981, 17 children drowned in home pools. That led, of course, to a campaign that led to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act in 1987. It has been the Act’s specific focus on actually fencing pools that has helped lead to that major reduction in the number of drownings. That has reduced from an average of 10 a year to three. Of course, each of those is tragic, but there has been a major reduction.

In submissions, the Auckland Regional Public Health Service suggested that the lives of over 200 children had been saved and that there had been several thousand near-drownings that had been prevented by the original 1987 legislation. As the Paediatric Society said in its submission, quoting from Government publications back in 1987, “[the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act] is a simple piece of public health legislation that sends a powerful message to the New Zealand public and pool-building industry. Toddlers have to be prevented from drowning in home swimming pools; the only scientifically proven prevention method is to fence the danger.”

What the Green Party is objecting to in this bill is that we are getting away from that very simple and clear focus, with clear, prescriptive standards in the existing Act that determine how high fences have to be, what the clearance between the bottom of the fence and the ground has got to be—away from those very prescriptive standards to much more general, performance-based standards, in the Building Act, and the fact that the bill allows pool owners to apply to local authorities for waivers and modifications to the pool barrier requirements. Our concern is that that will, potentially, lead to a lot less certainty and a lot less clarity around what is adequate fencing to protect children from drowning in these pools. That is the major reason we are opposing the bill.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you so much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this brief call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that has been designed to reduce the compliance burden currently imposed on pool owners as well as on territorial authorities in relation to residential pools, while maintaining child safety.

New Zealand is an island nation. We are surrounded by water, and yet every year so many of our children—so many of our people—drown because too many of us do not know how to swim. New Zealand has one of the highest rates of drowning. We are third in the OECD countries—third only to Finland and Brazil. I have got to say that, as parents, we are fortunate in this House that we can afford to pay for our children to learn how to swim, but there are so many vulnerable and poor families who cannot afford to pay for those swimming lessons. In fact, so many of them cannot even afford to pay for swimming togs for their children. We have NGOs now that donate swimming togs, particularly to those children who cannot afford to buy their own.

But there are so many of our kids who do not even have the option of learning how to swim at school, especially in low-income areas that no longer have pools. These kids do not have the access to pools to be able to learn how to swim at school. So when we have parents who cannot afford swimming lessons, when we have so many schools in low-income areas that do not have pools any more, it is no wonder that so many of our kids drown because they do not know how to swim. It is crucial that we do everything we can to protect our children from the dangers of drowning. We owe it to our tamariki, the future of New Zealand.

The Labour Party supported this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee in good faith because we were told in the regulatory impact statement that the bill would save more lives than the current pool fencing legislation. However, having read the evidence presented to the select committee, we now believe that that claim was questionable. For example, as quoted by my colleague from the Greens, the Paediatric Society submitted that the only thing that would improve the current rate of pool drownings would be improved compliance for fencing. Water Safety New Zealand agreed with that submission. The vast majority of the 19 preschool kids who drowned in home pools drowned because, unfortunately, were no fences, gates, or doors. The number of children who suffer serious or permanent damage or near-death drownings in non-compliant pools is actually much higher than 19. One of the biggest changes that the bill made, after it went to the select committee, was a recommendation to increase the pool inspection cycle to 3 years instead of 5 years. Labour pushed very hard for this amendment, and we are very, very pleased that it was taken up at the select committee.

There is, however, still an issue, and if it is not addressed, Labour will not continue to support this bill. There is a new clause in the bill that specifies that an alarm is an alternative to an automatically closing door. This would be a backward step. Alarms are not sufficient protection for our children around pools, for two reasons. Firstly, the condition that leads to drowning is distraction of a caregiver. An alarm will not actually prevent that from happening. Only a fence to the pool would actually prevent the harm befalling our children. Secondly, an alarm, every time it goes off, is quite irritating to family members, and we know already what happens when there are oversensitive alarms that are fire alarms: people just turn them off, so it is no longer a protection.

Labour has tabled Supplementary Order Paper 208 to remove alarms as a suitable alternative to automated doors, and if this is acceptable to the Government, we will continue to support the bill. Thank you very much.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I found the last two contributions quite amazing, actually, because this is the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill—it is about fencing off swimming pools and making that mandatory inspection once every 3 years. The previous speakers talked about the fact that the alarms on doors are very irritating—alarms are irritating. They are supposed to be irritating, because they are supposed to be about getting people to take notice that something has gone a bit awry. So, that—either an alarm on a door or a self-closing door to pools—has been one of the pieces of this legislation that has been added in. As I said, the alarms are there to irritate, to bring attention to the fact that something is not quite right. We can do as many things as we like to help prevent children from drowning, but as I heard from the Opposition member across the way, it is about parents’ responsibilities as well.

This bill actually does go quite a long way to ensuring that there are certain rules and regulations in law around having a pool and making sure that it is fenced and that the councils are actually going around—it is a mandatory inspection once every 3 years, as I have said. Some of the councils have actually done it, but not all of the councils, and this is making all of the councils do it, with independent assessors doing those inspections.

The bill also looks at spa pools and hot tubs that already have safety covers over the top of them. They already have a restriction there to prevent children from climbing in, because those covers are tightly in place. Therefore, the committee resolved that a fence was no longer required around the hot tubs and the safety covers. The bill also drives home the fact that retailers in the past—and currently, until this bill receives the Royal assent—did not have to give any safety information. This bill makes them give the safety information when they sell pools, spa pools, and hot tubs to customers. This is a good bill. It does address a lot of the issues that have been put forward at the select committee. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. I just want to cover the opening statement by the Minister for Building and Housing, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. When I read his opening speech, I was somewhat surprised when he mentioned that “Swimming pools are a source of a huge amount of enjoyment for New Zealanders.”—I agree with that. We enjoy our swimming pools because of the healthy exercise—I absolutely agree with that. Kiwi families learn “to get those water skills to … ensure that they are safe, whether they go to the beach or whether they”—wait for it—“… swim in one of New Zealand’s many rivers and lakes.” Is that not ironic? Here we have a Government that promotes a wadeable water standard, and yet the Minister is talking about us all going to swim in the river.

I want to turn to and remind the House of the purpose of this bill. The bill amends the Building Act 2004 and repeals the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act of 1987, to reduce the compliance burden currently imposed on pool owners and territorial authorities in relation to residential pools, while maintaining child safety. Many contributors to this particular bill have debated around getting the balance right between child safety and, of course, compliance costs. There have been people who made that point: have we got it right? One child who dies in a pool in this country is one child too many. We here as legislators need to make sure that while we shift and remove the compliance costs of swimming pool owners, spa pool owners, and hot tub owners, we do not actually, by accident, create more unsafe practices for young people. Essentially, that is what this bill is intending to do.

As previous speakers have said, Labour supported it to the Local Government and Environment Committee so we could hear from the many experts who presented their cases. I want to acknowledge the submissions on behalf of Water Safety New Zealand, the Auckland Regional Public Health Service, the Paediatric Society of New Zealand, Starship Children’s Hospital, and a range of councils. We present this bill because the select committee believes it has got the balance right.

My colleague Jacinda Ardern has Supplementary Order Paper 208 (SOP), which highlights the issue of the alarm system around spa pools and hot tubs. We would like, hopefully, to say that alarming them probably may lead to tragedy with young people, so her SOP is presented here and we do hope the House endorses it. It is replacing the alternative of alarms and states: “doors between the building and the immediate pool area must not be able to be opened by children, and must close and latch automatically after use:”. That SOP goes to the very heart of ensuring that child safety is at the centre of this bill. I hope that when we get to that point, we see there is wisdom in relying on, again, an access limitation to the pool area, as opposed to having an alarm.

I go back to the facts around our swimming history in this country, because we do have the highest rates of drowning in this country. We are an island in the Pacific—many of us got here either by canoe or boat—we are surrounded by water, and it is part of the New Zealand psyche that swimming is something that all New Zealanders enjoy. In fact, from my own education, I learnt to swim in the school pool. But for many of our young people nowadays in primary school, that is not an option for them.

I come back to the bill. We support wanting to make sure that areas for young people, for pool owners, and, of course, for local authorities, and the question around inspection have been addressed. The committee thought long and hard about extending the inspection period—the current Act talks about 3 years—to 5 years. Or is it the other way round—from 5 years to 3 years? But the point is that we heard the submissions and we support that we have more regular inspections of swimming pools. Of course, the issue is what we are putting on to councils, particularly the smaller councils, and whether they have the expertise around having properly skilled pool inspectors. We acknowledge that we should allow the councils to determine the relevant skills that are required to inspect those pools. We support making it easier also for smaller councils particularly.

The other part that we all acknowledge is that the Act that we are amending or repealing, the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, did actually go quite a long way to saving young people’s lives. We heard many of the statistics that have been put up and shared in this debate around the reduction in the number of young children losing their lives. But, again, the question that begs a response from the Government side is: have we got the balance right? Have we got child safety, with compliance particularly on swimming pool owners, right? Like I said earlier in my speech, one young life lost in a swimming pool or a spa pool is one too many. So we do want to see a continuation of what the Act shows, which is a reduction in the number of drownings in this country. With this new amendment, we want to ensure that that record of reduction is not compromised by the changes that we are proposing in this bill.

I just want to talk again around Labour’s support for anything that reduces child drownings. We do, hopefully, have the support of the House for my colleague Jacinda Ardern’s SOP. To the many submitters who came in front of the select committee—even though I am a member of the select committee, I did not participate in the actual submissions process, but I do know that those who did submit gave some very, very useful feedback so that we could reflect that positively in this bill presented tonight. Like my colleagues on this side, we do support the bill, with those amendments that our colleague Jacinda Ardern has put forward, which are around latching as opposed to having alarms around the pool area. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to its passage with those amendments. Kia ora tātou.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. As the last speaker in the second reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill, I want, first of all, to acknowledge the Minister for Building and Housing, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who has brought this bill to the House. It will improve child safety and save more lives. So often, members on the other side of the House like to tell us that increased Government regulation is needed to keep us safe, that removing any regulations makes us less safe, and that the indiscriminate introduction of new regulations proposed by them will keep us even safer. But actually what this bill shows us is that it is about quality of regulations and not quantity. We measure the effectiveness of our regulations by the practical impact that they have on safety, not by the amount to which they inconvenience people going about their daily business. The Building (Pools) Amendment Bill reduces the compliance burden on pool owners, it reduces the bureaucracy required by councils, and, most importantly, it improves child safety—it improves child safety.

