Wednesday, 19 October 2016

WEDNESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2016

WEDNESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Obituaries

His Majesty Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice that this House express its sadness at the passing of His Majesty the King of Thailand, Bhumibol Adulyadej.

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I move, That this House express its sadness at the passing of His Majesty Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, at the age of 89, who this year celebrated 70 years on the throne. King Bhumibol was the world’s longest-serving monarch, and he made an extraordinary contribution to Thailand and the region during his reign. He presided over a period of transformative growth and development that saw Thailand emerge as a regional leader and one of South-east Asia’s major economies, and he will be remembered for his lifelong devotion to the welfare and well-being of the people of Thailand.

The visit of His Majesty and Queen Sirikit to New Zealand in 1962 was a cornerstone of the close and friendly ties that have since developed between Thailand and New Zealand. This year New Zealand and Thailand are celebrating the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations.

His Majesty’s loss is deeply felt by the Thai people. On behalf of all New Zealanders, I would like to express our sincere condolences to Queen Sirikit, Thailand’s royal family, and, of course, the people of Thailand.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I rise to support the Government in its motion and, on behalf of the Labour and New Zealand First parties, note also the loss to the people of Thailand of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Bhumibol the Great was widely popular within his home country, and I know that Thai people around the world will be mourning his loss and remembering everything he did for their nation.

For a nation that has never been colonised, the Chakri Dynasty is a living embodiment of the history of Thailand, a history that they are very proud of. The loss of such a long-serving king is keenly felt. As the world’s longest-serving head of State, King Adulyadej took office in 1946, just 1 year after World War II ended. He rose to the throne at just the age of 18 and spent the rest of his life in the service of his country. That is an impressive record by any measure. His reign oversaw enormous change, not just in Thailand but around the world, encompassing the beginning and end of the Cold War, man landing on the moon, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dawn of the war on terror, and the great recession.

I have seen comments from people in Thailand who say that they never thought this day would come, that they took for granted that the king would always be around. It is a good reminder that although none of us is immortal, the best way we can spend the brief lives we are given is in service to our people.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party associates itself with the sentiments expressed already in the House, on the passing of the King of Thailand. Our condolences go out to the people of that land. His Majesty, as noted, was the world’s longest-serving constitutional monarch. He played a unique role in the national life of Thailand. Once upon a time I had occasion to meet the King in the royal palace in Krung Thep. It was on the occasion of the presentation of the credentials of our ambassador. I was in humble and obedient attendance.

Such is the formality of this occasion in Thailand, there was a dress rehearsal the day before. We were immediately preceded by the North Koreans, and I forget who followed us. What I do not forget is the semi-divine task that was handed to us. We were required to walk into the chamber three paces, bow, move to the right three paces, bow, then move forward to meet His Majesty with a bow and a handshake. The challenge, to put it mildly, was that we were required to walk backwards on withdrawing, since it is not permitted to turn one’s back on the King. This included the bowing, and this required mental and physical qualities hitherto not demanded of embassy mortals. Success meant a clean exit between the huge and heavy teak doors, through which we had come. Failure meant, well, failure. Our New Zealand contingent—a team of two, the ambassador and me—performed well enough in training. On the day, with credentials presented in an appropriately performed greeting with His Majesty, we went to repeat our manoeuvre match day, as it were. And we so nearly got it right, apart from my right elbow, which sent a crunching sound of bone on wood through the palace room, with the King looking on. I think a B-minus performance.

I recall this moment with a mixture of respect for the King’s dignity and a love of the Thai culture and people, where I lived for 3 years. For an appropriate mix of formality and casualness, is the hallmark of any people who possess such a deep and rich civilisation. Today’s Thailand has its political problems and challenges, but the beauty of the land, the culture, and the people are known to us all. May New Zealand remain a close friend. May we assist where we can. May the Thai people receive our respect and condolences on this sad occasion of the passing of His Majesty.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): E tū, he aha te tāmi i haere ai koutou ki te mate? He tara tārau teitei, he pātehetehe, huruhuru whare riha, he papa pounamu ki te ringa kia māwhiti te karu e! E Te Kīngi o Thailand whakangaro atu rā! Tāpirihia atu tō haere ki tērā o te wahine toa i kōrerohia i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata i nanahi nei. Ko Helen Kelly tērā, anā kua riro. Nō reira, haere koutou ki tua o te pae o maumahara ki reira whakangaro atu ai, tē hoki mai ki tō iwi ki tō kāinga, ki tō papakāinga. Ka tangi ake ki a koutou te hunga mate, haere koutou, haere koutou, haere koutou, tēnei te tū ake o Te Pāti Māori ki te tautoko i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia. Whakangaro atu rā. Āpiti hōno, tātai hōno, te hunga mate ki te hunga mate, anei, tātou te hunga ora, e hoa mā, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Arise, what is the oppression that causes you ones to die? To you, the King of Thailand, disappear from view indeed! Add your journey to that of the courageous woman who was referred to in this House of Parliament just yesterday when tributes were accorded to her. That was Helen Kelly who died. So to you collectively, the dead, depart beyond the horizon and from there disappear from sight, never to return to your people, home, and communal land. I grieve for you the deceased; go forth, depart, farewell. I stand on behalf of the Māori Party in support of the tributes that have been made. Disappear from view, the links are joined, let the dead be with the dead, and here we are the living, colleagues; my acknowledgments and appreciation to you collectively and to us all.]

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to join with others in expressing condolences to the Government and people of Thailand on the passing of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej after nearly 70 years as that country’s monarch. Many New Zealanders will remember with fondness His Majesty and Queen Sirikit’s visit to New Zealand all those years ago, which probably ignited the modern New Zealand interest in Thailand. Although we have had diplomatic relations for a number of years, that visit—and the excitement that surrounded that young couple, as they were in those days—set off in New Zealand, I think, an interest in Thailand that has retained its glory ever since.

His Majesty wins plaudits for the stability he presided over during his reign as King of Thailand, but there was another side to him. He was, for instance, an accomplished jazz musician, and showed many lighter touches during his long reign.

This will be a particularly sad and difficult time for his country, which, as a previous speaker has acknowledged, has been racked by a degree of political dissension in recent years. The monarchy has been a very symbolic, stabilising factor. Our thoughts are very much with the people and the Government, as they go about the task of contemplating a Thailand without King Bhumibol and the thought of what might lie ahead.

New Zealand’s relations with Thailand are strong, and this sad event, in many senses, because of the memories that the King evinces with that visit all those years ago, actually helps to cement the relations between our two countries.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Work Visas—Youth Unemployment

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “we are on the cusp of something special”, given P is cheaper and easier to get, youth unemployment has risen nearly 30 percent on his watch, and the average home in Auckland now costs over $1 million?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I do stand by that statement, and I am proud of the progress New Zealand is making. For example, the economy grew by 3.6 percent in the year to June, putting us in the four top-performing OECD countries. The average annual wage is now $58,000, an increase of 25 percent since National first came into office. More than 300,000 jobs have been created since the depths of the global financial crisis and a further 170,000 people are forecast to be in work by 2020. Cost of living increases are low: annual inflation is just 0.2 percent, well below average weekly wage increases of 2 percent in the year to June. So, backed by the Government’s successful economic plan and New Zealanders’ hard work, our country is making good progress.

Andrew Little: Why did the Government approve 27,000 work visas in the last year for entry-level jobs that could have been filled by young Kiwis?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There can be a range of different reasons. They include that there may be a mismatch of where the skills are required vis-à-vis where the people live. It is not always easy to move people to locations and encourage them to go and work there, even if there are jobs that are available.

Andrew Little: Why did his Government issue work visas in the last year to over 2,000 retail workers and over 600 cleaners, while 70,000 young New Zealanders are not in employment, education, or training?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, there can be a variety of reasons, but I think it is worth remembering the significant changes that this Government has made to the way things work when someone goes to a Work and Income office—that is, we have changed by moving from the unemployment benefit to the jobseeker support. There is a high expectation that people will work. What, in fact, Work and Income officers do is spend a lot of time making sure that somebody transitions into a job. Ultimately, there are massive incentives for them to get employment, but sometimes the jobs are in different locations—for instance, like Queenstown—to places where they might live, like Gisborne and Northland.

Jacqui Dean: Can the Prime Minister provide further examples of how New Zealand is making good progress in dealing with social and economic challenges under this Government’s stewardship?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can. There are a number of other indicators confirming that New Zealand is making good progress. For example, the manufacturing and services sector, including tourism and ICT, is growing strongly and is succeeding on the world stage. The Government has fulfilled its promise of returning to Budget surplus, which gives us choices into the future. More Kiwis are voting with their feet and coming home, as opposed to leaving for Australia by the tens of thousands as they were when we took office, and the Government is addressing some of New Zealand’s most difficult challenges, such as improving educational achievement, supporting vulnerable families, and boosting skills and employment.

Andrew Little: Is the Salvation Army wrong when it says “the balance between training and recruiting young New Zealanders and simply importing skilled and unskilled labour needs to change in favour of young New Zealanders.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In my opinion, yes, actually, the Salvation Army is wrong. If one looks at the number of people who are here on youth migration, the vast bulk of them are actually on working holidays or are international students. Yes, they work, sometimes, 20 hours a week or the like, which is, I think, a welcome change, and it allows New Zealand to be an attractive destination, for instance, for international students. But when one goes and has a look, for instance, in Christchurch—which is where I saw the Salvation Army saying there could have been more done to put people in apprenticeships, as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes—I think the Salvation Army should go and visit Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology. I certainly did, and it has been training an enormous number of young people into apprenticeships.

Sarah Dowie: What were some of the biggest challenges facing New Zealand when the Government took office, and how has the Government gone about addressing them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The biggest challenge facing New Zealand when the Government took office was neatly summed up in the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report in 2008. It said: “More of our children appear to be at risk of harm, more of our young people are engaged in petty crime, there is … violent crime and more people [are] in our jails. None of these trends can be seen as progress.” The Salvation Army went on to say that despite a huge increase in social spending up to 2008, it had contributed little to our social progress. Outcomes were mixed and disappointing. The Government has addressed that by measuring success by the results achieved, not by how much we spend.

Andrew Little: Moving to the year 2016, are the Reserve Bank, ANZ, the Auckland chamber of commerce, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and now the Salvation Army all wrong in saying it is time for him to rethink his immigration strategy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member will see, last week the Government went through its 2-yearly review process and made, at the margins, some small changes. But, for the most part, I think that migration set at the sorts of levels that we have had has served New Zealand well. It has encouraged international students to come to New Zealand. We have free-trade agreements that support working holidays. We have fast-growing sectors in industries that are doing amazingly well, and they do actually need, from time to time, to import talent. You have had plenty of people come to New Zealand who are significant investors in this country and who, as a result of their migration to New Zealand and their investment in New Zealand, have created tremendous jobs. That is one of the reasons why we have got one of the top performing economies in the OECD, and if—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has definitely been answered.

Andrew Little: What is more important to him: providing cheap imported labour or providing a better future for young New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely, a better future for young New Zealanders. But I was not the one who got up at Diwali on Saturday and said “I’m with the international students.”; that was Andrew Little, who was there trying to make out he is the friend of the migrant—when he is not bagging them for having a Chinese name and he is not out there telling them that Indian chefs are not welcome in this country.

Andrew Little: Is it not true that his Government has just shut the door on 70,000 young New Zealanders not in employment, education, or training (“neets”), given that he and his Minister of Finance believe that they are either “pretty damned hopeless” or drugged and lazy, and they prefer low-skilled immigration?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. In fact, the “neets” rate for 15- to 19-year-olds is almost the lowest since records began in 2004. A huge number of young New Zealanders are in apprenticeships. The economy is creating a huge number of jobs and opportunities. I think migration of people to New Zealand is a positive and good thing, but if the member wants to come into this House and say the opposite, please stop going to the events I am at with you and saying the opposite, because it has got a word. It starts with “h”, and you know what it is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Social Services—Social Investment Approach

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Finance—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The House needs to settle. I have asked David Bennett to deliver his question.

2. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to improve early intervention in social services as part of responsible fiscal management?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government believes that the effectiveness of public spending, not the size of it, is what matters for delivering New Zealanders the public services they deserve. We saw, for instance, that up to 2008, when the previous Government’s social spending increased by 70 percent in the 5 years to 2008, many social statistics were going backwards. So while we have lifted spending in health, education, and justice, we are at the same time investing in systems that measure the impact of those dollars on people’s lives. This will allow the Government to concentrate resources on interventions that change lives, particularly for the long term.

David Bennett: What reports has he received showing how targeted early intervention can make the biggest difference for at-risk youth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the context of the discussion about investment and spending on further prison beds, earlier today the Ministry of Justice provided new figures on serious offending among youth. It reports that over 2 years, 1,800 14- to 16-year-olds were dealt with by police for a serious offence. On average, each child had previous contact with police six times and is expected to have contact a further eight times. Eighty-two percent of these children have been notified to Child, Youth and Family for care and protection matters, and 45 percent have already received some support for mental health issues. Our ability to now get detailed insights about individual young offenders will allow us to shape services more effectively to change the trajectories that these young New Zealanders are on, because they are negative.

David Bennett: How does the Government’s investment approach reveal the case for early intervention and help to lift the quality of public services?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Social investment works in the first place by simply showing to the policy makers and to front-line deliverers of service what happens with people if no intervention is made. We know that for some individuals, for instance, the Government will spend over a million dollars before they turn 35. The Government has said that it is prepared to make targeted investments today to deliver better long-term social outcomes. This system depends on increased information-sharing among Government agencies, but also on changing our systems of delivering support to New Zealanders in need, because some of the ways we deliver it now make it harder for them rather than easier.

David Bennett: What other innovations are on track to help improve public services?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the important innovations is being able to understand and identify those New Zealand families who cannot find their way to our mainstream services. Most of our services are delivered through hospitals, schools, and prisons, and, actually, most of the time people are not sick, much of the time they are not at school, and too many of our most vulnerable families do not benefit from those well-funded universal services. The ability to share information among agencies is now giving us much better insight. For instance, a case I heard of the other day: what looked like a normal, fairly unfortunate family violence case turned out to be a young woman with 85 serious injury reports, and no Government agency was aware of the scale of misery and abuse in her life. Now, they can act on it.

Carmel Sepuloni: How can he reconcile his statement that the amount spent is not a factor in the effectiveness of services with Shamubeel Eaqub’s statement, in reference to National’s investment approach, that an investment approach cannot work if there is no new money, no focus on every stage of life, and it is motivated by economics-speak?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think I disagree with every one of those statements. I would invite him or any of the other columnists who opine on these matters to turn up at the front line and watch some of the innovations that are occurring, whether it is the family violence pilot in Christchurch, some of the fascinating changes going on in Gisborne, or the South Auckland Social Investment Board—all of which are reporting to us that better ways of working can make a huge impact. Sometimes, more money is required, but it is not the fundamental requirement.

Immigration—Youth Unemployment

3. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Yes; and, on this occasion, by asking another Minister to speak on my behalf.

Ron Mark: Does he stand by his statement in March that he is working closely with Ministers Anne Tolley and Steven Joyce to “ensure that Kiwis are at the front of the queue and that immigration policy is at the end of the pipeline.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes. One of the things the Government is currently working on is a programme called the Sector Workforce Engagement Programme, which is working with particular industries such as the horticultural industry, the agricultural industry, the construction industry, the truck driving industry, and others to ensure that training opportunities are provided to New Zealand young people ahead of skilled migrants being sought for particular roles.

Ron Mark: If his Government is ensuring that Kiwis are at the front of the job queue, then why has his Government consistently had 75,000 young people under 25 who are unemployed, unengaged, and have no skills, and how is that working for all New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is probably a question more appropriately directed to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, but, seeing as you have asked it, I am pleased to report to the member that the number of 15- to 19-year-olds who are not in education, employment, or training (“neets”) is at nearly the lowest level since the household labour force survey started right back in 2004, and in terms of the total 15- to 24-year-olds, it is back now to levels last seen before the global financial crisis. There is more we can do, but I can report for the member that we currently have 43,000 people in apprenticeships, and we are bringing that through to 50,000 people as soon as we can.

Ron Mark: Is he aware that the Salvation Army released a report today that supports New Zealand First’s stance on turning the tap down on immigration, particularly low-skilled workers, or is he of the view that this religious organisation is also xenophobic and racist?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have to say I was disappointed in the Salvation Army report today. It was overly pessimistic and contained significant inaccuracies and misconceptions. But the interesting thing is that this Government does have a lower number of essential skills work visas than previously. In the last year 33,000 were granted; a decade ago it was 44,000 or 53,000. So, definitely, the young people at the front of the queue are New Zealanders, unlike when the member’s party was involved in the previous Government.

Ron Mark: Is he satisfied with his Government’s youth unemployment record, which has consistently been around 75,000, or is he content with using his Government’s appalling record on “neets” as a pathetic excuse just to bring in more low-skilled migrants instead of educating and training our own young Kiwis?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is directing the question to the wrong portfolio, but nevertheless—

Ron Mark: Oh, come on! He’s the Minister. He’s bringing them in.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I know you do not like it, Mr Mark, but we are at the lowest percentage of young people, 15 to 19, who are not in employment, education, or training that we have had—the lowest percentage. That does not mean we cannot do more, but it is the lowest level that we have had since the records began.

Mental Health Services—Funding and Quality

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by Jonathan Coleman’s statement that the Government should have instigated a review of mental health services after years of evidence showing the system was failing people; if so, why is a review not needed now?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. These paraphrased comments from way back in 2008 reflected the general concern at the time about Labour’s management of the health system. A massive amount of work has been undertaken over the last 8 years, which has resulted in more New Zealanders gaining greater access to the mental health services that they need, in a more timely manner. There is always more to do in this complex area, and, 8 years on, a review is unlikely to provide any information that we do not have already.

Hon Annette King: If a review was necessary in 2008, why does he deny one now, when there are daily reports of failure, deaths in care, a nearly 50 percent increase in 111 mental health calls, six district health boards (DHBs) reporting insufficient funding to cover services, DHBs underspending through lack of staff, and NGOs reporting they have reached crisis point?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I dispute that range of assertions, but the fact is that the number of people seeking mental health assistance from the system has increased from 96,000 a year a decade ago to 164,000. So there has been a big uplift. But at the same time, of course, there is more funding going in there, so it has gone up from $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion per year. We have got initiatives like the Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Project, the Like Minds Like Mine approach, and the Rising to the Challenge mental health strategy. There is a lot of work going on. I welcome the member’s constructive suggestions, but unfortunately I do not think she has got any.

Hon Annette King: I would like to table an Official Information Act (OIA) request from the DHB provider arm, 12 months to June 2016, showing the data that I quoted about the underspending but for lack of money.

Mr SPEAKER: The document has been described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular OIA response. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Annette King: When he said in 2007 that over 2,000 reported suicide attempts represented “measureable outcomes in mental health, and by that criteria this Government is failing”, do the over 3,000 reported suicide attempts—the latest figures available—represent his Government’s failing; if not, why not?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, I think the member has got to do better than dig up quotes from a decade ago. The fact is this is always a complex area. The suicide rate, actually, per capita—listen to this—has dropped.

Hon David Cunliffe: Smarmy little man.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Sorry?

Hon David Cunliffe: Smarmy little man.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The suicide rate has dropped per capita over the last 5 years. It is a complex area but we have got to do better all the time. That is why we are putting more resources into it. That is why there is a DHB Suicide Prevention Action Plan, a revised strategy that is being worked on, and there are more and more initiatives being rolled out in this area, but it is a complex and difficult one.

Hon Annette King: When he said in 2006 that it was particularly concerning that hospitalisations for suicide for young women had rocketed from 551 to 573 under Labour, how concerned is he now, when the numbers have increased from 485 in 2008 to 726, according to the latest figures available?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Actually, I dispute those figures. But the point is I think we should all be very concerned about the suicide rate. I do not think it is actually something the member should be playing politics with. She is not able to come up with a single constructive suggestion to tackle what is actually a very serious problem. So rather than just playing politics with it, I would welcome one policy from Labour, and it has not got a single one in this area.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a Ministry of Health dataset on suicide self-harm, a spreadsheet showing the figures I have just given for young women as being—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is unnecessary. Leave is sought to table that particular Ministry of Health dataset. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Annette King: How does he know that the increase in mental health funding is being spent where it is needed, when after 8 years in Government he is still reviewing the suicide prevention strategy, still developing policy, still developing action plans, and is still months away from any decision? Is this not just waffle and—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, all that is incorrect. We have got a ring-fenced amount for mental health—$1.4 billion per year goes into it. We have got this—

Hon Annette King: You’re snookered.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member should read this document, Rising to the Challenge. This is the mental health plan published in 2012. The DHBs all have suicide prevention action plans. They are being updated with new initiatives. There is a whole lot of work going on, and once again I challenge the member to name one single policy response that Labour has, because there is not one, is there? No.

Hon Annette King: I’m here to ask the questions.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. I am here to chair the session, so it would help if we did not have that interjection.

Hon Annette King: Does he agree with the Mental Health Foundation, which said yesterday that to prevent suicide in New Zealand we need to take a hard look at the factors; if so, why will he not undertake a review and address the underlying causes, including resourcing?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, of course we need to take a hard look at the factors, but this is a very complex area, and rather than the member continually playing politics I would welcome her constructive suggestions. But the problem is that she is intellectually bankrupt and has not got a single—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That last comment will not help the order. [Interruption] Order! You have had your fun.

Children in State Care—Age of Eligibility

5. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding young people in State care?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): This morning I announced that Cabinet has agreed to raise the age of State care. This means that young people will no longer have to leave care at 17 years and will be able to remain in, or return to, care up to the age of 21. As part of the radical overhaul of care and protection and the establishment of the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, young people will also be able to receive transition support and advice up to the age of 25. This Government is committed to addressing the long-term trauma and poor life outcomes that can occur for young people who have been in State care.

Melissa Lee: Why has the Government agreed to raise the age of State care?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The evidence tells us that children with a care placement are more likely to end up on a benefit, have poorer educational outcomes, are more likely to get involved in the criminal justice system, and repeat this cycle with their own children unless they are well supported into adulthood. The decision to raise the age of care was based on the recommendations of the independent expert panel, and it was also informed by the views of young people who were either in care or have been in care. These young people expressed feelings of uncertainty about how they would support themselves when leaving care and described experience of struggling to meet essential needs. This cannot be allowed to continue. These young people deserve the support that they need to thrive and to go on to lead successful, independent lives.

Melissa Lee: How will the Government ensure that caregivers are supported to handle this change?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Of course it is essential that we have support not only for young people but also for the caregivers, who open up their lives and homes to our most vulnerable children. Financial assistance will be provided to the caregiver, particularly for pastoral care, taking into account the young person’s individual circumstances. The Government is committed to ensuring that caregivers have the support and resources they need to continue to provide a stable and loving home as these young people develop into their late teens and twenties.

Nuclear Weapons—Weapon Status of Visiting Foreign Ships

6. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime Minister: Will he make public the official advice, if any, he has received on the weapon status of the American, UK, Chinese, and French military ships scheduled to visit New Zealand in November; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I am advised that it has not been standard practice to release such information. However, the member, like any other member of the public, is welcome to request advice under the Official Information Act. Any request will be handled in the usual way and treated with careful consideration. I am not going to pre-empt that process today. In addition, I would note that the member’s question refers to ships visiting in November from the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and France. If the member is referring to the Royal New Zealand Navy’s 75th commemorations, I would point out that neither the United Kingdom nor France is actually sending a ship. They are contributing in other ways, which we very much welcome.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the continued non-disclosure policy on nuclear weapons maintained by the United States and its likely refusal to permit boarding for inspection, does he agree that although the advice of New Zealand officials may reflect a sound, pragmatic expectation, it does not give irrefutable confirmation that no nuclear weapon is on board?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I think it does give irrefutable evidence, and that is because the advice that was prepared and given to me to enable me as Prime Minister to sign the approval declaration came not only from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs but also from the Attorney-General and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They use a wide range of information sources. I notice that in this morning’s newspaper, one of the activists who had swum out in, I think, 1983 was saying that even he would not bother donning his swimming togs because he accepted that the ship was neither nuclear-armed nor nuclear-powered.

Dr Kennedy Graham: When he cites the advice given to him by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in respect of the US vessel scheduled for November, is he confident that he has met the requirements imposed on him by section 9(1) of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act to “have regard to all relevant information and advice that may be available”, or does he acknowledge that there are experts outside the New Zealand Government who may have other views?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I have not seen a single person who has raised a contrary view that the USS Sampson is anything other than non - nuclear powered and non - nuclear armed. If the member can point to somebody, that would be interesting. Of course, there will always be people around the world who are conspiracy theorists, and if that is the line he is pushing today, he might have to put himself in that category.

Dr Kennedy Graham: If the Prime Minister cannot categorically confirm that there are no nuclear weapons on board the US nuclear-capable vessel, why has he given clearance for the ship to visit New Zealand, despite the pride that New Zealanders have in our longstanding nuclear-free tradition?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Act spells out very clearly the obligations on me as Prime Minister. I received advice in relation to the Act from the Attorney-General. I am not in the habit of signing declarations that would put me in breach of the law and that would result in my failing to fulfil the obligations required of me as Prime Minister under the Act. I am totally confident that I have met the requirements of the Act.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he agree with the New Zealand Prime Minister of 31 years ago that “Nuclear weapons make us insecure. … We all of us know that it is wholly without logic or reason to possess the power to destroy ourselves many times over; and yet in spite of that knowledge the nuclear powers continue to refine their capacity to inflict destruction on each other and all the rest of us.”; if so, will he follow that lead and stand up for a nuclear-free New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I should remind the member that at the invitation of President Obama, I have been to a number of the nuclear security summits that he has held, and that is reflecting the credentials of New Zealand. One of the very, very first statements I made a decade ago when I became the leader of the National Party—in Opposition, in 2006—was that we would be observing New Zealand’s nuclear-free status.

Tax Avoidance—Multinational Enterprises

7. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he think it is acceptable that 20 multinational companies paid just $1.8 million in income tax in 2014, despite recording nearly $10 billion in annual sales in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As I think the member is aware, we do not tax turnover in New Zealand, so it is a bit hard to know. It is possible that the levels of tax are lower than they should be. We expect multinationals to pay their fair share of tax and be good corporate citizens. Most companies play by the rules, but the Government is continuing to tighten up the rules around transfer pricing and interest deductibility. New Zealand continues—most importantly, in my view—to work with other OECD countries to strengthen international tax settings, because, in some respects, what is most concerning about some multinationals is that they do not appear to pay much tax anywhere. We need to work with other countries to make sure that they pay their fair share as appropriate to each country’s rules.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Given that he just stated that he believes in a fair and equitable tax system, does he think it right that MasterCard New Zealand declared revenue in New Zealand of just $4.5 million, and paid tax of only $71,000 in its latest figures, despite sharing evenly in $40 billion of annual credit card billings?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would have just the same questions as the member. In the first case, we need to ensure that MasterCard follows New Zealand law, because if it does not, it would be subject to sanctions. Secondly, we need to ensure that New Zealand law is structured in a way that maximises the reasonable tax take. Probably most importantly, we need to work with other countries to ensure that MasterCard pays its fair share of tax wherever it goes. The fact is, to the extent that New Zealand acts alone, companies are free to just shift their tax burdens to other places and it does not make much difference.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Given his answer, does he think it right that Visa New Zealand shared in the same pool of credit card billings of $40 billion, and it declared only $3.2 million of revenue and paid only $185,000 in tax in its latest figures?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Can I say to the member that outrage does not fix the problem. This is a matter of New Zealand tax law and how it interfaces with international tax law. The way we proceed on that needs to keep in mind one factor the member has not mentioned, and that is that if a very successful New Zealand company, like Xero for instance, has hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of sales in Australia but has no taxable profit, we do not actually want the Australian Government just arbitrarily deciding to tax them. So we have to keep in mind that whatever treatment we applied here will be applied to New Zealand companies overseas. That is why we work with other countries to try to make it fair.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Does he agree that the Government should make applications from major offshore investors buying New Zealand assets or investing here explicitly conditional on paying their fair share of tax?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is the requirement of New Zealand—

Hon Member: But it worked with other countries, though.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, you could put it in, but it is actually the requirement of New Zealand law. If they operate here—[Interruption]—well, even if they do not think it is fair they have to pay the tax obliged for them to pay by New Zealand law. So we either change the law, which the Government—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is little point—[Interruption] Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is little point continuing with an answer, with that sort of behaviour from New Zealand First.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We were applauding the Minister’s wonderful statement, and we would like to hear the end of it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not interested in hearing any more. This is question time. It is not about behaviour you would see at a rugby stadium.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Has the member got a further supplementary question?

