Wednesday, 9 November 2016

WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2016

WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Kiribati—Delegation, Ministerial

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am sure that members would wish to welcome a ministerial delegation from Kiribati present in the gallery.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Saudi Agri-hub—Funding Transparency

1. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 4 in the House yesterday?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his suggestion to me yesterday that New Zealanders should not be concerned about funding for Mr Al Khalaf’s secret agri-hub in the desert because they are also kept in the dark about money spent in the security intelligence area?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Not the way the member phrases it, but I stand by what I said in the House yesterday—yes.

James Shaw: Well, can he explain further in what ways Mr Al Khalaf’s showcase of New Zealand business and innovation is comparable with the New Zealand security and intelligence area?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was simply drawing an analogy that says that we do not always go into every component part, but, as the Auditor-General said yesterday, “The arrangements entered into were a lawful use of public resources, and public money was spent with appropriate financial authorities in place.”

James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that he agrees with all of the findings in the Auditor-General’s report, including the finding that the Cabinet paper of February 2013 was drafted by Minister McCully and his office without consulting his ministry or officials?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I stand by all the findings by the Auditor-General, yes.

James Shaw: How many other instances is he aware of when a Cabinet paper has been drafted by the Minister and their office without input from the relevant ministry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that information with me.

James Shaw: Does he believe that Minister McCully’s behaviour was ethical?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely, and, I think, so does the Auditor-General, who shot down in flames the arguments put up by that member that there was something untoward.

James Shaw: Would the Prime Minister hire an accountant who had “significant shortcomings” and who used creative solutions, even though they were not legally corrupt? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: As far as—[Interruption] Order! I cannot see any prime ministerial responsibility for that question.

Youth Unemployment—Prime Minister’s Statements and Rates

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to young people looking for work that they are “living in the wrong place, or they just can’t muster what is required to actually work”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): As always with the member, it pays to thoroughly fact-check what he says. I stand by my full statement in the radio interview, which was: “It’s not to say that there aren’t great people that don’t transition from Work and Income into work. They do. But it’s equally true that they’re either living in the wrong place or they can’t just muster what is required to actually work.” As I said yesterday in my full statement, it was because they may have a drugs issue or a variety of other issues. That is why the Government has a significant programme of skills, education, and training support to help those young people into jobs.

Andrew Little: How many of the 74,000 young people not in education, work, or employment does he think just cannot muster what is required to actually work?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know how many people fit into the full statement that I made, but no amount of gerrymandering it is going to make it right, any more than when he tried to gerrymander his policy and got it wrong and abused the media.

Andrew Little: When he says young people just cannot muster what is required to work, does he mean they are lazy, drugged, or pretty damned hopeless—which is it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refer the member to the full quote, which talked about the situation where a lot of great people transition through but there are some young people who have a drugs issue, and that is an issue.

Tim Macindoe: What recent announcements has the Government made to support young people into employment?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government has a strong focus on helping young people develop the skills they need to move into work. Today we announced a new target—to have 50,000 people training in apprenticeships by 2020, an additional 8,000 on the current levels of 42,000. The Government has also announced two new Auckland jobs and skills hubs, which are partnerships between central and local government, businesses, and tertiary providers. The hubs set up training facilities and wraparound services alongside sizable private sector projects that create job opportunities, giving young people a pathway to employment as well as onsite numeracy, literacy, and practical skills training. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member, there were two very loud interjectors to my immediate left. I ask them to quieten down.

Andrew Little: Putting aside the Government’s latest admission of failure today, why has the number of Pasifika youth who are unemployed increased by 67 percent on his Government’s watch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refer the member to the fact that the Government is lowering the “neets” rate further, with more apprenticeships for Māori and Pacific trades training, trades academies, and skills hubs. What is absolutely true is that we have a very strong labour market. The economy has generated 35,000 new jobs in the last quarter alone. We have a huge number of youngsters who are transitioning into work.

Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I let the Prime Minister go to see whether he would actually get on to the question. The question I asked related to the rise in the number of young Pasifika unemployed.

Mr SPEAKER: As I heard the question, there was a part that led into the question, which was actually unnecessary, but I certainly allowed it to stay, and that gave a wider ambit for the Prime Minister to address the question. If the member wants that sort of specific answer, he needs to tighten his supplementary questions.

Andrew Little: Why has the number of Māori youth who have been unemployed for more than a year gone up by 48 percent since 2012?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those details, but what I do have with me is that there are 17,600 more Pasifika in employment in the past year alone.

Tim Macindoe: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what programmes the Government is already delivering to help young people gain the skills they need and move into work?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can. Well, since the member wants to know, we have many programmes including trades academies, which give secondary school students the opportunity to explore trade and technology careers while still at school. Fees-free tertiary training supports young people who have left school without National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. We run trade training programmes for 2,400 Māori and Pasifika students, up from 1,900 last year, and the Youth Service, which helps young people facing particular challenges gain the skills they need to find a job and help secure independent futures. What we are also thinking about doing is running a one-off programme where we will hire one young person with an IQ above 100, so that they can help the Labour Party—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not—[Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: Why is it then, in light of that vast list of things the Prime Minister has given about trying to help young people, that the number of young people not in employment, education, or training is now 74,000—an increase of 3,000 in 1 year alone—and that the Government has had to announce yet another programme today to answer the same problem?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is constantly announcing programmes and initiatives, and it has done so for the last 8 years. That is actually one of the reasons why, if you look at the 15- to 19-year-old “neets”, it is nearly at the lowest level it has been. No one is arguing that there should not be more opportunities for young people. I think the real debate at the moment, though, is that with a very strong economy that is performing extremely well, with very tight labour markets, there are tremendous opportunities to transition young people into work, and I think sending them bush is not the right thing to do. It is simply a statement of fact that I think these youngsters are going to have greater opportunities.