Previous speakers on this bill have, in their contributions, talked about the changes that have been made at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I just want to touch on one that I think is particularly significant to the issue of child safety. The bill as drafted sought to impose a 5-yearly inspection regime. We heard very compelling evidence at the select committee about the need for more frequent inspections and the positive effects that this would have on compliance and, therefore, on safety. As a result, the bill as amended will require inspections every 3 years.

I do not want to take any more of the House’s time, so I will just say I welcome this sensible bill passing through the rest of its stages, and I look forward to debating it further in the Committee stage. E mihi atu ki a koutou.

Amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 105

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

Noes 16

Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 August.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I am happy to take the remainder of my time just to add some statistics to the conversation.

We support this piece of legislation, and I was highlighting the nurse practitioner vocation and how important it is under this piece of legislation to recognise the expansion of this particular profession. On 31 March 2015, we had 50,356 practising nurses, of which 142 were nurse practitioners. On 31 March 2014, there were 107 nurse practitioners, so we have actually seen an expansion of 25 percent in this particular profession. The most interesting statistic I want to share with the House is that of the 35 new nurse practitioners, 15 were Māori. So we have had an increase in that profession over the last year of 43 percent Māori, and there were also three Pacific Islanders.

Within the context of this expanded scope of practice, what it has done is provide opportunities for Māori nurses and Pacific nurses, who in the last financial year represented over 50 percent of the nurse practitioners that we had in the country. I think that that is a fantastic development, and I am, obviously, incredibly pleased to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The four main objectives of this Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill are to allow health practitioners with the required competencies and knowledge to perform more statutory functions and more functions, to make it easier for the public to access health services, to allow the health workforce to use its knowledge and skills, and to facilitate innovative services and efficient practice. I think this bill achieves those four objectives. The bill as introduced is in seven parts, relating to seven Acts that are being amended. The Acts are the Accident Compensation Act, the Burial and Cremation Act, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, the Holidays Act, the Land Transport Act, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, and the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Our healthcare needs are changing in New Zealand, and the way we deliver health services is changing and evolving as well. That is only to the benefit of health consumers, people like you and me—well, Mr Deputy Speaker, probably not yourself, but people like myself—who live in a smaller community and will access health services. If I think about people in smaller, remoter communities throughout New Zealand, there is often a cost to accessing health services relating to travel to access health services. Sometimes the level of expertise and availability of health professionals may not be there, necessitating a wait for access to health services, and the provisions in this bill go a long way to overcoming those issues for people.

Nurse practitioner is a role that—as the previous speaker, Louisa Wall, rightly noted—is a growing and exciting aspect of being a health professional in New Zealand. I was speaking to a group of nursing students in Christchurch very recently, who were in their final months before they were to graduate and then go and find jobs out in the community. I spoke to them about this bill, because it was going through the House at the time, and they were excited, but their tutor was excited because their tutor could see the potential for career development of her nursing students—about 120 of them were in the lecture theatre.

It is an exciting advancement in the provision of health services for all of us New Zealanders, and it is a wonderful career enhancement for those in the medical profession. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts of the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill to be debated as one question.

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

Parts 1 to 4, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I will take just a brief call now to explain Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 187 and 186. SOP 187 is in my name and deals with a number of technical amendments. It proposes two very technical amendments to the text of the bill resulting from the very thorough and rigorous quality assurance process undertaken by Parliamentary Counsel Office. First, it proposes the insertion of new clause 20A, which would align the bill with other recent Treaty of Waitangi settlement bills, and, secondly, it proposes the inclusion of new clause 59(6), which is a standard clause in settlement bills where easements may otherwise conflict with the Reserves Act 1977. The second SOP is in the name of Mr Pita Paraone, and it deals with iwi representation on the Taranaki Regional Council’s standing committee. Whereas my SOP was technical and excellent, I regret to say—and I say this with the greatest of respect and affection—

Hon Ruth Dyson: His is not.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —that his SOP, I say to Miss Dyson, not only is not excellent but is bonkers. I oppose the SOP on a number of grounds—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is that a technical term, Minister?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is a very technical term, which one deals with in Treaty settlement legislation.

First, iwi representation on the two Taranaki Regional Council standing committees was specifically agreed to between the Crown and Ngāruahine on the deed of settlement, which was signed in August 2014. Secondly, a lengthy and collaborative process had been undertaken to develop and formalise in writing a document that sets out the iwi representatives’ nomination and appointment process. That document was endorsed by the regional council. It was endorsed by the eight iwi of Taranaki and by me as the responsible Minister. So I contend that the agreed process is robust and appropriate.

Thirdly, of the 12 current policy and planning committee members, four have been appointed from external bodies, three of these from each of the region’s district councils—who are elected to the district councils, that is, and appointed to the policy and planning committee—and the other external appointment is from Federated Farmers and is, in effect, an unelected member. So I really think that what has been proposed and referred to in the deed of settlement and brought into the legislation is a very positive development. I am convinced that the regional council decision-making and the people of the great province of Taranaki can only benefit from having iwi at the table. So they are the two SOPs: my technical one and Mr Paraone’s dubious one.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Whare o te Komiti, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman of the House and of the Committee, and at the same time to us all.]

It is a pleasure to take a brief call on this bill for Ngāruahine. I too want to speak to the Supplementary Order Papers. Labour will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 187, the technical changes to the bill, but we will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 186 in the name of Pita Paraone. We think it is really important that the mechanisms in the deeds of settlement for iwi are maintained right through this process, and for this one in particular, because it is about representation on a committee, not on the council itself—it is a committee for the Taranaki Regional Council—it is important that these mechanisms are maintained.

I think that the iwi of Taranaki, including Ngāruahine, have worked very hard to get to this stage in the process of settling all eight iwi settlements, and this particular one is one that needs to be mentioned in the House. I think it is unfortunate that Supplementary Order Paper 186 has come to the Committee, and I will leave it there for that one.

I do want to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee for the way that he ran the committee process on this particular bill. There were a number of submissions, in particular from one of the hapū that felt aggrieved through this process. I believe that the select committee exhausted every opportunity that it could in coming to understand the issues that that particular hapū had. I think the report back to the House is a very considered one. I think that the committee has made some very good points around that. I think there are opportunities for all members of all hapū of Ngāruahine to participate in the future of their iwi. So I want to commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations also for the work that he has done in that area.

Apart from those two issues, that is the only contribution I will be making tonight. Nō reira, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a tātou. [So it is fitting that I acknowledge us.]

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to stand and support the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill at this Committee stage. I want to particularly pick up on the representation. There is an amendment to the bill being put before the Committee and I want to particularly pick up on the benefit of having Māori representation at the table at Taranaki regional and local authorities. We will not be supporting my colleague Pita Paraone’s Supplementary Order Paper 186, which, in effect, negates Māori representation at the council table, and I want to support the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in outlining why that is so necessary—why it is essential to the foundation of Aotearoa New Zealand, actually, to enable the true partnership and Māori representation.

Some years ago I actually wrote about the importance of Māori representation, which I want to expand on a little bit more tonight. It was because at that time, particularly at local authority and local government levels, there was a big debate and—as we in this Chamber can imagine—there was quite a bit of backlash and opposition, particularly to Māori representation. I am particularly proud of the way that iwi of Taranaki are maintaining and upholding their kaitiaki responsibilities over their whenua and their hapori, marae, and hapū to maintain iwi representation at the local authority table. I do want to acknowledge, therefore, what that means. I relate to my own iwi in Ngāpuhi in Hokianga where, for over 30 years, the local hapū and the community—Māori and non-Māori working together—have been trying really hard to improve our waste-water sewerage systems for our Hokianga Harbour and various inlets. Had that been managed properly 30-plus years ago, particularly upholding the Te Tiriti partnership in Hokianga, I think we would have seen, firstly, better community involvement, but also better protection over the Hokianga Harbour and the waterways where waste-water sewerage is concerned.

Here you have an example where, as with many of the examples, it would have benefited everybody to have that iwi and hapū representation at that local government table, thereby truly honouring the partnership, because, essentially, representation is focused on our kaitiaki responsibilities and our whakapapa to our whenua. So nothing in that relationship—as here with the Ngāruahine settlement bill—is about maintaining power for the purposes of individual people or even individual hapū. It is actually about maintaining kaitiaki responsibilities to ensure that the community is well and that the waters and the whenua are well for all of the generations to come—all of the generations, not just the mokopuna tamariki of those hapū and iwi.

So I did want to particularly focus on and outline why we will not be supporting my colleague Pita Paraone’s amendment. I am very aware that New Zealand First has a particular and a different political point when it comes to Māori representation, but the Green Party has remained, and always will remain, very clear and very strong that the No. 1 benefit for upholding our Tiriti relationship and partnership absolutely was always supposed to be about an equal share of power and affirming the sovereignty of Taranaki iwi.

One final point is that that does not necessarily mean the best representation—I am going to ask for some more time. It is always found just at the table in terms of local government representation. Yes, Māori representation is important and vital. Is local government representation at the table the best way of upholding that? That is for iwi to decide. I want to acknowledge that in some places some iwi have chosen not to have to campaign to be at the table. That is for iwi to decide, but where iwi have had a tradition of having their voice at that table, then this House should absolutely support that. I do not make a claim to say that that is the best way to uphold the Te Tiriti partnership, but, certainly, it is an important way to be able to affirm what iwi themselves are wanting. So I did want to focus this particular contribution on the fact that the Green Party will be continuing to support local government representation for iwi. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Can I say that I will be talking to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 186, which the Minister in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, really wanted to describe in such wonderful terms. But his kindness overtook him, and so he kindly said that it did not make sense. I just want to give some background to the SOP from New Zealand First.