Fletcher Tabuteau: I do indeed.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I hope this time your own caucus colleagues will respect the answer that is given.

Fletcher Tabuteau: How will the Minister help many New Zealand companies that have said that they have missed out on investments here at home because overseas competitors are abusing the tax system here in New Zealand, giving them an unfair advantage over Kiwi firms?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The way we would help those firms is if they have any knowledge that would indicate that overseas firms are not complying with New Zealand tax law, then those companies will be pursued and, if they have not kept the law, they will be prosecuted. The way the member can help those companies is to support the Government measures to deal with the complex issues of international tax where we are tightening up, for instance, transfer pricing, interest deductibility rules, and the use of hybrid financing instruments. I would expect New Zealand First to support those measures because they are all aimed at just the problem that the member and I believe can be mitigated to some extent.

Building and Construction Industry—Labour Productivity and Government Response

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Is the construction sector report released today correct that labour productivity in the sector has increased only 1 percent since 2012; if so, will he back the industry’s call for more Government involvement in the building sector including procuring houses at scale?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Statistics New Zealand figures on labour productivity in the construction sector actually show a 7.6 percent increase over the last 3 years. So, no, I do not think the figures are correct. The same Statistics New Zealand figures show an increase of 11.1 percent since we became the Government, and, actually, also show a decline of 2.7 percent in productivity under the 9 years of the former Government. The Government has been involved in scale procurement on sites like Awatea, Welles Street, and Colombo Street in Christchurch, and, Tāmaki, Hobsonville, McLennan, and Moire Road in Auckland. I will be announcing further projects later this year, and where it makes sense for scale procurement, the Government will pursue it.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister answered a number of questions but not my one, and it was laid down. It was specifically about labour productivity since 2012. He answered on two other periods but not the period that I asked about.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Speaker, in the start of my answer I very specifically addressed the Statistics New Zealand construction labour productivity figures—they are on the public record—and pointed out what they were for the last 3 years: 7.6 percent.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty is, in fact, that it is a different period. The member specifically asked for figures from 2012. The Minister in his answer refers to the last 3 years, which I would take to be from 2013. [Interruption] I do not need much assistance. Certainly, it was then disputed, the fact of the 1 percent, by saying it was in fact a 7.6 percent increase. I am unable to determine whether the question has been answered correctly, because it may have been, although in the way it is answered it is not clear. The best way forward is we will accept that that question has been addressed by the Minister and I will allow the member now an additional supplementary question.

Phil Twyford: Is not the obvious way to smooth out the boom-and-bust cycle that the construction sector report talks about through a Government-backed building programme like KiwiBuild, which over 10 years would deliver 100,000 affordable homes for first-home buyers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I just saw a pig flying through the House—because anybody who believes that Labour, with the minuscule amount of money that it has budgeted, can build 100,000 houses also believes in the tooth fairy and Father Christmas.

Stuart Smith: Have any difficulties arisen in the productivity gains in house prefabrication offshore; if so, what steps are being taken to resolve these?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, some companies have chosen to prefabricate homes offshore. The Government, through my ministry, issued a determination that councils were correct in granting building consents for such homes. But I am disappointed that the Auckland Council has challenged that decision in the court. That is a difficulty because, actually, the competition from prefabrication offshore is actually one of the answers to improving both the supply and the competitiveness in the building industry; that is an issue that the Government will be joining in those court proceedings and vigorously defending the need for additional competition and productivity improvements.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree that the shortage of labour that is preventing the industry scaling up to meet demand in Auckland, driving up prices, and causing the epidemic of shoddy building—

Hon Steven Joyce: But you want to stop migration.

Phil Twyford: Be careful because you might be the housing Minister next.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just stick to the question.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is certainly what happens when we get interjections initiated by my right-hand side, to which the member then responds, with some justification. If we could now have the supplementary question without any further assistance from the Hon Steven Joyce, I would be grateful.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree that the shortage of labour that is preventing the industry scaling up to meet demand in Auckland, driving up house prices, and causing the epidemic of shoddy building is largely a result of the boom-and-bust cycle, because so many skilled tradespeople were lost to the industry at the time of the global financial crisis?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is correct that in 2007 and 2008 the number of homes being constructed in New Zealand plummeted to the lowest levels in 40 years. It is also true that over the last 5 years the number of homes being constructed in New Zealand has gone from 12,000 a year to over 29,000 a year. It is a little bit inconsistent for the member, in one breath, to say that there are labour shortages and, in the next breath, to say that there are not any new houses being built. I would note that my colleague Steven Joyce has substantially increased the investment in skills training so that we now have more apprenticeships in the construction industry than at any time in the last 25 years.

Phil Twyford: Given that his officials have advised him that the industry is still building 8,000 fewer homes than Auckland needs each year just to keep up with demand, is it not clear that the Government needs to be a more active player, using procurement and boosting apprenticeships far beyond the current level to support a sustained expansion of the industry?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In this term of Parliament we are going to build in Auckland the number of houses that there are in Whangarei. In the next term of Parliament that is to occur again. We have got the strongest building boom with over $12 billion of residential investment. In Auckland we have seen the number of houses constructed grow from 4,000 per year to over 9,800 a year. I also note, for the member’s information, that in the last year Government agencies have completed over 1,000 houses, and that too is more than in 25 years.

Phil Twyford: Does he accept that in an undersupplied market developers will always build high-end homes to maximise their profits, so surely the role of Government is to build enough homes priced so that most people can afford them?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The primary reason that the building industry—and in the last decade as well as this decade—has built mainly expensive homes in a market like Auckland is that the section price has become ridiculously high under planning policies. The key changes such as the Resource Management Act changes, the changes in the national policy statement, and the changes in the unitary plan that the member opposite has opposed are pivotal to getting reasonable land prices, and with that will go reasonable house prices. No; members on this side of the House do not agree that the only way to have houses being built is to have them built by the Government.

Phil Twyford: Will he listen to the construction industry when it says that after 8 years of little progress and little Government support for productivity reforms, is it not time for a Government-backed building programme that would smooth out the boom and bust cycle and allow the industry to sustain growth and lift productivity?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have noted that member has promised that Labour would remove any of the boom-bust cycle. Well, he has got a greater chance than King Canute. The reality is that there always will be business cycles and I do not know of any Government in the world that has completely removed those. When the member says the Government has made no progress, I simply point out the fact that there were 4,000 homes being built in Auckland per year and there are now nearly 10,000 homes being built per year in Auckland.

Schools, Buildings—Investment

9. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about investment in education infrastructure in Christchurch?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yesterday I announced that $750,000 will be invested to build two new classrooms at Fernside School in Canterbury. This is part of a second round of investments in new classrooms under Budget 2016, which provides $882.5 million for school property, including 480 new classrooms to meet roll growth across the country. The first round of investments was announced in May and June this year, and that saw 21 new roll growth classrooms for Canterbury schools. Today’s investment, on top of that announced earlier in the year, recognises that schools in Canterbury are experiencing roll growth as the local population grows or shifts.

Matt Doocey: What investment in schooling infrastructure is already under way in Christchurch?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Since June of this year, Minister Kaye and I have announced over $67 million in projects to build new schools and classrooms in Christchurch. This spending is part of the $276 million being invested in Canterbury school infrastructure. The total investment package is made up of around $168 million towards the Christchurch schools rebuild programme, at least $100 million to build two new schools and deliver two relocated and rebuilt schools, around $8 million for new roll growth classrooms, and, in addition, $6 million for a seismic strengthening fund for integrated schools.

Rt Hon John Key: Does she agree with me that she has been an outstanding Minister and she will be sadly missed?

Mr SPEAKER: It seems the Minister does not—

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Can I say that I think the Prime Minister is a magnificent decision maker.

Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Mitigation

10. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were made.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement in relation to agriculture and climate change that “science will deal with the issues as long as we keep investing.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Definitely.

James Shaw: Is he concerned that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report on agricultural emissions, out today, says “there is no silver bullet on the horizon.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I am not concerned, but I did not need to read the report to know that. But what I do know is that the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, which New Zealand has been an inaugural member of, is well on its way, I believe, to finding solutions over time—scientific solutions—to the issue of agricultural emissions.

James Shaw: Why did he announce another $20 million of agricultural emissions research when Treasury said that there was no analysis behind the number and no evidence that extra funding would improve research outcomes?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is plainly obvious for the world to see that with a growing global population, more food is going to be required. It is also known that New Zealand agriculture has a low carbon footprint relative to other countries in the world, so if the option is destocking and then not increasing that supply in other parts of the world—

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was in relation to Treasury advice, rather than a general theory of agricultural emissions.

Mr SPEAKER: The question mentioned Treasury advice. It asked, specifically, why the Prime Minister was making an announcement of an additional $20 million to such research in light of the Treasury announcement. The Prime Minister is now addressing that question.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Before I was interrupted, the point I was simply making is that the world does not have an option of credibly destocking in a major way. It certainly would not be in New Zealand’s interests to do that, because that production would be moved to a less carbon-friendly environment offshore. On the basis that that is the case, the world actually does need to find scientific solutions, and I would have thought that as the co-leader of the Green Party and as someone who sometimes talks about science and innovation, he would support that.

James Shaw: Does he accept advice from the Ministry for the Environment that “Any significant reduction in agricultural emissions, even in the long term, would require trade-offs against plans to grow the economy through the export of ruminant animal products.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not accept that advice. I think, over time, there will be scientific solutions that will allow us to combat that, and I think it will be eminently possible that New Zealand will be able to increase its production and lower its carbon footprint from agriculture.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table advice from the Ministry for the Environment received under the Official Information Act (OIA).

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular advice. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

James Shaw: If his Government’s research fails to find a silver bullet to cut agricultural emissions, does he have a plan B?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is taking a pretty narrow perspective on it. We are part of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, in which there are over 40 countries investing. With such an enormous amount of scientific research, brainpower, and effort going in, what is the probability that there will not be solutions found? We actually already know that there were some solutions found in this area. There were other issues around dicyandiamide and the like that were side effects of that, and we need to go and deal with those issues, but the point is that progress is being made. You would have to be the most unambitious, most unoptimistic person in the world to not believe that we are going to find some solutions to these issues through science.

Dr Megan Woods: Will his Government do as Simon Upton has suggested and put a price on agricultural emissions, or is he happy to put farmers and the economy at risk by continuing to ignore advice?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, we would have to check the veracity of that statement. Secondly, farmers already have a price on some of their inputs for agriculture, and, further, we have one of the very few sets of farmers in the world who operate on a completely unsubsidised basis. Putting an additional tax on them that no other farmers face is, I think, grossly unfair. I know the member comes from a party that hates farmers, but over here we actually like them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

James Shaw: I seek leave to table Treasury advice obtained under the Official Information Act that says it is unclear what additional benefits New Zealand will obtain from the additional $20 million of agricultural emissions research.

Mr SPEAKER: Has the member bothered to check whether such advice is also now freely available on the internet?

James Shaw: I received it under the Official Information Act.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave, but in the future I am likely to ask whether it is available via the website. I would be grateful if members would check that fact first, but on this occasion I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular advice received under the OIA from Treasury. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the speech that the Rt Hon Simon Upton did give on this issue, in which he advocated a different approach to agricultural and other emissions—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. I thank the member, but, again, that is a speech that is very easily available for members to obtain. I remind members that the point of tabling documents is to inform the House, not to make a political point.

Police Resourcing—Numbers

11. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree with the new Police Association President Chris Cahill, who described the front line as being at “crisis point”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): What a well-timed question from that member. I have just today met with Mr Cahill and can confirm that I agree with him on many things—in particular, that police will, in the future, need more resources. However, I do not agree that police are in any kind of crisis. In fact, I think our police are doing excellent, world-leading work. Although that member may not agree with that view, I am not the only one who holds it. Just today, New Zealand Police has won an international award from the International Association of Chiefs of Police for its outstanding work on the investigation into threats to poison infant formula with 1080. Well done, New Zealand Police. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I need to ask the member again to stop interrupting, I will name her, and if I need to go further, I will ask her to leave.

Stuart Nash: Why did she fail to secure anything in Budget 2016 to specifically increase police numbers, despite the fact that crime was already apparently on the rise at that point?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not think I would have ever suggested that—I think it was $297 million extra that Police got in Budget 2016. That member might think that that is nothing—a bit of paltry money—but, actually, that is a lot of money and Police was very grateful for it.

Stuart Nash: Does the Minister specifically remember what 94 percent of that $297 million was earmarked for; if so, can she enlighten the House?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I certainly can. In answer to the second question, yes, of course—that is, in fact, to pay the increases in wages that police have been given under this Government.

Stuart Nash: Does she believe that the Prime Minister has lived up to his 2007 promise to the New Zealand Police Association that National would “improve the ratio of police to population beyond 1:500”, given that under National the ratio has ballooned to 1:526.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course, the Prime Minister did live up to his commitment. We did, in fact, increase policing by funding an extra 600 front-line police officers. As for that member, his Government had ratios far in excess of what we have at this stage.

Stuart Nash: Who is right: the Salvation Army when it stated yesterday that “There is an increasing use in methamphetamine.”, or the Prime Minister, who said that usage is declining?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As much as I am very fond of the Salvation Army, I agree with the Prime Minister.

Stuart Nash: When a burglar in New Zealand has a 90 percent chance of getting away with it under National, is it because there are not enough police on the front line?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not think so at all. In fact, what I am really proud of the New Zealand Police for this year is that it has stopped talking about burglary as a volume crime and understands it is a priority crime. I would like that member to support the New Zealand Police in taking burglaries seriously.

Erosion Control Funding Programme—2016 Funding Round

12. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Associate Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has she made regarding erosion-prone land?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): Last week the Ministry for Primary Industries announced the results of the latest round of the Erosion Control Funding Programme (ECFP) to reduce the serious erosion issues faced by the Gisborne district. I am pleased to report to the House that 1,438 hectares of land will be treated through $2.39 million worth of projects. The programme will bring environmental benefits to the region’s infrastructure, waterways, hill country farms, and higher-quality floodplain land through reducing sediment runoff and improving the resilience of the land to severe weather.

Ian McKelvie: How has the increasing uptake of the programme benefited the rural East Coast?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The ECFP is focused on reducing the severe erosion problem facing the Gisborne district, where 26 percent of all land is severely erosion prone, causing long-term damage to the productivity of rural land. Doubling the number of applications in the area approved for treatment compared with last year is a fantastic sign for the ECFP, in addition to the positive environmental outcomes. Having a dedicated staff member on the ground in Gisborne and working in partnership with the Gisborne District Council and Te Rūnanganui o Ngati Porou has been a real benefit and shows that this Government is committed to regional development that delivers.

Questions to Members

Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Purpose

1. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: Why did he introduce the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): There is currently, under this administration, no easy or accurate way to measure the amount of land under the control of foreign nationals. This is due to the fact that, unlike in other jurisdictions, there is no official database of foreign ownership in New Zealand. That is what this bill is going to fix up.

Fletcher Tabuteau: What other jurisdictions have registers of land ownership?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: A very insightful question—a number of countries do, and the Australians have discovered, with some consternation, that Australian land equivalent to the size of two New Zealands is in foreign ownership, including 2.5 million hectares in the past 3 years. If 13 percent of Australia’s farmland is in foreign hands, what percentage of ours is also foreign-owned? We are going to find out.

Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Purpose

2. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: What is the intention of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): I want to thank that member for endeavouring to enlighten those who are across over here. This bill will deliver a comprehensive register of all foreign-owned New Zealand land that will include names and nationalities, the amount and the value of the land involved, as well as the regions in which the land is situated.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Blah, blah, blah.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is about—something very foreign to Gerry—transparency—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Barbara Stewart: What types of land will be covered by the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It will apply to all land as it is defined in section 2 of the Land Transfer Act 1952. Such land includes “messuages, tenements, and hereditaments, corporeal and incorporeal, of every kind and description,” and even if it is owned by Russians.

Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Timing and Costs

3. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: Why is it necessary for the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill to be advanced at this time?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): Another brilliant question. Good policy needs good data, just as bad policy lacks data. In 2007 the Reserve Bank estimated foreign landownership at 5 percent. In 2014 the housing Minister Nick Smith and Treasury estimated foreign-owned homes at 11 percent. Then in 2016 the Minister for Land Information embarrassed herself with the discredited figure of 3 percent, which now resembles Swiss cheese. We intend to fix that.

Darroch Ball: What is the potential cost of a foreign ownership of land register?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Australia’s land register had a regulatory cost of $186,000. Then again, its system involves application fees that are funding a dedicated compliance and enforcement unit to detect breaches and enforce compliance—something we do not have in this country, and deliberately so because the Government does not want to know about it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Pita Paraone: Supplementary.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member can ask a primary question. Does the member wish to ask his primary question?

Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Proposed Register Information

4. PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: What information will the register collect?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): The register will record each registered proprietor who is an overseas person, including the person’s name and nationality, the amount and value of the land involved, and the district or districts in which the land is situated.

Pita Paraone: How much will it cost people to access the foreign ownership of land register?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Anyone will obtain read-only access to the register without having to pay a single cent. That is about openness.

Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Proposed Sanctions

5. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: What sanctions are available if a person or persons breach the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): If a person knowingly fails to comply, they will be liable on conviction to a fine of up to 25 percent of the value of the land involved. We need to get serious because, as Mark Twain once observed: “Buy land, they’re not making it any more.”

Clayton Mitchell: What other reporting measures does the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill propose?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The people will be delighted to know that Land Information New Zealand will need to report in its annual report the number of registered proprietors in the register at the end of each financial year, as well as the total amount and value of land involved.

Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Support

6. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: What indications of support has he received for the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): In 2013, then Federated Farmers president Bruce Wills asked the Government to establish a foreign land register. This has been repeated by current Federated Farmers president Dr William Rolleston. It is no secret that other organisations agree with New Zealand First on what is important in this bill. Now I am going to give them some action.

Richard Prosser: What objections has he received to the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: None that make any sense. If 930 years ago William the Conqueror could undertake a detailed stocktake of medieval England using parchment and horsepower, then in the 21st century New Zealand should be able to easily figure out how much land—our land—is owned by foreigners.

General Debate

General Debate

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It is wrong and it is misleading for that side of the House to talk about a surplus. It is a mythical conversation that comes straight off “Planet Key”. I could go on for hours today about funding costs, about how this Government has actively and deliberately cut costs and provisions to everyday households in New Zealand, day after day after day. It is making decisions in the moment, based on balancing a supposed Budget that will cost us on this side of the House a fortune to repair in the near future.

The Government members do not know what they are doing. They are old-school bean counters who are lost in the 1980s. They have lost their way. For example, the public watched, and they believed when the Government told them that there was no more money for more front-line police on the streets of New Zealand. It was not until Opposition parties in this House, finally supported by councils up and down this country, and supported by the New Zealand public, said “No, we cannot take any more of this—we need more police.” that the Government finally decided to change its mind.

The reality is that at this actual moment, right now, we should not be talking about a billion-dollar surplus. What we should be talking about, and what those on that side of the House need to acknowledge, is that right at this moment this Government has in fact run a billion-dollar cash deficit—quite the opposite of what it is claiming to the New Zealand public. Here is another kicker: although the Government talks about a surplus, Government debt has grown almost exponentially under its watch—almost exponentially. It depends on who you ask and who you talk to, but, essentially, the Government picked up next to no debt. There was no Government debt when it took over the reins. Now, here we are today—and there is no doubt there is debate, but there is no debate about how gigantic that number is: it is anywhere from $60 billion to $100 billion today. That is the mastery of money that this Government claims to have. What that represents for everyday New Zealanders—and, again, these members need to be cognisant of this—is over $13,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child in New Zealand because of the Government’s so-called plan for the economy.

The audacity of the Prime Minister to talk about tax cuts beggars belief. It is mind-boggling. Prime Minister, make our streets and our homes safe again. Do not let the lines for our hospitals go round the block for a third time. Look after New Zealanders first before you talk about something like tax cuts. To be fair, I think the Prime Minister is truly perplexed. I think he cannot understand why there is money coming in for his mates, but it is not being spread evenly across the whole country. I think he is genuinely confused about the level of inequality in New Zealand. Let me give you a piece of advice, Prime Minister: there is no such thing as the trickle-down effect. You and your mates making a truckload of money is not to the benefit of everyday New Zealanders, Prime Minister. Think instead about the concept of trickle-up, which saved post-war Western economies. Make everyday Kiwis wealthy, make everyday Kiwis better off, and watch as businesses grow and make bucketloads of money themselves.

Today, in the House, we saw a Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister comfortable with the fact that hard-working Kiwi wage and salary earners bear the brunt of National’s failed economic plan. That National Government is happy to sit still and do nothing to address the daylight robbery that is being perpetuated on this country because those on that side of the House think that when business is not paying its fair share of tax it is somehow good for the rest of us. Thank you.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): He is a nice young man, is he not? He is very earnest, and he is quite eloquent. It is such a shame that Mr Tabuteau is so wrong. He is just so wrong. Actually, if those members do a bit of research, there is very good evidence that this Government has been a fine manager of the economy during some of this country’s toughest times. I say to that member that I would do it all again.

I accept that we inherited an economy that had no debt, but every day I would do it again—borrow money to make sure we protected the most vulnerable in this country through the times of the global financial crisis. There were no austerity cuts in this country. We defended the most vulnerable, and we certainly borrowed money to help the people of Canterbury and Christchurch rebuild their city. And I would do it again, every day. That is what Governments are for, and that is why National Governments are so good at managing the accounts.

I want to talk a little bit today about today’s announcement because it is part of the radical overhaul of Child, Youth and Family that I announced earlier this year. Raising the age of care and support—the bill is in the House. The select committee has been considering raising, from 1 April next year, the age of care from the 17th birthday to the 18th birthday. That is to come into force from the time that the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki comes into being. But we are going further than that, and I signalled that at the time I announced the overhaul. We are raising the age of care to 21 so that young people have the opportunity to continue on in their foster homes, if that is what they wish, and have that fail-safe role that a parent provides. No parent sends their child off to training, to university, or to polytech at the age of 18 and says: “You’re on your own.” The State has taken the responsibility of being a parent, and this Government is determined that it will continue to do that, and of course it is then extending the opportunity for advice and support through to age 25.

Some people have asked today, after the announcement: “Why have you done that? Apart from the responsibilities the State has as a parent, why have you done this?”. The answer I have given all day is because it makes sound financial sense. This Government has talked a lot, and the Deputy Prime Minister talked today, about social investment. Social investment is about improving the lives of New Zealanders by applying very rigorous and evidence-based investment practices to social services. It means using information and technology to better understand the people who need the public services and, just as importantly, to see what works. It is about putting the needs of people who rely on public services at the centre of all decisions that we make on planning, programmes, and resources.

So what does that mean? The expert advisory panel looked at a cohort of young people who had experienced State care. By the age of 21, 90 percent of them were on a benefit; 25 percent of them were on a benefit with a child of their own, continuing the cycle; 80 percent did not have the minimum qualification they need, of National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2; and 20 percent of them had already had a custodial sentence. That is the data that has been behind making a decision to invest in these young people’s transition into adulthood, because we know that the effect on them of the trauma that they have suffered means that they are developmentally behind every other young person who has had the benefit of a safe and loving stable home life. They need that investment up front, and it makes sense because it will save the taxpayer money further down the track. That is social investment. That is what this Government believes in—investing in young people, using good data and good technology, and knowing that we will make a difference in those young people’s lives.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): After the last election, the Prime Minister was at pains to say to his caucus that they had to not be arrogant. Well, there is one Minister whom that memo has obviously missed, and that is the Minister of Corrections. The Minister who epitomises being arrogant and out of touch—in fact, she sits so far up on her high horse that the saddle horn gives her a pained expression. We see it every time Stuart Nash asks her a question in question time.

In May 2009 she said that National demanded accountability from Labour Ministers over what she perceived were failures by Corrections. But Ms Collins said she would not be taking the blame for any botch-ups—not immediately, at least. Well, it is time now that she started to take the blame for her many botch-ups.

Let us explore her track record. Judith Collins was the architect of prison privatisation. I remember in 2009 walking down the main street of Kaikohe with corrections officers from Ngāwhā prison, saying that if prisons are privatised we will see low pay, we will see poor conditions, there will be staff cuts, there will be contraband brought into prisons, corners will be cut, and we will see increased violence and assaults. Every single prediction that those corrections officers made in 2009 came to pass.

What did we see? First of all, in June of last year at the select committee, when the then Minister of Corrections, Sam Lotu-Iiga, was before us, I raised the issue of fighting and assaults going on. He said to me “Oh no. It doesn’t happen. Serco has the best-performing prison.”, and that what I had been hearing was just hearsay. Well, within months we saw the videos coming out of the Mt Eden Corrections Facility. We saw the fight clubs. We heard, also, that guards were training. The Minister stood up here in the House and, in response to a question, he said that they were giving the prisoners sparring tips. The guards were actually not only helping the prisoners with training but they were also betting on the outcomes of the fight clubs.

A drug syndicate was being run out of the Mt Eden Corrections Facility. Family members have been extorted by prisoners on the inside. People would be sitting at home at night, enjoying TV, or whatever, and the phone would ring and it would be an inmate, a prisoner from the prison. He would say: “Here is a bank account that I want you to stick money into, or else your son or your daughter will be assaulted.”

Guards have been caught smuggling contraband into Serco prisons—in fact, we raised the issue that tobacco was being brought into Wiri Prison not long ago. I believe that there was not much of an investigation conducted. All the guards were told was that “If it is you, stop it, because if you’re caught you will get the sack.” As recently as last night I received a phone call from the family members of a prisoner, saying that five cellphones in the last 5 days have been found in Wiri Prison. These days Serco in Mt Eden is nothing more than a glorified labour hire company. It just provides the labour while Corrections is running the prison.

Yesterday, Judith Collins said that “What we are doing now is planning for the future”—

Hon Annette King: Now?

KELVIN DAVIS: Now. When it said that “We are going to build a billion-dollar prison to house 1,800 prisoners—what we are doing now is planning for the future.” That is the problem. The Government is planning for yesterday, today. That is where it has made a big mistake. The prison muster in August 2014 was 8,742 prisoners, which was 379 above the Government’s forecasts. In October 2015 the muster was 9,134. That was 501 above the Government’s forecasts. As recently as last week the muster is now 9,136, 499 above the Government’s forecasts. They are way out. By the time those prisons are built in 2 years’ time, they will need to build another prison. One of the reasons why we need to build so many prisons is that rehabilitation programmes in prisons simply do not work. In their own annual report they say that the programmes have results that are less than statistically significant. In other words, they do not work and we are just filling up prisons with more and more prisoners and we are not getting value for our taxpayers’ dollar.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Our Government’s social investment approach is delivering for New Zealanders, and that is apparent in all measures across the social sector. That, of course, is made possible by the very prudent and very effective and conservative management of our economy. It beggars belief that a previous speaker in this House does not believe the surplus, as if it is a matter of faith rather than fact. What the Minister of Finance has been able to deliver to this country, through his effective management, is a surplus, and that is after several years of pretty tough challenges, during which we have remained consistent about our focus on ensuring that the most vulnerable New Zealanders, the New Zealanders most dependent on a Government, get the best support possible so that they can live independent lives.

My colleagues across the social spectrum have been doing work in their own particular areas that is showing results, because, again, this Government does not shy away from being accountable. We are transparent in reporting on what the Government is doing and how effective it is being. That is how we know where we can do better.

I want to talk about the education portfolio, in particular about education infrastructure. The property portfolio has a replacement value of $23.5 billion. It is a huge asset to the Government, and it requires that we manage it well and that we invest across the country to support modern learning environments for our young people in the regions as well as in the main cities. In Budget 2016 we provided an incredible amount of funding—$882.5 million over the next 4 years—so that we can continue building school infrastructure that supports our 21st century vision. This Government knows that we are already 17 years into the 21st century and that we have to constantly revise what we are doing, and deliver.

This latest investment will provide nine new schools: Kumeu Primary, Scott Point Primary, Flat Bush South East Primary, Ormiston Junior College, Hingaia South Primary in Auckland, Sylvester Primary in Hamilton, Haeata Community Campus and Rolleston College in Christchurch, and Pyes Pā in Tauranga. In addition, 480 roll-growth classrooms are being built around the country.

This work is possible because of the magnificent work that my colleague the Hon Nikki Kaye has done in this portfolio. For the first time ever—ever—a Government now has condition assessments of every school property across the country. That means that we are truly able to say “This is where the priority lies.”, and, in doing that, be able to invest, as I have said, not just in the main centres, but across regions as well.