Andrew Little: When he says young people not in employment, education, or training are living in the wrong place, does he mean the 23,300 in Auckland, the 9,100 in Wellington, or the 8,300 in Canterbury?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said, the member needs to go to the full quote, and no amount of trying to fix it up will fix up the botch-up of his Labour Party conference.

Andrew Little: Instead of blaming young people for being pretty damned hopeless, lazy, or drug addicts, or living in the wrong place, why does he not support Labour’s plan to invest in young people, getting them ready for work, and giving them a better future? Just do something good, for a change.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not said those things, and that is just another example of the member misleading the House. But then, the member misleads the press gallery all the time, which is why he gets so angry—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot say that another member is misleading the House. That is, effectively, saying that the member is deliberately telling lies in this House.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: But I didn’t say that.

Mr SPEAKER: It is Speaker’s ruling 47/4, if the Prime Minister wants to look at it. But he needs to stand and withdraw the last part of that answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a concern with you about the technical operation of the House, in that while the Leader of the Opposition was asking his question, his microphone was turned off while he was doing his question, whereas the Prime Minister went on to make some very out-of-order comments and his microphone was left on for the entire duration of that time, including while you were on your feet.

Mr SPEAKER: I did detect that as well. I am not sure why that happened; I will look into it. When I stand on my feet at any time, then microphones are automatically ceased. But on this occasion I was waiting for the question to finish. It was a rather lengthy question and the bit added at the end probably did not add much value to the essence of the question. I do not control the microphones. I will have a look at the matter. It may have been just a technical mistake, I suspect. [Interruption] Order! We will get back to question time without the interjections.

Darroch Ball: Does he believe his statements yesterday about New Zealand First’s community wage policy show yet another direct flip-flop by National, given Gerry Brownlee once said about the scheme: “This Bill simply sets out to say that we do not want hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders on the scrap-heap. We do not want people suffering the condemnation of unemployment … There is nothing unreasonable about this.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. As I have said, there are plenty of occasions when the Government had promoted a range of different schemes, but with very tight labour markets and the demand for workers, I think sending people bush is the wrong thing to do at the moment. We should send them into paid full employment.

Darroch Ball: Does he believe his statements show yet another direct flip-flop by his party, given Nick Smith once said about New Zealand First’s community wage “Here we are with this good and moderate bill” and that it was a “carefully thought-out provision”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I think the member is on quite dangerous territory if he is going to quote what the National Party said about New Zealand First from time to time, because it could get quite interesting and exciting.

Jobs—Reports

3. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on job prospects in the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Job prospects in the New Zealand economy are so positive that almost any report—in fact, every report—I have read lately indicates that. For instance, the Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), the ANZ Business Outlook, and Statistics New Zealand’s labour market statistics show that the job numbers are growing and expected to keep growing. NZIER reported last month that companies’ hiring intentions have been at their highest level in this survey since 1973. The ANZ reports that 21 percent of businesses expect to take on more staff in the next 12 months.

Alfred Ngaro: What is driving the increase in job numbers and hiring intentions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: At the highest level, businesses are confident that if they take the risk of employing another person and creating a new job, that is likely to work out well for their business. They have confidence in the direction of the economy. The Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion showed a strong expansion of business activity in the September quarter and a lift in confidence in the construction and tourism industries, both of which are job-rich industries. This is backed up by other indicators such as household spending and consumer confidence, which points to continuing growth.

Alfred Ngaro: What is the Government doing to increase employment opportunities for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Ultimately, it is the businesses that provide the employment opportunities, but the Government make rules for and funds a number of the pathways, particularly for younger New Zealanders, to those employment opportunities. As the Prime Minister has mentioned, we have announced today a new target of 50,000 people to be in apprenticeships by 2020—up from the 42,000 that we currently have. This is part of a wide range of pathways that have been vastly improved for young people, including trades academies, the Youth Guarantee, the Youth Service, and trade training programmes for Māori and Pasifika. There is now such a wide array of programmes that have been well constructed. It is really a matter of getting the young people on to those pathways and supervising them until they get to work.

Alfred Ngaro: What other proposals has he seen about employment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen proposals for creating work for young people at a time when the unemployment rate has dropped below 5 percent, which means that there are significant numbers of jobs out there. Already, it is a matter of getting young people on a path that allows them to take those opportunities. As my colleague the Hon Steven Joyce has helpfully pointed out, this particular proposal shows a complete lack of understanding of the positive nature of our job market.