One of the issues that has come about, not only in this particular bill but in a number of similar bills where Māori have been appointed to subcommittees on councils to represent their views, is that there has been an opposing view from some members of the public, saying that Māori are gaining access to these positions without being elected. I think that that argument has some validity. However, in this case, I did a bit of research and I understand that there are representatives from other bodies who are not elected and who are not Māori.

So we have got to exercise a sense of fairness, and I thought if that was the case then I would recommend to our caucus that we would withdraw that Supplementary Order Paper for that particular reason, in that there are other organisations being represented on these subcommittees that have not been elected. I would suggest to those who have been responsible for us putting forward the original Supplementary Order Paper that they ought to consider the reality of the situation. So, on behalf of New Zealand First, we will be withdrawing that Supplementary Order Paper. I just want to thank my colleagues on this side for the wonderful support that they have given—yeah, right! Tēnā koe, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I just want clarification from the member, Pita Paraone. Is it the whole Supplementary Order Paper 186 that New Zealand First is withdrawing, or is it just part of Supplementary Order Paper 186?

Pita Paraone: No. No. Yes, the whole.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is the whole of Supplementary Order Paper 186.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 4, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Deputy Leader of the House: I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a second time. As the House knows, this bill enables Parliament to make technical, short, and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It enables amendments that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually, and this, of course, is achieved only with the support of all parties in Parliament.

The current bill as reported back by the Government Administration Committee amends 26 Acts administered by 13 different Government agencies. Each of the amendments in the bill has received unanimous cross-party support and is a great demonstration of parties working together. It was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 21 June 2016, and I thank the select committee for its very careful consideration of the bill.

The committee received and considered five submissions from interested groups. The report recommended changes to the proposed amendments to one Act, the insertion of an additional amendment to another Act, and the removal of two amendments, and I support each of these recommendations. The committee recommended changes to clauses in the bill amending the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. The Law Society suggested changes to clarify common practices about the operation of the legislation and update the wording of the Act. The committee recommended an amendment in a new section regarding the witnessing of donor signatures of an enduring power of attorney. The committee considered the clause as introduced would set a higher standard for lawyers in certifying that no conflict of interest arises than is required under the rules that set out the ethical obligations of lawyers. These changes will make the legislation more effective and efficient for lawyers and donors—and, of course, we all like efficiency for lawyers.

The committee also recommended inserting a new amendment to the Employment Relations Act 2000. This change will address a drafting error in the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2016, which incorrectly referred to a section of the principal Act. The changes will ensure that employees are able correctly to pursue a personal grievance where their employer has not provided the employee with either notice of a cancelled shift or compensation if no notice is given.

The committee recommended removing the amendment to the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Act 2014 from the bill. The Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Act 2014 introduced a new civil order called a non-contact order, which is designed to reduce the likelihood of serious violent and sexual offenders coming into contact with their victims. The intention of the amendment was to give judges clear statutory authority to clear the court and restrict publication of proceedings when applications under the Act were being heard. The committee considered the amendment was not appropriate for inclusion in a statutes amendment bill and has divided the amendment into a separate bill.

Finally, the committee recommended removing the amendment to the Charities Act 2005 from the bill. The bill proposed several amendments to the Charities Act that were assessed by the committee as not adequately meeting the criteria for inclusion in a statutes amendment bill. The committee has divided the proposed amendments to the Charities Act into a separate bill, and the committee is currently considering further submissions to it.

So I endorse the recommendations of the committee. The bill proposes a number of changes to the statute book that are technical and that are short and non-controversial. Again, I thank the committee for its considered work, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): As the chair of the Government Administration Committee, can I say what a pleasure it is to report this bill back to the House. I think a number of members, particularly new ones, are under the misapprehension that a Statutes Amendment Bill is quite boring.

Kris Faafoi: Oh, who said that?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Well, other than you, Mr Faafoi. It is my view that it is not boring, and it is actually a really important part of the parliamentary process. What it is meant to do is correct errors in drafting. It is not meant to have any policy changes in it. A Statutes Amendment Bill should not have any policy changes, it should not have matters that are so big that they actually could impact on the policy intention indirectly, and it should be non-controversial. So it might sound like a boring frame, but, actually, it is a really important part of the process, and I want to commend all the members of our select committee because I think we have taken this process very seriously.

As Minister Chris Finlayson said—interestingly enough, he said he endorsed the recommendations of the committee, but he did not admit that we have fixed up quite a few mistakes that he had made, in his introduction to the bill. But that is all right. We do not need an admission of mistakes from the Minister, because it might be a bit much for us to cope with, but I am very pleased that the Minister did note that he endorsed the recommendations.

We made a couple of changes in the bill to remove the possibility of further corrections being made in the next statutes amendment bill, and we took out two parts—that is one of the most important things that I want to mention. Neither the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Act change nor the Charities Act change were considered by the committee to meet the criteria for statutes amendment. My understanding is that the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Act change is going to be introduced separately, so that is good. We were not trying to stop the progress of it; we just did not think it was appropriate for these measures to be included in a statutes amendment bill. The other provision, the Charities Act changes, is actually the subject of consideration by the select committee right at this very time. So we have separated it off and called for submissions, and we have put that part of the Statutes Amendment Bill in as a separate measure.

As I said at the beginning, the point of statutes amendment is to have omnibus provisions that tidy up things that are in other bills that otherwise would not get the priority of the House. They are not considered important enough, but they do need to be fixed. They do need to be corrected. In that vein, there are two Supplementary Order Papers that I note have been proposed, and I want to highly commend them both. The sound of the crash that you just heard is David Seymour fainting in his office as I commend a Supplementary Order Paper in his name.

Kris Faafoi has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that puts a National member’s bill that has been drawn out of the ballot into the proper place, which is in a statutes amendment bill. It is a disgraceful tactic, which I have never seen before in the House, to use the legitimate process of the members’ ballot to clog up the process and block other members’ bills. We get little enough opportunity as it is—actually, we get very little opportunity—to put forward our ideas for legislative change because we are in the Opposition, and for members of the National Government to put in ridiculous bills and clog up the process just makes a laughing stock of Parliament, but, actually, much to the amusement of the rest of us, it has made a laughing stock of them. I have never heard such ridicule as that which has been directed at the National Government backbench for doing such stupid things.

So Kris Faafoi’s Supplementary Order Paper 191 puts in the Airport Authorities Act 1966 change, so that we have replaced “the insertion of suitable advertisements in a newspaper circulating in the district where the airport is situated” with “publicising the sale in what the authority considers to be a fair and reasonable manner”. It is an entirely appropriate amendment for a statutes amendment bill, and I look forward to hearing probably quite a lengthy debate on that very point in the Committee of the whole House.

The other amendment is an equally ludicrous National Government backbench member’s bill that, again, has been drawn from the ballot, and Supplementary Order Paper 207 is in the name of David Seymour. It is quite a bit longer, so I would have to reflect quite carefully on that about whether it would meet the criteria of a statutes amendment bill. But given that despite its length it says pretty well nothing, then it probably is appropriate to go in a statutes amendment bill, and I certainly support David Seymour’s intention, not only in putting it in the right place but in adding further ridicule to that which has already been dished out, up and down the country, at the National Government backbench.

As the Minister indicated when he spoke at the start of the second reading, we had only five submissions on this bill, which probably indicates that most people are satisfied with it. We heard only two submitters. The Ministry of Justice gave us pretty good advice. I am not sure that our advisers agreed right at the start that some of the proposals were unsuitable for a statutes amendment bill, but a further part of the statutes amendment process is that a proposal for deletion, for example—as we did of two parts of this bill—does not need a majority vote by the select committee. A statutes amendment bill requires only one single member of Parliament to object and it cannot proceed. Notwithstanding that point, our committee worked pretty well, I think, and reached unanimous decisions on all of these provisions.

So 28 different pieces of legislation are altered in this. The two changes that we made to correct the corrections, if you like, were amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000 and to the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. So, having got the bill before us to correct mistakes in previous legislation, we discovered a couple more, and I want to acknowledge the rigorous assistance that the submitters gave us, both the ones who just wrote in and the ones who submitted orally.

The process that provides the opportunity for these corrections to be made I do not think should be brushed over lightly. I know that a number of members, including Ministers who were responsible for various parts of this bill—when I raised concerns about the appropriateness with them directly, they basically said it had been signed off by all parties in the House, because that is the consideration that these statutes amendment bills go through before they are introduced in the House and passed on to a select committee. I was a bit disappointed at that initial response because, as I said, we looked at the proposals within this bill with quite a lot of rigour and we genuinely considered that some of them were not appropriate.

I remember about 4 years ago we had a statutes amendment bill at our select committee and we said to the officials “We don’t think this is an appropriate bit to go into the legislation. Why did you introduce it?”, and they said: “Well, we didn’t think that this would have a high priority in the House. The Statutes Amendment Bill was a train that was passing, and we decided to hitch another wagon on to it.” They said that, literally. They were not trying to cause any grief or harm. They wanted their proposals put before Parliament, and they thought they would get away with doing it by putting it into a statutes amendment bill. Well, I do not blame them for that. It must be pretty frustrating, particularly when you see the National Government backbench rubbish bills clogging up the system—as we have over recent weeks—and here are good public servants who have got genuine policy issues that the Minister wants to progress and they are keen to progress, and they cannot find the legislative spot for it.