This afternoon in the House I have already mentioned the significant investment in Canterbury, but in Taranaki and Whanganui around $300—$3 million. Whoops, I had better be careful what I am saying. Around $3 million has been invested in that region. In Wellington—$4 million. That is 14 new classrooms to be built across the region. In Nelson and Marlborough, a million dollars will be invested to expand capacity at Motueka High School, and that, of course, is in addition to the brand new build and co-location of Marlborough Girls’ College and Marlborough Boys’ College. In Southland and Otago, around $26.4 million will be invested. This includes Wakatipu High School having $25 million to increase their roll places and $350,000 at Donovan Primary School.

I could go on and on, and I hear members yelling and thumping their desks, saying “Please, go on and on and on.” But I know that there are others, at least on this side of the House, who have more to offer to the general debate. But the fact is that this Government has put almost $5 billion into infrastructure.

Hon Members: How much?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, I know—$5 billion into infrastructure. That is for school property, but also for information communication and technology. By the end of this year just over 90 percent of all schools will be connected, and that means that they can access 24/7 high-quality, high-speed data to ensure that our young people are the most digitally fluent in the world. That is what this Government is doing in education.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Education and her announcement today, I think, on her NCEA 5-year report. That is no comprehensive educational achievements report; it will have, I guess: “Tries hard, a poor listener, but has potential.” I cannot blame the Minister for the lack of comprehensive achievement, because she is a Minister in a Government that is, effectively, arrogant and out of touch. It is out of touch on housing, it is out of touch on child poverty, and it is out of touch on policing.

If ever we wanted to see an example of that, it was just over 2 weeks ago when we heard that there was a ship lying off the Port of Tauranga with 23,000—we were told 27,000—tonnes of palm kernel expeller (PKE) on it. At a time when study after study, report after report, has said that agribusiness leaders and farmers say biosecurity is their No. 1 concern—that biosecurity issues are the biggest single threat to this economy—we had, off the Port of Tauranga, palm kernel expeller from a non-registered plant with who knows what biosecurity risk included in it. And the Government was considering letting it in. If ever there was a clear example of arrogance and this Government playing roulette with our economy, it was to let a high-risk biosecurity material—in fact, 23,000 tonnes of it—into this country. I think it is actually an indictment on the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), under the instruction, of course, of the Government.

There are a number of questions about how and why this could have occurred. MPI refuses to say who the company was. Well, I will name it in this House. I believe, and was informed, that it was Archer Daniels Midland Company—a big multinational company that trades commodities around the world. I have no idea why MPI will not disclose who it is. Why would that company have thought of bringing to this country high-risk biosecurity material and trying to flog it off when we have in place strict criteria? If it trades commodities, in palm kernel, it should have known this. It brought it to this country and thought it could negotiate its way through the border. Unlike some poor person who brings in an apple and will get shut down and fined immediately, this big multinational company thought it could negotiate its way through. Why? Because it had done it before. I am informed that it had done it before. It had brought to this country PKE from unregistered plants and got it through because MPI, no doubt at the instruction of the Government, had caved in.

There is no excuse for reducing the standards that we have in biosecurity around our border. We were given an assurance that our standards have been lifted. After the efforts of two farmers in 2013, who, off their own backs, went to Malaysia and exposed some shocking plants that were delivering palm kernel to us, MPI firstly denied that there was a risk—firstly denied it—and then finally gave in and put in place a higher set of standards. We have then had—well, we assume—safer PKE coming into this country, and there is, I think, up to 2 million tonnes a year. It is a lot of threat.

We believed that MPI, under the Minister’s instruction, was doing the right thing. We now know, and it has taken 6 weeks for MPI to finally come to the conclusion and to say that “No, we will not accept this.”—6 weeks. In my view, instead of the Government fining that company, I am guessing that that company has almost a right to come back and sue the Government for procrastination. Why did the Government on day one not say to that company: “Get out of here. Get out of here. We don’t want your high-risk product.”? But, no, for some reason it thought it could wiggle its way through the National Government, through the Ministers, and get MPI to accept this.

I am not confident that we have a robust biosecurity system. This has exposed some of the shenanigans that are going on. So what happens in other areas of biosecurity? We have, as an example, the list of incursions from 2008 until 2015. There have been 123 of them, not including velvetleaf and not including pea weevil. The system is not working. Why? Because, firstly, the Government cut funding for biosecurity in its first Budget and cut 54 staff, and then put some more money back in. We do not have a robust biosecurity—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I rise today, and although I would like to spend a bit of time on the address of the previous member, Damien O’Connor, and on how wrong he is, let us just leave it at that, because today I do want to concentrate on social investment. Social investment is a hallmark of this Government. Actually, social investment is tough, but it is the best approach, because what we are currently doing is working out how we can deliver, through programmes that work, a much brighter future for, in particular, New Zealand’s most vulnerable. But it means that we have to understand, first and foremost, what, if we do nothing, will be the cost to those individuals and their family and whānau, and also the cost to New Zealand, because that focuses the minds of the Ministers and the Government and all of the officials whom we ask to assist us to make change on bringing about change that makes that difference in the lives of an individual, a child, a whānau, a family, and then the wider community as well.

Interestingly, the social investment approach has been noticed by the Australians. In fact, they are writing it up in their main dailies and saying “Look what they’re doing across the Tasman under that Deputy Prime Minister Bill English.”, and, as we know, the other Ministers in the social sector are working alongside him to deliver this social investment approach. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well, the Aussies are at it again. They think they might do exactly what we are doing, and I wish them all the best, because it is truly the way to make a difference in the lives of those New Zealanders.

Let me try—not “try”, but actually talk a little bit about a couple of examples. There are examples happening, as has been mentioned by our Minister of Education, around the investment in school property, which allows a framework, a space, where children can be well-educated. Some of that has come to my electorate, and I acknowledge that. I want to also mention the investment we are putting into families in extending the free prescriptions and after-hours visits to the doctor for those 780,000 children under the age of 13, who can now access that. What we know is that 16.6 percent more are attending the GP, and 99 percent of the GPs have signed up because they know that this is about investing in the health of those children.

The other example I want to briefly speak about is our new financial capability approach, and I want to do so because this has been a co-designed process of more than 450 budget advisory services, their clients, and the referral agencies taking the time to say what we are currently doing is not working for the most vulnerable. We are just churning them through the system, spitting them out the other end, bringing them back in the front end again, and doing it all over again. That has not been working, so the $14.9 million that we spend in this space will be spent under the new co-designed process called building financial capability.

This will mean that financial mentors and money mates will work in a way that the budget advisory services seem to have embraced to deliver a much better outcome and a much more certain financial future for those who are involved in this service. We have 17 new providers around the country that have been offered contracts, 49 providers have received more funding, and for those that missed out on the funding there is transitional money available for them so that their clients will be transitioned to the provider that is in their area.

I want to assure the House and the people of New Zealand that we have required that the tenders address every region in the country, so there is courage everywhere. What this really means is a much brighter financial future—

Dr David Clark: Bring on Jo Luxton in Rangitata.

Hon JO GOODHEW: —which really should matter to New Zealanders, including the Opposition, but it appears that maybe it does not. Because what this represents is real change, not just throwing more money at a system and at something that is not working. An investment approach really is tough, but it is worth it, and this Government has the courage to do it. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): This is a week when one could almost feel some sympathy for the Minister of Finance. He has no doubt worked very hard to get the Government books in order and to generate, at least on paper, a surplus of $1.8 billion. His colleague from the ACT Party is quite keen to disburse that on tax cuts. No doubt other Ministers are equally quite keen to spread some largesse around as we approach election year.

But, sadly, for all those prospective big spenders, this money—the alleged surplus—and much more besides is about to disappear into a very deep, dark hole. It is going to disappear into concrete and wire and electronic alarms and steel doors. In short, we are about to see another orgy of prison-building—completely unhelpful and completely counter-productive, but, apparently, this Government’s only solution. It must be particularly galling for Mr English, recalling that 5 years ago, here was the Minister who was brave enough and honest enough to publicly state that prisons are “a moral and a fiscal failure” and to express the hope that the Wiri Prison would be the last new prison we saw built in New Zealand for a very long time.

Sadly, 5 years on we are about to see another 80 men jammed into an already crowded facility at Ngāwhā. We know that as the numbers rise in that prison, so too will the tension levels and the stress levels. The outbreaks of violence will inevitably follow. We are about to see a 245-bed expansion at Mt Eden prison, the site of this Government’s dangerous and disastrous experiment with private prison management, so well described a few minutes ago by our colleague Mr Davis. And the jewel in the crown—the new jewel in the Government’s corrections system crown—is a 1,500-bed facility at Waikeria.

Our prison muster is at historically high levels. In 1995 we had fewer than 4,500 people in prison. By 2005, despite a drop in the crime rate—despite less offending—we nevertheless had seen the muster climb to some 7,500, and, 11 years on, very soon we can expect to exceed 10,000 people in prison. This huge increase is not the result of more offending. It is not because New Zealanders are becoming more lawless. It is not inevitable. It is not irreversible. The increase in the muster, the number of people we are pointlessly putting away, is due to a failure of public policy: a flawed belief that you can punish people into getting better, and a completely misguided belief—against all the evidence and against logic—that spending more money on locking more people away for longer is a better solution than addressing the causes of offending and reoffending. Almost 20 years of penal populism—of being tough on crime—has delivered an entirely predictable negative and costly result. This Government’s solution, announced this week, is more of the same. We are seeing a complete failure of imagination and a complete failure of political courage—the courage to make change, despite the obvious and glaring need to do so.

The Government seems to be locked into a model where if you have a problem, you build your way out of it. The roads are congested—“Let’s build more roads.” A burgeoning prison population—“We’ll build some more prisons. We’ll create more capacity to lock people away. Let’s impose more financial cost and more human misery. Maybe eventually it’ll all come right.” Well, actually, no, it will not. We do need to change. All the evidence says that, and that is something that the Greens in Government would and will do. We need a complete change, a break from the failed practices of the past. We need to develop and deliver an integrated strategic programme of investment into keeping people out of jail. It is a radical proposition for this Government: let us invest in keeping people out of jail, rather than spending money keeping more people in. I know that is difficult to comprehend, but I am sure that it can get there.

I have recently visited two countries where they are getting it right. I visited Norway and Finland, countries with populations around 20 percent bigger than ours but with prison populations of 60 percent less. They have learnt the lesson, over time, that investing long-term, secure investments in real solutions is actually the way to reduce your prison population: humane treatment, both in prisons and in the community, and commitment to long-term, strategic, integrated management of the problem, rather than a knee-jerk default to the failed policies of the past. Kia ora.

BRETT HUDSON (National): This Government is focused on outcomes, not outputs. Our social investment programmes are about putting the citizens at the heart of what we do, about delivering durable positive outcomes—outcomes that change their circumstances for the better and for the long term. Whether it is in reducing welfare dependency, improving educational outcomes, improving health outcomes, or improving job prospects and incomes, this Government is focused on the things that work. Because we live in an information age, we are also focused on using information to pinpoint and target the areas for our investment—information that permits us to target the right policies, and to deliver the right outcomes to the right people.

We see this, and we have seen this for some time, in welfare—where a joined-up Government can understand its citizens, and can understand them not only as citizens but as customers who are reliant on services that they receive from Government agencies. This is a Government that can use that information to understand its customers better, to understand their needs, and understand what will work for those individual customers, and then set the machinery of Government to deliver just that.

Let us contrast that, for a moment, with the previous Labour Government. That Labour Government was not focused on outcomes; it was focused on outputs. It was focused on looking like it was busy, and not on what that apparent busyness actually achieved. This Government focuses on measures: on what actually changes, on what the outcomes are that we have received—

Hon Annette King: What have you measured?

BRETT HUDSON: What have we measured? Well, thank you, Mrs King. What have we measured? We have measured, for instance, 300,000 more jobs since the heart of the global financial crisis. There are another 170,000 jobs forecast by 2020. We have an economy that is growing at 3.6 percent and is forecast to continue to grow strongly over the coming years. What does that mean, Mrs King? It means more jobs for Kiwi families, and it means higher incomes. Average wages have grown 25 percent over the last few years—25 percent. They are picked to reach $63,000 by 2020. Why? Because the Government knows that by focusing on how to drive the economy stronger, we deliver better outcomes for our citizens.

We do that on welfare too. We started when we focused on teen parents—solo parents—whom we could understand tended to be out of the workforce or out of training or education. We gave some wraparound services and mentoring services, and encouraged them back into either training or work. Why did we do that? We understood that by doing that, you would create better prospects for that individual and for their children. You help to break the long-term dependency on welfare. That is the sign of a Government that actually cares about its citizens, that cares about what influence its services are actually delivering, and how you can change someone’s life for the better.

We do this in education, too. As the Hon Hekia Parata told us, we are investing enormous amounts of money into providing the learning environments for our children to teach them what they need for tomorrow, not for the past. The worst thing that we can do for our children is educate them for the past. Instead, we are making the investments to help them to gear up and be ready for the jobs of the future. Along the way, we are also taking the data—taking the information—about the most at-risk children in terms of learning outcomes across our schools and then targeting more operational spending at those schools, so that they can apply it to the areas—to those at-risk children—so that they too can achieve to the very best of their potential in education.

This is a Government that cares about not only doing things but what, actually, those things achieve. It is a Government that understands that it is not just an agent that acts upon its citizens, it is also a Government that has a responsibility to help to ensure that they can lead the very, very best lives available to them. It is a Government, too, that understands that a strong economy is the vehicle for giving the Government the revenues to continue to invest in those sorts of social programmes and those sorts of outcomes. It is investing in the prosperity and the brighter future for all New Zealand citizens. This Government is doing a wonderful job. It is doing a job that is about outcomes, not outputs, and I think that we can look forward, next year, to a contest in the wider electorate where, perhaps, they may return us for a fourth term.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to the general debate. Fakalofa lahi atu, and happy Niue Language Week. Before I go on to the topic of my general debate, I would like to address a couple of things that the previous speaker spoke about. He said that their Government, the National Government, is focused on measures and targets—but is it actually measuring child poverty? Has it even decided to define child poverty? Does it even have a target for child poverty? The answer to all of those questions is: absolutely not. The things that this current National Government is focused on are not the right kinds of things.

It is my pleasure to take this call because today we have a new report that was released by the Salvation Army—the What Next? report. We have known for a while that a lot of our young people, especially those who are facing persistent systematic challenges with regard to the labour market, are not actually getting the right kinds of outcomes. What has this current Government done? Well, it has implemented various things. Let us look at Youth Guarantee, a programme that when the Prime Minister announced its implementation he was quoted as saying: “the bottom line is this—the days of 16- and 17-year-olds being able to leave school and drift along aimlessly while being financially supported by the Government are at an end.”

But when we look at the evaluation of Youth Guarantee, has it delivered? No. What we know from the evaluation of Youth Guarantee is that if you are a young person and you are aged 16 or 17, the likelihood of you ending up on a benefit and becoming unemployed is so much higher. We have an additional 2,020 young people receiving benefits now after participating in Youth Guarantee. There are 869 more people who are not in education, employment, or training, and 440 fewer people in full employment after participating in Youth Guarantee.

If I can go back to the report that was just released, the Salvation Army’s report, I would like to commend Alan Johnson and the Salvation Army for the work that they do. These are some of the things that this report highlighted: New Zealand is going to be short by about 300,000 workers over the next 10 years. We have already, every week, about 900 people who are reaching retirement age. But are we producing enough apprenticeships to make sure that the housing shortages, and the shortages we have in terms of apprenticeships and skilled people, are actually coming through to replace those who are going to be retiring and who are already retiring, every week? The answer to that is absolutely no, we are not.

In terms of apprenticeships, this Government has various initiatives to address apprenticeships, but what we know from the Salvation Army’s report is we have close to a one-third decline in building apprenticeships between when this Government came into power in 2008, and 2012. In fact, in terms of numbers, we have an overall number of 11,560 fewer apprenticeships right now, compared to when the Government came into power in 2008.

In terms of this current Government’s job-related training, what we also know, as highlighted by the Salvation Army, is that we have 70,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 19 years of age who are not in education, employment, or training. We have, for those who are aged between 20 and 24, 50,000 young people who are persistently outside of education or training. So when I hear folks from the other side of the House saying how wonderful they are doing and how they are ensuring that young people—and they are actually focused on outcomes. They are not focused on outcomes for young people. Otherwise we would not be seeing these numbers coming out of the Salvation Army’s report. We should not wait on a third-party like the Salvation Army to point out just how much this Government has failed and not addressed our young people. Thank you very much.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I want to go right back to the start of this general debate and Mr Tabuteau’s speech, because what Fletcher Tabuteau said in his speech was that this was a Government that was obsessed with the 1980s. Well, that is the irony of ironies, because the parties in this House that want to wind the clock back to the halcyon age of the past are, in fact, the parties opposite. Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First want to wind the clock back to the 1970s when New Zealand was opposed to free trade, when New Zealand was hostile to migration, to foreign capital, and to foreign labour, and when we had a Government that thought that the Government had the solution to all our social problems. It is a sad irony of today’s situation that it is the so-called progressive parties opposite—Labour and the Greens—that want to hark back to the past. They do not want to take New Zealand forward but want to go back to another time. They need to realise that the halcyon age of New Zealand in the 1970s was not, in fact, that—that it is not a time that New Zealand should go back to. In fact, we need to move forward.

The other thing that unites parties opposite in the House today is their absolute hostility to innovation in social services. That has been one of the themes of the Government members in today’s general debate. We have been talking about social investment and, as my good colleague Brett Hudson pointed out, this is a Government that is focused on outcomes rather than Government outputs. For too long we have had the scenario in New Zealand—and this has been the settlement for probably 30 or 40 years—that the solution to every social problem in New Zealand society is just to spend more money. That, in fact, is still the prevailing political philosophy of the Labour and Green parties.

Let us make no mistake: as a Government we are prepared to spend more money where we can get outcomes that make a difference. But what we are not prepared to do is to just shovel taxpayers’ dollars out of the door to organisations, or to Government programmes, or to NGOs, or to bureaucrats, or to anyone who receives Government cash with, basically, the idea of hope—to just shovel money to the organisations based on the assumption that that they will be able to do something about it. We have got to invest where we know it will make a difference. That, actually, is a giant upending of the traditional orthodoxy of the way in which Governments think about the way in which they spend money.

So, as Anne Tolley and Hekia Parata and Bill English have said, we are prepared to spend money where it will make a difference, but what we are not prepared to do is to just shovel money out the door on the basis that it will end up going to some useful end. We want to critically analyse proposals. We want to use data. We want to actually make investment decisions based on evidence. The thing is that now, with technology and with the integrated data set, we have all of that information, so we need to make use of it. We need to break down those barriers and those silos between different Government agencies and make our investment decisions based on that.

Too often we have the mistaken idea that good intentions always make good policy. Government for so long has been run on the basis that we intend the money to go in the right direction, we intend social outcomes to happen, and we equate that with good Government policy. We also equate the level of care with Government cash. So if we say we are spending more money—we are making an investment of X, Y, or Z billion dollars—that somehow equates to the level of care that the Government has for people. That actually treats disrespectfully our young people, our vulnerable children, and those in need of social support. It actually disrespects those who are trapped in the welfare-dependency trap and those who are actually at the heart of these intractable social problems that we are trying to confront as a Government, because what it means is that you have a passive Government shovelling money to them on the basis of hope.

We are trying something new as a Government, in the ways that I have already mentioned. We are not opposed to innovation in social services. We are prepared to try something new. We are prepared to do Whānau Ora. We are prepared to do social-sector trials. We are prepared to have a look at charter schools and partnership schools, because for too long there has been a long tale of underachievement by Māori and Pasifika children, in particular, in our schools. There are people out there in the community who do not think that the Government has all the answers. There are people in civil society and in the social sector who have ideas about how to confront these problems, and why would we not, as a Government, want to back them? Why would we not want to back up the people in Northland at the charter school up there, or the people in South Auckland at South Auckland Middle School, backing our young people trying to succeed? This is a Government focused on innovation not status solutions.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I find it interesting that we can be talking about the same number across the House, but have completely different interpretations of the same number. For example, Mr Tabuteau talked about the $1.8 billion surplus as if it were a problem, and he tried to change the goalpost by describing it as not a surplus, but as some sort of deficit. That is one example. Another example is the fact that Dr Clark continues to talk about the people in the middle—the people who have not had real wage growth over the period of this Government. But the numbers are the same. We are both looking at the same numbers, and I will tell you what they are.

Wage growth has had real growth of 20 percent since 2008. That is 31 percent nominal with an inflation number of 11. That is real wage growth of 20 percent. The same numbers that I am seeing are the same numbers that the member opposite is. Comparatively, in the Clark Government—I will tell you the same numbers—there was a 35 percent nominal number, a higher nominal number, but inflation was at 29 percent over the year. The real growth was 6 percent. So we are looking at the same numbers—and we can talk about it—but it is interesting that for some reason Dr Clark does not believe that there is wage growth, and I have just given you the numbers. Those numbers speak louder than Dr Clark’s words.

We can also talk about the minimum wage, because we are talking about those who are the least well-off. The minimum wage has also outperformed inflation with an increase of 27 percent nominal with an inflation of 11 percent. That is a real increase of 16 percent in the minimum wage, which that side continues to talk about and continues to say that it needs to be increased. The facts are that it has increased, and it has increased at a rate far outstripping inflation.

There has been real growth in superannuation. Again, for the elderly, who are most in need—that superannuation number has also far outstripped inflation. There has been real growth in superannuation benefits. So we are talking the same numbers, but for some reason the people opposite just cannot seem to connect the dots. Again, Jenny Salesa was talking about those people not in education, employment or training—the “neets”. In fact, as Minister Joyce said this morning, the numbers of “neets”, of youth 15- to 19-year-olds is the lowest—is the lowest—at 6.5 percent since the records began in 2004. So, again, we are looking at the same numbers, but somehow we seem to interpret them in a different way.

Let us talk about targeted social expenditure, because we know that this Government is aware and has the data. It looks at the numbers and is aware of what they call the million-dollar kids—and we know, statistically, where those kids are, where they live, and what schools they go to. That is why Minister Tolley talked about targeted intervention—spending where it matters so that we can relieve some of these kids and pull them out of the inevitable situation that they would find themselves in. So it is specific; it is not blanket spending, as proposed by the Opposition. Blanket spending of benefits willy-nilly does nothing for anyone other than increase deficits and has no consideration of the consequence for the taxpayer’s dollar. That is the problem with the ideas from Labour. There is no consideration of the consequence for the taxpayer’s dollar.

I give you just a couple of quick ideas, because we are running out of time. The universal benefit is apparently the solution to all our social ills. By giving everyone $11,000 a year, that policy from the Labour Party is going to solve the social ills, without consideration of whom it is going to be aimed at and who is going to fund it.

We talked earlier this morning with Phil Twyford about the 100,000 houses. Whose money is going to be spent on that? That is a $50 billion project—a $50 billion construction company managed by Phil Twyford. Imagine the consequences of that. These people do not consider the consequences. They have no concern and have no respect for the taxpayer’s dollar. It is blanket spending. It is “Chuck as much as you can and let’s just hope somehow the problems will be solved.” Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I call Maureen Pugh.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Has he called me? Oh, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I could not hear.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, I had a bit of trouble hearing the member, too. She needs to speak up when she is calling.

MAUREEN PUGH: Righto, Mr Assistant Speaker. My colleague Brett Hudson hit the nail on the head today when he talked about this country’s economic performance under this National Government. The best way to ensure that New Zealand can continue to support our most vulnerable children is to ensure that we can continue to adequately fund their families, along with the agencies, the services, and the networks that work to support them.

National is a strong steward of the Crown’s finances and focuses on growing the economy, and that has seen outstanding results. Our economy has grown a further 3.6 percent to June this year, putting us in the top four in the OECD. The average annual wage is now $58,000—an increase of 25 percent since this National Government took over in 2008. Three hundred thousand more jobs have been created since the financial crisis, and inflation is—wait for it—0.2 percent, well below the average wage increase of 2 percent. There were 2 years of surpluses—this year achieving $1.8 billion. Government debt is now less than 25 percent of GDP, and mortgage interest rates are remaining lower for longer, unlike in 2008 when they reached nearly 11 percent. I think the biggest telling point is that more Kiwis are coming home and staying home.

The life outcomes for young people in care are simply not good enough, and we know that. That is why, as part of National’s social investment, young people will no longer be cut loose when they turn 17. None of us as parents would do that to our own children, and we will not do it to our most vulnerable. Instead, they will have the right to remain or return to care, up until they are 21, and they will have transition support and advice available until they are 25.

There are very good reasons why this level of support is needed for so long. The brains of children experiencing high levels of stress—such as those in family violence situations, poor nutrition, or constant levels of fear—actually look different and perform differently from brains in children who are brought up and cared for in a loving and safe environment. Acute stress prevents memory storage, and this, in turn, makes learning a terrible challenge. Children living in a constant state of stress develop a brain that has been distracted by the fight-flight syndrome, so it short-circuits its functions like self-control, impulse control, memory, and reasoning—the very skills essential to successful learning. Early intervention and wraparound services for those children and their families is absolutely essential. The sooner that child can enjoy a safe, loving environment—whether that is by providing support to the family or whether that is by removing the child to a safe environment—the sooner that repair work can begin.

By staying committed to the young people up until the age of 25, this National-led Government is addressing the long-term trauma and poor life outcomes they would otherwise be destined to. This investment approach provides the stability and security that those young people need. They deserve the financial, emotional, and accommodation support that will allow them to grow mentally and emotionally strong so that they can lead independent, successful, and productive lives. We are breaking the cycle because we believe in the potential of every single one of our young people. I would like to pay tribute to the health professionals in district health boards, primary health organisations, and NGOs, who are currently supporting children and their families, and who will play an important role going forward. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill

In Committee

Preamble

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to seek a little bit of your guidance before we get into this debate. In the report of the Māori Affairs Committee to the House on this, the committee devotes the first section of its report to the language of the bill and whether or not the bill could be enacted in Te Reo Māori. I am just seeking your guidance. In a clause by clause debate of this type, at what point is it appropriate to discuss that, given that it is in the committee’s report, but looking at the various clauses of the bill—I just do not want to upset you, in the Chair, as a person who, I know, likes us to stay very focused on the clauses that are in front of us. I just seek your guidance. It could potentially be the preamble debate that we do it in, because that is a clause that provides some outline of the overall bill, but it was clearly an issue of significant interest to the committee. So any guidance you have would be appreciated.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will give the member some pretty direct guidance. I think that both in the preamble and in clause 1 the member would be well within his rights—or other members would be—to discuss that issue at that point. After that, I think we could consider it dealt with.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): On that recommendation, it gives me pleasure to take a call on the preamble of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill—a private bill. I will start, at your invitation, Mr Chair, with a discussion around the issue raised by the committee about whether or not this bill should be enacted in Te Reo Māori as well as in English. I would ask the member in the chair, Alastair Scott, or, indeed, members of the Māori Affairs Committee, to perhaps take a call on this and clarify what has happened here, because it appears to me that the trusts involved, and whom this bill is for, want the bill to be enacted in Te Reo Māori. That is what they want. In fact, on introduction, I have here two copies of the bill—one in English and one in Te Reo Māori.

The issue that is raised in the select committee’s report is that the Act as it exists now is only in English, and so in order to actually facilitate the passing of the bill, you would have to translate not only the amending bill into Te Reo Māori but also the existing Act into Te Reo Māori. I guess the question I have is: how difficult is that? If this Parliament is truly committed to having legislation that is in both English and Te Reo Māori, why is what appears to be a logistical issue preventing us from doing what this Parliament is meant to do? I have got great respect for the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, but the member in the chair, Alastair Scott, may wish to tell us why.

Private bills are, fundamentally, not about the MPs who bring them to this House; they are about the private entities whose offices they affect, and it is quite clear to me, looking at the submissions that have been put into the select committee by the affected parties, that they wanted this bill in Te Reo Māori. So I simply do not really buy the argument, quite frankly.

I note that in the committee’s report it has said that it would be possible for the board to prepare a new bill that re-enacts the entire Act in both languages for later introduction. Quite frankly, that just seems to me like an unnecessary imposition on those involved in this—on the trust boards—who have got other things that they want to be doing. The other option that was promoted by the select committee, I note, was for the member to withdraw the bill and redo it, so that there was time for the whole Act to be translated. So perhaps the member in the chair would like to stand up and explain whether or not he has taken that advice, and what he believes is the situation.

The committee itself has made the recommendation that sponsors of private bills consider introducing them as dual-language bills. That is clearly a good recommendation, but I think, at this point, I find it very unclear as to why this has not been done, and I would like some clarification of that.