Inequality, Economic—Measurement and Rates

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, “there is no evidence that inequality in New Zealand is increasing”; if so, how can he continue to argue that when Statistics New Zealand data shows the cost of living for the poorest groups and superannuitants has risen almost twice as fast as for richer households since 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As I said in the answer to the same question in June and July, yes. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, it shows he fundamentally does not understand how inequality is measured, because the inequality measures are income measures and the data published yesterday is about expenditure. Of course, if your expenditure is going up, inequality is not rising if your income is going up as well. The cost of living for superannuitants went up, but so did their income. In fact, their income went up faster than their cost of living. That is why inequality is not increasing.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can the Minister of Finance confirm that since 2008 incomes for beneficiaries in real terms have fallen by 4 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I think the person who did those numbers for the member was the same one who did the numbers for his job scheme, which was—actually, I think it was probably him. He probably did both of them himself. All the measures of inequality show that income inequality in New Zealand is about the same now as it has been for the last decade or so. Actually, this year, households on a benefit with children had a $25 a week increase, well above consumer price inflation, for the first time in 42 years.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that Statistics New Zealand earlier this year said that wealth inequality in New Zealand has grown, by their data set that showed that the top 10 percent of New Zealanders now have 60 percent of the wealth, up from 55 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think I can confirm they said that. There was some debate over whether that was a correct assessment of what was going on, but it is not surprising that in a phase where you had inflation of asset prices driven by very low interest rates around the world, some wealth went up. Of course, the question now is what is going to happen when interest rates start rising. What is likely to happen is those asset prices will flatten out and maybe drop, and, of course, the member, like me, should be pleased about that.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can the Minister confirm that wealth inequality in New Zealand has grown on his watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Child Protection—Information-sharing Framework

5. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding information sharing and the care and protection of vulnerable children and young people?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Last week, along with the Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, I announced that a bespoke information-sharing framework is to be established as part of the radical overhaul of care and protection. New legislation will be introduced to Parliament to promote the safety and well-being of vulnerable children and young people, which will enable information to flow between those who need to know. This will support the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki to take early preventative action rather than simply to respond to a crisis once a child has been harmed.

Maureen Pugh: How will this new framework improve the current legal settings?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The expert advisory panel noted that New Zealand is one of the few jurisdictions that do not have a bespoke information-sharing provision for children at risk. The new framework will ensure that the new ministry will have the power to require information from other agencies, organisations, and individuals when performing statutory investigations or responses to reports of concern. At the same time, the new framework will provide certainty to professionals that they will not face criminal, civil, or disciplinary proceedings if they share that information in good faith.

Maureen Pugh: How will the new information-sharing framework help to protect and support vulnerable children at risk?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Too often in cases of child neglect and abuse we find out too late that a whole range of different agencies and individuals had information that alone may not have raised concerns but that when brought together showed that the child was at risk and the system of care could have been much better for that child. This new framework will form part of the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki and of the Government’s commitment to creating a child-centred care and protection system that improves the outcomes for vulnerable children, young people, and their families.

Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Fight Clubs

6. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she stand by her statement that her department’s behaviour regarding their handling of reports into fight clubs at Mt Eden prison was “disturbing and secretive”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): The member is wrong; I did not say that. What I did say was “Work is going on to make sure that there is not a continuation of secrecy around issues that should not be secret.”, and I absolutely stand by that.

Kelvin Davis: When was she or former Ministers Tolley or Lotu-Iiga first made aware, formally or informally, of the existence of the report of the 2014 special monitor’s investigation into allegations of fight clubs at Mt Eden?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I cannot speak for other Ministers, but I can certainly say it was around the time of earlier this year that I found out about it, which is all detailed in the report.

Kelvin Davis: Can she guarantee that Serco is not understaffing units at Auckland South Corrections Facility by rostering on guards who are on leave or have quit, as it was at Mt Eden Corrections Facility; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I understand that the member has made numerous allegations to the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, and these matters are being investigated. His complaints, which apparently he has held for some months, are being investigated by the inspectorate. I would also say that corrections officers do not like being called “guards”. They are corrections officers, and they deserve to be given the correct title.

Kelvin Davis: Why does she believe there is a disturbing and secretive culture at the Department of Corrections?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think the member may have missed my answer to the first question. I did not say that. I seek leave to table an email from Radio New Zealand confirming that what I said was “Work is going on to make sure that there is not a continuation of secrecy around issues that should not be secret.”

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify whether it is a transcript or an email from Radio New Zealand.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is an email.

Mr SPEAKER: It is an email. On that basis—[Interruption] Order! I will put the leave, and members can determine. Leave is sought to table that particular email from Radio New Zealand. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

Health Services—Colonoscopies and Bowel Screening

7. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 3,850 patients received a colonoscopy in August 2016 – an increase of 45 percent compared with 2,649 colonoscopies carried out in July 2013?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Excellent question. Yes. This is the result of the extra $15 million that the Government has invested since 2013 to deliver more colonoscopies and reduce colonoscopy waiting times. That has resulted in a 65 percent decrease in the number of patients waiting longer than recommended for a colonoscopy, and 92 percent of urgent cases were carried out within 14 days, compared with only 51 percent back in July 2013.

Chris Bishop: What progress is being made with the roll-out of a national bowel-screening programme? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. Order! I cannot hear the question. It will be asked again with less interjection from my left.

Chris Bishop: What progress is being made with the roll-out of a national bowel-screening programme?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The national bowel-screening programme remains on track for roll-out next year, starting with the Hutt Valley District Health Board (DHB), as well as the Wairarapa DHB. It is expected that there will then be a progressive roll-out across the country in 6-month blocks over 2018 and 2019, in line with international best practice. Once implemented, it is expected to screen over 700,000 New Zealanders every 2 years, with about 700 cancers expected to be detected each year during those early screening rounds.

Hon Members: Who’s next?

Hon Annette King: Supplementary question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member knew who was next.

Hon Annette King: It is a late bid. Does the $39.3 million over 4 years that he has allocated to the national bowel-screening programme include funding for treatment of patients; if not, why not?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, because it is funding for a screening programme. I would point out that it is $39.3 million more than the Labour Party ever allocated. It talked about a programme, but never did anything. It just sent 700 people to Australia for cancer treatment instead.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a press release from 2007 in the name of David Cunliffe, announcing the bowel-screening programme, which was then put on hold until last year.