That is what those rubbish National Government backbench bills actually do—they stop good policy being introduced in this House and debated. What is Parliament for if it is not to progress good issues? We do not always agree with initiatives introduced by the Government members, but that is their mandate to do that. They should—or perhaps they have got nothing left to do. Perhaps they think they have sorted all the problems. Last week in the House I heard about eight pieces of legislation that could have been introduced—some of them were amendments from the Green Party, some of them were amendments from the Labour Party, and they were supported by this side of the House—to address the crisis of homelessness that we have in New Zealand. But, no, let us not do anything in this Parliament to address that crisis. Let us waste the time of the House with rubbish bills like we have had from the National Government backbench. Unfortunately, that is the situation—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but her time has expired.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, mauriora. In taking a call on this Statutes Amendment Bill in this second reading debate, I want to first of all congratulate the Minister, the Hon Simon Bridges, on bringing in a piece of legislation that, in amending 28 Acts—we did find two that we thought did not meet the test for a statutes amendment bill, because they were not amendments of a minor, technical, and non-controversial nature.

A statutes amendment bill is an important vehicle, particularly for a Government like this one, which is focused on reducing bureaucracy, on making a more streamlined set of regulations and legislation, and on not tying up the time of this House—as we saw last week from a desperate Opposition, polling at only 26 percent and plummeting in their heartland. We should have been dealing with the housing crisis, or the housing matters, in this country under urgency, and instead those members were focused on palace politics here in Wellington. It is typical of that desperate and failing Opposition.

Anyway, this bill is a sensible set of measures. Statutes amendment bills have been used for some time in this country—there were brief pauses in the 1950s and the 1990s where the practice fell into abeyance—and they do provide us with an efficient and effective means to make these small changes, which are often drafting or typographical error corrections.

The two provisions that we did consider at the Government Administration Committee that did not quite meet the test included the Charities Act 2005 amendments, which were around, I guess, appeal processes that were available to people who were not happy with decisions of the chief executive officers. That was broken out, as others before me have mentioned, into a child bill, which is being considered separately. We also saw the removal of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Act 2014 amendments, which were particularly aimed at preventing victims of violent offenders from coming into contact with perpetrators in courtroom situations.

I want to congratulate my colleague, the distinguished and learned Minister of Justice the Hon Amy Adams, on the announcements that she made today around family violence. We might not have been able to address this urgent and pressing issue through this means, but I am proud to be part of a Government that is taking family and domestic and intimate partner violence very, very seriously, and is introducing practical law changes that will have a real effect in that area. This is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Quite often we say in this House that it is a genuine pleasure to speak to the particular bill that we are speaking on, and it is a genuine pleasure to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill. First, a disclaimer for those who are watching at home who might be interested in the Statutes Amendment Bill: I am making use of my colleague Stuart Nash’s table today, so if you see this Hawke’s Bay rugby shirt behind me, it has nothing to do with me. As much as we do love Hawke’s Bay on this side of the House, I will take pleasure in saying that Wellington beat Hawke’s Bay 36-26 in the first round of the Mitre 10 Cup. But—

Jami-Lee Ross: Where’s your “Nick Leggett for Mayor” shirt?

KRIS FAAFOI: Oh, right. Nothing useful, as per usual, from across that side of the House.

I think it is useful to reflect on some of the comments from the last speaker, Paul Foster-Bell—that this Government does not want to tie up unnecessarily any time in this House, and that it wants to make sure that we are being efficient in the House—in the context of this Statutes Amendment Bill. First, for those people who are actually interested in this bill, I think they might want to know what a statutes amendment bill is. I know that a couple of speakers have mentioned it before, but, I guess, in English—going from what we have already heard today—it is a bit of a spring clean for the Government. Anything that is untidy—a technical error in legislation, something that has become outdated, something that is non-controversial—can be changed in a statutes amendment bill. We have heard from numerous speakers that 28 pieces of legislation are included in this Statutes Amendment Bill, which will have minor and small technical changes.

I did want to just put that in the context not of what is in this bill at the moment but of what could be, and that is baggage. If anyone has been paying attention to what has been happening in and around Parliament for the members of Parliament, there was a bill in the members’ ballot that was pulled out in the name of the member of Parliament Nuk Korako, which is the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill—an absolutely mega bill from the Government. So important is this piece of legislation from Nuk that National prioritised it by putting it in the members’ ballot, and, lo and behold, Nuk Korako was lucky enough to have this piece of legislation pulled from the ballot.

Hon Member: They’re really passionate about it.

KRIS FAAFOI: So passionate about this piece of legislation was the Government that, after embarrassment by coverage in the media, Gerry Brownlee tried to get it passed through all stages through the House in one fell swoop. That did not happen, and now the Government has to put up with the embarrassment that one of its own list MPs thinks that one of the massive priorities in this country right now is people’s lost luggage.

But that is actually not accurate. The bill is not about lost luggage; it is about advertising the sale of lost luggage. So if I could just ask our friends in the media to be a little bit more precise in their reporting, it is not about lost luggage, but it is about when that luggage gets lost and the airport wants to sell it. At the moment, legally, the airport can advertise the sale only in the newspaper. Mr Korako has travelled the country. He has spoken to thousands of people. I think he may even have had a petition, and he has fought so long and hard and is so passionate about this issue—about advertising lost luggage—that he thought it was a great idea to make this a member’s bill. I say, for the people at home, this has been pulled from the ballot and it will go to a select committee—yes, a group of MPs of this House will sit around a table, discussing lost luggage advertising. The select committee will have officials look at the ramifications of this piece of legislation and it will have another reading in this House, and, potentially, a third reading in this House, and all because the Government thinks this is a massive priority for the country.

But help is at hand. If the Government is really concerned about this, and wants to make sure that this piece of legislation that Nuk Korako is so passionate about is passed, we can make it happen for him a lot sooner. We can make it part of this Statutes Amendment Bill because it is non-controversial, it is minor, and it does not change any major policy—perfect for a statutes amendment bill. I think we have to look at the approach that the Government is taking with the members’ bills ballot and the abuse of that process within this Parliament with the likes of Nuk Korako’s bill and with the likes of Mr Doocey’s bill, which I think means that companies will be able to email people instead of sending them a letter when there are declarations of their annual accounts—that is another biggie.

That members’ bills ballot is there for members of the House—all around this House—to be able to put up issues that are important to them and their communities. Maybe I am wrong—maybe I am wrong—and maybe Nuk Korako’s community does think this is a big thing. Maybe he has sent out his pamphlets, as the National MPs do, and asked “Which issues are important to you?”—you know, “Which party do you vote for? Do you know who I am? Do you want my newsletter? What is the big issue for you?”—and maybe they came back with “Lost luggage.” Maybe that is actually what happened, but I do not think that is the case. Back when his bill was pulled from the ballot, and the Government realised it was in a bit of trouble because the optics were not good of lost baggage being in the headlines, I wrote to the Government, saying: “Hey guys, just chill. We can put this in a statutes amendment bill, and it will all happen really fast. I will save you not only money but, potentially, embarrassment.”

Dr Megan Woods: Like this speech.

KRIS FAAFOI: Thanks, Megan Woods. Ha, ha! This is the reply I got from Simon Bridges: “Kris, thank you for your correspondence proposing the inclusion of Mr Korako’s Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill in the Statutes Amendment Bill. Your letter was forwarded to me, as I am the Minister in charge of this bill. As a member in charge of the Airport Authorities”—it is a long name—“Bill, it is up to Mr Korako to make decisions on how to progress his bill.”—and he was polite—“Thank you for taking the time to write.”

If Mr Korako is serious about this bill, and he is serious about saving the time and money of this Parliament, he will just give up the game. He will give up the game of wasting Parliament’s time with the members’ ballot and just agree to my Supplementary Order Paper 191, because we are from the Opposition, and we are here to help. If the Government thinks that lost baggage advertising is the most important thing it can put in the ballot, well, I think the Government has got some issues with priorities. When the average house price in Auckland is $1 million, when homelessness is going through the roof, we get this piece of legislation through the members’ ballot. So, Mr Korako, yep, it might help the odd airport around the place—and I kind of question how much consultation you did with the airports, because I do not think they think it is a massive issue. But if you are really keen to make your change in New Zealand legislation with your member’s bill, then take up the offer of our Supplementary Order Paper, because we can save you lots of time and money—two things the Government says it wants to make sure it does every day.

But it gets worse, because there are more members’ bills that could potentially come through this process that are absolute stunners.

Carmel Sepuloni: Like Mark Mitchell’s bill.

KRIS FAAFOI: Oh, no, we will not pick on him. But who have we got here? Maureen Pugh’s Justices of the Peace (Medical Reasons for Retirement) Amendment Bill—

Carmel Sepuloni: Woah!

KRIS FAAFOI: Yeah, yeah, no, wait, wait, wait. It allows former justices of the peace to use the title “JP (retired)”. That is a biggie—that is a biggie. I will not pick on the member in the chair at the moment. Jacqui Dean’s Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment Bill requires local authorities to promote a customer focus in the delivery of public services and regulatory functions and makes chief executives responsible for ensuring that happens. I would assume that is already happening. Ian McKelvie’s Sentencing (Livestock Rustling) Amendment Bill does sound exciting, but it adds livestock rustling to the list of aggravating factors to be taken into account at sentencing. Wow, that is a biggie. Usefully, it also defines livestock as “animals kept as part of an agricultural operation, whether for commercial purposes or for private use.”

All of these types of bills, which are in the ballot, could be in a statutes amendment bill. So my message to the Government is, get your priorities right. Get the spring cleaning done with a statutes amendment bill. Stop filling up the members’ ballot with what I would call—

Meka Whaitiri: Wasteful.

KRIS FAAFOI: —wasteful—

Meka Whaitiri: Wasteful pieces of legislation.

KRIS FAAFOI: —wasteful pieces of legislation that really are a bit of a joke. They really are a bit of a joke. So next time Simon Bridges is sitting down putting together a statutes amendment bill, I would suggest he looks at all the bills that National Government backbenchers have got in the members’ ballot and says: “Guys, these are embarrassing. Let’s put them in the Statutes Amendment Bill, because, at this stage, we’re looking like a joke.”