Coming to the preamble itself, I just want to note here that there are a couple of very important elements to this change. The first of those is around what the relationship is between the various parties to this bill. To better describe that, you have the trust boards themselves, you have the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, of Wellington, and the tangata whenua of the Wairarapa—and it is just on that point that I want to pause.

What we are amending here, effectively, gives what would seem, on the outside, to be a broader description of those who are impacted by this bill—“the tangata whenua of the Wairarapa”—but actually, on the other hand, it is probably a more accurate representation. When the Act was originally put together, it was much more specific around which whānau, which hapū, were actually going to be affected by this legislation, and that has changed. In the original legislation, it makes reference to the children of the Ngāti Kahungunu tribe, other Māori or descendants from the East Coast of the North Island, and Māori or descendants of Māori from any part of New Zealand. So I think I am clear on the fact that by changing this to “the tangata whenua of the Wairarapa”, it gives the capacity not only for it to move beyond Ngāti Kahungunu but also for it not to take in those from across New Zealand. But, again, the member in the chair might want to clarify, for those of us who have not had the opportunity to be on the select committee, what has been done there.

I know that many Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu would be those whom most of us would think of as the tangata whenua of the Wairarapa; Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne would represent most of that. But the member in the chair or other members of the committee might want to explain to us a little more about who else might be included in that terminology. I do not want to take up too much more time of the Committee with this call, other than to seek some clarification. We will come, in later calls, to other matters contained in the preamble, particularly around the question of the nomination process for board members, the number of board members, and also the question of the long-term use of land and what is appropriate use of the land for those who have traditionally been the owners of the land, and what else it might be used for. So I look forward to those calls.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all questions in this bill to be debated as one question.

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

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much—eh, the early bird gets the worm. I am one of the generation who was fortunate enough to go through kōhanga reo and talk Te Reo Māori, raised by my elders in the riches that Te Reo Māori provides. I want to pick up the point made by my colleague Mr Grant Robertson, because, as I have read through the bill, I have got a few questions about the words being used in the preamble.

First of all, before I delve right into it, I actually want to thank the hard-working staff of the Māori translation service here in Parliament because they do a fantastic job to make this ordinary speaker seem far more eloquent in their translations. I want to congratulate them. I know that with the increased use of Te Reo Māori in the House not only by speakers but, of course, in bills like this one in front of us, they have got their work cut out for them. So I do want to thank them for their hard work in this space. My criticisms of this particular part in the preamble are certainly no slight upon the hard work that they do.

In the preamble, where it says “Te reo o te pire”, if you go down to the third paragraph, in about the third line down it says: “Tua atu i tēnā, ka āhei te kaiwhakatairanga o te pire ki te tango mai i tēnei e pire ki wah,”—and then the letter “ā”. In the Māori dictionary there is no such word as “wah”, so I wonder whether there is a bit of clarification needed on the part of the member in the chair, Alastair Scott. He will see it there. Just to make sure we are clear in there on that particular one, it says there “Tua atu i tēnā, ka āhei te kaiwhakatairanga o te pire”—that is you, Mr Scott—“ki te tango mai i tēnei e pire ki wah, ā …”. That is just the first one I have. My next one—

Dr David Clark: What about Google Translate?

PEENI HENARE: Ha, ha! In “Te hārakiraki me te New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990”, if we go down to paragraph three, it says there: “Whakapuaki ai Te Rōia Matua, ēhara ngā āhuatanga i whakatakotoria i rara e 5 o te pire, i tētahi mea e whakawhāiti ana mō te tika kia noho herehore …”. I have checked the dictionary, I have asked the experts whom I have access to in this particular space—there is no such word as “herehore”. I actually think what is meant in this particular instance, if we flip over to the English part, is that “herekore” should be the word—herekore, “without restriction”. If you have a look in the English part, “herekore” should be the word and not “herehore”. So that is just to make sure: “Whakapuaki ai Te Rōia Matua, ēhara ngā āhuatanga i whakatakotoria i rara e 5 o te pire, i tētahi mea e whakawhāiti ana mō te tika kia noho herehore mai i te aukatinga …”—and so on and so forth. So “herehore”, I am pretty sure, should be “herekore”.

If we carry on down in the same area in the preamble, not the next paragraph but the one after, it says there “Ka tūtohu mātou kia whakatikaina a rara e 5 kia noho ōrite ai ki te New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Ka tūtohu mātou kia wetehia atu a tekiona hou …”—which is quite interesting; I found out that “tekiona” means “section”. Interestingly enough, in the Bible they use other words for breaking down parts of—anyway, we move on. It says: “tekiona hou e 5(1)(e), ā, kia whakatikaina a tekiona hou e 5(1)(f) kia herea ai ki ngā whakataunga i whakatatokotohia …”. I think that that is supposed to say “whakatakotohia”, so it has got one extra syllable that should not be there. Instead of “whakatatokotohia”, it should be just “whakatakotohia”—so there is one extra syllable in there. Although I appreciate the intention of making sure that Te Reo Māori is finding its prominence in our legislature, it is important that we get these parts right so that there are not any ambiguities around understandings, that people are able to follow it, and to make sure that what is being said in the Māori preamble reflects that which is being said in the English preamble.

There is an expression I have used in this House before, which is patu kutu, or nit-picky. There is another part in the preamble, back to “Te hārakiraki me te New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990”, it tracks down, after the first paragraph, there are three bullet points, and then in the next paragraph, line five, it says “roto i a ia, he āhua whāiti noa iho ngā herenga kei roto i a ia ka taea”—space, comma, space—“he herenga i ētahi anake …”. I know it sounds a bit patu kutu there, but there is just an extra space there that does not need to be there.

Pita Paraone: Patu.

PEENI HENARE: Ha, ha! But these are just some of the challenges that confront not only the select committee—and I do want to congratulate the select committee on its work—but also members across the House when we want to present bills this way, in Te Reo Māori as well as in English. It is important that we get those small things right. Those are the ones that appeared immediately in front of me as I read through the bill. I guess this is notice that, yes, there are members of the public—I myself read all the bills that are written in Te Reo Māori in Te Reo Māori to make sure that they do reflect what is being said in English.

I just want to close my contribution at this point in time—you will hear from me again very shortly, no doubt—by once again congratulating the members who work hard in allowing Te Reo Māori to be used. Just those points again: “whakatatokotohia” has got an extra syllable; the other one was “ki wah”—there is no such word as “wah” in the Māori language; there is, of course, the space before the comma; and then the final one is “herehore” instead of “herekore”. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before the member speaks, I think it is important that we understand the process going forward from now. My colleague Peeni Henare has drawn attention to what he considers are a number of errors in the work of the select committee and in its commentary on the bill. Unfortunately, we are not at a point where we can make corrections to that select committee report. It is a commentary of the select committee, it is the view of the select committee, and although he has found—“points of debate” might be a nice way of putting it, or “mistakes” would be another way—we do not have the ability to make amendments at this stage other than to the bill itself. I am not going to rule out further discussion. Other colleagues might have a view that, in fact, my colleague Peeni Henare is wrong, and they are allowed to point that out if they wish, but we are not in a position to fix it up.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are talking about Part 1 and the preamble, and I respect the comments made by the previous speaker, Peeni Henare, but is the report of the Māori Affairs Committee part of this discussion?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The short answer is, in a broad sense, yes. Normally, matters such as this would have been dealt with at the second reading of a bill, but I think, as far as the preamble—which is a relatively broad debate—the views of the select committee on the bill can certainly be referred to and that, therefore, the select committee report can be referred to but not amended.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Kaiwhakahaere. E mihi atu ki a koe. Absolutely, I take previous speaker Peeni Henare’s comments around the Te Reo Māori version of the preamble—we are in the Committee stage, but you have given quite a broad line on this, Mr Chair. I take the points that have been made about the translation. I also want to acknowledge our translators here in Parliament. It is one of the things that the Māori Affairs Committee has actually discussed in quite a lot of detail, particularly around the translations themselves—that when we deliberate, we actually need to be deliberating the Te Reo Māori version, and then also the English version, as well, to ensure that they all line up. That is just my comment, and we have—I am not sure whether I heard it correctly, but there will, hopefully, be an opportunity in the second reading to try to alleviate those difficulties. [Interruption] Oh, there will not be? That is unfortunate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just to make it clear to the member, we had the second reading on a previous occasion. We are now in the Committee stage, so we are past any ability to make any changes to the commentary.

NUK KORAKO: Sorry, the second reading has already been done, and now we are in the Committee stage. Right, I take that point.

But I want to come back to the comments by Grant Robertson, if that is permissible, around the Te Reo Māori version. There was a lot of discussion around this, and we as the Māori Affairs Committee really did want to see a dual-language bill. When we looked at it, though, there had only been two such pieces of legislation to date, and they had actually been Government legislation. The first one was the Mokomoko legislation, and the second one, of course, was the Te Reo Māori legislation. When this opportunity came up, we definitely wanted to take advantage of it and try to have the bill in both languages, but when we looked into the practicality part of it, it was not pragmatic at all, particularly when we took advice from PCO. If we were to have gone down that track, it would then have actually held up the bill quite considerably.

That was what we wanted to discuss with the board, as well, because, practicality-wise, the board wanted to get this bill through, but there is an opportunity later on to be able to re-present it as a dual-language bill. If I could just quote a couple of things, the first part of this is about the practical difficulties of amending legislation in English by amending an Act in Te Reo Māori and English. That is the first part of it, but, I think, a Standing Order was quoted: “Under Standing Order 264, a bill that is the same in substance as a bill that was received or was defeated on a first, second, or third reading may not be proposed in the same calendar year as the original bill. This would mean that the new bill could not be introduced until 2017. This would delay the reforms in a way that may not be desirable for the board.” This was something that we got information on from the Ministry of Justice and PCO, and that is why we then made the decision.

It goes on: “Also, if the board wants an Act in both languages, we consider that a better approach would be for the current bill to be enacted in English alone in the meantime. This would allow the board to operate under the new provisions as quickly as possible. The board could then prepare a new private bill in both languages.” We took this information on board and, trying to be as pragmatic as possible, we then decided that the best way forward—because the board also did not want this to be held up—was to enact this legislation in English and then, if there is the possibility later, further on down the track, in Te Reo Māori.

The other thing that we discussed, which I think is important as well, is that whenever—so the select committee is doing Government bills at the moment. We have done two Government bills, but probably something that we need to look at, moving forward, is that with private bills—right at the beginning, they could flag the fact that they would like their bill in Te Reo Māori as well. Doing that right from the beginning makes it a lot easier to implement legislation in both languages. That is just answering the question of why, when we took this bill through, unfortunately, we could not do it as a dual-language one. We decided in the interests of keeping the thing moving and getting the bill into legislation so that the board could implement those changes. That is a lot more practical. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): For the Green Party, we, of course, are very honoured and happy to support the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. There are a couple of main points that I want to pick up on. One of the reasons why the Green Party is happy to support this bill is the call, in particular, from Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa iwi and particularly the trust, for getting Government a little bit more out of the way so that the trust can run its business to the best of its ability and can make mana motuhake decisions for its whenua and for its whakapapa and for whānau.

I absolutely agree that the bill amendments ensure that the intended beneficiaries of the trust, Ngāti Kahungunu, have more education choices. So it has extended funds being used purely towards the Māori Anglican schools and now allows funds and resources and scholarships to be used for their tamariki for schools outside of just those schools. So, absolutely, the Green Party supports the choice.

At the same time, I do just want to acknowledge, on a related but more general issue, the potential danger—and we have been seeing this around the country—for the history of some of those Anglican schools. I am speaking as an—oh my gosh!—old girl of Queen Victoria School. I understand that Minister Te Ururoa is an old boy of Hato Tipene College. These are examples of the proud legacy of Māori Anglican schools in this country. So I do want to—

Hon Member: Both of them are closed.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Yeah, both of them are closed; I understand. So I do want to acknowledge the weakening of schools that have done well, but, absolutely, we support the education choice for Kahungunu and Wairarapa descendants.

I do want to commend the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board for realising, in its review—I think it was several years ago—that the scholarships were restricted to Kahungunu descendants. It wanted to ensure and recognise Rangitāne descendants also so they could access those scholarships. So that, again, is a fantastic and positive amendment to the bill.

One of the final contributions in this short contribution that I want to reference is the clause around upholding the capacity of members to ensure they can do the job that they do. I am very happy that we in the Māori Affairs Committee advised—in the report there, you can see that we changed the proposals in the bill that were, in my personal view, stigmatising people with different mental health capacity. Absolutely, you can and must ensure that every member of any given board is able to uphold their responsibility and capacity to do their job. We can do that at the same time as ensuring that we do not create further discrimination, as the Attorney-General pointed out, towards a whole section of the community who are most definitely unfairly marginalised and discriminated against.

The thing is, we should all know, from our experiences, that the ability for board members to make good decisions or not, to be able to fulfil their roles or not, is absolutely—sometimes people of supposed sound mind can really disappoint us—[Interruption] So I am really glad that we made changes—yeah, I see you smiling down there—and amendments to make a clear statement that the judgment is actually not about furthering discrimination to an entire section of the community that already gets a rough deal, but that we recognise that we must ensure that members can uphold the responsibility to do their job without further creating that stigma and that totally unwarranted discrimination. So at this stage—thank you very much, Mr Chair. Those were the main points that I wanted to highlight in my call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Kelvin Davis, I am going to now say that I have considered the Standing Orders and the width of the debate on the preamble. I think that to be fair to members who have not spoken when other members have spoken, I will allow the debate to run relatively wide, as long as people make some reference to the preamble in their speech. But I will indicate to the Committee that it is my intention to tighten the debate on the title, as a result of the fact that we have had a broad debate on the preamble.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, i te mea i te hiahia te whānau nō rātou tēnei pire ki te tuhia ki roto i ngā reo e rua, e tika ana kia wānangahia hoki tēnei pire ki roto i ngā reo e rua ēngari, hei mua ake i tēnā me huri ngā whakaaro ki ngā rā o neherā, i te wā o Paraire Paikea i roto i tēnei Whare. Tōna kāinga kei Ōtamatea kei Te Nōta, ā, i tōna wā nāna i huri ki Te Reo Māori, kīhai ki te tohetohe i ngā pire ēngari, ki te tohutohu atu ki tōna whānau i te kāinga kia mahia ngā mahi, pērā i te miraka kau, pērā i te whāngai i ngā kurī wērā āhuatanga katoa. Nā reira, i runga i tēnā tikanga nāna i whakatakotohia, me tohutohu atu ahau ki taku tamaiti kei te kāinga, kia horoia te taraka, kia tapahia ngā pātiti, kia mahia ngā mahi o te kāinga.

Me mihi hoki atu ahau ki a Nuk Korako rāua ko Peeni Henare, mō ō rāua whakamāramatanga e pā ana ki te wāhanga o Te Reo Māori, me te whakatikatikangia hoki i ngā hē kei roto, aroha atu ki ngā kaiwhakapākehātanga. Āe, he tika te kōrero ā Peeni, he aha te patu kutu? Ēngari, e tika ana kia tuhia tika Te Reo Māori kei roto i tēnei. Kua tika a Nuk mō ngā uauatanga me te pakeketanga kia tuhia ki roto i ngā reo e rua, me wānangahia e tātou ki roto i ngā reo e rua. Kua poto te wā kia whakaotia ai aua mahi, nā reira, kua tuhia ki roto i Te Reo Pākehā, ko tēnei wāhanga ō mua o te pire, ngā kōrero kei mua o te pire, kei roto i ngā reo e rua.

Nā reira, ka huri ahau ki tēnei mea te preamble. Ko tēnei tētahi o ngā raruraru o te tuhingia ki roto i ngā reo e rua. Rawa kē ahau i te mōhio he aha te kupu mō te preamble? Horekau he kupu Māori mō tēnā, mehemea he kupu Māori, horekau ahau i te mōhio. Ēngari, e whakamāramatia ana—well, he kupu anō, ngā mana, ngā kaha o Te Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri Trust Board. Nā, tetahi o ngā pakeketanga ki roto i te whakamāoritanga o tēnā, he aha te kupu tika mō ngā powers? He mana, he kaha rānei? Horekau i te tino mōhio, nā reira, koia tētahi e whakamāramatia ana i tētahi o ngā raruraru e pā ana ki te whakapākehātanga, ēngari, ka herea ngā mana ō—taihoa, me hoki ahau.

Ko Te Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act 1943, ka herea ngā kaha, ngā mana o Te Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri Trust Board, ā, mēnā kei te hiahia rātou i nāianei ki te āta whakamāramatia te whanaungatanga ki waenganui i Te Papāwai me Kaikōkirikiri Trust Board, me Te Pīhopa o Te Ūpoko o Te Ika, ā, me ngā tāngata whenua o Wairarapa—ka taihoa ake ahau ki konei, hei whakamāramatia tēnā wāhanga mō ngā tangata whenua o Wairarapa. Tāku e mōhio ana, e rua ngā iwi ko Ngāti Kahungunu me Rangitāne. Me te tohutohu mai ki ahau e tetahi o ōku whanaunga, kia kaua e pōhēhē he iwi kotahi rātou. E hiahia ana rātou kia noho wehewehe a Rangitāne me Kahungunu, nā reira, e tika ana kia kaua e whakaingoatia ngā iwi e rua ēngari, kia kōrero ai i ngā iwi nō ngā tāngata whenua o Te Wairarapa.

Te hiahia hoki o Te Pōari Tarahiti kia ’hakapūmau ai tō rātou kaupapa hei tohua i ngā mema o Te Pōari, tētahi hiahia anō o rātou kia āta tohatoha i ngā pūtea mō ngā tāngata whenua o Te Wairarapa, me te whakahaerengia ō rātou mahere hei whakapakiri, hei whakamahia i ō rātou whenua. Nā reira, mehemea i te hiahia rātou kia whakatutuki pai ai aua wawata, aua hiahia, kua tika ki te tahuringia, ki te whakarerekēngia i Te Ture matua.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, because the family to whom this bill belongs to wanted to write it in both languages, it is appropriate that it be debated as well in the two languages, but before doing that thoughts must go back to the days gone by, to the time when Paraire Paikea was here in this House. His home was at Ōtamatea in the North. In his time he would turn to speak in Māori, not to debate the bills, but to give instructions to his family at home to do the jobs, like milking the cows, feeding the dogs, all those kinds of situations. Therefore, based on that custom he set down, I must instruct my youngster at home to wash the truck, mow the lawns, and do all the jobs at home.

I must also extend a compliment to Nuk Korako and Peeni Henare for their explanations about the part relating to the Māori language and the editing of errors in it. I empathise with those who translated the English. Yes, that which Peeni stated is correct, what is nit-picking about? But it is right that the Māori language should be written correctly in this. Nuk is correct about the difficulties and the maturity in both languages being written correctly and that we debate it in the two languages. The time is short to have those tasks completed, therefore, this part of the bill in front, the dialogue at the front of the bill, are in both languages.

So I turn to this thing the preamble. This is one of the problems with writing it in the two languages. I have no idea what the Māori word for preamble is? There is no Māori word for that, or if there is one, I am not aware of it. But it has been explained—well, there are other words also, ngā mana, ngā kaha o Te Papawai me Kaikōkirikiri Trust Board. Now in terms of one of the maturities in the Māori translation, what is the correct word for powers? Is it mana or kaha? I really do not know, therefore, that is one that really explains one of the problems about translation from English, but the powers are bound—hang on, I need to go back.

The Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act 1943 bounds the power and authority of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trust Board, and if they now want to really clarify the relationship between the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trust Board and the Bishop of Wellington, plus the indigenous people of Wairarapa—I will hang on here, in terms of explaining that part as it relates to the indigenous people of Wairarapa. What I do know is that there are two tribes they are Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne. And one of my relations has firmly advised not to mistakenly refer to them as one tribe. Their wish is for Rangitāne and Kahungunu to remain separate tribes but not named, so the reference should be indigenous tribes of the Wairarapa.

The wish of the Trust Board is also to have their nomination proposal validated to nominate members for the Board, another is to have their desire to carefully apportion funding for indigenous people of the Wairarapa validated, and furthermore to administer their plans to strengthen and utilise their lands. So if they want to fulfil dreams, the time is right to overturn and amend the primary Act.]

I was just saying that because the people who want this bill to go ahead requested that the bill be in two languages and we were not able to do it, for a number of restrictions, I thought it was only fair to debate some of it in Te Reo Māori. But I also hark back to a time long before we were ever here. When Paraire Paikea, the member for Northern Māori, who lived in Ōtamatea—and it was a different time then—used to flick into Māori, it was not so much to debate the bills; it was more to instruct his family at home to milk the cows and feed the dogs, and no one was any the wiser, because we did not have translators or television or anything like that. So it was based on that tikanga set by my predecessor all those years back that I told my son to wash the car, tidy his room, do the dishes, and all those sorts of things—to do all the housework that he should be doing.

But, you know—back to the preamble—one of the things I said was that this is one of the difficulties in writing the bill in both languages, and Nuk Korako explained it. If we are going to write it in one language, we would have to deliberate it in one language and deliberate it in the other language. We actually just ran out of time, and it is a lesson to everybody that if they want to do that sort of thing, they need to signal it right at the start of the bill so that we can factor that into the process.

But in trying to debate this, the very first problem was the very first word: “Preamble”. Oh, crikey, what the heck is the word for “preamble”? If there is a word for “preamble”, I do not know it, but—

Grant Robertson: “Pre-kōrero”.

KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, “pre-kōrero”, as my colleague Grant Robertson says. But the preamble simply sets out that the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act of 1943 restricted the powers of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board—and there, again, was another sort of roadblock. There is a number of words—the word “powers”. In Māori, is it mana—having some sort of power—or kaha? You know, I am not sure. So it just sort of illustrated the issues that we have in terms of getting it right in both languages.

Also, of course, we have the issue of dialects. We are here in Wellington, so I suppose that the dialect could be the dialect of the tribes of Wellington, or it could be the dialect of the people whom we are debating this for. Or, really, if we are all being fair and honest, it should just be Ngāpuhi dialect, and let us, you know, cut out all the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

KELVIN DAVIS: Ha, ha!

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I think that was the “Wainuiōmata warrior” there.

KELVIN DAVIS: Yes. So the bill wishes to better describe the relationship between the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board and the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika. We could go into a big, long story, actually, but I will leave it for someone else to explain that beautiful name, Te Upoko o Te Ika. I am someone who lives in Te Hiku o Te Ika—that will give you a little taster for someone else to explain the difference between Te Upoko o Te Ika and Te Hiku. All I can say is that the upoko never moves unless the hiku waves like that.

Also, the relationship between the trusts board and the bishop and tangata whenua of Wairarapa—I was reminded by a colleague, a whanaunga of mine, who says there are at least two iwi down in the Wairarapa area, Kahungunu and Rangitāne, and you do not mix the two up. Do not confuse the two. They like to be independent and to maintain their own mana.

Pita Paraone: Ngāti Hine me Ngāpuhi.

KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, very similar to Ngāti Hine and their relationship with everyone else in New Zealand. The bill also wants to establish this robust nomination process for the board members, and also, really, what their job is is to distribute funds for the tangata whenua of Wairarapa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, ngā mihi hoki ki a tātou e noho nei i roto i Te Whare nei. E tū ake ai au ki te kōrero atu ki te pire i mua i a tātou, arā, ko Te Papawai me Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. Nā, te āhua nei ko ngā kōrero i tēnei wā e kī nei i roto i te reo Pākehā “preamble”, ēngari tēnā pea te kupu Māori, he kupu “whakataki”, aua hoki! Nā reira i raro i taua kaupapa, e tika ana kia kōrero tātou i roto i tō tātou Reo Rangatira, nā te mea, ko tetahi o ngā rōpū i mau mai i wā rātou whakaaro e pā ana ki te pire nei, i tono atu ki Te Komiti i Whakawhiriwhiri i ngā take Māori, kia uru mai tēnei pire i roto i tō tātou Reo Rangatira. Ēngari ka kī mai ngā kaimahi, ngā kaimahi, ēhara nā te komiti i kōrerohia tēnei ēngari, ko ngā kaimahi i mea mai ki a mātou, kārekau kē he rawa i te mahingia tēnei mahi. Tua atu i tēnā, i kī mai rātou, ē, āhua takaroa ki te tuhi atu i roto i tō tātou Reo Rangatira. Ā, nā reira, wena ngā kōrero i a rātou ki a mātou i roto i te komiti nei. Kia ahatia? Ko te āhua nei, ahakoa kāre mātou, te nuinga o mātou i whakaae ki tēnā whakaaro ēngari, i puta mai ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnā.

Ēngari, he aha ana te āhuatanga o tēnei pire? Ahakoa te pire nei i whakamārama mai ki a mātou ngā whanaungatanga i waenganui i a Papawai me Kaikōkirikiri me te Pīhopa o Te Upoko-o-Te Ika e kī nei, he Pīhopa o te hāhi mihingare, ā, me ngā tāngata whenua o Te Wairarapa, nā, e aha ana te māramatanga mō ngā tāngata whenua o Te Wairarapa? I rongo i a mātou ngā kōrero i puta mai i te kaikōrero mai o Reipa, arā, ko Kelvin Davis, nāna i whakamārama mai te rerekētanga kei waenganui i ngā iwi i roto i Te Wairarapa. E tika ana wana kōrero ēngari i raro i te āhuatanga o tēnei pire, ahakoa, tēhea tō iwi mēnā i heke mai i ngā tūpuna i roto o Wairarapa, kei te wātea te pūtea ki a koe.

Tua atu i tēnā, e whakakaha ana tēnei pire i te āhuatanga e pā ana, ko wai kia tū hei trustee. Horekau i a mātou i roto o Aotearoa Tuatahi i whakahē ki tēnā. Tua atu i tēnā, ko te kaupapa o te pire nei, kia whakatikatika i te tohatanga o ngā rawa, o te pūtea hoki ki ngā tāngata whenua o Wairarapa, muri mai i tēnā, kia āta titiro he aha ana te kaupapa kia whakapakari i ngā whenua i taka mai i raro i tēnei rōpū. Nā reira, ka nui taku mihi ki aua rōpū i haere mai ki mua i te aroaro o te komiti, kia whakamārama mai, e aha ana te take e hiahia nei i a rātou kia kite mai tā rātou pire i roto i Te Reo o ō tātou iwi Māori.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, and acknowledgments also to us seated here in the House. I rise to address the bill before us, that is, the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trust Amendment Bill. It appears now that the contributions at this time are around the English word “preamble”, but perhaps the Māori word for it is “whakataki”, goodness knows! So, under that policy, it is appropriate that we speak in our esteemed language, because one of the groups that submitted their thoughts about this bill sought from the Māori Affairs Committee that this bill be introduced in our esteemed language. But it was the officials who responded; it was the officials and not the committee who said to us that there were absolutely no resources to do this work. Furthermore, they told us in despair that it would take quite a long time to write in our esteemed language. Therefore, those were their comments to us in this committee here. So what? It seems like despite the fact the majority of us did not agree with the view of the committee, the story around that has emerged.

But what exactly is the significance of this bill? Even though the bill explains to us the relationship that Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri have with the Bishop of Wellington, which states here a Bishop of the Anglican Church, and with the indigenous people of the Wairarapa—now what is the explanation regarding the indigenous of Wairarapa? We heard the sentiments from the Labour spokesperson Kelvin Davis, where he explained the differences between the Wairarapa iwi. His explanations are right, but under the scope of this bill, regardless of which tribe it is, which ancestors in the Wairarapa the iwi is a descendant of, funding is available to you.

Furthermore, this bill strengthens the situation as to who is eligible to stand as a trustee. We of New Zealand First do not oppose that. Further to that, the purpose of this bill is to tidy up the ways in which resources, and funding as well, are distributed to the indigenous people of Wairarapa, and after that to carefully examine what plan is in place to develop the lands that have been dropped upon this group. Therefore, I have a huge appreciation for those groups who came here before the select committee to explain the reason why they wanted to see their bill in the language of our Māori people.]

I am just reiterating much of what the previous speakers have said in relation to what this bill is about. I have also explained the concerns about not having this bill written in Te Reo Māori. Although it has not been said by any of the previous speakers, I actually quote from the advice received from the officials. Their view was that “ensuring that both versions are an accurate reflection of each other is a time-consuming and resource-intensive process. To ensure that the bill is enacted in a timely fashion, we do not recommend enacting it in Te Reo Māori.” If I do have a criticism, it is that if the amount of resource is lacking and if time is of the essence, then I think that is a very, very poor reason for not ensuring that bills are produced in the Māori language.