Mr SPEAKER: Now that the member has so adequately described it, members will be able to find it if they find it interesting. I will not put the leave.

Government Financial Position—Surplus and Spending

8. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe New Zealand has a surplus; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes; and that is because the Government’s revenue exceeds its expenditure.

Fletcher Tabuteau: If we have a real surplus, then why have the poorest 20 percent of New Zealanders, superannuitants in particular, had to struggle with price increases at literally twice the rate of those of the richest 20 percent since the Minister’s Government came into power in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member, of course, is talking about two different things here. One is simply the Government accounting system, which is the most transparent public accounting system in the world. On the other hand, he is addressing the issue of how inflation affects superannuitants, and I think the record shows that, because national superannuation increases are tied to movements in the average wage, and movements in the average wage over the last 7 or 8 years have been significantly above inflation, the real value of national superannuation has increased. Of course, theoretically, you could go back and recalculate it according to the index that Statistics New Zealand published yesterday.

Fletcher Tabuteau: If we have a real surplus, then why has this Government decided to cut real funding dollars from our hospitals, schools, police, and housing, undermining the core delivery of all of these vital services?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply disagree with the member. It is not the case that what he has asserted is true. All of those services have received significant increases. In fact, in the last Budget I think the Police had an increase of $300 million, which by any reckoning is a large amount. But in any case we are more focused on whether those organisations are getting results than on the sheer bulk of spending. The lesson of history often in Government agencies is if they get too much money they become even less able to deliver services. We have struck the balance about right, with a strong focus on results, and where they can show they get results, they get more money.

David Seymour: What happens to interest rates and inflation when a Government abandons fiscal restraints, such as in the period 2005-08?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For a range of reasons, including the fact that the Government of the time allowed Government expenditure to increase by, I think, 50 percent over about 6 or 7 years, first mortgage rates then were more than double what they are today. Today you can get a 2-year fixed-interest mortgage for 4.2 percent. First mortgage rates in 2007 were 10 percent.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Given the Minister insists he has a surplus, why has his Government back-pedalled on adjusting immigration settings and police numbers, despite insisting that everything was OK about a month ago?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not really whether I insist we have a surplus. In fact, the accountants and the Auditor-General insist we have a surplus. If we were to report a deficit, with the current expenditure and revenue, they may come to the conclusion of it being political interference. But the member is raising a whole range of policy issues. I just want the member to understand this. We are one of the very few developed countries in the world that have the choice of dealing with those sorts of policy issues. Even our cousins across the Tasman face large and persistent deficits, and they simply do not have the choices that the member is talking about. We do.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Does he think a Government with a real surplus would have sat back and, on its watch, overseen the greatest housing shortages of our time?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not see the two as being related. What the Government has been doing—

Hon Member: That’s the problem.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The problem in the housing market is not some lack of Government expenditure. It is a set of dumb planning rules that have been in place for 20 years, which have prevented the flexible supply of housing when there was strong demand. The Government has set about systematically getting those rules changed, with increasing success.

Fletcher Tabuteau: What has the Minister been able to say to New Zealand’s hard-working families who cannot afford a home to live in and cannot make it from wage packet to wage packet, let alone save for the future, about this Government’s supposed surplus?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What we are able to say to those families is, first, that they are in one of the faster growing economies. So whatever challenges they are facing week to week, they are in a country where there is more opportunity to do something about that than most other developed countries. We are also able to say to them that because the Government has surpluses, their entitlements are secure and their public services will continue to improve. That is better than you can say in most developed countries.

Fletcher Tabuteau: What does the Minister say to New Zealand businesses and investors who are worried about the stability of the New Zealand economy because this Minister has grown Government debt to its largest level in New Zealand’s history?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We explain to them what has happened with the Government debt cycle, and that is because of the recession and the earthquake in Christchurch, where we are just tipping over $17 billion of contribution to the rebuild, that we borrowed when times were tough, and now that the times are better we need to pay that debt down to prudent levels. I look forward to the member’s support, because he has just been giving a long list of new spending, which makes it a lot harder to pay down the debt. I was hoping he might share our priorities to get the right balance of them.

Police Resourcing—Numbers and Crime Rates

9. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree with Detective Senior Sergeant Blair Burnett that more staff is the only way to combat the growing crime rate?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): For a start, Mr Burnett is no longer a detective senior sergeant. He left the Police and he is now, apparently, a real estate agent. But I would say that, clearly, more—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am just trying to be accurate, because, clearly, the member is not. Clearly, having more police is one way in which to combat crime, but it is certainly not the only way. In fact, it is what you do with police that makes a real difference, and that is one of the reasons that New Zealand has recently been noted by the Global Peace Index as the fourth-safest country in the world.

Stuart Nash: Is the reason that burglaries rose by 17.8 percent in the last year because of “more widespread use of drugs”, as the Prime Minister stated last week, or does she stand by her own statements that drug use is going down?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It depends on which drugs we are talking about, but I think the Prime Minister is always right, and, occasionally, I have been too.

Stuart Nash: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that technology, such as iPads, is “a far better investment” than more police on the beat?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think the member has taken the Prime Minister’s comments completely out of context, given that he has used only a couple of the words of the Prime Minister’s and then inserted them into his own allegation and statement. Actually, I believe the Prime Minister was absolutely correct when he noted that we have provided to police the technological assistance to help them be more efficient and effective. But, clearly, more police is something that does help.