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill, and I would like to acknowledge the Hon Simon Bridges, who has brought this bill to the House. The bill has been through the Government Administration Committee. I do want to acknowledge the chair of the committee, the Hon Ruth Dyson. She has done a very good job of chairing the committee and shepherding this bill through, and I also want to acknowledge, of course, the outstanding deputy chair, Paul Foster-Bell, who also takes a leadership role on that committee.

Of course, the bill tidies up legislation that needs provisions clarified or to have minor technical corrections made. Amendments must be technical, short, and non-controversial, and it is a good way of getting legislation into the House that on its own would not get here. We do need to continue to modernise our statute book in a rapidly changing world.

I have to say that I was quite pleasantly surprised when the chair of the committee was recognising and praising the Hon Chris Finlayson, and that went on for about 2 or 3 minutes. I wondered when it was coming and, sure enough, it happened. She suddenly switched into manoeuvres. She realised what she was doing. So she was searching for something to speak about. She decided that she would switch back into a 17-hour filibuster on housing. She decided to go back to the future. She had nothing else to talk about, so she started talking about and trying to reinvent the filibuster, and, unfortunately, we saw the Opposition run out of steam on last week. Then we had Mr Faafoi get up and make a very good contribution.

Kris Faafoi: Thank you. You can stop now.

MARK MITCHELL: You are welcome. He talked about Nuk Korako’s bill. I am lucky enough that I have travelled with Mr Faafoi as members of the Parliamentary Rugby Team. I know for a fact that if his luggage went missing, with his Giorgio Armani suits and his rugby mouthguard, that bottom lip would be quivering. That bottom lip would be quivering and he would be rushing around. It is very hard to get another mouthguard to fit Kris at very short notice like that. The other thing that he got very excited about, which I found very interesting, was cattle rustling. For some reason, he seemed to really home in on rustling, and he also singled out and picked on our justices of the peace (JPs).

I just want to make one comment, on a serious note, on that. Our JPs provide an extremely important service in our communities. One thing that is very important within our JP service is that we continue to rejuvenate and we continue to find new JPs who are willing to come in, who meet the standards set and required of a JP, and who are able to take on that role, which now requires fairly technical work, and also, often they are in very high demand, especially in semi-rural or provincial areas. So allowing our JPs to retire and to retain that JP title when retired is actually very important to them, and it is a way of us being able to continue to recognise them—

Brett Hudson: To acknowledge them.

MARK MITCHELL: —and acknowledge the service that they have given. So I just wanted to highlight that. That is a member’s bill, and that is actually a very good member’s bill.

I am very happy to take this call on the Statutes Amendment Bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take what will be a short call on the Statutes Amendment Bill. Just looking through the bill, I looked at Part 7, where there is a change to the Conservation Act. I guess that illustrates the nature of the changes that are in this bill, because there are just two clauses there. They amend section 38 of the Conservation Act, which itself is in the miscellaneous part of the principal Act, and clause 26 is entitled “(Hunting, etc)”, which I am not sure is the best drafting. But what this amendment is doing is ensuring that—in section 38 it is about the issue of hunting permits. You cannot go hunting on public conservation land unless you have a hunting permit issued by the Director-General of Conservation, subject to public safety and other requirements. It is an offence under the principal Act to not comply with the conditions of the hunting permit.

What the bill does here is ensure that if you are using a trap on conservation land to go hunting, you need to have a hunting permit and you need to comply with the Act, because previously the principal Act listed nets, poison, snares, and hunting weapons, but it did not mention traps. So what the bill does is it inserts “trap,” and adds it to the list of killing mechanisms that you need a permit for.

I guess I am making a point similar to others’ that when the Statutes Amendment Bill is making small, technical changes like that, then it should also be making the changes that a lot of National Government backbenchers have dreamt up in terms of members bills’—the ones like Nuk Korako’s, which is the advertising of lost luggage from airports, and the one developed by Waitaki MP Jacqui Dean, which is typical of the National Government and its attitude to local government, telling local government what to do by requiring local authorities to promote a customer focus in the way they provide public services and the way in which they undertake their regulatory responsibilities. Local authorities know about being customer-focused, but it highlights the distrust with which this Government treats councils that it sees fit to have a National member require that in a member’s bill. All those sorts of bills could be included in the Statutes Amendment Bill instead of clogging up the time that we have on members’ days to debate what could be, if they were being lodged by Opposition parties, quite substantial changes to law and policy.

The Statutes Amendment Bill should be dealing with a number of the matters that National backbenchers have in their members’ bills, because it is really an abuse of the parliamentary process to deny us the time to debate genuine measures that would advance policy and legislation. I guess that is typical of this Government in terms of the way in which it patronises select committees, denies the select committees the chance to actually debate substantive changes to legislation, has officials debating that with the Ministers instead, and then has select committees acting as a mere cipher on controversial legislation—again, similarly, with these members’ bills. But given that Parliament costs around $42,000 an hour for the time that we spend debating legislation, I will conclude by commending this bill to the House.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supported this bill at the first reading, on the basis that it is a statutes amendment bill that makes minor amendments to the several Acts that are set out in it. As part of the process that we took with this bill, we referred the entire bill to all of our caucus members and asked them to study it to see which areas of the bill related to their portfolios. They looked at it, they studied whether there were any issues that we needed to particularly take notice of, and the feedback on it was that there were no such issues, that we were satisfied with all of the amendments in the bill, and that there was therefore no reason for us to object to anything in it. So I indicated at that stage that we would be voting for it, on the basis that it was as it was at that stage.

I have now also looked, as we all have, at the report of the Government Administration Committee, which has made a number of relatively minor but actually quite important amendments, which New Zealand First is also happy to support. Actually, two of them are really only amendments, and they are the ones to the Employment Relations Act that amend a new part. The issue there is that the correction would ensure that employees are able to correctly pursue a personal grievance where their employer has not provided the employee with either notice of a cancelled shift or compensation if notice is not given as per the employment agreement. So we have no difficulty with supporting that. That is a genuine and well-thought-out amendment that the committee has made to the bill.

Similarly, we support the amendment that the committee has made to the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, which amends one of the clauses relating to the witnessing of donor signatures. I remember, as a lawyer, doing many, many of these, and it is a standard certificate, but the committee has said that it believes that adequate protection would be achieved by adopting the same formulation as in the legislation. It has recommended replacing the words “does not constitute a conflict of interest.” with the words “does not constitute more than a negligible risk of a conflict of interest.” That is actually much more reasonable as a certificate, because how could anyone—lawyer or not—give an absolute certification that no conflict of interest would arise? So “not more than negligible” is much more reasonable. For that reason, again, New Zealand First sees that as a genuine amendment to the bill, and one that we can support.

The other two recommendations of the committee were to divide off into separate bills the amendments relating to the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Act 2014 and the one relating to the Charities Act 2005. We agree with the committee that those are amendments that should not be in this bill. We take its advice and agree with it on that.

That leads me to move on to the two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that would add further amendments to the bill by adding two members’ bills to it. We in New Zealand First will definitely not support either of those SOPs. This is an abuse of the statutes amendment bill procedure. They are not genuine amendments that were considered or were part of the original bill. This is not the right way to go about getting members’ bills through the House. We consider that to be an abuse of procedure. It should not be happening. We will not support it on that basis alone, but there are, of course, other good reasons for not doing so.

Nuk Korako’s bill is, admittedly, an extremely minor bill—in fact, so minor that it almost reaches vanishing point—concerning lost property at airports. It is now proposed by Mr Faafoi in Supplementary Order Paper 191 that it go into this bill. Well, this is a serious statutes amendment bill, and it should not be there. We will not support it for that reason. Similarly, we have Matt Doocey’s bill—also desperately unnoticeable in content—which is now proposed by David Seymour to go into this bill, presumably as a means of getting rid of it. Well that, again, is actually an abuse of the procedure, and it should not be happening.

In both cases the members should have an opportunity to speak to their bills. They should, in fact, turn up and explain to this House why they have moved those as members’ bills, why it is so important that the provisions in them should take up the time of this House, and why it is such good legislation that we should all vote for it. We think they should do that. We want to hear what they have to say. We want to hear that justification. We do not want to see it buried in this Statutes Amendment Bill as just a nice, quiet way of getting rid of it or sweeping it almost under the carpet. So we will not have that. We will not have that. We want to have the debate. We want to hear what they are all about. We want to know why we should vote for or against them.

Lastly, we think that by allowing this sort of thing to happen we will be setting a very bad precedent, one that we do not want to see happening again. For those reasons there is no possible way New Zealand First will vote in favour of either of those two SOPs. Otherwise, we have no difficulty whatsoever with the process that has been adopted for this Statutes Amendment Bill or with the recommendations of the Government Administration Committee, which we also support. So that is our position, and it is one that we are going to stick to. It is the only one, we believe, that is credible and proper as a way to deal with this particular bill. We will be voting for the bill but against the two SOPs, for those reasons.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill in its second reading. I do sit on the committee—the Government Administration Committee—that considered this bill. As other members have said, it is the nature of a statutes amendment bill that the provisions are not controversial and that they should be simple and technical in nature. But that does not mean that they are in any way unimportant. In fact, the provisions, which I will come to, are extremely important—so there, too, is the role of the committee on the bill.

The committee spent a great deal of effort in analysing and hearing submissions and listening to officials to reach the positions it did, and that included some very valuable amendments—for instance, the amendment in a new section around the witnessing of donor signatures of an enduring power of attorney, and the amendment in the area of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 to clarify common practices and to improve the suggested change that was there. The committee also recommended the removal of the amendments to the Charities Act 2005 because it felt that they were better addressed as a child bill to this Statutes Amendment Bill, and it has undertaken that process.

Within that, and within the bill as it is returned to the House, there are still some important, albeit small, changes that we hold should take place. For instance, in the Accident Compensation Act 2001—the very first principal Act to be amended—the changes will amend section 139 to prohibit the ACC from using its own employees or any subsidiary to conduct reviews as part of the statutory dispute resolution process. It is pretty simple to understand. It is pretty obvious in its nature, you would think. So, very clearly, the legislation as it currently stands does not prohibit that. It makes sense to tidy up that small anomaly. There are more clauses still that give changes of import, even if the change itself seems somewhat minor.