Given that this advice was given so shortly after the introduction of the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill and the comments made in the House in support of that bill, it does run in the face of all the positivity that came out of that bill. But I also want to say that the bill does strengthen the relationship between the beneficiaries, ngā tangata whenua o Wairarapa. So it does not matter whether you are living in London; if you can descend from the tūpuna of Wairarapa, then you are eligible not only to be a beneficiary but also to be a trustee. New Zealand First certainly supports that aspect of the bill.

I am not quite sure about—although it is well intended—the extension of what funds can be made for, in terms of education. Of course, beneficiaries need to realise that once you open that up, there is probably going to be less allocated to each applicant. Again, that will be a challenge for the board of trustees, and the trustees themselves. Those were the comments I wanted to make in terms of this part of the bill. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki Te Whare Pāremata. I would just like to take a brief call and start with the licence that the previous Chair gave us to refer to Te Reo issues in the preamble.

It has been a privilege to hear the debate. Te Reo Rangatira is always an asset in this House. For those of us who are not speakers, we can learn. Listening and learning is a great privilege, and I can see why, in this bill, in this preamble, there was enthusiasm for the Reo. I heard the chair of the select committee, Nuk Korako, explain why he believed it was not possible for the bill to be in two languages, but I just tautoko the comments from the previous speaker about the importance of—if it is a matter of resource, if it is a matter of time, then surely the Parliament, if nowhere else, should find the resource to do the right thing.

I think we are talking about Te Reo Māori, the first national language of Aotearoa. I am myself owning that when I drafted a member’s bill, I did not get it translated into Te Reo either. I am not saying that any of us is any better than anyone else. The Public Works Act amendment bill that I put up should have been in the Reo as well. But it is a lesson and a learning for all of us that this bill, the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill, should have actually had this opportunity, and it would have made the people very happy.

I recognise that the Māori Affairs Committee is not responsible for the constraints, but it means that the rest of us all need to get up and advocate. We all need to stand up for making sure that all bills have this opportunity and that we do not put the Māori Affairs Committee in the position of having to fight for this. It is an issue for all citizens of Aotearoa that Te Reo should be available for these bills.

I found the kōrero very interesting, with the word “preamble” not existing. There is no kupu in the Reo for preamble. Perhaps it is time that preamble is a flexible word that can be explained in English differently as well. A lot of people do not know what a preamble is in English, either. In fact, many of the ways in which our laws are designed are extremely alienating and no one knows what on earth we are talking about, outside this place, and including inside this place. Some of us are not scholars of Latin or Greek, and we like plain English, alongside Te Reo Māori. I think there are ways in which both these languages are more than capable of describing things beautifully and clearly in terms of their purpose and intent, as well as what the purpose of the preamble is.

However, I would first like to mihi on Papawai Marae. I was recently at Papawai Marae. I can see that this bill, which relates to their trustees, is an important bill for them, and it is important that we recognise that they want change for the structure of their board. In the preamble, it does talk about the relationship between Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board and the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika. I am not a scholar, but I know that the head of the fish is an important and delicious space. I think it is important that we honour their intention and wish to have a better relationship with their trusts board, the bishop of the head of the fish, and the tangata whenua of the Wairarapa.

The preamble also talks about the tangata whenua, and the bill and the Māori Affairs Committee talk about the definition. I have to say that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. If I start trying to talk about how our tangata whenua should be defined and who should define it, I can get myself into a ridiculous space. But there is an interesting kōrero in the select committee report that does talk about the reason for the description being “tangata whenua of Wairarapa”. That seems appropriate, because it is an inclusive way of allowing everyone whose whakapapa connects in whatever way to these two trusts, so that they get included in the distribution of funds for the tangata whenua of Wairarapa.

I have heard Pākehā say they are tangata whenua. I have always strongly disputed that, because I do not know anyone of my culture who describes their whakapapa as being from Papatūānuku, directly through their whakapapa heritage. We are certainly connected to this place in our own ways, but we are not tangata whenua in the sense that we do not describe our spirituality and whakapapa as directly connected to Papatūānuku. I think we should be honest about that, instead of trying to co-opt it. But that is more of a reflection. [Bell rung] Thank you.

I will not take the whole time, but I do want to just talk about the preamble a bit more because it does facilitate some changes that Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board has wanted. I think it is important that there is a nomination process that is just.

It is good to see the work that went into this bill, because there were New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues around it, and I think it is important to acknowledge that they were raised. I understand they were addressed. I think that is really important, because there have been mentions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and I think it is very important that we do justice to all people, at all times, within legislation—that we do not ignore those things. So the bill has, obviously, definitely been improved at the select committee in terms of recognising those New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues, because if it is going to be fairer and robust—those are the words—it is really important that the board member process is fair and robust and, as much as possible, does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of its assumptions about people’s capacity to participate.

I really think that Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri—I do not know much about the Kaikokirikiri Trust, but I do know a little bit about Papawai from being there recently. It is the most historic and most significant Wairarapa marae. What came out for me, relating to this preamble, when I went there was I held a public meeting that night, after I had visited the marae, about water in the rohe and about the state of the Ruamāhanga River. Some people from the marae—Papawai people—came to my public meeting and said: “We don’t have enough water. We have real problems with water.” It is always really sobering in the 21st century when people do not have water.

This marae are trying to modernise their trust structure, but what I heard that night was that they still do not have access to things that other people take for granted. They have real problems with accessing their water. I think that if that marae and so many others where I have heard stories about problems with fresh water, problems with sewerage—these bills are useful, because they help to improve the structures so that people can get into a situation where they can operate and make decisions effectively, but it does not necessarily give them any more resources to do it. I was very, very concerned that night to hear that that marae was struggling with water.

So when we were talking about the sustainability of the river and all the rest of it, they were saying: “Well, we don’t even have water.”—in the 21st century. It was pretty gruelling. For a marae that held the first tangata whenua Parliament in Aotearoa to not have water in the 21st century—this bill will be an improvement for them. But I hope it helps to also address, when it comes to the long-term development of land, which is referred to in the preamble, their ability to have their basic human right to water, and I was very disturbed by that.

However, the Green Party is very happy to support this bill. I would like to see every bill in the Reo, and I would like to see this House—all of us—work together to achieve that goal. Kia ora tātou.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to make a contribution to the Committee stage of this bill, the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. I think that, in relation to the preamble, I do endorse the remarks that have been made around the missed opportunity for having a dual translation of this bill, but I think it is a lesson for those who seek to introduce private bills or local bills in this House. If that is what they want to do, then that should be planned for at the front end of the legislative drafting process so that all of that work can be done up front so it is not putting pressure on to the select committee after the fact to try to look at the possibility of a translation, because it is quite a specialised task.

I guess it is just about being prepared and upfront when you are introducing the legislation, and if it is the wish of the people who are sponsoring the bill, then it would be good if they took those steps to ensure that they carry out the translation at the start. I would hope that the reasons such as practical difficulties and time constraints will not preclude it in the future, because we should try to facilitate and help in every way possible in the crafting of legislation to ensure that, if that is the wish of the sponsors of the bill, the services that are available to draft that translation are at the disposal of those who seek to use those services.

I do commend the trust for seeking to modernise itself through this bill. I think it is some 73 years old, the legislation that we are amending through this bill, so it is quite timely. Processes should be reviewed and updated to these modern times. Just focusing on the preamble, the wishes of the trust board are to do four things. There is no need for me to read them out, but they are about modernising and updating the powers of the trust board.

One that I do want to focus on, which has not been covered thus far in the debate, is around the definition of the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika. Obviously, we are dealing with a private entity, the Anglican Church, and the Bishop. The Bishop is, obviously, a senior office holder within the Anglican Church, but because of the cross-referencing of that term to the actual definition, I do want to refer to the definition of the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika—in particular, to one word, and that is in section 2(a) inserted by clause 4, where it refers to “Polynesia”.

I just want to ask the member in the chair, Alastair Scott—that is quite a broad term: Polynesia. I believe that if we are enacting this legislation to modernise and update this trust board, I would like to know exactly what the parameters are. What does it actually mean by “Polynesia”? Are we referring to the Polynesian triangle, where we have got thousands of islands in the Moana-nui-a-Kiwa—we have got a Hawaii at the top, Easter Island on the far side, and Aotearoa in our little corner? Or are we referring to some other Polynesia, a more defined, more discreet island within Polynesia?

So I would not mind clarification, because we are enacting this legislation, and to put a very sort of vague term such as “Polynesia” into it, even though it is an internal private office that is within the Anglican Church—I believe we need to be more exact. I think that if we are enacting legislation, we need to be more precise in our terms. So it is a bit vague with “Polynesia”. For instance, we are referring to “Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia”. So does that refer to the Realm of New Zealand and the dependent territories that we have within Aotearoa New Zealand? Or does it refer to other associated territories that come within the realm of—

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Kia ora. Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. At the risk of cutting across my colleague Rino Tirikatene, who was right in the middle of his stride, making some very salient points on this particular bill—I apologise for cutting you off at the fence. I want to follow on from the very good points that were made by my colleague, but firstly, I want to acknowledge Alastair Scott. I am sure the trustees of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board will be very happy with what we have been able to support on their behalf. Just think, since 1943 this trust has been funding, by way of scholarships, young people from their area to pursue education. A lot has to be said about the investment in education. When these submitters, all women, came to the Māori Affairs Committee, all were very humble about their contribution to the aspirations of their iwi, and all were absolutely singularly focused on ensuring that they were better prepared as trustees to make those types of decisions that will equip their children with a better education and then be able to contribute back to the iwi.

I listened carefully to the contribution around the dual translation of the bill. Just to anchor some of the contributions here today, which were well responded to by our chair, Nuk Korako, and the member Pita Paraone, this request came from within the committee; it was not a request made by the submitters to the bill. The committee had thought: “Well, this is a small enough bill to be able to test as a Māori Affairs Committee. Could we go through the process from beginning to end in terms of a dual translation of a bill that was very small?”. Well, that was our thought.

The responses that we got from advisers have already been expressed, but I would like to make the point that Rino Tirikatene had really started to draw on, which is that if Parliament really wants to pursue the process of dual translation, then when the Government is setting the legislative agenda, it will need to take account of that when it funds Parliamentary Counsel Office for this purpose, because, by its own admission, it does not have the capacity to be able to respond to a request of that nature, although the Māori Affairs Committee sees itself as pushing on that aspiration because we recognise Māori as a national language for our country. So that is the context in which we addressed this issue with this particular bill. We did not achieve the outcome. To some extent, we identified that the 1943 Act and then the 1992 rewrite of this particular Act might make that whole process a bit more clunky than we had anticipated, and so we left it in abeyance.

Coming back to the preamble and the expression of how the bill could be better modernised, I think it is quite evident in the first instance that the recognition of the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika gives recognition to the modernising of the Anglican Church and the dioceses and the Treaty of Waitangi model that it has, but also to the closer relationship that it has with Māori. That, indeed, will flow through the bill. Then the other aspects of that are the nomination process for board members. It is well explained in the bill that, under the old process, you had the diocese involved, you had the Māori Land Court involved, and then you had the Minister—not of Māori development but of education—involved. The opportunity that the revamp now provides is more localised input from the tangata whenua of Wairarapa, who can be involved in that, and I think that is in line and in keeping with the evolution of aspiration of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board.

I know I have not got much longer, and I did not intend to take a very long call, but I would like the member in the chair, the sponsoring member, to explain why Clareville is not a part of the title and also why the approach was to enable Clareville lands to be sold but not Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri lands. By way of explanation to the Committee, I think that would be a very useful exercise, and it will be something that people will draw on, because in the title of the bill it does not refer to Clareville, which is an estate administered under this particular trust board. Kia ora tātou.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): First of all, I would like to specifically thank members for the constructive comments that have been made from both sides—mainly from the Opposition side—regarding the explanation around the Māori language. This is a bill that modernises an old Act, and the modernisation, ideally, would have included a Te Reo translation, but I am thankful that the Māori Affairs Committee has seen a pragmatic solution to the issue and made some recommendations that the wish of any submitters for dual language bills should be up front about it. I am also thankful that the pragmatic solution of getting this thing through has come through and has dominated the situation—thinking about the beneficiaries and the trustees, and so on, of this bill.

The second point is that I would also like to thank particularly Nuk Korako for chairing the select committee in doing the work that it has done. I would also like to note Kelvin Davis’ and Pita Paraone’s explanations of why there is “tangata whenua of Wairarapa” rather than the naming of the two iwi. I think that was very constructive and useful.

And, overall, I would just like to talk very quickly about the bishop’s definition, which Mr Rino Tirikatene was talking about. That is really for the bishop to decide. That is the definition that is being used. Over the years, the Church of England has modernised the language and descriptor of the bishop, and that is what is being used in the bill. So, once again, thank you to the Committee, and I appreciate your support on this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call Peeni Henare.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Excellent. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I rise to make a brief contribution while we are still on the preamble. I looked at and I have read through the bill. I have listened to many of the contributions, and I pick up the words in the preamble that say “The Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board wishes to—(a) describe better the relationship between Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board, the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, and tangata whenua of Wairarapa;”. As I have read through this, and also the commentary in regard to the preamble, there does not appear to be much of a description about what that relationship amongst those groups entails.

Surely, I think it does a pretty decent job of describing and defining who those groups are. That is pretty straightforward, and my colleagues on this side of the Chamber have asked questions about tangata whenua of Wairarapa and how you could come unstuck if you started defining what that means, and also my colleague Rino Tirikatene has mentioned the definition of the Bishop.

But to the preamble, it does say “describe better the relationship”, and as I have read through the commentary and as I have searched through the bill, I do not think it does that. So I wonder why it refers to it there, because I take it that if you are going to describe that relationship, you would have some sort of markers in achievement as a grouping of several—as it says in the bill—different entities. You would describe how that relationship would work, moving forward. You would do that by having markers, or goals, or outcomes, I guess, that you would expect to see in that relationship working better between all of those entities. I do not think that I have seen where it does that in this particular bill.

Like I said, I see that there are some pretty good descriptions about the entities involved, but I have yet to see any language, in fact—and I wonder whether the member in the chair can help me understand this a bit better—as to how this particular bill describes better the relationship between Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board, the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, and tangata whenua of Wairarapa. If we are not going to describe what that relationship might look like—or certainly assist that relationship in working together in the future—more clearly and more defined, then I wonder what the purpose is of having that there in the legislation. So that was my only question with regard to the preamble. We have been around the traps—in fact, we have been across Polynesia. We are back here now, and I just do still have that question for the member in the chair, in the hope that we can get an answer.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Just quickly—to respond to Peeni Henare, the last speaker. In fact, there were actually a lot of goals that were set. There were four main goals that were set, which were pretty much about empowering whānau and hapū. Another one was also to make a positive contribution to the education of tamariki, which empowers whānau, and the other one was to be a good steward of taonga tuku iho and to operate in a manner that upholds the high expectations and aspirations of their tīpuna. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I think that the last Labour spokesperson, Peeni Henare, made a very good point. Probably, what should be articulated in the bill is that it better defines the relationship between the parties: (1) when you talk about who the beneficiaries are, it articulates who they are—that is, tangata whenua of Wairarapa; and (2) it describes the changes that have been made within the Anglican Church, and, therefore, it identifies which of the three Māori bishops within the Anglican Church at the moment will be responsible for the trust. I think that the third one is the appointment of trustees—articulating who they are. But I think the member does make a very valid point, and I suppose that if we really wanted to make that change, it might be an opportunity to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper, but I will leave that up to the member in charge of the bill. Kia ora.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Just picking up on my last contribution, and the contribution that Mr Paraone has just made, do I take it that the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika could be three different persons?

Pita Paraone: No, he’s one of three.

RINO TIRIKATENE: One of three—OK. Well, thank you for that clarification. I note the explanation of the member in the chair, Alastair Scott, that whoever the Bishop is determines the geographical areas in which that Bishop operates or which he or she is responsible for. Again, it seems quite fluid in terms of the definition, and I return to my point: if we are modernising or updating this legislation, which is 73 years old, I would hope that we would make sure that the defined terms, especially, are actually defined precisely, so that we know exactly what is in and what is out, and so that we do not leave any grey areas for any internal church squabbles or whatever that may happen in the future.

Another example that I do wish to raise falls within the definition of the Bishop in amended section 2 set out in clause 4(2), where the Bishop “(b) includes any person acting as the Bishop when the Bishop is, for any reason, unavailable”. When is a Bishop unavailable?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): When he’s dead.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Ha, ha! Well—no, I think it is a fair question, because it is a very loosely worded provision here. Is it that he or she has just ducked out and may be unavailable at that particular point in time? Obviously, it is a person who is acting in his or her stead and assuming the role of the Bishop. I just wanted to make that point because I do believe that, perhaps, we could re-look at the drafting—I am not sure—just to add a bit more precision to these terms. Like I mentioned, it is 73 years since the original Act was passed, and so we do not want to wait another 73 years and not correct something that could be tidied up at this point.

The other point that I do want to raise as well relates to the definition in the preamble, which refers to the definition of “tangata whenua of Wairarapa”. I have listened, and heard from members who were on the Māori Affairs Committee that it is well known that the two iwi groups within the Wairarapa are included within this definition. I hope it gives them comfort that just referring to it as the groups that descend from the Wairarapa is sufficient. But again, the definition refers to “tīpuna rangatira”. In amended section 2, it says: “tangata whenua of Wairarapa means an individual who has a whakapapa to the tīpuna rangatira who established historical kinship groups in Wairarapa”.

I know, obviously, that the Māori Affairs Committee did not recommend that we explicitly state Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, but if we are referring to the tīpuna rangatira—and I have noted one of the submitters—those names have been submitted. It is not for me to say what is in and what is not, but if we are referring to a particular class of rangatira—a particular class of peoples—I would hope that we would be able to make these definitions more accurate. We can do that, but just leaving it as being someone who descended from the tīpuna who has a historical kinship group to the Wairarapa is very broad—it is very broad. There is a fair point that the iwi groups have made. Given that we have—[Bell rung] Sir?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Rino Tirikatene—third call.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Thank you. Given that we are in the process of righting the historical wrongs, through Treaty settlements, in this particular geographical area, those settlements clearly articulate the history, and the descent groups, and the tūpuna for those particular groups. It would better inform people who may seek to benefit from the trust to have a much tighter definition that they could be able to connect to.

That was just the point that I wanted to make. By us putting it in very general terms and just referring to “tīpuna rangatira” without actually specifying those rangatira—it may be just referring to the “Waitangi tribunal report of” te mea, te mea, te mea. Or it could be referring to the deed of settlement for those particular iwi groups. I think, again, that we want to make sure not only that we are being inclusive but also that we are being accurate with the beneficiaries who will, no doubt, be proud to be associated with these ancestral lands and would want to seek benefits and, perhaps, maybe, a role in administering these historical lands on behalf of those tūpuna. That was just the point that I wanted to make.

I think—maybe not in this instance, but definitely in the future—if we are going through the whole process of Treaty settlements and rectifying historical injustices and wrongs, we should at least pay reference to those other Acts of law—other Acts of Parliament, other deeds of settlement—that have been enshrined in legislation and that could cross-reference and maybe be of benefit to the beneficiaries of these lands. Kia ora tātou.

Preamble agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the remaining clauses to be voted on as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Clause 3 Principal Act

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te Whare, otirā, ki a tātau katoa, tēnā tātau. I wanted, in particular, to speak to clause 3, “Principal Act”. It occurred to me that I should go through it quite carefully. Interestingly, this principal Act has been amended some eight times. It was amended, firstly, in 1946. I had a look at that, and it is quite similar to what we are debating today. After 3 years of operation, they went back and had a look at this principal Act and made some amendments to it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We are discussing these amendments, of course.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: Pardon?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The question is about these amendments to the bill.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: Yes, but clause 3 says “Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act 1943 (the principal Act)”, and I think that if we are discussing the principal Act, which is referenced in this amendment, then surely it is relevant to speak about the amendments as they relate to the current amendment bill. That is the point that I am trying to make.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes, and the point that I am just making is that the principal Act is as it has been amended those eight times since then—so you are talking about these amendments and the way that they amend the principal Act as it now is. There might be an aside one might make about a historical context, but we should be discussing and debating these amendments.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: Thank you, Mr Chair, for that clarification. Well, my point then is that the principal Act, which is being amended by this Act, taking into account the eight amendments that have already happened over that time, is relevant, I believe. And that is my contribution on that clause. Kia ora.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 Section 2 amended (Interpretation)

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much, once again, for this opportunity. In clause 4(1) there are some relatively minor changes to the definitions: “In section 2, repeal the definitions of Church of England and financial year.”. I think those ones are pretty straightforward—they make the financial year a 12-month period and, of course, in redefining the Church of England, it says that it “(a) means the Bishop appointed under that title by the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, commonly known as the Church of England, or the Bishop of any replacement diocese; and (b) includes any person acting as the Bishop when the Bishop is, for any reason, unavailable”.

There are bishops spread out across the country, but the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, interestingly enough, has a slightly different significance nationally. I say that with respect to all of the bishops across the country, but the one here in Te Upoko o Te Ika tends to be the head of the church nationally—the head of the church nationally—and we know, as my esteemed colleague here Mr Tirikatene pointed out, what happens in the replacement situation. We know that when the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika is unable to perform their duties, for whatever reason, another bishop steps in. In the past, I know for a fact that that bishop has been the Bishop of Te Tai Tokerau, or the bishop of the other end of the fish that my colleague Mr Davis was referring to, a man by the name of Bishop Kito Pīkaahu—a good man, who has fulfilled those duties quite well. But I wonder—just putting it out here—whether, in the failure of the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika to fulfil those duties, anyone who steps into that role, in this particular instance, is fully aware of what is required of them under this particular amendment bill. That is one question I have.

The other points I want to make on this particular clause are pretty straightforward, but I do want to pick up the point made by my colleague Mr Davis around tangata whenua of Wairarapa: “means an individual who has a whakapapa to the tīpuna rangatira who established historical kinship groups in Wairarapa”. I say that in respect of the history of te Papawai Marae, and it might interest the member in the chair, Mr Scott, that one of the pou that surrounds the marae at te Papawai is actually named after my great-grandfather and former member of Parliament Tau Henare. Tau Henare, who attended, as far as our historical records show, some of the early hui held at te Papawai and has his figure carved in a pou at the marae. And I wonder—I wonder—whether there is any relationship or any ability for me to look into my whakapapa and see whether or not I become eligible for some of the scholarships there—certainly not me, but my tamariki.

I say that in respect of a theme I have been carrying currently in the Committee, and it is about making sure that when you seek to define heritage, when you seek to define lineage in pieces of legislation, one has to be very, very careful. One has to be very, very careful. I will give an example. If I am living in Wairarapa and I consider myself tangata whenua: I was born there, I was raised there, I have lineage there, and then I play a crucial service in my whānau and take a tamaiti whāngai—I adopt a child; I adopt a child into my family—does this make that particular child a tangata whenua of Wairarapa? Does it make them eligible for the types of benefits that are intended with the amendment of this particular bill? That is just another question I have, and it may sound—what was my expression earlier—a bit patu kutu, a bit nit-picky, but it is these kinds of issues that, when whānau are looking for scholarships for their tamariki to go to whare wānanga, to universities where you are asked to provide your link to that particular place, it is often quite difficult—

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Kaiwhakahaere. What I would like to do in this call is just to clarify a couple of points that have been made, particularly by Rino Tirikatene first of all—e whanauka—and around the interpretation of tangata whenua. I am actually looking at the submission from the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board, and for a number of points that have been brought up here, within the bill itself, this is what the Kaikokirikiri Trust wanted. This was their aspiration. This is what they wanted. So when we look at the interpretation around tangata whenua of Wairarapa, and looking at the original part of this—there was also a comment by Peeni Henare, particularly around that relationship and how it was actually implemented and how they saw it actually happening within this bill. Well, the first thing was that they wanted to have more of a robust kind of process where they could actually determine themselves the make-up of what the board was going to be, and then also, within that make-up of the board, it was going to be more collaborative, particularly around those who actually whakapapa to the Wairarapa, and then also bringing in Rangitāne as well.

The other part of it, though, is that it was around having a fairer distribution of the funds as well, because it was quite wide and there were a lot of people, they believed, who actually did not understand the whole structure of who the people were who actually qualify to be able to apply for those funds for scholarships. So the other part was actually facilitating the long-term development, particularly around their lands. That was an important part as well.

But I want to come back to the actual interpretation of tangata whenua and actually just quote from what the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board actually said in its submission. Basically, it was quoting the Act of 1943. Section 12(4)(a) refers to scholarship provisions for children of British subjects, children of islands in the Pacific Ocean but with preference to children of the Ngāti Kahungunu tribe then other Māori or descendants of Māori from the East Coast of the North Island of New Zealand, then Māori or descendants of Māori of any part of New Zealand. So you can see that, originally, that was very, very wide.

One of the important parts of this bill that they actually did want to change was that the board believe that Māori who do not whakapapa to Wairarapa should not gain any benefits from income derived from the Wairarapa lands. That was a really important part of distinguishing between the really wide scope that the original Act had and pulling it back so that they could actually identify, particularly around the Wairarapa lands and the money that was coming from that, those recipients of those scholarships who actually came from the Wairarapa.

The other part, in regard to Wairarapa iwi, the 1943 Act refers to the preference—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I am sorry to interrupt the member—it is tragic. However, the time has come for me to leave the Chamber. The Committee will resume again at 7.30 p.m.

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

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I will be talking to clause 4 of the bill in terms of the repeal of the definitions of “Church of England” and “financial year”. By way of explanation, I should say that I am not a member of the Anglican Church, although I was born into the faith.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Both sides are happy about that, are they?

PITA PARAONE: Ha, ha! The only one I am concerned about who should be happy is the Almighty.

Back to the clause. Obviously, the Church of England has had some changes in its make-up. As I understand it, it has four bishops: one Bishop of Te Tai Tokerau, and Bishop Kito Pīkaahu holds that position; then we have the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, and I understand his name is Bishop Walters; and the church has recently, as I understand it, made an appointment for the Bishop of Te Waipounamu, and his name is Bishop Wallace. This clause actually identifies which bishop will be responsible and who will sit on this trust board.

The financial year, as the bill articulates, is a period of 12 months, but it does not say what day it begins or what day it ends. It just says that it is for a 12-month period. Perhaps there should be some identification of what that period should be.

In terms of “tangata whenua of Wairarapa”, we all know that that is part of the confederation of Ngāti Kahungunu, and those of us who know our history know that Kahungunu came from the north. In the absence of the naming of the “tīpuna rangatira”, one could easily assume, then, that we are referring to Kahungunu himself. That is just an assumption. I am not saying that that is the case. But if that assumption is correct, then that opens up the entitlement to be a beneficiary to a lot of my relatives from the north, including myself. I would not for one moment presume that I should be entitled to the benefits of that trust, but it does beg the question in the absence of the name not being articulated in the clause. I just want to make that point.

The other thing is that the fact that the trust has decided to identify its beneficiaries in this way, I think, indicates the benevolence of the trustees themselves. That is why I think they have put it in the way that they have asked for in the bill. Kia ora.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 Section 14 replaced (Powers of Board to sell or lease lands)

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I think it would be remiss of me to not take a call on this particular clause, because it does carry the issue regarding what the board can do in terms of the selling and leasing of land. Given that this probably forms a major part of the assets of this trust, I think it is only fair that we should be quite clear just what those lands are. It talks about “the Clareville land, the Papawai land, and the Kaikokirikiri land”. It says the board may sell the land in terms of Clareville, but not the Papawai or Kaikōkirikiri land, and if it is to sell it, it has to be “by public auction or by private contract, and on the terms and conditions that the Board thinks fit, with power to buy in or rescind or vary any contract of sale.”

I think the trustees themselves are very clear as to their responsibilities in regard to land retention, but, obviously, they think that the Clareville piece of property ought to be offloaded, for want of a better word, and it will be very interesting to see what they do with the proceeds as to whether they invest in further land or just use it to benefit their beneficiaries.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill

Second Reading

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move, That the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill be now read a second time. Two months ago I met Mr Robert O’Connor. Robert had driven over 2 hours on a Tuesday afternoon to tell me his story and lend his support for this bill. Robert was a type 1 diabetic, diagnosed at 6 months, and I say “was” deliberately because in March this year Robert received a life-changing call at 2 o’clock in the morning. There had been an awful, fatal motor vehicle accident. The victim, fortunately, was an organ donor, and the donor was a match, and that match was destined for Robert. What is remarkable about Robert is that the bill we are debating tonight will not even directly affect him at all; his kidney came from a deceased donor. His donor will never be compensated for the sacrifice that they made, yet he shares a trait with a lot of other organ donation campaigners, which is a passion for and a commitment to helping others, and a commitment to saving lives that goes beyond self-interest.