Stuart Nash: Does she agree with both the current and former Police Association presidents, and police themselves, that we need more police; and, if not, why does she think she knows more about policing than the police?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think that the Prime Minister and I have made it clear on numerous occasions that, going into the future, we are going to need to address the issue of police numbers. We have made that very plain.

Stuart Nash: Does she think that perhaps detective senior sergeant Blair Burnett left the Police because over 55 percent of police themselves report that they have undue work stress in their jobs?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I cannot tell the member why Mr Burnett might have left the Police, but, certainly, I know that police have always left the force. The attrition rate at the moment is around about 3-and-a-bit percent, which is a very low attrition rate. It is about the same as Labour MPs.

Biosecurity Management—Government Industry Agreement Biosecurity Partnerships

10. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Primary Industries: How many industry groups have now signed up to a Government Industry Agreement (GIA) biosecurity partnership?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Yesterday in Parliament, Vegetables New Zealand became the 12th industry partner to join the Government Industry Agreement biosecurity partnership. The group represents over 900 growers, who produce over 50 crops, with a farm-gate value of $390 million per annum. This agreement means that this industry now has a seat around the table with the Ministry for Primary Industries and other groups on managing and responding to biosecurity risks.

Ian McKelvie: Why are GIA biosecurity partnerships so important?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Biosecurity funding is now at a record high of $223 million; however, we will always be at some risk from unwanted pests and diseases. Having a GIA allows those industries with a direct stake in biosecurity to be involved in decision making and overall funding. This will help with prioritising resources to where they are most needed, both to prevent incursions and to eradicate and manage them if one does occur.

Women—Gender Pay Gap and Representation in Parliament

11. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Women: Does she support Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Jackie Blue’s proposal for companies with more than 250 employees to declare gender pay gaps?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Women): I fully support organisations voluntarily reporting on their gender pay gaps, and I am pleased that the Public Service is leading the way.

Jan Logie: Does she support the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner’s call for three more women Ministers in Cabinet to achieve gender balance?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: These are, of course, matters for the Prime Minister, and I am sure he is making great decisions on them.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not asking whether she was going to make the decision; I asked whether she supported the call.

Mr SPEAKER: No, when I consider the question, the answer has addressed the question. It is the Prime Minister who decides who is in Cabinet.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just seeking some clarification around the role of the Minister as an advocate for women—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can certainly do that, and the way to do that is to continue to ask good, concise supplementary questions of the Minister.

Jan Logie: What does she plan to do in response to Dr Jackie Blue’s observation: “we’ve asked nicely. We’ve implored. We’ve pleaded. Not much is happening. Women’s representation in Parliament has actually gone static.”?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As that member will know, one of the priorities for the Ministry for Women is developing and progressing women in leadership. One of the areas that I am most proud of is that on State sector boards, this Government has the highest percentage ever.

Jan Logie: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, I know it is frustrating. That quote applied specifically to women’s representation in Parliament, and I am not sure—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, again, the question started with “What is the Minister planning to do”, and her answer definitely addressed the question.

Jan Logie: Why is she absent from so many public discussions, including just this weekend on The Nation with Dr Jackie Blue, on issues that are critical for women like representation, violence, and pay?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I am proud of our record in Government in terms of achievements, like the highest levels of women’s participation in the workforce and in leadership, like State sector boards. There is a range of work that this Government is doing. I am proud of our record, and I am proud of the work that I am doing as the Minister for Women.

Māori Development—Inequality, Economic and Social

12. PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he believe that the lives of Māori have improved during his time as Minister for Māori Development?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Ā, tēnā koe i tēnā pātai, āe.

[Thank you for that question, and yes.]

Peeni Henare: How comfortable does he feel about the average Māori having one-fifth of the wealth of the average Pākehā under his watch, and his having no plan to address this?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: There is a plan, and there have been a number of those enunciated throughout the country. Indeed, He Kai Kei Āku Ringa is part of that planning towards dealing with those issues. The Tāmaki-makau-rau Māori economy, for example, is pretty substantial at about $3 billion to $4 billion GDP and $23 billion in assets, which is more than half of the national Māori asset base by value. That is why we have very much focused—in terms of my portfolios, as well—on things like improving land productivity, employability, and skills in the regions, with a clear focus on Māori enterprise. I was really pleased, for example, to attend the Kai Kei Āku Ringa hui in Tāmaki on Friday, and we had huge support from employers, from iwi, and from the council to deal with those issues that the member just talked about.

Peeni Henare: How would he characterise the success of his economic policies, given that the wage gap between Māori and European populations has grown and now stands at $213 a week?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: There are a number of measures, and I will take just one of those mentioned by Mr English and by the Prime Minister earlier. If we take, for example, the desire for this Government to move those children not in employment or education, and youth not in any sort of training whatsoever, what we know is that in South Auckland, for example, the number of “neets” aged between 20 and 24 has actually dropped over the last year. There are also fewer Māori “neets” across the country than in December 2012, and that shows that we are making good progress. There are always things we can do better, but we are making good progress. We must continue to focus on the best outcomes for Māori, and that is what I have been doing in my 2 years as Minister for Māori Development.

Peeni Henare: How comfortable does he feel about the fact that there are 9,000 more Māori unemployed since his Government took office?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Well, we are doing absolutely everything we can to address that. I will take just one example to help the member. We know that 42,000, many of whom are Māori, are currently in apprenticeships and training. After today’s announcement by my colleague Minister Joyce of $183 million for work-based training, the Government is now on track to actually achieve its target of 50,000 by 2017; that is a part of the planning I referred to earlier. That member knows that apprenticeships and training are a proven way to get people into lifelong career options—and, again, it is a good outcome.