This Statutes Amendment Bill will amend section 149L(3) of the Crown Entities Act 2004, which changes a reference from “another entity’s responsible Minister” to “another Minister”. One might wonder, why such a potentially pedantic change of wording? If we look at the changes in Government entities over the years, and with entities such as the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment being such a large and very encompassing agency, it makes sense to acknowledge that wording that may have been right in the past would no longer be.

The one I want to finish on is one that I felt my colleague Chris Bishop, a man who has a great and warm heart, might like to see take place. The Statutes Amendment Bill will amend section 23(1)(a) of the 16th Act, the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013. I am sure Mr Bishop would wish very well for his erstwhile opponent in the Hutt South seat—for this change will enable the Speaker to authorise travel services to continue for a reasonable period after a member of Parliament vacates his or her seat. And I am sure Mr Bishop wishes Mr Mallard all the best. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is a delight to take a call on this important Statutes Amendment Bill, which, of course, Labour will be supporting. This is part of a long tradition of tidy-up and remedial matters. For folks at home, what happens with a statutes amendment bill is that on the second reading we go through it and we satisfy ourselves that there is nothing in here that belongs in a more substantive policy - type bill. Now it has come back from the Government Administration Committee, we hear any qualifications and we pass it into law. It saves the House time by grouping a whole bunch of issues that, frankly, really are not supposed to have a great deal of policy content. They are tidy-ups. They are corrections.

That brings me then to a couple of little issues. Firstly, can I commend the Deputy Leader of the House for the Commodity Levies Act amendments in Part 5, because it has done the right thing and it has got a sunset clause in it. Levies will be in force for no more than 6 years, unless extended. That is really good practice, and we are pleased to see that in there from a regulations review point of view. However, the next part, Part 6, inserts new section 16A into the Community Trusts Act and it is over a page long. It is a process for adjusting the areas of a community trust or, indeed, merging part or the whole of two community trusts.

Community trusts were set up to accommodate the funds of a number of the trustee savings banks. Many of them have hundreds of millions of dollars in them. This is actually a pretty substantive provision. I would welcome a Government speaker just explaining to us—perhaps the Attorney-General might want to take a call, or the Minister responsible—how Part 6 inserting new section 16A is not a policy matter. And if it is a policy matter, what is it doing in a statutes amendment bill?

It was with a little chuckle that I looked at Part 9, which is around the Crown Entities Act, because you will recall that this House has had some extensive debates on the merits or demerits of the so-called mixed-ownership model, where a State-owned enterprise (SOE) or a Crown entity has part of its shareholding hived off to the private sector for the supposed benefit of scrutiny by analysts but, of course, it is actually done to enrich a whole lot of middle men in the time-honoured tradition of National. Well, this is really interesting because clause 40 in Part 9, which substitutes section 110, actually reinforces one of the most important provisions of the old State-owned enterprise model, which is the power of Ministers to give a direction to the Crown entity that they must, by law, follow.

This tidy-up actually writes into law more specifically the obligations of those Crown entities, which I assume—and the Minister will correct us if this is otherwise—includes former SOEs now governed under the mixed-ownership model. What an incredible U-turn. It is not one that the Opposition is wholly disappointed to see, because we rather think the idea of a ministerial direction power is a useful protection for the public interest, but I think it shows that the mixed-ownership model went too far, got a little too shoddy, and now the Government is backtracking, which is probably a good thing.

When you go to Part 21, “Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988”, there are a number of reasonably significant amendments in clause 75—section 94A(4A) and (6A), and, over the page, new section 95A—around the revocation of enduring powers of attorney. Again, I think this pushes the envelope of what you would normally see in a statutes amendment bill. They are matters of policy, albeit minor.

However, we are supporting this bill because although one or two of these things come a little bit close to the Standing Orders line, we respect the overall intent of the process, which is to save the House time and to save the taxpayer money by grouping up a whole lot of fiddly little amendments into one legislative vehicle.

That is what brings me to the topic of denuclearisation, and, specifically, the “de-Nuk Korako-isation”, of the Order Paper from things like the “Luggage Handling Advertising Bill”, which could have fitted in the Statutes Amendment Bill because, frankly, it is less substantive than any of the amendments that I have just spent the last 5 minutes reading out. It is much more important to give a ministerial direction power to a State-owned enterprise that could affect hundreds of millions of dollars of public investment than it is to change the advertising method for a lost bag. It is far more substantive to merge two community trusts that hold hundreds of millions of dollars in assets than it is to spend the House’s time debating whether a local newspaper notice or an email notification for a lost handbag is the most appropriate way to advertise it. So that is what I mean by denuclearisation of the Order Paper.

Frankly, we have had enough of nuclear testing. The North Koreans have done some of it this week and that is a bad thing, and it is a bad thing to see the Government nuclear testing on the House with the Order Paper with this lost baggage bill. What we are really calling for is a case of “Nuk tuck”—we want to tuck the Nuk bill into this bill to save the House time. Or we could send it to Nuku’alofa, or, perhaps, we could follow the old dictum that “A Nuk in time saves nine”. It would be really good to save nine times the time that is going to be spent on Nuk Korako’s “Blimmin Waste of Space Bill” and put it in the Statutes Amendment Bill.

Of course, these things do not happen by accident. The highly paid strategists and spin doctors of the National Government spend hours around the bonfires in the Beehive working out new ways to sucker the public of New Zealand into the proposition that the Government knows what it is doing. That is why it is wasting the House’s time with trivial, inane pieces of members’ legislation like Nuk Korako’s bill, which does not go unnoticed by the perspicacious personnel of the press gallery.

I merit one Vernon Small, who observes as follows: “Ridicule has been heaped on list MP Nuk Korako’s bill to exempt airports from having to advertise the auction of lost property in their local newspaper.” He goes on to say why that is ridiculous and concludes with the following: “It was a tactic advocated by National pollster and blogger David Farrar back in 2012 that has come into its own now National has only a slim majority … it allows National to dilute the odds that a measure drafted by the Opposition or minor party MPs”—sorry, chaps, those are his words. We do not think of you as minor; we think of you as excellent colleagues in the House, pursuing, as your leader has said, the task of changing the Government, and that is a good thing.

It allows National to dilute the odds of something real coming out of the ballot paper—real, like building State houses, taking children out of cars into warm, dry homes, or making sure that our rental accommodation is fitted within the parameters of the Statutes Amendment Bill. I take your guidance, as always, Mr Assistant Speaker.

New Zealanders are not stupid. As much as National’s strategists might think you could fool all of the people all of the time, New Zealanders are going to prove the age-old dictum next year that although you may be able to fool all of the people some of the time—possibly for about 7 years—in the end, sense catches up and enough of the sum of the people cast their ballot for a change of Government, rising up in indignation about the trifling with the House that has been vested upon us by Nuk Korako wasting members’ time. It is time to “de - Nuk-learise”.

This Statutes Amendment Bill is a living, breathing example of a railway train that is leaving the station that could have had a couple more carriages on it. The carriages that are on it at the moment include things as important as merging community trusts, reinforcing the power of Minsters to direct State-owned enterprises, important additions to the powers of corrections officers and police in respect of bail, and many other drastically important measures that we are tidying up through this legislation. Why, oh why, could it have not found room in its heart for Nuk Korako’s bill? Think of the hours of House time that members could have spent enjoying themselves in other pursuits, knowing the country was safe, and that the Order Paper had been “de - Nuk-learised”. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the Statutes Amendment Bill in its second reading. Some Opposition members are most uncharitable. I have sat here and listened to some very mean-spirited people, particularly talking about Mr Nuk Korako. I think he has got an excellent bill. It is interesting that Opposition members feel that it is their divine right to determine what should go forward in a statutes amendment bill and what should be put forward as a member’s bill. I do not subscribe to that view. But it is actually an auspicious occasion today because this is one of the rare times I have been in this House and actually heard that New Zealand First is going to support one of our changes, one of our bills. Its history is always to say no—no to everything. This is a very rare occasion, and congratulations on doing that.

I have listened to a number of the speakers talking about various aspects of the Statutes Amendment Bill. I thought I might just pause for a moment on the amendments to the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. I have not heard anyone talking about this, so I thought we would just spend a moment or two reflecting on these excellent few changes. Amended section 94A, in clause 75, amends the Act to support a proposal to enact some regulations, which means, in effect, that there would be a standard explanation of the effects and implications of an enduring power of attorney.

The reason I am picking up on the enduring power of attorney is that it is very important, and there are about six changes. Amended section 94A also talks about the donors of mutual enduring powers of attorney receiving the required explanation and having their signatures witnessed by the same authorised witness. New section 94A(7)(ab) goes on to talk about these donors and witnesses, to certify that the donor “understands the nature of the instrument;” and the potential risks and consequences.

I am sure that many of us in this House and many of the members of the public have had a lot of trouble trying to get appropriate enduring powers of attorney. When you want to change them, you have to go through a full rigmarole of reassessing them, rewriting them, and getting new consent. So some of the changes in this are quite simple and it is perfectly adequate that they are dealt with through the Statutes Amendment Bill, and I think they go some way to making sure that we get the rights of powers of attorney in place. They are good, practical solutions. These are just one of a series of measures that this bill deals with, and I fully commend it.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I would hate to see the House fall into silence on such an important bill. The Statutes Amendment Bill, as we have heard, is quite non-controversial, and, really, would probably explain the rambles that we have been hearing, particularly from the other side of the House. I thought that we should talk about what is important in this, and I think the amendment to the Commodity Levies Act 1990 is actually fantastic. It gets the law right into line so that a levy order lasts for 6 years from the date it comes into force, rather than the date that it was issued, which I think is really very important. The commodity levies go up for election every 6 years. It is very important to those industries that they have those levies, but it is also important that they have industry support.