This is a trait shared by previous sponsors of this bill, and I would like to acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse and also one of our former colleagues Dr Cam Calder for keeping this important piece of legislation in the members’ ballot. I am very grateful for this opportunity to take up this important cause and bring this bill to the House. Also, I would like to acknowledge at this second reading debate the work of the Health Committee under the chair, Simon O’Connor. The bill spent about a year at the Health Committee. It did an enormous amount of work on the bill, and I would like to thank the committee members for their work and also the officials who have enabled us to bring this bill back into the House in a substantially improved way.

Also I want to say thank you to my colleague Scott Simpson who swapped out of the Finance and Expenditure Committee with me on a week-by-week basis to allow me to spend a bit of time on the Health Committee and hear from the submitters. I acknowledge the many submitters and the health professionals, advocates, and organ donation experts whom I have met over the past year. They are very strong advocates for improving our organ donation rates and I hope that this bill, along with the Government’s review of the deceased organ donor regime, will bring the increase in organ donation rates that we all want to see. As I just mentioned before, this bill comes back to the Parliament in a greatly improved form, and I just want to run through for the House the major changes recommended by the committee, which I support and the Government supports.

The essential purpose of the bill remains unchanged. It is to remove a financial deterrent to the donation of organs by live donors. At select committee we heard many stories of the financial hardship that live organ donors currently have to endure to help another member of society. I was moved by these stories, as I know other members were too, and I am pleased that we have unanimously agreed that a change to the status quo is required. In its original form the bill set compensation for lost earnings at 80 percent of forgone income, which is the formula applied under ACC. We received many submissions arguing that compensation should instead be set at 100 percent of lost income. The committee has agreed with these submissions and recommended that the new bill adopt the principle of cost neutrality for live organ donors.

What that means is that live organ donors should be neither financially disadvantaged nor financially advantaged from donating, and the committee has recommended we adopt the position of cost neutrality, which is the position in the United Kingdom. The analogy with ACC is inappropriate for a number of reasons. Organ donors are healthy before they donate and are only temporarily unable to work while they recuperate. There is also no real necessity to maintain that gap between levels of assistance and income from employment to incentivise return to work.

The second change recommended by the Health Committee that I want to highlight for the House concerns which entity is responsible for administering this legislation. The committee heard a lot of evidence about the difficulties live organ donor claimants had when obtaining financial support through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) through Work and Income. This is totally understandable and I make no criticism of Work and Income staff in this regard. There are very few claims for live organ donor assistance through MSD currently, so it is totally understandable that front-line staff would be—actually, in some cases we heard—even unaware that there is provision in the current law for live organ donor assistance. The committee has recommended that responsibility be transferred from the Ministry of Social Development through to the Director-General of Health, and I think that is an appropriate change.

Thirdly, in terms of other changes, the committee has recommended to allow for new entitlements to be backdated for eligible donors to the date that the bill receives the Royal assent. This is an important change that will mitigate the risk that people intending to donate would defer the procedure until they become eligible. So that is a very important change. It also enables the Director-General of Health to pay income compensation to a donor before surgery in limited circumstances.

A fourth change is the provision to futureproof the bill to allow, by Order in Council, a regulation declaring a type of human organ to be a qualifying organ for compensation. Although kidney and liver transplants are the only type of live organ donor transplants carried out in New Zealand, other types of potentially suitable live donor transplants are medically possible and are carried out in other countries, including small bowel, pancreas, and lobar lung transplants. So the recommendation of the committee is that we futureproof the bill to allow, by Order in Council by way of the Minister, those other organs into the regime in the future if so desired.

In the fifth change the committee has recommended amending the title of the bill to “Compensation for Live Organ Donors” to reflect the focus on providing donors with compensation for lost income rather than merely providing financial assistance, and this follows in line with the recommendation of the committee that we adopt a cost-neutrality approach and a focus on compensation for forgone income rather than just mere assistance.

I do want to mention the objections raised on the bill in its original form by the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Upon the bill being introduced, the Attorney-General adverted to the House the fact that the bill disadvantaged individuals who receive a benefit and also earn income from working. This was because the bill in its original form compensated organ donors for lost work income only if they were not receiving a benefit. The argument from the Attorney-General was that the bill was, therefore, inconsistent with section 19(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which, of course, prevents discrimination against individuals.

The proposed amendments to the bill, I believe, deal with this issue raised by the Attorney-General. It is actually, I would say, a classic example of the section 7 report working in exactly the way it is intended, which is that the Attorney-General notifies Parliament that the legal advice is the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It goes to a committee, and then the error is tidied up and we can now move forward in a rights-consistent way. The amendments to the bill will mean that donors will receive reimbursement for 100 percent of forgone employment income regardless of whether or not they are a beneficiary, so there is no discrimination.

Let me conclude by returning to where I started, which is about the motivation for this bill. New Zealand has a low organ donation rate with a large waiting list, as members will be aware. There are more than 700 people currently accepted for a kidney transplant and around 40 people for liver, cardiac, or lung transplants. The facts are that organ transplants save taxpayers’ money. Evidence put before the Health Committee from the New Zealand Initiative and Dr Elizabeth Prasad suggested that every kidney transplant saves the Government—saves taxpayers—over $120,000.

We need to do all we can as a society to encourage live organ donors. Donors substantially improve the lives of those they donate to. They also save, as I said, taxpayers’ money. It is simply inequitable to, effectively, punish these national heroes as we do now. It is a sign of a caring and compassionate society that we recognise sacrifice and support each other. This bill does both, and I, therefore, commend it to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana and thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I do want to acknowledge the member for bringing the bill to the House and for its judicious passage through the various stages. I do also need to acknowledge the hard work of the Health Committee. We often remark that our select committees work very hard and, in this case, I have to say it was very, very true. It took months of extraordinary work to bring some clarity to this particular piece of legislation. I also want to note that the officials and the advice that was sent to the committee were very useful in getting the legislation to the stage that we are at now.

But, first, before I launch into what is going to be a fairly technical contribution to this piece of legislation, I want to just add a little celebratory note and welcome Charlie Douglas Hipkins into the world—the baby boy of our senior whip, Chris Hipkins, and his partner, Jade.

Hon Ruth Dyson: The baby boy of our baby boy.

POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, the baby boy of our baby boy, as the Hon Ruth Dyson has said. So, welcome Charlie Douglas Hipkins. I just want to quote from the commentary from the select committee about the proposed amendments. I think it is a little bit of an understatement in that we said: “We recommend substantial changes to the bill to provide cost neutrality for donors. It became clear through the submission process that there were additional complexities in the organ donation regime. This has led us to recommend significant changes to the bill.” Here are some of them that we recommended.

Firstly, I do want to note that the Attorney-General did raise some concerns with regard to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and, as our previous speaker and the sponsor of the bill, Chris Bishop, has already noted, it is really around the ability for beneficiaries who may have income to actually be entitled to compensation should they become organ donors. Some of the examples that were quoted were people who may be working part-time and receiving New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension, as they are able to do. In the bill that came to the select committee they would not have been eligible for financial support so, at the Attorney-General’s request, the select committee made the due amendments to the bill so that those donors could actually receive reimbursement for 100 percent of their forgone employment income.

We also suggested and got some very good advice on who should actually be responsible for the bill—whether it should sit with the Ministry of Social Development, which, as we all know, is responsible for ensuring that our citizens have adequate income. Given the technical nature of the donations—there are often some mitigating factors around what will happen with recovery times and what complications may come up during surgeries, for example—it was felt that it was more appropriate that the Director-General of Health manage this, so the committee made the suggestion, and it was taken up, that the responsibility move to the Ministry of Health.

The select committee, in its report back, clarified several things. The organs that qualify to be part of this piece of legislation—currently we conduct kidney and liver transplants in New Zealand, but we are able to offer a range of other transplants. We currently are not doing them, but it was felt that we needed to ensure that the ability to provide for those organ transplants later on should be provided for, and that is through regulation, I believe, in this legislation.

We have included a new clause 9, which defines what a qualifying donor actually is, and that is very important. A donor has to be someone who donates to a person who is able to receive a publicly funded health service in New Zealand. It also needs to be for someone who is going to undertake their transplant surgery in New Zealand. Clause 4 defines what surgery is, and ensures that this relates to this surgery to collect an organ for donation, and then to transplant it into a recipient.

Clause 10 looks at extending the period of entitlement to earnings compensation by up to 12 weeks post-surgery. We are all human and we recover at different rates, and sometimes we need a little extra time to ensure that we can recover well before we are required to go back to work, so we looked at extending the entitlement to 12 weeks. Clause 12 provides for compensation for donors should they need time prior to the surgery to do things like assessments and tests, to judge eligibility, for example, so there is provision to be compensated for loss of earnings in that period of time. Clause 13 sets out the discretions in terms of being able to provide compensation for some other additional items, should it become necessary, on a case by case basis, and it sets out the payment deadline of no more than 30 days after payment is due.

The biggest part, I guess, was also looking at the structure of earnings compensation and looking at the definition of earnings. We looked to a model that is already working for us, and that is the definition of earnings as we see it in the ACC legislation. That was due to the complexity that we have around calculating income, especially when we are looking at people who may be donating, if they are self-employed. The definitions within the Accident Compensation Act give some very good definitions about how we can deal with that complexity.

We also looked at how we might provide for donors who might have some foreign-sourced income, and for that we looked to the provisions of the Income Tax Act—specifically section YD 4 of that Act—and used the definitions in section YA 1 of the Income Tax Act with regard to foreign-sourced income.

We have ensured that the rate of compensation and the payment schedules are included in new clause 11, and have based payment on being weekly, fortnightly, or monthly, as determined by the director-general. Clauses 13 to 17 deal with such matters as calculating income that comes from a range of sources and also from foreign-sourced income. The role of the director-general with regard to decision making, resolving disputes, and reviewing decisions is dealt with in clauses 17, 18, and 20. The recovery of payments, which is an important factor if there are any potential overpayments, is dealt with in clause 27, and clauses 21 to 25 deal with the disputes.

In the time I have remaining—there are far more technical aspects to this piece of legislation, but I just want to make one final note and one final comment. This is, I guess, by way of dedication to a friend of mine, Catherine Mary Jacobs, who for many years was on the list for kidney donation and, sadly, was not able to receive a kidney donation. We talked often about what that might look like for her in her life, should she be lucky enough to have somebody donate to her. She was unable to get a donation at that time—we were pretty much reliant on people passing on and providing donations from that source. She had had a couple of people who had indicated that they were keen to donate their kidneys to her, but, of course, at that stage it was financially impossible for them to do so. So I dedicate this reading to my friend Catherine Mary Jacobs. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased, like others—the two members before, and those to come—to take a call on the second reading of the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. Seeing as it is new news to me, I think I might add my voice to that of Poto Williams in congratulating Chris Hipkins and his partner on the birth of—did I hear right, Charlie Douglas Hipkins?

Poto Williams: That’s right.

SIMON O’CONNOR: That is fantastic—very exciting news for Chris, for his partner, for his wider family, and, I think, in some ways, for this Parliament; so that is really neat. If I was to try to tie the theme in, very quickly, this is about life, and, ultimately, this bill in the name of Chris Bishop is a really positive step forward, particularly in the area of live organ donation. It is always very exciting for a member of Parliament to have a bill drawn out of the ballot. It is a relatively rare occurrence—I have certainly heard a number of speeches in this House from those who have been here for many, many, many years that they have never had one—so I think it is very exciting for Chris that he has had this opportunity, importantly, to guide it through the Health Committee. I want to thank Chris for his leadership in this place, and also for his forbearance, as the bill has gone through quite a number of iterations to bring it to where it is today.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: An hour and half—get on with the bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Ha, ha! It is always a bit of a worry when you get heckled by your own side. The purpose of the bill is, ultimately, to provide some compensation. What Chris has done in this bill is brought the concept and the idea forward—and over the last few months the committee has worked through all the necessary detail to bring this to fruition. Like Chris himself, I want to thank, particularly, the officials, who have worked on this bill—

Kris Faafoi: Mr Bishop.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —they worked incredibly hard. To be very clear, it is to Chris Bishop, not Chris Finlayson—although he put out a very excellent section 7 report that the select committee took a long time to ponder. As soon as there is any suggestion—any suggestion—that we are offending the Bill of Rights Act, we are in there. In fact, I think it should be a relief to the Minister and to this Parliament that we have addressed this concern under section 7, which is, ultimately, that there could be potential discrimination of beneficiaries, although it is on the basis of employment. The long and the short of it is that this bill makes sure that it does not matter whether you are in paid employment or not, or, importantly, whether you are in a mixture of paid employment and receiving a State benefit of any nature. You will not be at a financial loss.

What, I think, I am just trying to get out in the first instance is the enormous amount of hard work that has gone in to take a really good and important idea and turn it into a very good piece of legislation. So, once again, as with the committee stage, I want to thank the officials for their work in the select committee and so on. There are a number of changes that the committee recommended. The most fundamental is that we have moved to 100 percent recompense. The bill, when it first came, was at 80 percent, and it was really thought that 100 percent was the way to go. In some ways it just makes life a lot easier actually. You do not have to be doing various calculations at 100 percent.

And it is not capped. We had a little bit of debate over whether we should try to cap this, and there was that sort of conceptual question of if someone was earning millions of dollars a year, whether they should be reimbursed. The committee gave this a lot of thought, and we answered “yes” to that question, for two reasons. First and foremost, this is an altruistic act to give part or all of one’s organ—and that should be acknowledged and recognised. The second part is that, actually, our live organ donation rates are incredibly low, and, although that it is unfortunate, it also provides a particular financial context that made the committee fairly relaxed around what any complications around that might be.

Because of the 100 percent recompense we also went into the question of whether it is just for New Zealanders—or is it also for people who could be coming over here. So we have looked at the international side of things as a committee—more of that is in the report for those who want to read it—but we had to tease out elements like that.

We also spent quite a bit of time trying to work out which Government agency was best placed to manage this bill. I think it was quite clear from the member who sponsored the bill that this was best held within the Ministry of Health rather than the Ministry of Social Development. There was a lot of discussion around that, and the decision was made, with the committee, that we would put this under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. Again, this was for two reasons: one, this is really seen as a step—not the step, but a step—to try to increase organ donations in New Zealand, or the openness to it; the second is, simply, how best to manage it.

As someone who has worked within the Ministry of Social Development and Work and Income, it is not all that usual to have someone come in and start asking for financial recompense for the donation of an organ. Even though those on the front line of Work and Income have an amazing system called “MAP”—an acronym for Manuals and Procedures—it is so unusual that, actually, the response that could be given by someone on the front line to this request may not always be as responsive as it could be. So it was felt that this was better managed within the Ministry of Health, and would engender a slightly different dynamic for those making the approach. It seemed, by and large, if you are donating an organ—in this case probably a kidney or part of a liver—that you are going to be thinking in terms of health, first and foremost, rather than financial assistance and hence going to Work and Income. So we put this within the Ministry of Health.

There are a variety of procedures in place, too, for review. We have tried to make this as easy as possible. Other speakers have talked about the principle of cost neutrality. Again, that is trying to make it as easy or unburdened a process as possible for those who are wishing to donate. So cost neutrality is a principle there. Importantly too, it is not just about recompense for the time that you are, effectively, in surgery, but also for preparation. I think we understand very clearly as a committee, the choice to actually donate an organ means there is going to be preparatory work, be that something as simple as having to travel to the particular surgical centre or hospital, but also understanding that for some people that could be, in fact, days or weeks. So, again, we are just trying to make it as flexible and easy as possible.

I think it is quite important, even though people can wade through the report and what are a lot more pages of proposed legislation, that the underlying hope, over and above cost neutrality, is a relative simplicity: the understanding that if you, as a Kiwi, choose to donate an organ while still alive, that this should now be a relatively simple procedure in terms of getting financial recompense. That said—I keep talking about financial assistance or financial recompense. Actually, it was a fairly important change in the bill—symbolic, if you will—that we are proposing the name be changed. We are wishing it now to be called the “Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill”. Again, like anything in the Health Committee, it is well batted around, not in any sense of an argument, but more that we tried to tease out the ideas. Ultimately, it is a compensation—

Jacqui Dean: Almost the best committee.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I would actually go and say that it is the best committee, but I know that could be controversial to the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. We thought, actually, that “Compensation” better reflected what we are trying to do. This is not just a form of financial assistance—or a partial form—this is an attempt at compensation, and we are hoping that society at large will understand that.

We are trying to futureproof—Chris Bishop, in his contribution, expressed how there will be the Royal assent and when commencement starts. But it is important that we want New Zealanders, in particular, to understand that they will not and should not be disadvantaged once this bill is passed, and once actual funding comes online from donating. So I think that is important.

The other matter I wanted to draw the House’s attention to is around ACC. There was some concern raised in the committee that someone on ACC would, effectively, lose their entitlement and that they would have to be retested for their condition—whatever they are on ACC for—if they went off to donate an organ and they were beginning to receive compensation through this legislation. Through some creative and clever thinking, we now have a situation where someone who is on ACC will actually have their entitlement reduced to zero dollars—so there will be no double-dipping—but they will not actually leave the ACC scheme. Their entitlements will continue. This means that once they have recovered post-surgery from donating an organ or part of an organ, they will actually be able to just continue back on to ACC, without having to go and be retested for their eligibility. I think that was a very prudent and pragmatic step.

Finally—because I am conscious of time, primarily because of these new fandangle things hanging off the ceiling—

Jacqui Dean: They’re called “timers”.

SIMON O’CONNOR: They are called “timers”—yeah, a great word for them. There is a lot more work to be done. In fact, I just had a constituent—also called Simon—in my office yesterday talking very passionately and keenly around the importance of the wider donation approach, obviously not in the live area, but from deceased. So, about how we can begin to look at the Israeli model, how we look at a sort of opt-out system rather than opt-in. There is a lot more to be done, but again I just want to thank the member for bringing this to the House and I look forward to it moving through its stages swiftly.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Firstly, nau mai ki tēnei ao [welcome to this world], Charlie Douglas Hipkins, so tau kē [cool], and congratulations, Chris and Jade, on the addition to your whānau. It is a very special moment.

Can I say that I think this bill actually epitomises what is good about Parliament. You bring a good kaupapa to this House, and the way that we can work together actually produces something that is incredibly good, and it is going to benefit so many people. So congratulations Chris Bishop. You are going to have a bill go through this House in your first term, which is something you should be incredibly satisfied with.

I think that we should start at the beginning, and—believe it or not, everybody—I have got a little research paper. The beginning was 1964 when we, as a Parliament, passed the Human Tissue Act. There has been progress between that particular piece of legislation and what we have today. So I am going to take us on a little bit of a trip, because I think, along the way, we need to acknowledge some pioneers.

In 1989 we allowed the establishment of a database of potential organ and tissue donors, through the Land Transport Act, and it was at that point that we really focused on increasing the availability of donors and focused on deceased donors. How relevant is it? Well, we need 550 donors every year. Of those, 450 are kidney donations. We also need donations of livers, hearts, lungs, and for pancreas.

Then, in 2002, a guy called Andrew Tookey sent a petition to the Health Committee, requesting that Parliament address the shortage in donors. So we have known for quite a while that we have some issues. In 2004 the Government agreed, and in 2005 we actually created Organ Donation New Zealand.

In 2006—and I think it is good that we acknowledge those champions—MP Dr Jackie Blue introduced a member’s bill called the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill. What was behind her bill—and this is really interesting—was that she wanted to make it legally binding on people who wanted to donate and were part of this organ donor register, because what was happening was their parents or their family members would change their minds, and that person’s wishes were not actually followed through. That was the intention of Jackie’s bill. The Government actually picked it up and it went through the select committee process, and then, unfortunately, there was huge objection to it, so in 2007 it did not pass its second reading in the House.

Then we had the 2008 Human Tissue Act, which was to facilitate the establishment of a donor register, or empower the Government to establish a donor register. Then, in 2009, the Auckland Renal Transplant Group established a national kidney-paired exchange scheme. I know a woman called Kim Hassan, whom I played rugby with. She was part of a matching set—her mother needed a kidney. She went through this process with her mother, she donated to somebody else, and then somebody donated to her mother. I have seen her at different events, and she is very passionate about this area.

Then, in 2010, Michael Wood put in a member’s bill called the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors—

Hon Members: Woodhouse.

LOUISA WALL: Sorry, Michael Woodhouse—the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill, and then, I think, Chris Bishop was incredibly thoughtful in selecting this bill. I am going to credit you with that, Chris Bishop.

This is an amazing bill; it really is, because what it will enable is for people who want to donate to be able to do so. It is incredibly relevant to Māori, and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that we are the group that is most affected, because of our high rates of diabetes. We suffer from type 2 diabetes—we are three times more likely to get it. November is Diabetes Action Month, so I have put my hand up—I think Sam Lotu-Iiga on the other side, Jacinda Ardern, and I think there might be some others in the House, but there is a Diabetes NZ Fitbit Movement Challenge and it is all about creating awareness around diabetes. I have become aware—

Hon Simon Bridges: That Kris Faafoi’s a “Fitbit”.

LOUISA WALL: Oh, I am sure you would like to join. The relevance of this piece of legislation to Māori communities I really must highlight, because we are the ones who are queuing up to get the kidney donations. So if this is going to motivate people who really want to donate but because of—usually—financial constraints cannot, then I think that this bill will save lives and actually mean that families can stay together.

I want to look at the change in name because it is actually really important. When you look at the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill it is actually about the Government helping to give somebody something because they are in need. But when you look at the concept of compensation—and I like looking at definitions—the act of compensating is making up for somebody’s loss, damage, or injury because they are giving something to somebody else. So we are recognising that philanthropic act and valuing that philanthropic act.

For people who choose to donate an organ, it is quite a process. It is a process to go through in terms of finding out whether you are a match, and then actually having an operation must be pretty scary, and then recovering from that operation. So I think this is a really good piece of legislation. I am really proud of us for passing this legislation, for working together to make sure that we can meet that demand—550 people needing organ donations is a heck of a lot, and, actually, that is also why we need to focus on these diabetes challenges and Fitbit challenges, because we want that number to reduce. We do not want it to keep getting larger and larger. We want to make sure that fewer and fewer people need organ donations because they are living happy, healthy, well lives.

So I think that is the other part of promoting this opportunity that families and people now have out there, because by creating, I guess, the mechanism, now, for people to put their hands up and say “Yep, I’ll donate. I’ll go on a register. I’ll help be part of a matching pair.”, what we are also saying is that we all need to take better care of ourselves. We have to create an environment where doing—I think the winner of last year’s Diabetes Action Month Fitbit challenge walked 156,000 steps in a week. That is crazy, because that is almost 20 kilometres a day, but if we can get people walking 20 minutes a day or 30 minutes a day and actually looking at portion sizes and being a bit healthier, then the overall goal is to reduce the demand.

I, like Poto, do want to mention somebody. I am seeing Georgina Beyer tomorrow. I am fortunate that Georgina has been in my life for a long time. When she was in Parliament and I was not in Parliament, she was—she is—an absolute icon for our LGBTI and rainbow community. She is a champion and a pioneer who has shared so much of her life with the country, and, in fact, she is still doing that. She is one of the people who suffer from chronic kidney failure, and in an ideal world she would have got a transplant in 2013. That ability to be matched took a while, and, in fact, she is in a position now where she cannot have the transplant because her heart is not up to it.

This piece of legislation, hopefully, is going to enable people who really need our help, people who are part of families, to get the support that they need. So, to Chris Bishop, the Health Committee, and this Parliament: this is a piece of legislation that we should celebrate to its fullest, because it is going to save lives. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to be speaking on this bill, and I would like to commend the people who have been instrumental in getting this member’s bill to the stage where it got in the ballot and it came to the House. Chris Bishop is currently the owner of this bill, but I would also like to—as others have said—commend Michael Woodhouse, who started this process, and Cam Calder, who was a previous member of Parliament prior to my time. Everyone who has been associated with this bill—it is a great idea, and it has been great being on the Health Committee to be supporting it.

As someone said before, when you look at the statistics, there are 550 people who are out there waiting for organ donations; 450 of those are kidneys, and we just do not have enough donors. Unfortunately, the other 100 are around heart, lungs, and liver. There is potential around pieces of liver, but we have only one heart, and, unfortunately, that is a different make up in terms of people having to go through the death process to be able to donate.

New Zealanders are very altruistic, and it is really interesting for me that 48 percent of New Zealanders put on their driver licences that they are prepared to donate. But, unfortunately—and we had a bit of a history lesson before about Jackie Blue trying to get some legislation passed around the wishes of those donors being upheld, because family members, for whatever reason, find that pretty hard when it comes to the time of death and sometimes change their minds about letting their family’s organs be donated.

Also, the other thing is that we have our Minister of Transport in the House tonight, and he is making every effort to make our roads safer. We are cutting down on the number of accidents, and so it is commendable that we are now able to being a piece of legislation that says people can donate while they are still alive.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and I, too, like others in this room, have really enjoyed being part of the Health Committee. We are a great committee and we do work really well together. There was a lot of support for this piece of legislation. It seemed like it was something that was going to be pretty simple. I would like to thank Chris Bishop for his patience, because, sometimes, what seems simple actually takes a lot more time than it first appears. It was a matter of going through the process and seeing what other pieces of legislation might be affected by this, and all the “what if” questions.

Really, it is all about removing the financial barriers. It is not about paying people for their organs. It is about removing the financial constraints that can get in their way. There are a lot of people who would probably dearly love to give a kidney to a parent, a sister, or an auntie, or even give it to someone who is completely unrelated, but, unfortunately, due to their financial circumstances, they are not able to do so. This bill is not a silver bullet, but it is a small and significant change to how we encourage organ donation in New Zealand.

We did spend quite a bit of time talking about the level of income. We talked about the 80 percent, which was recommended in the bill as introduced. But we felt that, if someone was making an effort to do this, unless we had it at 100 percent they were really going to end up being out of pocket. It was going to limit the number of people who would come forward, because 20 percent of your income is still 20 percent of your income, and this is really quite a brave thing to do. The United Kingdom, where we looked, has a core policy of cost neutrality and that was the idea of donating—that it should be neither a financial advantage nor a financial disadvantage, so the idea of 100 percent went down well.

The responsibility of the bill—we have now moved the responsibility for administering the legislation from the Ministry of Social Development to the director-general at the Ministry of Health because that was a more appropriate place to put it. It is a piece of health legislation, and so it was really critical that we had it in the right place. We have also recommended futureproofing the bill to allow, by Order in Council, a regulation declaring the type of human organ that will be a qualifying organ. Who knows, as we make scientific and health breakthroughs, what other organs may fall into the category and may be able to be donated, into the future. Although at the moment kidney and liver transplants are the only types of live donor organ transplants that are carried out in New Zealand, we do not know what the future is going to hold. But we do know how long legislation takes sometimes, and we do know that when we try to change things it is not that simple, so it was best that we did it in this other way so that if other possibilities come up we can certainly be in a place to have an opportunity to change that.

The eligibility—we recommended defining a “qualifying donor” as a person who will lawfully donate an organ to a person undergoing transplant surgery in New Zealand, and will forgo earnings while recuperating. The other thing we thought it was really prudent to do was we recommended that any new entitlements be backdated to the date that the bill receives the Royal assent, otherwise there might be a risk that people who are intending to donate organs would defer the procedure until they became eligible. It could both delay urgent transplants and complicate the management of the elective surgery by health boards.

We also are looking to change the title of the bill. We are recommending that rather than use the word “financial”, we are talking about “compensation” for live organ donors. That reflects on the fact that it is compensation; it is actually not a financial payment. It is actually compensation for income that they are going to lose on the way.

There has been extensive consultation. The bill has been before the Health Committee for 12 months and it has undergone significant review. The Health Committee received 110 written submissions, four supplementary written submissions, and 14 oral submissions on the bill. All submissions broadly supported the bill’s central objective of removing barriers to organ donation. It is just one of those things that we would probably call a no-brainer. We have to do it. Most of the conversations and most of the details were around just exactly getting the detail right. No submissions were opposed to improving the level of financial support to live organ donors.

I would like to just make a comment now. Louisa Wall raised the November challenge of the Diabetes Action Month and the Diabetes NZ Fitbit Movement Challenge. As a Health Committee, along with Farmstrong, we spent a day in the gym. We followed one another and we kept the pushbike going, down in the gym, from 2 o’clock to 10 o’clock. I think the Health Committee is a great committee. It was a wonderful way to lead the way. I currently have a Fitbit on, and I can challenge myself, but never as well as other people can lead me to a challenge.