David Seymour: What role does primary and secondary education play in labour productivity and, ultimately, wages for Māori?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Very important—very important. In fact we are very focused on the achievement rates for Māori, and they are actually rising faster than any other ethnicity in the world. The rate was 45 percent of NCEA level 2 in 2008; it is now 71 percent—71 percent. So, for example, part of that has been because of the educational achievement of kura hourua. If I could just quote the rates for Te Kura Hourua o Whangarei Terenga Parāoa: 70 percent at NCEA level 1, 92 percent at level 2, and 71 percent at level 3. Those results are all about Māori educational achievement.

General Debate

General Debate

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Right now on a distant continent something of enormous import is happening that is going to affect the lives of us all—in this generation and for future generations. Of course I am referring to what is going on in Marrakesh in Morocco, where the 22nd conference on climate change is now happening. I know that there will be some people rushing off from the Chamber now to be fixed to their television screens to see what is going on in Morocco, while a few others will, of course, be seeing what is going on in the United States of America.

I was just checking Twitter and I noticed that Texas, which is normally a solidly Republican seat, is too close to call, and I believe that is because Texans have got quite a good sense of when someone is talking a lot of hot air. One of my favourite sayings comes from Texas. It refers to someone who is all hat and no cattle. I think that partially what they are seeing in Texas is that Trump is all hat and no cattle—he is a lot of talk. In that way, he is quite similar to the National Party, because the National Party members say they are environmental champions. They say that they will make New Zealand predator free, but they will not say how they are going to pay for it. They say that they care about our rivers, but they will not make them swimmable. They say that they will sign the Paris Agreement and ratify it, all of that good stuff, but they are not actually going to cut our pollution. So what we need to do is look behind the rhetoric.

I think that what is going on today is a good illustration of the way that people are grappling with this current era of post-truth politics. The National Government has been in power for 8 years, and in 8 years our greenhouse gas emissions have risen 19 percent. This is despite announcement after announcement after announcement from the Government about how great its record is and how deep its commitment is to cutting our climate pollution. The Government says, on the one hand, that it is committed to doing something about climate change but, on the other hand, everything that it does actually increases our emissions. There are more roads and motorways, less investment in public transport, more drilling for oil off our coasts, and more intensive dairying. After 8 years, our emissions are up. It is all hot air from the National Government. That is its plan.

What is going on in Marrakesh? What is New Zealand’s commitment to these climate change talks? As far as I can tell, we are interested in forestry rules that allow New Zealand to write off an entire year’s worth of emissions—to just rub the slate clean. We are interested in setting up an international market for carbon credit trading that means that we can pay other countries to reduce their pollution so that we do not have to—we can let ourselves off the hook in another way. When it comes to international aid, where we made multiple hundred-million dollar commitments last year in Paris, there is no sign of any new or additional aid to our Pacific neighbours, who are the first to feel the effects of climate change. It is all hot air from the National Government when it comes to climate change, and it greatly concerns me. What are our negotiating teams doing in Marrakesh? Are they actually trying to reduce our emissions? Are they actually trying to work out an international framework where our commitment and the words that we say have any effect in reality whatsoever? I honestly cannot tell you.

I do not think that Americans will choose Trump today, because hype and hot air eventually become transparent. Just like with Trump, New Zealanders are not going to buy more talk and no action. They want real action on climate change. Eventually, it has got to give. After 8 years with no action on climate change, it is time to change the Government, and change is coming—especially to climate change.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Thank you to the Greens for that round of applause for me. It is always good to be able to reach across the aisle. I really like James Shaw. He is a lovely person, but when he starts talking about post-truth politics, what the hell is he on? Just get down to what really matters.

What we have here is a Government that has been very sensible in the way in which it has managed the country’s economy. We have delivered on our promises. I saw the other day not only that New Zealand is the fourth safest country in the world according to the Global Peace Index but also that we now have the fourth fastest economic growth in the OECD. We should have a huge round of applause for New Zealand and New Zealanders. Just last year we created 144,000 jobs. That is enormous in a country of this size—4.5 million people and an extra 144,000 jobs in just 1 year. It is such a good thing that the Labour Party has announced a crisis in employment, because, of course, the unemployment rate has dropped further as a result of that. It is now down to 4.9 percent. That means we have the second highest employment rate in the OECD group of developed countries. This country’s economy is rocking. Wages are now up. The average wage is now $58,400 a year. That is $12,000 more a year since 2008—more than double the rate of inflation. The inflation rate at the moment, I think, it is around about zero-point-something percent—

Hon Member: Four.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —0.4 percent. So what we have is that more people have more money, have got more jobs, and have more opportunities. They are better educated, they are doing better, and, by the way, inflation remains low.

We have also got interest rates—so let us look at interest rates. They are now as low as they were in the 1960s, when Keith Holyoake was the Prime Minister. That is how low they have been, now, for the last few years. This is something that actually makes a huge difference to people, not only to buy homes but, actually, for small-business owners. I have news for people like the Labour Party members, who do not understand anything about businesses and small business. It is that most people in New Zealand who go into business go into small businesses, and the way they get the capital is they borrow against their homes. They extend out their mortgages; they get overdrafts. That is how they do it. And when you are paying 28 percent—which is certainly what we were paying, my husband and I, back in the 1980s when Labour was in Government—it is very hard to make that work, and yet we did by sheer, hard work. Actually, today, the interest rates are at such a low rate that people can take a risk, they can start a business, and they can employ people, because they can take that risk. Those low interest rates are actually translating into better business, cheaper business, more jobs, more opportunities, a richer country, and more people who have got a future that they can be proud of.