Also, the Fisheries Act 1996 amendment provides for a notice to temporarily close a fishing area or restrict fishing methods to be automatically revoked 2 years after coming into force. I think that is really important, because fishing areas are coming increasingly under pressure because of overfishing, quite often by recreational fishers. Although they are taking only a small amount each, because they are fishing constantly and with new technology with fish finders that can virtually home in on the area where the fish are—so fishermen are no longer leaving it to chance. They are actually finding that area very quickly, so it is important that the Minister has the opportunity to close fisheries should he or she need to.

I think it is also important that fishing methods are covered in that, because, for example, in the Marlborough Sounds at the moment we do have a complete ban on scallop fishing, particularly the damage that dredges appear to be doing to the sea bottom. That may well have effects on other fish species spawning in the little sea grasses that grow on the bottom. Because you are, effectively, ploughing the bottom of the sea, those little fish do not have the area to live in. That could really have a major impact all the way through that food chain, so it is really important that the Minister has an opportunity to manage that as needed.

I will just finish on the Land Transport Act 1988 amendment, which removes the retention of logbooks for 12 months. That is really important for the administrative process.

So I would like to just reiterate that I am quite honoured to be able to bring some good sense back to this debate and stop all of the ramble that was coming from the other side. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I move, That the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Policing Act 2008 to enable cost recovery for certain police services that fall within the definition of a demand service. I would like to thank the members of the Law and Order Committee, in particular the chair of the committee, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, for his and his committee’s work on this bill. I would also like to thank all members of the public who took the time to submit. The committee members commented on the high quality and the number of the written oral submissions that were received.

The New Zealand Police is one of the few police services worldwide that does not have legislation that explicitly allows for some degree of cost recovery, particularly for those services that predominantly deliver direct benefits to private individuals. Currently, most police services in New Zealand are funded out of the police’s baseline funding. Providing for cost recovery will enable police to meet the cost associated with increases in demand for certain services. This will avoid placing additional strain on taxpayer funds or shifting resources towards those services at the expense of front-line police activities. It will also safeguard the delivery of these services by ensuring that funding is specifically ring-fenced for them.

Cost recovery is common for many Public Service agencies in New Zealand, both at local government and central government level—for example, the Ministry for Primary Industries has a system in place to recover the cost of providing for food safety, fisheries, and biosecurity services, and the Department of Internal Affairs charges fees for the provision of New Zealand passports.

Under this amendment bill the Minister of Police can recommend regulations to prescribe a fee for services that meet certain criteria. These criteria are as follows: the service is a demand service, the fees or charges are consistent with the specified criteria, and the commissioner has done everything reasonable to consult the persons or organisations affected.

A “demand service” is defined as a service that constitutes policing, is provided only on the request of an individual organisation, is provided to the individual organisation requesting it, and is of direct benefit to that individual or organisation. A “demand service” does not include policing services such as 111 calls, conducting criminal investigations, or the prosecution of criminal offences.

The bill does not list the specific policing services that costs can be recovered for, other than police vetting services. The bill provides that other services could be subject to cost recovery by regulation, providing they meet the principles and criteria set out in the bill. The only policing service currently being considered for cost recovery is the police vetting service. Future examples of services that may be subject to these regulations could include keeping peace at repossessions, responding to insurance company inquiries, and supervising lottery draws.

The Law and Order Committee recommended a number of amendments that will clarify the intentions of the bill. First is to incorporate into the primary definition of “demand service” those services to be excluded—for example, police response to calls for service relating to potential offending. This amendment means that the services that cannot be subject to cost recovery have been incorporated into the primary definition of a “demand service”. This tightens the definition of a “demand service”, serves as a stronger limitation, and provides more clarity and certainty as to the scope of regulation. Secondly, to replace the words “a Crown bank account” with “a departmental bank account”. This amendment ensures that the police receive the fees needed to meet the costs of providing the service being charged for. Thirdly, to clarify that regulations made under the Act may include exemptions, waivers, or refunds of fees or charges payable under the regulations. This amendment means that exemptions, waivers, and refunds will be specifically set out in regulations or granted by the Commissioner of Police in accordance with the regulations.

Following the passage of this bill, it is intended to introduce regulations to enable cost recovery for the police vetting service. This bill includes the police vetting service as an example of a demand service because it is a service that is provided on request from agencies registered with the police such as schools, district health boards, non-governmental organisations, and private sector organisations—for example, retirement homes. I acknowledge that there is a degree of indirect benefit involved with the police vetting service. However, the direct benefit is to the users of the service. Agencies requesting a police vetting check on an individual may do so because of due diligence or legal requirements. These agencies are, therefore, the ones to capture the benefit. This is because the information supplied allows them to make informed decisions about the suitability of that individual for employment in an agency, to act as a volunteer, to conduct business, or to gain citizenship.

The regulations will set a fixed fee for users of the police vetting service. The costs will be calculated based on the full costs of the service, including both direct and indirect costs, averaged by the number of vetting applications. Emphasis has been placed on ensuring the cost is the minimum possible, to enable the provision of the police vetting service. The regulations will include a waiver regime. Decisions on the criteria for waivers have yet to be finalised by Cabinet, but I am keen to ensure that waivers are provided for registered charities. I would like to thank the Hon Peter Dunne for his advice on this matter. The regulations may provide for other exemptions, waivers, or refunds of any fee or charge prescribed under this bill. They will also give the Commissioner of Police the discretion to waive fees, as he or she thinks fit, in certain circumstances.

I am proposing that the bill be enacted as soon as possible. In conclusion, the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill enables the police to recover the costs of certain police services and will help the police to ensure that resources are not diverted from front-line services, will help to provide greater transparency about where costs lie, and will lead to a better allocation of taxpayer resources overall. Cost recovery by Government agencies from other Government agencies already occurs, and leads to a better allocation of taxpayer resources. I believe there is a strong case for cost recovery for services where the benefit accrues directly to individuals and private organisations, rather than the public as a whole.

I acknowledge that Poto Williams, David Clendon, and Chris Hipkins have proposed three Supplementary Order Papers. These will be debated in the Committee of the whole House. The bill has emerged from the Law and Order Committee with a number of changes as a result of the committee’s careful consideration. This has strengthened the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): We have not been supportive of this bill, for some very good reasons. Public safety and public protection are the core functions of the police, and the police need to be resourced to do this. Our argument is that in this case, we believe that the police should be resourced to support those groups that seek to have information provided to them about potential candidates who are coming to work in their workplace, particularly if those organisations are ones that work with vulnerable populations.

The core arguments that we have against this particular piece of legislation are around the issues of what is a core service for the police, what is a demand service, and what is actually for private benefit. In the case of vetting for NGOs that may work with children, with the elderly, or with other vulnerable populations such as the disabled, we see that it is a core service of the police to be that initial screen, that initial safety barrier, when we are looking at those people who are going to work in these particular areas. The discussion around private benefit versus public interest is one that we should not disregard.

The argument that was presented at the Law and Order Committee was thus: the public interest of ensuring a safe and credible workforce to work with children and to work with the elderly actually far outweighed what might be determined as private benefit—that is, the ability to secure work by having a police check completed, clearing you to work in that workplace. So we feel very strongly that the public interest in this—in ensuring that we have a workforce that is safe to work with children, with the elderly, and with the disabled—far outweighs the arguments that National was giving us in regard to private benefit.

When the bill was first introduced, it was thought that those groups that would first have costs recovered from them would be groups such as concert promoters—those that are providing concerts or music and are actually going to make a profit from those particular ventures. When you think of the amount of manpower that goes into supporting the safety of people attending those kinds of concerts, we thought that that actually had some merit, and we were supportive of the bill when it first came to the House, for those reasons.

It took us by complete surprise, as it did many members of the NGO sector and the community and voluntary sector, that what actually transpired was that they would be the ones that would be impacted on by this particular piece of legislation. With the user-pays system, the officials did not disclose what other services might be charged for. So we might be starting with police checks and police vetting, but could this extend, perhaps, to the recovery of one’s stolen property? We have not actually been given any assurances of how far the user-pays system will go.

With regard to the community and voluntary sector, representatives were very vocal in their opposition to this particular legislation, and I want to commend them for their efforts to lobby those members such as the Hon Peter Dunne and the members of the Māori Party to demonstrate that what is occurring here is that the NGO sector, which receives its money through donations, through philanthropic trusts, and through Government contracts, is actually going to be moving that money directly into supporting the resources of the police. That is not a good use of its resources. So those organisations are taking resources that they would normally be using for supporting the people and the causes that they care about, and putting them directly into the bottom line of the police budget, when what should actually happen is that the police should be resourced to do their work properly. The heart of our argument is, really, around what the police are resourced to do.

When the discussion about what charge would be imposed upon individuals wanting to get their police checks completed came to the select committee, the discussion was at a level of about $7. But during the examination of what occurs in other jurisdictions, particularly in Australia, individuals could be looking at a charge of about $50 each. There are high numbers of requests for police to undertake these checks, and we know that eventually the nominal sum of $7 will increase—there is no doubt about that. We do not see the value in charging individuals who are going to work in a relatively low-paid NGO environment supporting children, the elderly, and the disabled—why they should be the ones to bear the brunt of these charges?

The other groups that are potentially involved in this—and the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been put up by David Clendon and by Chris Hipkins speak to this specifically—are teachers in schools and early childhood education. Here, again, we are looking at a group of people who are at the heart of keeping our children safe and educated having to bear the brunt of under-resourcing of the police. I would be hopeful that the Government members would support the SOP in my name, which would look to exempt registered charities, and I am heartened to hear that the Minister is considering that that may be part of regulation. But I say to the Minister, actually what you should do is you should put that in the piece of legislation—that should appear in the legislation. The Minister has indicated that there might be some determination about waivers and exemptions, but that should actually be up front rather than allowing the Commissioner of Police to make those determinations on an individual basis. It would be far better to actually make the statement that registered charities are exempt, registered teachers are exempt, and early childhood education centres are also exempt from the charges.