Jacqui Dean: 15,000!

BARBARA KURIGER: You can count me in. I am really prepared. Perhaps it is a challenge, Jacqui. We challenged the whole Health Committee, and we would like to challenge other members of Parliament to join us in this because as a Health Committee it is always important that we lead the way on health issues.

Kris Faafoi: Target Primary Production—another worrisome group!

BARBARA KURIGER: We will be producing lots of energy as we use up our Fitbits, I can promise you that. This bill deals with some of the issues around live organ donation, which still only makes up a very small percentage of organs donated. More work does need to be done for measures to increase deceased organ donation. The Government is looking at options for increasing that as well. It has been a real pleasure to take a call. I congratulate you, Chris, again on having your bill drawn from the ballot. We look forward to seeing this bill through to fruition. Thank you.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill, the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. I have to start by congratulating Chris Bishop, my colleague, and his colleagues who went before him, on introducing this bill to the members’ ballot. I think it is a fantastic contribution to the legislation of Aotearoa, through the members’ bill process. It is so rare that we get these great contributions from Government members in the members’ ballot. It is great to have a bill come through that is supported by all parties in the House, that is a good use of time, and that will make a real difference to the New Zealanders out there who are awaiting an organ and to those who might be considering donating.

I was not the Green Party member on the Health Committee while this bill was being heard by it. I took up the health portfolio in just the last few weeks. My colleague Kevin Hague did follow this process, and I know he was extremely supportive of the bill from its first reading and during the select committee process, and so I checked with him before giving my speech tonight, to ask what went on in the select committee.

Chris Bishop: How long are you going to do that for?

JULIE ANNE GENTER: Just for as long as we have bills coming up that I was not on the select committee for. I think it is fair enough, but I checked with my colleague who did sit through the submissions. I did go back and look at the notes and the submissions. My colleague Kevin Hague, who is extremely experienced in the health sector, having been the CEO of a district health board and the head of the AIDS Foundation before that—many years in the health sector—had nothing but positive things to say about the entire select committee process. That does not surprise me because in the short time that I have been a member of the Health Committee I have found all of the members to be extremely constructive and very collegial. It is a very collegial environment. It is a fantastic experience in Parliament to be on a select committee where everybody is so collegial and open-minded and looking to get the best possible outcome for New Zealanders. I do think that the people of New Zealand would like to see more of that behaviour from all of us in Parliament, and I wish that they could see what happened in the case of this bill. There was a whole number of changes recommended by the select committee that improved what was already quite a good bill.

Many of the members in the debate tonight have already gone through the detail of the bill and some of the changes that were made. I will just go through a couple of the ones that stood out for me. Obviously, the bill is looking to reduce the financial barriers to organ donation, which is a very laudable goal. I have heard members comment in the debate tonight that New Zealand has a very low rate of organ donation. My understanding is not so much that we have a low rate of organ donation, particularly from deceased organ donors, but that there is simply a very long list that far outstrips the number of donors that occur. We would not want there to be an increase in the number of deceased organ donors, because we are looking, as Barbara mentioned earlier, to try to reduce the road toll.

Hon Simon Bridges: Don’t use her first name.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: I was not sure how to pronounce her surname.

Hon Simon Bridges: Come on.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: Is it Kruger? Kuriger? It was Kuriger. OK, got it, Barbara Kuriger. We are looking to reduce the road toll, so as a consequence of that we will need an increase potentially in live donors.

There were 53 deceased organ donors in 2015, which was the largest number ever in New Zealand and a 15 percent increase on the previous year. It was a 47 percent increase from the 36 donors in 2013, so that is a good trend. The 53 deceased organ donors donated organs—heart, lungs, liver, kidney, and pancreas—to 158 transplant recipients in 2015. So that was again a 14 percent increase from the 138 recipients in 2014. Last year there were also 78 live donors who donated a kidney or part of a liver to 78 recipients. So although there were fewer deceased organ donors than live organ donors, the deceased organ donors obviously make a greater contribution to those needing live organs because live organ donors cannot donate as many organs. So, overall, the trend has been good but there is much more that needs to be done, and this bill is a step in the right direction.

Hon Simon Bridges: What should we do?

JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, it is a step in the right direction. Obviously, some of the other members mentioned things were being investigated, such as opt-out policies for deceased organ donors. But in respect of live donors, reducing the financial barrier is a big step to making it possible for more people to take that option of being a live organ donor.

One of the changes that was recommended by the Health Committee, which was interesting, was supporting the principle of cost neutrality for donors. So rather than just looking to provide financial assistance, they will be reimbursed at 100 percent of their income, and that is very much in-line with the type of support—in fact, it exceeds the support—that one might receive from ACC if one is recovering from an injury. I think this is an important step, and it certainly reflects a principle that the Green Party holds dear when it comes to the role of Government—that it is a fundamental role of Government to protect and empower people and to ensure that people’s health is provided for. That is the role of Government, and this bill is reflecting that principle: that there is a role for our Government to support people to do things that are in the public interest, that help their friends, their family, and other people who are living in this country to recover from illnesses that they are suffering from and to be able to make a greater contribution to Aotearoa.

I think that this principle could be applied much more widely in other areas, and that Government can and should be doing more to support people and the best possible health outcomes that we could have here in our Aotearoa. One way that Government could be supporting better health outcomes would be to focus on opportunities provided by prevention. As my colleague Kevin Hague mentioned in his first reading speech on this bill, there will be a growing need for live organ donors, particularly for kidney tissue, because of the alarming increase in the rate of diabetes and prediabetes here in New Zealand. Type 2 diabetes is a preventable chronic disease and it is something that we should be looking to prevent as well as to treat. There are many opportunities for prevention. Barbara Kuriger and Louisa Wall mentioned the Diabetes NZ Fitbit Movement Challenge in November, raising awareness about diabetes, and the opportunities to get more incidental exercise, and to have a more healthy diet.

But, fundamentally, this is not something that can be left to individuals, because it is not just an individual problem; it is a social and environmental problem and it is greatly influenced by decisions that Government makes—for example, in the area of transport. Since the Minister of Transport is here in the Chamber, I thought I might take this opportunity to mention that there is a huge opportunity in transport to achieve public health benefits like reducing diabetes.

Before I entered Parliament I worked as a transportation consultant and I was a lead author on a research report for the New Zealand Transport Agency called Valuing the Health Benefits of Active Transport Modes. What this research report did was it looked at all the different public health research on the costs and benefits of people getting more activity. Eventually it came up with and recommended a number, which was adopted by the New Zealand Transport Agency in the economic evaluation manual, so that it was easier for local authorities and central government authorities to predict what the overall economic benefits would be of investment in projects that facilitate people walking and cycling for short trips.

I am very proud of that research, and the fact that it is being widely used today. I think that it is an example of just how important it is for Government to think outside of the health portfolio when we are thinking about how we are going to deliver optimal health to the people of New Zealand. That is another win-win approach that I would hope could be picked up by this Government and implemented, such as this great bill, which we are very happy to support this evening.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and my colleague Barbara Stewart to take a call in the second reading of the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. Just before I start, I just want to say a thankyou to Louisa Wall for taking us down through the history trip of how bills like this are actually transformed—the pioneers too—into great bills like this. I would like to congratulate Chris Bishop on having his bill pulled out of the biscuit tin and having the honour of watching it go through its passage through this House.

The purpose of this bill is to adequately support those who choose to make selfless choices and life-changing decisions to donate an organ. New Zealand First supports this bill. Organ donation is indeed a selfless act and one that is critical for the health of New Zealanders awaiting organ transplants. There are two types of organ donations: donations from living persons and also from deceased persons. This bill, of course, deals with live donations. The most common organ donated by a living person is a kidney, and parts of the liver and lungs can also be transplanted.

This is a huge issue for us. We have such high rates of kidney disease here in New Zealand. Earlier this year Kidney Health New Zealand reported that there are 300,000 Kiwis with chronic kidney disease, and 90 percent of those will end up progressing to end-stage kidney disease, where they will require either lifelong dialysis or a transplant. They reported that there were 2,678 patients receiving dialysis at a cost of between $30,000 and $60,000 a year. Interestingly enough, one in 10 Kiwis suffers from early-stage kidney disease, and that is seriously concerning. Despite such a high rate of disease we know that, unfortunately, the rate of organ donation in New Zealand is very low. In fact, we are well behind Australia. The Ministry of Health advised the Health Committee that donations from both live and deceased donors are not enough to meet the demand.

Although this bill is not expected to have significant effect on the number of donors, it does provide one way to support those who have made such a life-changing decision, both for the donor and the recipient. Currently, according to Kidney Health New Zealand, more than 600 New Zealanders are waiting for an organ transplant and approximately 450 of those are waiting for a kidney transplant. Clearly, something needs to change to increase the rate of donors in New Zealand.

I would like to share a small story. One of my friends, a very good friend of mine, had decided that she would donate to a young girl. My friend took it so seriously that she had to be on quite a critical diet. She had to watch everything she did, everything she drank, and she had to forgo alcohol—and when you are in your 20s it is not that easy. I was really proud of what my friend achieved—the love for this young lady, for her to donate an organ, made us all as a group aware of what we could be doing.

I also want to talk about the Diabetes NZ Fitbit Movement Challenge that Louisa Wall and others have talked about tonight, and it is in support of type 2 diabetes. Actually, I am a type 2 diabetic, and one day I may need someone to help me and donate to me, which is why I think this bill is so important. That is also why New Zealand First is supporting this bill. It is an issue that can only get worse because we do not have enough donors, and it is timely that we are debating this bill in the House tonight, but we need to do more to lift the rates of organ donation, such as educating our public more and making improvements to the system, too.

There is another little thing that I do want to touch upon. When I was growing up in our Māori family with our elders donating our organs was a no-no. We were always told that for Māori, the way that we are born is the way that we shall leave, so I guess it was entrenched in us that it was tapu to have bits of our body taken away from us, and that is what we have grown up with through the generations. But I can see that educating our Māori whānau that we should not be scared to help someone live and help someone have a better life outcome than if they had not donated is something that I and my generation are trying to talk to our next generation about.

They are wiser now too. They are more open to change. I guess it is not such a taboo, should you consider giving one of your organs away, and I guess we are kind of happy that our grandparents are gone, because if they could hear what I was saying in the House tonight, I would be in so much trouble! So I am glad that times are changing, and that, hopefully, because high numbers of Māori are recipients of organs, they can see it within themselves to understand that this is a really important bill and it is really important to help make a change in someone’s life.

This bill is designed to remove the financial barrier that currently exists for donors, which has been identified as one of the reasons why organ donation rates are so low here in New Zealand. We know that dialysis is expensive, and an increasing number of Kiwis rely on it to survive. Savings to the health system from a 50-year-old patient having a transplant as opposed to staying on dialysis would amount to being more than $120,000, even taking into account the expected life expectancy, which is likely to be twice as long. But we know that it is not all about the money, and the most important thing is to get to those who need organ transplants and to those people who are able to donate, so that the recipients can live a longer and happier life and actually have quite a fulfilling one, too.

New Zealand First is becoming increasingly concerned about what we are seeing as a postcode lottery health system. More and more often health outcomes are dependent on where you live. This bill seeks to address this in a significant way, as financial barriers are removed. We know that currently there are those who would desperately like to donate an organ to a family or a friend but simply cannot afford to take time off work to receive a sickness benefit, which is the current situation. This means that the rich can afford treatment and the poor cannot—an unacceptable situation in New Zealand, I am sure everyone in the House would agree. Many people I have talked to about this are shocked at the current system. They cannot believe that Kiwis who undergo such a life-changing procedure and selfless act for the benefit of others actually end up worse off financially. They agree with us here in the House that there is a drastic need for change, and they are happy that this bill has come through.

The Health Committee has considered this bill in detail. It received 110 submissions. Many submitters shared their personal stories with the select committee, and I hear that some of them were quite harrowing. We heard from submitters that a loss of income was a financial barrier to donation, and some had delayed donating until they had enough money in their savings account to do this. We had many submitters talk to us about the reality involved in being a donor: trips to the hospital, childcare arrangements, the cost of family visits to the hospital, and disruption of family life in general. They also talked about the emotional, physical, and mental cost that they went through, all of which should be compensated adequately for.

We also heard from many patients who are suffering whilst waiting to receive an organ transplant. We heard from Kiwis about what it is like to be on peritoneal dialysis, a treatment for patients with severe, chronic kidney disease. One submitter told us that she had to give up work after being on dialysis as it took such a physical and emotional toll on her. We also heard from those who had received organ donations. They are so appreciative of being able to start a normal life again. The impact on individuals and families of giving people a second chance and getting people back up and running cannot be underestimated.

Submitters were in favour of increasing the compensation rate to donors from 80 percent, as was originally suggested, to 100 percent for the first 12 weeks of recovery. New Zealand First is in support of the level of cost-neutral compensation, like it is in the UK. The idea is that donating organs should not advantage or disadvantage the donor financially. We believe this will ensure that donors do not lose out for making such a huge decision.

In the first reading, my colleague Barbara Stewart raised the point that we do not want to move towards money-based compensation for organ donors. We believe that the compensation figure of 100 percent is fair and it is reasonable. It is also important that altruism remains the motivation for organ donation, not financial compensation. New Zealand First is in favour of the responsibility for the administration of this legislation moving from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to the Ministry of Health. We heard from submitters about the difficulties that donors went through when accessing compensation from MSD. Mainly it was due to the lack of understanding from MSD. It would be important that the Ministry of Health develop a sound system, so that the experience for donors to access compensation is seamless and it is stress-free.

We are pleased that the select committee has removed the need for beneficiaries to submit their working obligations when they have leave to have donor surgeries. It has been decided that donors should receive reimbursement for 100 percent of their income, regardless of beneficiary status. We believe that this clarifies the concern raised by the Attorney-General regarding the Human Rights Act 1993. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the second reading of the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. First, as other members in this House have done, it is in order for us to congratulate Chris Bishop not only for having the luck to have the bill drawn out of the ballot but also for his thoughtful contributions and positive contributions to the consideration of this bill through the select committee. It was Chris Bishop who drove through the various amendments to improve the bill, and I also want to note the willingness of the officials to pick up on the suggestions of the member in charge of this bill. As a result we have a bill that is not only better, improved, and certainly more user-friendly for people who come within the realm of being live organ donors or recipients of live organs but also now certainly enjoys widespread support and the input of this House, and that has been evidenced by the contributions made so far in the reading of this bill.

So that is the thankyous out of the way, but they are important because a member’s bill is a joy and a chance for any member of this House to make a contribution to the legislative programme—and this is one of those bills that certainly does that—and for many members it is something that they can and should be very proud of. So well done, Chris Bishop—one of many contributions that I am sure this member is going to be making to this Parliament.

This bill has enjoyed some very extensive consultation. I think that is right because it is a bill that is wide-ranging in nature, and the impacts of this bill do have impacts on the people who come within its orbit. In terms of a donor or a prospective donor of a live organ, the provisions and the improvements in this bill will certainly, I hope and expect, encourage higher rates of live organ donation, and for those who feel compelled or able or who have the right mix to make a live organ donor, it will ease their experience, as well as having huge benefit, clearly, to the recipient of the organ.

This bill has been before the Health Committee for 12 months, so yes, it has had quite a long gestation, but I can assure the House and I can assure members of the public that those 12 months have not been ill-spent. We have certainly picked over all—all—the aspects of this bill, and what the House sees before it today is certainly an improvement. I want to just go over the fact that we received 110 written submissions, and the question is: why is that significant? It is because they were quality submissions; not pro formas, necessarily, but people who wished to share their own experiences of their passage—either being a person who wished to donate or, more critically perhaps, a person with a chronic disease, a kidney disease, or some kind of disease where an organ donation would vastly improve their chance of survival or improve their quality of life. The committee was privileged, as always, to have well-considered submissions on the subject. We, in fact, heard 14 oral submissions on the bill, and, again, they were submitters who felt strongly enough to come to our committee and to make a contribution to our discourse and to our consideration. I want to take this opportunity to thank them, also, for doing that.

All of those submitters—I may stand to be corrected, but from memory and from looking back—all of those submitters very broadly supported the bill’s central objective. That objective was to remove the barriers to live organ donation, and the way that this bill does that is to increase the level of income replacement that was provided. That brings us, of course, to the title change of the bill. It did seem to the committee, only 2 or 3 months ago, in our consideration, that maybe the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill title did not quite capture what the bill had transpired to become, and so the title will now become Compensation for Live Organ Donors to reflect the focus on providing donors with compensation for lost income rather than merely providing financial assistance to those donors.

It is easy, is it not, for us to tick the organ donor aspect on our driver’s licence, and as I was having my daily catch-up with my darling husband he mentioned to me that he had done the tick and, once again, he is an organ donor—I hope it does not have to come to pass. It is easy to become a live organ donor, and good on all those New Zealanders who do that, but we have got to now remove the barriers by way of compensating those donors, should they be required to donate an organ, so that their income is compensated, not just because we feel like it but because, as they recover from the procedure that they go through in donating that organ, they will clearly not be working or in any fit state to work, so this provides compensation.

This bill is not the silver bullet—I know that Chris Bishop thinks it is a silver bullet, and it nearly is—it is a small change but it is a significant change, and it is there to encourage organ donation. There are other strategies being employed to help improve transplantation rates, including—and it is a good thing—a wider Government review of deceased organ donation.

Just going through some of the recommendations as they came through from the select committee—there were substantial changes in the bill to provide for cost neutrality for donors, and that is the key to this bill. Donors should, therefore, be reimbursed 100 percent of their income, rather than the 80 percent—rather parsimonious, I have to say, Chris Bishop—recommended in the bill as it was introduced to the House. We noted, through the select committee process, that the UK has a core policy of cost neutrality, and that is based on the idea that donating should financially be neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to the person concerned.

There was a point in our consideration where it seemed logical to shift the administration for the legislation from the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development over to the Director-General of Health. That was logical to us, because the Ministry of Health has the primary interest in organ donation—it is a medical matter—and transplantation rates, of course, are a medical matter. Submitters also noted, as did we, the difficulty in seeking entitlements through the Ministry of Social Development. That was quite a significant change in the bill.

We considered what a qualifying organ was. Obviously, kidney and liver transplants are the only types of live organ donations carried out in New Zealand, but, again, this was a conversation led by the member in charge of the bill, Chris Bishop, who contended that we needed to futureproof this piece of legislation. It is a prudent thing to do with a piece of legislation—I was going to say “a live piece of legislation”, but, no, that would have been really bad to do that, so I will not say that. Obviously, clearly, medical advancements are happening all the time, and it just seemed prudent to us to futureproof the provisions within this bill.

There are other provisions in this bill, but then there are other speakers, and we have other opportunities to speak on this most excellent bill. In commending it to the House, I do want to say that I agree entirely with Louisa Wall who, in her contribution, noted that it is a rare and wonderful thing for the House to join together in supporting a bill that is only there for the betterment of people, and, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a great pleasure to rise and make a short contribution for the Green Party, again, in support of this bill, which is currently known as the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. I too would like to add my congratulations to the member Chris Bishop on getting this drawn and seeing it through the process.

It does seem to me that this bill, in its essence, has been a success on two levels. Firstly, it has provided a bill with some substance from a Government member, with the potential to really help people in society, and that is quite a rare thing on members’ day in this House. Secondly, the select committee process has worked and delivered back a bill consistent with the intent that was put forward by the member, but significantly changed to be able to deliver on that intent more effectively. It has been wonderful to hear how the Health Committee worked so collaboratively to actually realise and respond to the submissions from the, I think, 110 New Zealanders offering guidance on how to improve this, and we now have a much better bill as a result. That is a credit to the member who brought it to the House, and to the committee, and to this parliamentary process.

The Green Party is very pleased to support this, because we do believe it will make a real difference. On a personal level, like other members in this House, I am really pleased to support this. For me, there are two people I think of when I am speaking to this bill. One is, of course, our hero Georgina Beyer—as already mentioned by Louisa—who was waiting for a transplant and for that match, and who is now no longer in a position to be able to receive a transplant. She is a great New Zealander and it is a shame that that is how it has played out.

For me, there is also an amazing woman, Kate Lynch, who was the sister of my ex-partner, who had a triple transplant. As a result of those transplants she lived many more years. She was an amazing public servant, and I got to have her as an adviser on the paid parental leave bill that we were hearing submissions on—I know that the Hon Ruth Dyson worked with her quite closely when she was a Minister. That is the difference: when people manage to get transplants, they have an opportunity to live and to contribute, and we are all better off for that. So I am really grateful to the member for bringing this bill to the House and I am grateful for it to progress.

I would like to acknowledge some of the changes that were made in the select committee process that have made a very significant improvement. When the bill initially came in, it was looking at modelling the income assistance on ACC—an 80 percent compensation of wages and only for people in paid work and not for beneficiaries. That raised concerns for the Attorney-General, that beneficiaries who were also in paid work would not get compensation, because it was making a distinction. This bill fixes that human rights issue, and it also moves to cost neutrality, as opposed to an 80 percent compensation rate. That is regardless of income level, because it is working on an acknowledgment that nobody should benefit or be worse off. So it is about removing the barriers to people being able to be in a position to donate organs, and I think that is commendable.

It is a very rare thing—it is my first experience of something going through a select committee process and coming out the other end with higher costs to the Government. And I really, really want to acknowledge the work that must have gone on behind the scenes in the National Government to get that result. It is a good result. It will pay off for New Zealanders, I hope.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that it is moving from being a Ministry of Social Development (MSD) payment to a Ministry of Health payment. And I have heard that it is no reflection on MSD, but that people’s stories were that they found it very difficult, because this is such a rare situation, to get caseworkers who understood it. The reality is we hear stories from MSD all the time of people being denied support when they need it—that is a much bigger problem, but it is good to see the shift here.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill, as it is currently called. I want to start by saying what a great initiative it is by Chris Bishop to put a bill in the ballot that is substantive and that will make a profound difference to many New Zealanders’ lives, and I think that that is a tribute to him. It must be one of the most profound gifts that a human can give to another human, when they donate an organ to somebody who finds their life severely limited by organ failure—yet that can be fixed if another person is willing to give that gift. It is also an absolute miracle of medical technology, and we are very lucky to live at this time.

But, of course, as we know and as we have heard often, the incentives do not align. It is difficult for people to take the time off work, out of their day-to-day routine, to actually give that gift. So I want to commend the Health Committee members who have clearly worked very, very hard through the course of the last few months to improve this bill. In particular, to move from the concept of an 80 percent ACC-type payment—which was a good concept: that you should be compensated at the same rate as somebody who has a workplace injury, at least—to actually go further and acknowledge that this is not an accident when someone gives an organ; it is a gift, and it should be cost neutral. So that is another real tribute to the select committee and the work that it has done.

But I just quibble with one small amendment that I hope might emerge in the Committee stage, which has not been added into the bill by the select committee, and that is a practice that occurs in countries elsewhere, where a person who gives the gift of an organ—and usually an organ of which people have two—finds themselves in a position where they are more vulnerable to failure in their remaining organ, because they no longer have two of them, and what is being done in countries elsewhere is that under law people who give the gift of one of their organs will find themselves at the top of the priority list, should they ever need to receive the gift that they have given.

So I do not properly understand why the committee did not make that change, but I do hope that in the Committee of the whole House stage, after this reading and before the third reading, the Committee of the whole House will consider making that amendment to prioritise people who have given an organ and so you might say have a positive in their account of giving. But they also have vulnerability because they only have one of their organs remaining.

Aside from that minor quibble, I think this does show Parliament at its best. I think Parliament and the committee have acted much in the same way that many generous individuals do when they gift an organ. So with that and with nothing more to say, I commend this bill to the House on behalf of the ACT Party. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a great pleasure to rise and take a call in the second reading of the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill, in the name of my friend and colleague Christopher Bishop. I want to join with others across the House this evening who have roundly and rightly congratulated Chris Bishop on this bill having being drawn from the ballot, on the work that he has personally done to steer it through the House to this stage—particularly the diligent work that he did in preparation of the bill coming to the Health Committee—and then on his nurturing and harbouring of the changes that were made at select committee, which, clearly, have made what was already a very good bill into a much better bill and one that the House can be particularly proud of, I think.

Often people who are not part of this parliamentary process find the nature of a member’s bill and the way a member’s bill is drawn quite an unusual process. Many of our constituents often have their eyes slightly widened when they understand and are told that it is literally a lottery—that there is a tin with numbered marbles for each bill in there, and that there is a process it goes through where somebody literally puts their hand into the tin and takes the marble out. I think this process is one of the vaguely quirky, but wonderful, almost eccentric niceties of our parliamentary system that can occur. Often bills get drawn out that for some reason are highly politicised and very contentious, but every now and again something comes out of that tin—the draw is made, the lottery marble is plucked out, and something really, really good for Parliament and for all New Zealanders pops out of the member’s bill system. This is one of those occasions.

I have had the privilege of sitting on the Health Committee now for several years, and Julie Anne Genter, who is a new member to the committee, highlighted that in the recent few weeks she has been on the committee she has had an opportunity to see how the committee works collegially. That has been my experience over the last several years, including back to the time when Dr Paul Hutchison was chairing it in the last Parliament—a very, very, very good former chair—and the current chair is doing an equally good job.

This is a bill that, when it got to the select committee, was not without some hurdles. It actually involved some thought and policy development that was probably not originally conceived of by the author of the bill, who was actually Michael Woodhouse, right back in its formative stages some time ago. But as we got it at the select committee, we came reasonably quickly to the conclusion—aided and assisted by Mr Bishop’s careful guidance—that we could go further than the bill originally wanted us to go, and that actually compensating people who were so generous of spirit and soul as to literally donate their organs for the good of another human being deserved something better than just 80 percent recompense, in terms of their time recuperating and recovering from their donation of an organ. It did not, I think, take the committee much convincing to decide that moving and extending that 80 percent to 100 percent was a very worthwhile step.

What it did was it took the officials and then the policy rationale quite a bit of juggling around to get to that point, because the original premise for 80 percent was based on an ACC calculation. The ACC calculation is based on a premise that the person is in some way ill or has had an accident, and, actually, by definition, a person who is donating an organ is not ill. They are not sick, so why would you treat them in the same way, using the same financial basis, the same kind of financial formula? Actually, one of the multiple barriers to organ donation was this issue of compensation; we got to a point in the select committee where, pretty quickly, committee members agreed with that. Then we worked our way through the bill with officials, advice from the Ministry of Health, and a range of other very good advisers to come to the point that we have.

Heaven knows, there are multiple barriers to donating organs. As others have said this evening, we have got a very low rate of organ donation in New Zealand. We could do an awful lot better. When people donate an organ to another New Zealander, not only is it a very good thing for the person receiving the organ but it actually has a fiscally positive benefit for taxpayers—all of us. There is some real, real benefit. It just seems to be completely perverse to somehow penalise those people who are generous enough to donate an organ and then let them suffer not only the physical effects of having donated the organ—and then recuperating and recovering—but also a financial hit. That just does not make sense.

So this is a bill that has quite deliberately come to a point of cost neutrality for donors. Equally, there was a little bit of discussion about whether we should go beyond 100 percent compensation. We decided against that in the end, because, just as 80 percent did not seem fair, at more than 100 percent there is the potential for perverse financial outcomes as well. I think that we do not want to lose that generosity of spirit that goes with donation. I do not think you would want to have a situation where potentially—and I just say potentially—people would be using as a consideration in their decision to donate an organ the fact that there might be some kind of financial advantage for them. I do not think we would want to go there. We discounted that option pretty quickly, and got to a point where the sweet point for this legislation was 100 percent compensation for donors’ time recovering from the operation that was required for them to donate an organ.

This was, I think, a really, really good example—and often we say it in the House. We say: “Oh, gee, this select committee process is a good process, because it means that legislation comes out of a select committee better than it went in.” But this is absolutely a textbook example. Probably, in years to come—I suspect that students who study parliamentary procedure, maybe when they are looking at parliamentary process, will look at this glittering career that lies ahead of Chris Bishop and will say: “Here was his first member’s bill, and this is what he did.” This bill, in the process of it and the outcomes that process has achieved, has, I think, the potential to probably enter into the annals of academic writing that will be carried on. It will be looked back on with great affection over the years as a textbook piece of legislation.

Hon Member: Jumped the shark.

SCOTT SIMPSON: Ha, ha! Chris Bishop can rightly be pleased with this. It is the beginning of what I think will be a very good legislative career for him.