So, when you are talking about post-truth politics, let me say this to the member James Shaw, who just resumed his seat: let us talk about jobs. That is what this Government is all about: jobs, and jobs that work. The Government’s books are back in surplus. This means, actually, that this Government does have the opportunity to talk about what can happen with that surplus—what can happen, what can be done. Unlike the Opposition, we actually have to pay for the promises.

Hon David Cunliffe: Your role model lost the American election.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is great to hear Mr David Cunliffe finally speaking again in the House. Is that not lovely? I must say it is always good to have Mr David Cunliffe—or the Hon David Cunliffe, I should say—speaking. It always reminds everyone just how good Andrew Little is. He really is great. I have a lot of faith in Andrew Little. I was thinking the other day of perhaps starting a “Nats for Andy” campaign, but, look, I think he is doing so well on his own. I think every time this man ever declares a crisis it is all sorted.

Kelvin Davis: Let’s get another speech running, Judith. This is terrible.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: He has got magical abilities. He is doing so well. I see Mr Kelvin Davis trying to pipe up and support me in that, and I think that is great. It is good for his leadership ambitions. He is also doing so well, as we saw today. Ninety percent of people in paid employment are in permanent jobs. Remember what happened when we brought in the ability for people to be able to have a trial period at work? The Labour Party and the Greens said everyone would get sacked. Not under this Government. Not under this economy. Not under this country. People now have an opportunity to have a future that they can own.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I knew that National was going to try to hide a few things during the US election count, but I did not think it would try to hide the end of Judith Collins’ political career, because that speech—it is all over. There is no more “Judith Campaign”. The small faction for Judith Collins that remains in the Chamber now—that is it. And after that speech, I do not think the “Judith for PM” or the “Judith for National Leader” campaign is going to go anywhere whatsoever.

On the weekend the Labour Party held its conference, and I heard the speech of the next Prime Minister of New Zealand, Andrew Little. Andrew Little’s speech on Sunday was a speech of positivity. It was a speech about the things that New Zealanders care about: good, decent housing for all New Zealanders; an education system where it does not matter what community you are from, there will be a world-class education there for your children; and a health system where we restore the $1.7 billion worth of cuts that this National Government has made and where we do not think it is OK for people to lose their sight while they wait for treatment. That is the health system that National has delivered us. Andrew Little promised something much, much better than that.

And there was the centrepiece of the speech that Andrew Little gave at that conference, which is the fact that on this side of the House, we give a damn about young New Zealanders. We believe that having 74,000 young New Zealanders not in employment, not in education, and not in training is not only a disgrace, it is a massive loss of potential talent for our country. It is 10,000 more people than when the National Government took office. It is 3,000 more than last year. This is a Government sitting on its hands as the potential of young New Zealanders goes to waste, and the plan that Andrew Little outlined on Sunday was a clear one. We are going to have programmes that are about making sure young New Zealanders are ready for work.

Steven Joyce, in his response to our announcement on Sunday, said: “Why are you competing with other employers who want to employ these people?”. There is the man who does not understand the labour market, because these are the young New Zealanders who need a helping hand. These are the young New Zealanders who could be fantastic contributors in the workplace, but they do not have the skills to take those jobs up at the moment. That is why they need a programme with mentors. That is why they need a programme where we will support them to get the skills to be able to go on and flourish and fulfil their potential. And the National Government’s solution for those people is to write them off as being pretty damned hopeless, drug-addled, not ready, and not living in the right place. That is called giving up. That is called giving up on the next generation of New Zealanders.

We are not going to do that, on this side of the House, so we have got the Ready for Work programme in place. We have also got a programme that will ensure that New Zealanders can face the future of work with confidence, and I want to say to all of my colleagues and the thousands of New Zealanders around the country who have supported Labour in our Future of Work project, thank you very much. We are proud of this report because what it does is what National never does. We are looking ahead. We are not worried about how we are going to look in the next 24 hours of the news; we are worried about how New Zealand will look in 20 years’ time. It is time for a Government that actually plans for the future and that gets alongside New Zealanders to grow new businesses, to adapt to the changing technology, and to make sure that the benefits of globalisation actually reach working people.

On that side of the House they would rather see young New Zealanders as collateral damage in their ideological crusade. Well, on this side of the House we are not interested in that. We are interested in practical solutions: 3 years’ free post-secondary school education and training, taking the dole being paid to 18-and 19-year-olds and making that a subsidy for apprenticeships, and getting people into work opportunities that grow their skills and make them the kind of employee that people will want to take on.

I have been to about 20 Labour Party conferences now in my life, and the one that I went to over the weekend is the best one I have ever been to. This is a party that has a plan for the future. We are going to do what Labour parties have done for a hundred years. We will build a better New Zealand. We will invest in people. We will make sure that every single New Zealander has the opportunity to grow up in a warm, dry home, to have a good education, and to have decent work. That is the legacy of the last hundred years of the Labour Party, and that is what will win us the election next year.

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): You really do have to hand it to the Labour Party, do you not? It is 100 years old and it can still think up new taxes. It is 100 years old and it still comes up with new levies, new ways to attack business, and new ways to attack jobs. It is 100 years old and it is still coming up with new ways to tax people. The announcement that Labour made on the weekend has turned into a shambles—an absolute shambles. A battle with the media is now going on. I now understand what post-truth politics is. It is the days after a Labour conference when it is trying to explain whatever it was trying to explain on the weekend—whatever announcement it might have been.