It does come down to the fact that the police need to be resourced to do what they do; that a demand service, in this case, should not be impacting on people who actually want to do a good job in keeping our children and the elderly safe; and that, at the end of the day, private benefit does not in this case outweigh what is in the best interests of the public. It is for these reasons that we do not support this legislation. We do not believe it has been well-thought-through, and we think it is unclear and unfair in its impact. It represents an extremely dangerous new direction in charging for basic police services, and we oppose this bill.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill. This bill allows the Policing Act 2008 to enable cost recovery for certain police services. The New Zealand Police force does a fantastic job to support New Zealanders.

We need to understand why the Act is being amended, what the reason behind it is, and what the background is. There was extensive consultation, which took place in December 2012, and 147 submissions were received. Discussion went on and some recommendations were made, and that is why this bill was introduced. We have examples over in the Australian jurisdiction, where a cost-recovery regime is already available.

It is important that we understand why we are trying to do this. We expect the Police to perform within the budget we have set, like all other Government departments. Here I would like to emphasise one thing: the New Zealand Police is doing a fantastic job, which is not only recognised by New Zealanders but also well recognised worldwide. For example, the police in New Zealand were asked to go and assist the Australian police during the G20 summit, which was a few years ago. That is a reason we are well recognised and well appreciated all over the world. We also know that the Police deliver many services like investigations, prosecutions, and responding to calls as well, and we expect them to work within their budget. We have to understand that the Police, as we expect them to work within their budget, have to recover some costs. When there are personal benefits, then the Police can recover the cost, and that is why the definition of “demand services” is being clarified in this bill.

As the bill was introduced, the Minister of Police was empowered to introduce any fees or give any exemption or waiver to NGOs or charitable organisations. But as the submissions were heard from time to time by the select committee, concern was raised, and then it was recommended in the select committee process that we should ask the Commissioner of Police to have that regulatory power to exempt NGOs and charitable organisations if he or she feels that they should be exempted from these fees. It is again in the hands of the Commissioner of Police as to what to charge and as to fixing what the vetting price should be. It is about ensuring that there is a greater and better use of public money and police resources and time.

As with all things in life, we need to create a balance between our demands, and for the police force also we have to keep that balance. The bill seeks to create a balance between public service and commercial activity. When a business seeks to make a profit from its activities but wants the general public to foot the bill for some of these activities, it is unfair, I think, to use public money, therefore I believe the balance should be sensible. It is a sensible piece of legislation and I hope that it will go through this House. I commend this bill to the House.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): The previous gentleman to talk on this bill, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, talked about a balance. I completely agree, but I suspect that my definition of balance varies greatly from that member’s. For me it is about getting a balance between what the public perception of police is—what the public believes the role of the police is—versus the public good. At the moment, I have some concerns that the public’s confidence in the ability of the police to solve crime and do their job is eroding. I have great concerns that if the public now see the police charging for their services—charging for their services—it will further erode the confidence that we have in our policemen and women.

I want to say that I think our policemen and women do a fantastic job. They are under-resourced. In fact, 60 percent of officers in the recent workplace survey said that they are not meeting the promises they make to the public, and that is of huge concern. But a way forward is not to start charging for the services of the police. That is not a way to raise money; it is a not a way to gain the confidence of the public. I also think it is not a way to actually reinforce the objective manner of the police.

So if we take this a step further, where does it go? Is this a slippery slope towards privatisation? Well, in essence, this is the first step towards privatisation, because whenever you require users to pay for a Government service, that is privatisation. It is a small step, I must admit, but where will this lead to? Where does this go? What the departmental disclosure statement, in the explanatory note of the bill, says is that this “leads to greater transparency of the use of public money and agencies consider their use of services more carefully once costs are internalised.” What this is saying is that if a person or an organisation who requires vetting cannot afford this, then they will not take up the option. But on the flip side of that, what we are demanding more and more as a society is to be kept safe from those who are causing mischief.

A lot of people require police vetting. This is not a “nice-to-have”, voluntary measure; this is now a compulsory measure that we have required through statute from this House. So what we are in fact doing is imposing greater costs on a lot of agencies, schools, institutions, organisations, and charities that are picking up a lot of the burden that is left by a Government that has left people behind. Why should schools have to pay for police vetting of their staff? Why should kindergartens have to pay for police vetting when, I believe, it is a fundamental role of the police to keep our society safe? We are now saying no, it is not the police’s role; it is the kindergarten’s role, but it must use the police because they are the only organisation with the ability and resources to undertake the sort of vetting that we as a Parliament require. That is privatisation and that is wrong. But where will this lead to? Will this lead to a point in time when the wealthy suburbs, because they can afford to pay police cars to patrol, end up being patrolled while the suburbs down the road that are not as wealthy—suburbs where constituents’ lives are a challenge—and cannot pay get one police car while these guys in the wealthy suburbs get three police cars?

What we are also told is that this is what happens in other jurisdictions. In most other jurisdictions police carry guns, but are we saying that because they do it in other jurisdictions, we must do it in ours? In a number of policing areas, in a number of policing initiatives, we have been world leading. We are not followers. We are not a police force that says that we do not really know what is going on here and that we therefore have got to look over the Ditch and see what the Australians are doing, what the Americans are doing, and what the Brits are doing. Goodness me, if we had a look at a lot of these jurisdictions and copied their methods of policing, we would be in huge trouble.

I believe that at this point in time, the police are at a little bit of a crossroads. What we have had is a Minister who only in May of this year signed off on a 4-year strategic plan for police. In that plan it said there were going to be no more police for another 4 years. Since then, the police Minister has come out and admitted that that was a mistake; we need more police. We have had the Commissioner of Police say less than 2 weeks ago that we do not need more police, and yet we get a resolution rate of less than 10 percent for stolen vehicles and less than 10 percent for burglaries. We are having officers moved from community police stations and brought into head office.

Policing in this country is diminishing in its effectiveness to solve crime and to keep our communities safe. Yet here we are with this bill requiring those organisations that actually are in charge of keeping our children safe, our elderly safe, and our poor safe to pay for police services. Is that right? I do not think it is. It is no coincidence that nearly every submitter during the select committee process said that this was the wrong thing to do. Maybe at a future point in time we can look at it. When the police are adequately resourced, when they are solving crimes, when burglaries are getting solved, and when people are phoning the police with confidence, knowing that they are going to turn up, maybe we need to look at it then. But I think policing works really, really well when our communities have confidence that our police are doing their job in a way that meets the expectations of the public, and I do not think that this bill does that.

Let us be honest about this. The policing budget is huge—it really is. It is a significant amount of money. This bill is not going to bring in much money—it is not—so what we are debating here is, really, a philosophical point. We are not debating a fiscal point. So I would argue that at this point in time we need to take the philosophy of user-pays back, take it off the table, and get back on the table the philosophy of community policing. We need to bring back the belief within our communities that police are there for us and to protect us, and not just those who can pay the money.

What happens if there is a concert and the concert promoter can afford to pay for police, so the whole of Western Springs is ringed by police, and then there is another concert to raise money for—I do not know—Oxfam or a disaster or another charity, and because it is not about them but about raising money for a charity, they cannot afford police? Are the Rolling Stones more deserving of a ring of police than Oxfam? I do not think so, and I also do not think that the public believe that. That is why we are voting against this bill, and that is why I would like the Government members who are going to speak on this bill and the Minister who has already spoken on this bill and who is responsible for shepherding this bill through the House to perhaps take another look at it to understand that this will begin—well, not begin; will continue—the erosion of confidence that we have in our police force.

The other thing that concerns me is that in that workplace survey, over 80 percent of the police said that they are committed to the force—over 80 percent of police said they are committed to our communities. The men and women on the front line who wear that uniform have an absolute commitment to doing what is right for our communities. But what it also said in that survey, in the lowest-ranking answer, was that over 60 percent said they do not believe that their voices are being listened to by the police hierarchy. They do not believe that their ideas and their feedback are getting through to those who are making decisions. I can understand the men and women on the front line looking at this and saying amongst their groups around the water coolers: “Goodness me! This is just one more step where people are going to look at us and say: ‘What is going on? Why do we have to pay for your services?’ instead of saying: ‘The police can do this in an efficient manner, and that is what we need to have done.’ ”

As mentioned—just to sum up—we are debating a philosophical point here on where we take the police in the next 3 to 4 to 5 to 10 years. I firmly believe that we need to get the focus of the police back to the community—back to serving the community and serving those organisations that are there to serve our community. I do not believe it is a good idea to have the police start charging for services that they have done for free in the past. If we want the police to undertake these services, then my plea is we need to resource them in an adequate manner. That is the solution, not user-pays. Thank you very much.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): The first speaker on the other side of the House, Poto Williams, reflected the views of a large number of submitters as they came to the select committee process on this bill—which I would have to say was probably one of the most complicated or interesting, I guess, select committee processes I have been through in my time in this House—as I think there was a lot of nervousness around how this bill would play out in due course, and some of the factors that she raised, I guess, were of concern to the Law and Order Committee. However, as the bill progressed, a lot of things have been cleared up, and I would like to remind Stuart Nash, the previous speaker, that it is actually the Government’s role to keep people safe. The agencies it uses to do that all play their part in it. If the Government decides one agency needs to charge another agency for services, it is purely the Government’s decision, and I do not think it has got anything to do with the efficiency of the police or anyone else, for that matter.

I have got to declare a vested interest in this, as I am chairman of Special Olympics New Zealand, an organisation that uses police vetting processes for an awful lot of police checks. We have 7,000-odd athletes whom we need to keep safe on an annual basis, many of whom are vulnerable, and we use the police vetting service an awful lot. There was some nervousness in that organisation about where this bill would get to, and I would like to congratulate the Minister of Police on her strong signal that there will be a waiver progressed for registered charities through regulation. I think that has alleviated a lot of the concerns that many of us had in the course of this select committee process.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government’s role is to keep people safe, and if the Government needs to pay bills to other Government departments, then that is the Government’s choice. So I think this bill has played out pretty well in the end, despite some nervousness on the select committee’s behalf—

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

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.