I want to just make a comment, before I sit down, about a fellow by the name of Andy Tookey. Andy Tookey has been campaigning around this space of organ donations for years. I had an opportunity to spend some time with Andy way back in 2002, I think it was, when he first started on this personal crusade. He sent a petition to Parliament, which actually ended up not achieving very much and was very frustrating for him. Later, in about 2005 or 2006, I think it was, he did some collaborative work with the then National Party list MP Dr Jackie Blue. They worked on another bill that, again, did not achieve the outcome that they were looking for. Andy has made this a personal campaign, which he can be very proud to have been part of over a long number of years, and I really just want to acknowledge his contribution to this bill.

We still have a number of very significant hurdles to organ donation. It is my fervent hope that by passing this legislation we will have removed one of the major financial barriers, which is one of the many hurdles. It is my hope that in some small way—because this is not a silver bullet; this will not actually fix our organ-donor rates—it does help. It is a very good piece of legislation, and I think that not only Chris Bishop but the whole House can be pleased with the outcome that we appear to be heading towards. I commend it to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted to add my support to this conversation in the House tonight, but I want to begin by just acknowledging the happiest member of Parliament in New Zealand today, Chris Hipkins, and his partner Jade. I want to welcome their new baby Charlie Douglas to the world and say that I think that they will be great parents, despite the demands that this House puts on them. Warmest congratulations, I am sure, from every member of the House. I hope that it will improve the overall temperament of the senior whip.

Can I also acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse for having the initial idea for this bill and drafting it up. I think he deserves credit, even though all the gold stars are going to the member who was lucky enough to get it passed to him when Michael was no longer able to introduce it because he is now a Cabinet Minister.

I want to acknowledge Chris Bishop for deciding to take it up. It is a bill that will make a difference, and that actually is what the members’ bills ballot should be used for. They might not be huge issues like adoption reform, homosexual law reform, or marriage equality—we have had those really big issues brought through the House as members’ bills—but it is a really appropriate use of the members’ bills ballot to progress a bill that will make a lot of difference, and this one certainly will.

I agree with Scott Simpson, who just resumed his seat, firstly in his praise of Andy—I think that was entirely justified—but also in his saying that this is not a total fix and that we have got lots of other issues to deal with. The cultural aspects that Ria Bond touched on in her thoughtful contribution I think need to be discussed more openly, more widely, particularly given the high number of Pasifika and Māori people who we have in New Zealand with diabetes. That is a fact in our health statistics, and it means they are more likely to be in need of a kidney transplant in the future.

This will address quite a lot of the financial barriers, but it will not address those other issues. I think we should get really brave and not adopt but look at the system that they have in Iran. We would not do it in New Zealand, because it is just not part of our nature, but there could be other things that we learn from it. They sell kidneys in Iran. There is no waiting list; there is no dialysis. We would never go to that extreme, but I think we can learn about cultural change that was driven by their financial contribution. Also, I do not want to hear the thud as David Seymour faints when he hears this, but I think that his amendment, if he puts it in, is well worth thinking about—well worth considering. I think he is on to a good idea there, and I hope that he does get round to doing it.

There are other really good members’ bills that are going to be debated tonight, so I do not want to take up too much time, because one of them is mine, and I am looking forward to having the debate on it. The final point I want to make, though, is that people will genuinely benefit from this—people who donate organs and people who receive them. I think that that is a very good thing for Parliament to be doing. It is probably long overdue, but we can do it now, and that is a good thing to progress.

I want to acknowledge everyone who has had any connection with donating organs, either receiving them or giving them. Most of our donors are not live donors. Many families are donating the organs of their family member at the worst possible time: as that person dies. We should acknowledge them and the courage and strength that they have to be able to go through that decision, and also acknowledge that for the recipients it means that they are able to get a life, often quite literally. So I commend the bill and look forward to its progress through the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to take the last call on this excellent bill and I would like to also congratulate the Health Committee on working this through, and the member Chris Bishop on working so hard at what became quite a substantive rewrite.

As this came to select committee there were three major groupings that we were interested in: the policy intent, income replacement, and cost reimbursement. The question we were asking as it came to select committee around the policy intent was whether the narrative should change from removing barriers to live organ donation to cost neutrality. Regarding eligibility for income replacement and cost reimbursement—would that apply if people do not actually proceed to donation? Should time off work for the recuperating donor be covered? Should there be income replacement and cost reimbursement for overseas donors—and what about beneficiaries, who also have income? We were also interested in asking questions around the types of transplant covered because kidney and liver were certainly in the scope of this bill—but bone marrow transplant is also very common and was also covered under a funding mechanism that we were considering.

Income replacement was the second major area that we were interested in in select committee. We were interested in whether we would change from 80 percent, initially, to 100 percent of income replacement. What was presented to us was information showing that, in fact, the coverage under the current arrangement—current income assistance for recuperating live organ donors—is actually only between 27 percent and 66 percent. So we knew that if we were starting at 80 percent we were above what we are doing anyway.

There was also the question of the cap, which was a reimbursement up to a maximum of $120,000. Under cost reimbursement this is currently covered under the National Travel Assistance Policy (NTAP), and Work and Income covers some childcare components. Some of the issues we were interested in there included the suggestion that maybe the cover under both of those schemes was partial—not full, anyway. Certainly the NTAP covered travel and accommodation, childcare, and prescriptions, but what was not covered seemed to be parking and maybe international phone calls for international donors. So these were the questions we were interested in as we went into select committee.

In select committee we had 110 submissions. There were 14 oral, including the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Kidney Health New Zealand, the National Renal Advisory Board, and Live Kidney Donation Aotearoa. The themes that came through those submissions included wide support for the bill. The risk to donors was real but remote, and so some submitters said that donors should actually be prioritised into the health system if, at some later date, they subsequently develop a health issue. We looked at this very closely and it was considered that the risks were quite remote and that it would really significantly distort the prioritisation system within the health system. As for income replacement, at least half—nearly half, anyway—said the level of replacement should go from 80 percent to 100 percent. In fact, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians said that low-income donors are particularly vulnerable to a loss of income and they are aware of many cases where donors delay making a donation to coincide with the Christmas break, so that there was no income disadvantage. On cost reimbursement there was support for widening the cost base, both in eligibility and administration.

Subsequent to those submissions we landed and made some conclusions on these three major areas. The first was that the policy intent—the principle to the policy intent—needed to remain cost neutral. Secondly, when we looked at income replacement, it was increased to 100 percent. The reasons for that were that it was thought to be totally consistent with that principle, with cost neutrality, and because it has a different policy intent and purpose to, say, ACC or other social assistance funding, which had set the 80 percent level in the first place. I think what also made it viable was that it had a well-defined time frame of 12 weeks, and was thus quite different to ACC and other social assistance funding as well. The cap was removed. Again, this is consistent with a difference from ACC with a 12-week maximum. The evidence we had from the UK, where they do not have a cap, was that there had been no substantial fiscal blowouts as a consequence of that. As for the final category, cost reimbursement—there would be full cover of actual and reasonable travel and accommodation, and also cover of costs during the work-up stage.

That took us through the conclusions, and then there was the really difficult piece of work—of how we implement that policy, because a large number of agencies interface with the mechanics of actually implementing the policy. That came out as a whole second departmental report—Departmental Report Part Two. If we look at those conclusions the implementation stage looked to maintain cost neutrality. As for income replacement—the figure of 100 percent was written into the bill. It was written in on a gross basis, it is taxable income, and, as I said, the cap was removed. What we did for the cost reimbursement, was that that was not written into the bill. Instead, what we chose to do was to use the existing Ministry of Health mechanism under the National Travel Assistance Policy but to have the policy reviewed and any gaps identified subsequently. This bill has had solid consultation. It is well formed and important. I am pleased to be a part of the committee working with this, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill.

Bills

Education (Charter Schools Abolition) Amendment Bill

First Reading

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East) on behalf of Chris Hipkins (Labour—Rimutaka): I move, That the Education (Charter Schools Abolition) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Science Committee to consider this bill. I welcome this bill, proposed by my colleague Chris Hipkins, which would abolish the charter school model. I would like to acknowledge and congratulate Mr Chris Hipkins and Jade on the birth of their new baby earlier on this evening, as well as congratulate Chris Hipkins on all the work that he has put into this bill.

Charter schools are a blight on our educational system. They bring nothing to the table that cannot be offered through our existing education system. They take out of our educational system much-needed dollars that would much better be used elsewhere, as we have seen here in New Zealand as well as overseas, with charter schools being unreliable and a failed experiment. We have seen in Aotearoa that at least one of our charter schools, Te Pūmanawa o te Wairua, at Whangaruru, has been closed. It is a school where $5.2 million—at least—of taxpayers’ funding has been invested, and we do not know, even to this day, whether any of that money will be returned to the State.

The charter school model is one that is profit-driven. When we look at the five charter schools in 2015—just the five—there were at least millions and millions of dollars being invested in the five schools in 2015, and as much as about $5,000 profit per student was actually made in one of those schools. Overall, the charter schools, in terms of their sponsors, in 2015 returned $1.5 million to their sponsors. This was money that would have been really well invested in the State schools.

I refer to the amount of funding that is now going to be allocated to students who are at really high risk. We know, looking at the calculations that the Labour Party has done looking across all the schools across New Zealand—but looking particularly at South Auckland and Manukau East—that in the schools at Manukau East, an area that is full of decile 1 schools, at least close to $100,000 is going to be lost from many of the schools. I will give you some of the figures from those schools. Aorere College will be short by $15,000. The No. 1 school, which got the Prime Minister’s premium award this year for being the best school in New Zealand, McAuley High School, will be short by $15,000. And the list goes on, and it adds up to close to $100,000.

Meanwhile, we will continue to invest a whole lot more of our taxpayers’ money in these charter schools. When the charter schools were introduced, we were told that they were going to be partnership schools, that they were going to be a model that would bring in private money—funding from outside. What we know to date, though, is that 100 percent of the funding going into these charter schools comes from the Government—taxpayers’ funds. I do not know why these schools are still called partnership schools, because it is not a partnership model that brings in private equity funding from the private sector, as we were told it would do.

So this bill that Chris Hipkins has introduced will abolish charter schools in their entirety in New Zealand. All students in New Zealand deserve to be taught by qualified and registered teachers, and they also deserve to have access to a broad, innovative, locally relevant New Zealand curriculum. Charter schools do not even have to teach New Zealand’s curriculum. Parents and whānau deserve to be full partners in their school communities through a democratically elected board of trustees. The best school for the vast majority of New Zealand students should be their local State school. Rather than choosing to divert resources into an experimental charter school regime, the Government’s focus should instead be on making sure that every State school is a great school. It is, indeed, the school that the majority of our students in New Zealand currently attend—State schools, that is, and State integrated schools.

Charter schools are not as transparent as State schools or, indeed, integrated State schools, and we deserve to ensure that we continue to provide for taxpayers’ funding going in to schools that are transparent and accountable to parents as well as accountable to us as taxpayers. Charter schools are exempt from the Official Information Act of 1982, despite the fact that the majority of their funding is from taxpayer funds. Charter schools are also, as I said earlier on, not required to teach the New Zealand curriculum. This raises serious concerns about the quality and the direction of charter schools. The charter school scheme overlooks the widely accepted understanding that educational achievement is linked to poverty as well as increases in income inequality. Charter schools are supposed to be the solution—the answer—to ensuring that the educational outcome of Māori and Pacific students are actually addressed. However, it does not actually look into some of the reasons why Māori and Pacific students are not actually achieving inside of the school—things like income inequality, things like poverty, things like when a lot of our students enter school they do not have the same level of skills as other children.

This bill, which we hope will be agreed to and passed, will absolutely get rid of charter schools. We believe that ensuring that our State schools are well-funded is the way to go. Right now, this Government has frozen the operational funds for the compulsory sector, and it has said that, instead, it is looking at funding at-risk students. When we look at that funding that it proposes, it is something like $92 per student. Something that one of our school leaders has said is that that would fund half a sandwich per child per day—$92 does not actually go far enough to ensure that educational outcomes for Māori and Pacific students are indeed addressed.

Charter schools, as of October 2015, served a total of only 680 students—680 students—and it totalled so much of our taxpayer funds, in terms of millions and millions of dollars. Why is it that this National Government keeps on agreeing with the ACT Party to continue to invest so many millions of our dollars on an untested, failed model—the charter school model? It is a model that has failed here as well as overseas. Charter schools are allowed to make a profit, and, as we know, every single one of those charter schools made a profit in 2015.

Education is a public good. It should not be a system where we are looking at profit making; we should just look at ensuring that all of our students, when they attend schools, graduate and come out with the required level of skills, without profit being the ultimate driving model for a particular school. Thank you very much.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that the motion be agreed to. [Interruption] Mr Seymour, you might quite like to wait until you have been called.

David Seymour: Well, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, Mr Seymour, you have been giving your views quite long and loud. I did not intervene, but I think you could follow the formalities of the House and seek a call.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. I think what we have just seen from Jenny Salesa is what happens when a thoughtful, generally respected, diligent member stands up and gives a speech that she does not truly believe in, that the people in her electorate and community do not truly believe in, about a subject about which she knows almost nothing. She complains that partnership schools kura hourua are taking money—well, yes, they are taking money because they are educating students. Was the member seriously arguing that the students at partnership schools kura hourua are not deserving of education funding? Of course money is going to them, because the students attending the schools are entitled to that money.

She says that the model has failed overseas—well, she obviously has not read Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes—CREDO—research in the United States. She obviously has not read C. D. Howe Institute’s research of charter schools in Alberta. She obviously knows nothing about the free school movement in Sweden or the success that they have had for students in that country. She talked about Whangaruru—she said that the schools are unaccountable, in the same breath that she talked about the school that did fail and that we closed because it failed.

She talked about the curriculum. Well, the fact of the matter is that partnership schools kura hourua are required to teach a curriculum that maps to the principles of the New Zealand curriculum or its Māori equivalent. She talked about transparency. How many other schools are required to issue four quarterly reports, including reports that have their performance data for national standards and NCEA results? There is no other type of school that has to report that data on a quarterly basis, or that can be closed for failing to meet its targets on that data.

That was an embarrassment of a speech. The member knows nothing about the topic, and I doubt she really believes it. She said that the schools are not subject to the Official Information Act (OIA)—many organisations supply services to the Government but are not subject to the OIA. With all of the disclosure to the Ministry of Education that I just mentioned—here is news for the member: the Ministry of Education is subject to the OIA, therefore there is more OIA-able data about partnership schools kura hourua than for any other type.

Then she complained that they make profit. Well, she is factually incorrect, because almost all of the current partnership schools are not-for-profit trusts. However, let us just say they are all making a profit. Well, I hate to tell the member, but there is profit throughout the education system. The people who build the classrooms, the people who make the computers, and the people who sell the stationery are all making profit. If the member wants to banish profit from the education system, there would not be very much of it left. But that is, sadly, what happens when a member who is otherwise thoughtful and intelligent gets up to take a call for someone else when she does not believe in what she is saying. It is also an embarrassing day for the Labour Party. The Labour Party—which introduced Tomorrow’s Schools under the great David Lange and, effectively, made every school a charter school by the standards of the day—is now reduced to such weak argument based on factual inaccuracies.

But let us talk a little bit about partnership schools, because New Zealand’s State school system actually works very well for the average student. The problem is it leaves far too many disengaged and not achieving their potential. That is the reality. This is especially worrying because in the 21st century we see globalisation, we see automation, and we see low-skilled jobs disappearing. It will be the century of knowledge and skills. For the Labour Party and the teachers’ unions, the solution will always be to throw more money at the problem and hope for the best, but we know that that just has not worked. Labour has spent billions in its time in office and barely dented the problem.

International comparisons show—and might have predicted this—that beyond a certain amount of expenditure per child, more money simply does not make a difference. The Opposition’s approach to education is best summed up as “Every single local State school should be the very best school for your child.”—every single local State school must be the very best school for your child. We did hear a little bit about that in Jenny Salesa’s speech. But the question is obvious: kids are a pretty diverse bunch, so how can one type of school cater for the needs of every student? Or do the schools just default to helping the average student, so to speak, asking the rest to conform or become frustrated, disengaged, and slip through the cracks, which, sadly, is the reality for too many children today.

As William Butler Yeats once said: “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” That means an approach that works for one student may not work for another. Some students thrive in a structured traditional environment such as the Vanguard Military School; others prefer more freedom, such as the Rise UP Trust school in South Auckland. Some love open-plan bustle, while others need quiet learning spaces. Some are engaged by the arts, and others by hands-on engineering. It is a delusion to believe that every school across the country can address the full spectrum of needs and potential held by Kiwi students. The reality is that specialisation and choice are vital if we want an education system with something to offer every child. The State should fund a range of schools. It should let kids and parents choose what lights their particular fire, not just what school is closest to them.

We should be celebrating diversity, not just one size fits all. Partnership schools—also known as charter schools, as the member incorrectly referenced them throughout her speech—now have close to 1,000 students. That is, families of 1,000 students have made the choice to attend these schools, whether they be Steiner, whether they be Māori-medium, whether they have a military ethos. While all of these schools have open enrolment policies, there are trends in the types of students they attract. Mostly they are students who have been disproportionately underserved or let down by the State school system. I am aware of a significant number of partnership school students who were not attending any school at all before they enrolled at their current partnership school.

We talk about the Whangaruru one—I know of one student at Whangaruru who was 14 years old and had not been registered by the New Zealand education system at all at that stage. They did not exist in the education system’s records.

Tracey Martin: Terrible Government. What have they done for the truancy service then? That is shocking.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Tracey Martin, the student would have started education at the time that the New Zealand First Party and Labour were in power, and I do not understand why they did not make sure that that student was registered, but that is by the by.

Unfortunately, Chris Hipkins’ member’s bill would seek to close down all partnership schools, casting these students back to the system that let them down or, worse, out of the school system entirely, which was the reality for many of them before that. The sad thing is that most Labour MPs—and there are some notable exceptions, and I commend them—have never visited a partnership school. They are not even interested in seeing the life-changing work happening at these schools and facing up to the students and parents who choose to attend them, but they would like to close the school. They will try to belittle the choice.

Maybe they should take a leaf out of US President Barack Obama’s policy. He calls charter schools incubators of innovation and holds an annual charter school week under his presidency. But apart from anything else, we can argue about the ideology and the data, all of which comes out in favour of partnership schools. But here is the real question, and the question that Jenny Salesa and other members opposite might like to ask themselves: why is it that parents in my community are choosing partnership schools kura hourua? Why is it that community groups in my electorate are applying in large numbers to establish partnership schools kura hourua? Maybe the choices that these people are making are actually telling you something about their preference.

The successes that come out with these students are many. Two years ago a partnership school student told me: “I never knew I was smart until I came here.” Opposition members should just think about that for a moment. It is all very well to talk about the ideology, but let us just think about that for a moment: a student who would have gone through her life thinking that she was not smart, when presented with a new option realised that she was very, very smart. The fact of the matter is that had she not been given that opportunity she would never have made that realisation. Are members opposite really in favour of removing options that allow students to discover their success?

It is replicated right across the partnership school system. Te Kura Hourua o Whangarei Terenga Parāoa last year achieved pass rates of 84 percent in NCEA level 1 and 100 percent in level 2. Vanguard Military School achieved 93 percent for level 1 and 100 percent for level 2. It is early days at this point. These results will be continuously monitored. The schools will be held to account by the Crown; they will be closed if they do not succeed. That is the reason that I focus on the principle of choice and the reality of results. It is because the vocal opponents of this policy will do anything to avoid engaging in ideas and facts on this issue, as we saw from Jenny Salesa just this evening. They will put forward spurious accusations and outright falsehoods, as I rebutted earlier in this speech.

But I would just ask one very simple question, for people listening at home: are the opponents of partnership schools really so worried that eight very small schools are not going to succeed and will close and fail, and their students will go back to the State system? Is that their concern? Or are they—and their union supporters—terrified that partnership schools are going to be an enormous success, growing in popularity, and revolutionising the old order and the way we do things in New Zealand education?

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, oti noa, e mihi atu hoki ahau ki a Chris Hipkins i tēnei pō me tōna wahine, a Jade, me tā rāua pēpē, a Charlie, nō reira, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and so I applaud Chris Hipkins and his wife, Jade, this evening, and their baby, Charlie, therefore congratulations to you collectively.]

The member who has just resumed his seat, David Seymour—I do not think he believes what he is saying. I do not think he even knows what he is saying. He actually said this—I will tell you what he said. He said that the Labour Party is hell-bent on throwing money at problems. He also said that more money does not make a difference. Well, how come, then, that for the 369 charter school students in 2015, that Government, including him, threw $7,474,374 at those 369 students, which was a heck of a lot more than it threw at students at State schools.

So when he says more money does not make a difference, I actually agree with him, because the money that the Government threw at the Whangaruru charter school did not make a real difference, a material difference, for those students because—guess what? They are no longer at that school because it failed. He may not get his head around that fact, but he obviously knows one thing: more money did not make a difference in that instance, because it failed.

That is why I acknowledge Chris Hipkins for bringing this bill to the House. I believe, as I said in the debate on the Education Legislation Bill—I quoted from what the Principals’ Federation said on that bill, and I apply it to this. It alluded to the fact that there was a rationale that was not being stated publicly about that bill, and I am applying that to this bill as well. That untold rationale is that this is an experiment to move the education system towards privatisation and commercialisation.

I support what my colleague Jenny Salesa has said about that. She said that these schools are allowed to make a profit—and they are allowed to make a profit. They are allowed to make a surplus over and above what they are funded for, and that is why they are funded at a much higher rate. They are funded up to five times higher than schools—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to talk mainly, I think, to my colleague Louisa Wall, who I think is probably inciting some interjections. The problem is that her interjections are coming through Mr Rurawhe’s mike and are overriding him to a certain extent. But I think Mr Bishop is probably winding her up, as well.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying, those schools are funded at up to five times greater than State schools.

Hon Member: Oh, rubbish.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: Well, people can complain, but it is not hard to do the maths. We have the figures—and I have them in front of me—that quite clearly state that, and if members opposite do not believe it, then they should do their own research and find out for themselves.

Charter schools are funded on a guaranteed minimum roll, unlike State schools. State schools are funded on their actual roll, and it fluctuates up and down depending on how many students are enrolled, but not charter schools. Charter schools have a guaranteed minimum. Would it not be lovely if every State school in the country was able to have the same conditions of funding for their school? They would be able to have stability in their school. They would be able to plan over a long period of time, just like these charter schools are. So there is inequality in how we fund schools in New Zealand, and we just have to stop that.

I believe that this bill is a good bill. We put forward this bill to abolish charter schools, and that is exactly what this House should vote for. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to oppose this bill. Raising achievement for all our students, for all young New Zealanders, has been National’s unrelenting focus since we came into Government in 2008. For that reason we have invested heavily in education. For example, in this financial year the appropriations for Vote Education increased by 2.4 percent to over $11 billion, which is yet another record.

Funding is particularly important for the success of education, but that is not the only factor. To have a successful education system we do need many other factors. One other important factor is a flexible, innovative education system, and making sure we have a system that is responsive to the needs of different kinds of students. For that reason this kind of partnership school is one of many options to make sure we provide choices to some students. The recently introduced Education (Update) Amendment Bill is another example where we are trying to modernise our education system, to streamline our management system, to make sure that the whole system is there to cater to the needs of some special students.

We have a world-class education system, and our kids are doing very well. However, about 20 percent of our students are not performing very well in the State education system. We need to help those students. That is the purpose. Many of these students are from low-decile areas and from disadvantaged communities. Many of them need help, and we need to help those students. Partnership schools are one of the many ways to help students who are not performing well in the State education system and whose parents are unable to send them to a private school. So partnership schools are there for them to consider.

In New Zealand we have over 2,500 schools. We have many kinds of schools, actually, at the moment. We have religious schools, we have private schools, we have coed schools, and we have single-sex schools—all sorts of schools. Partnership schools are yet another option. So it is important that we understand that we are not trying to dismantle our public school system. We are trying to make sure we provide another choice for some students, a minority of students. We have precedents—in other countries similar schools are doing quite well. The concept of partnership schools represents an opportunity for communities, iwi, business organisations, and other sectors to partner with educators to raise the achievement of some students who are not performing well in public schools. This is yet another option.

Also, according to this bill, there are concerns that students attending partnership schools will be delivered a low-quality education because they have not adopted the New Zealand curriculum. But we have a number of safeguards there to make sure that the educational quality of partnership schools is good—from choosing the qualifications and the assessment framework to reporting publicly the progress against targets annually. Also, Ministers have the ability to terminate a contract in cases where there is a breach of contract. So we have a number of safeguards there to make sure that we do have the ability to ensure that we can have good quality in our schools.

Also, we have to say that the National Government has been making a number of initiatives to make sure we are able to provide more choices for children and to make sure that we have a number of measures to enhance the quality of school education, and to raise achievement of students. So National is basically trying to provide a flexible, innovative learning environment for students, and we are confident in our safeguards.7 Thank you very much.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. He mihi nui ki Te Whare ko tēnei pō. First of all, I want to acknowledge and welcome to the world Charlie Douglas Hipkins. Your daddy has a bill but something more exciting happened to him today. I remember that feeling because the day that I was supposed to be sworn into this House I became a grandmother. So I know how much more important it is when something like that happens, even though I know how important a member’s bill is. I understand exactly why Chris Hipkins has put in the bill, but best wishes to Jade and Chris and to little Charlie.

I think it is one of the nicest things that happened today—also because his father and many of us are very, very passionate about innovative, quality public education. Many of us totally believe in innovation in education. We believe in diversity in education. We believe in creativity in education. We believe in The New Zealand Curriculum, which we have actually read, which allows for all those things to take place, and we believe in a world where measuring and targets are not the way in which we ensure a creative, entrepreneurial, visionary 21st century education.

We know that because the model for charter schools, which Chris Hipkins wants to abolish in this bill, with our full support in the Green Party, is based on States such as the United States and the United Kingdom, which have the worst results—the worst results!

David Seymour: So has Sweden.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: The Swedes are walking away because the results are not good. Those States have the worst results in the world. And the people who have the best, most successful education systems, full of the most innovative and creative thinkers for the 21st century, are the people who invest in holistic curriculums and are not obsessed with standards, measuring, and targets. One of the reasons the Green Party opposes charters is that they are only on results. It does not matter how you get there, as long as you get the results.

I met the head of the Knowledge is Power Program for schools in America; I met that guy. I had a meeting with him. He had a T-shirt on that said: “Work hard, be nice”. I am, like: “Yep, OK. So what about critical thinking in your schools?”. “Oh no, we don’t teach critical thinking; we just make sure they get to college, no matter what. They sign a contract, these kids.” Oh well, that is the American way: get them in young and get them into a contract. That is not education, and that model and many of those models have failed to deliver in the United States a lift in the educational abilities and strengths of that country.

The charter schools models across the world have an appeal for people who feel let down by what their own child’s experience is in school. That is why we need special character schools. We need, particularly in this country, to fund kura kaupapa. Actually we have one of the most diverse systems now in the world, but we do not need for-profit privatisation, and unaccountable non-trained teachers to run schools that will undermine the ability of the wonderful innovative public schools that I have been to. I know that there are many kids, especially kids with learning support needs, who need more than what we are giving them at this time, but the solution ain’t marching. The solution is not what I have seen when I have talked to some of these schools.

I went and visited the Whangarei charter school right at the beginning and I said to them, because they are great people, that when we are Government, with the Labour Party and others, we will ask you whether you want to be a kura kaupapa or a special character school, and we will support your transition because we understand what it is that you are trying to achieve. But we do not want you to undermine the other schools or the public quality education system. That is what it is about. It is about maintaining the integrity. If you want to be a private school, pay for it. Send your kids there and pay for it, but do not undermine the public quality education system, which needs all of the resources, by putting State money—State money belongs in the State schools in a way that the State schools have been set up to be more accountable than this model.

I have visited so many awesome schools within the public system that I know that the system does not prevent diversity and creativity. Go to Kia Aroha College in South Auckland. You want to see Kia Aroha College working? You want to see what a warrior scholar looks like? It is better than marching. It ain’t about passing the tick-the-box test. It is about a vibrant, passionate, culturally appropriate system that has got nothing to do with profit and nothing to do with measuring and everything to do with a rich diverse curriculum. It is time that I stopped being so passionate because my time is up, but this is just the beginning. I support this bill. Kia ora koutou katoa.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, I cannot agree with very much that was said—in fact, I do not think I agree with anything in that last speech. What I do not get is that 2,500, or over 2,500 schools—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that I have to interrupt the member so early in his speech. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. Someone will resume the Chair at 2 o’clock tomorrow. The House will be adjourned until then.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.