No one really knows, I do not think, what Labour announced on the weekend. No one really knows whether the costings are for 4 months, 6 months, $15 million per annum, $60 million for 4 years, or $19 million for 6 months. No one really knows. Its new tax, its new levies, its tax on training—its levies on migrants are very interesting particularly with what is going on around the world. Essentially, they are being viewed as an attack on migrants, an attack on small business, and an attack on jobs—and jobs will pay.

Commentary from those who actually know what it is like to run a business has not been at all flattering for the Labour Party. Business New Zealand said that smaller businesses would suffer if they were charged to hire employees. Tourism New Zealand Aotearoa said that putting a levy on small business would fall flat on its face. Mr Nash even, when he was asked about it, said: “Hmm, I would need to read about that a little bit more. I would need to think that through, work that through.” It is hardly a ringing endorsement of the policies that the Labour Party announced, or tried to announce and re-explain, on the weekend.

The timing is amazing. There were 140,000 new jobs across New Zealand over the past year, growth is as good as it has been, and New Zealand, for many, many years, has been the envy of the OECD and the developed nations. Seventy percent are engaged in employment—or under 5 percent are unemployed. All the numbers are very, very positive in job participation and the normal unemployment numbers, and that is when Labour decides what a good time it is to talk about unemployment etc., etc. Everything is going in the right direction.

Labour has no idea what its policies would mean for small business. Labour has no idea about the cost and the burden of the stuff it waxes lyrical about at its various conferences. Perhaps that is why 57 percent of small businesses in recent surveys believe they will succeed under National, with only 10 percent believing they would succeed under Labour—only under 10 percent. Labour always forgets that someone somewhere has to pay for the stuff that it announces—someone has to pay. They might pay in cash, they might pay in taxes, they might pay in fewer jobs, less job growth, fewer hours—they just have to pay. Someone pays somewhere.

Interestingly, let us use—I do not know—Mt Roskill, for example. There are 5,000 business units in Mt Roskill. Which one of them would pay Labour’s tax? All of them? Some of them? Which of the 5,000 businesses in Mt Roskill would be paying Labour’s new training tax? Which of the 28,000 workers in Mt Roskill would not have a job, not have as good a job opportunity under Labour’s proposals, with the added costs that would be a burden on businesses across the economy, for example, on the 5,000 business units in Mt Roskill?

Which of the migrants who choose to come, or want to come, to, say, Mt Roskill would suffer under the levy or, let us say, the bias against them, under Labour’s proposals? Which of the 50 percent of the people in Mt Roskill who are born overseas would suffer if Labour’s policy was to be implemented—be it in respect of jobs, job growth, levies, new taxes, new training taxes? I am quite sure that the people of Mt Roskill will be thinking through what it means to them if Labour’s policy was ever to be implemented: the cost of a tax, the cost of a levy, the cost of jobs, and the cost and prospects to the good, hard-working people of Mt Roskill, particularly to those who have chosen to come to, live in, work hard in, and contribute to New Zealand. Thank you.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Just a quick comment on the contribution by the member, the Hon Craig Foss, who just resumed his seat. It was fascinating to hear the discussion about the introduction of taxes and levies suggested by the Labour Party from a Government that has actually introduced two in the last 18 months on telecommunications and, actually, on tourists coming into our country. So it is amazing. It is always interesting to hear the—it is a word that I cannot use, but it is always very, very interesting to hear it from the Government benches.

I want to talk about rural women. I want to talk about rural women here today, because they have actually been forgotten by this Government. They have been forgotten on so many levels. There is the rural women’s conference that is taking place this Friday, and it is about time that they were acknowledged.

I want to talk about a survey that came out in August that was a research project released by Lincoln University. It showed that 57 percent of rural women surveyed find isolation their top issue. The reason why I raise it is that it fascinates me that we have a Facebook page called Farming Mums NZ. There are 6,000 followers on that particular page—6,000 members. It is a social media site for farming women, who are the backbone of the country, who are the rocks of their family, who support their husbands during hard times, who continue to take their children to school, who work on the farm and work off the farm, and who make sure that they can contribute financially to the farm when it is going through difficult financial times. This Facebook page, set up by the farming mums of New Zealand, with 6,000 members, has been set up there so that women can articulate and support each other, as they are 30 percent of those in the rural areas who are killing themselves. They represent 30 percent of the rural suicides in New Zealand, and they have asked for a single thing of this Government. They have asked for the possible support of a full-time counsellor to be provided so that the women who are a part of this social network group can have a professional whom they can speak to, whom they can seek advice from, and whom they can get a service from.

In 2012 Prime Minister John Key announced that $62 million would be set aside for mental health services to be rolled out over a period of years here in New Zealand—$62 million. I have got the figures today on the amount of that money that has been spent. All links to do with that announcement have disappeared. All links to do with that announcement have now disappeared. Of the $62 million—and it was targeted at youth mental health, but it had families and communities as well, as the downstream effect—$44.6 million of it has been spent since 2012. That leaves $17.4 million unspent. But all links to this announcement have been removed. Even if we were to look at the youth mental health, the projections that are inside the Budget all the way up to 2018, that would equate to only another $12 million. So that means that there is $5.4 million available to this Government to support rural women and this particular service, this single thing that so far they have been asking for.

If you were going to get an experienced counsellor to be provided to these 6,000 women, it would cost you $15 a head per annum—$15 a head per annum. So between $90,000 and $100,000 a year for a fully qualified and experienced counsellor who these women could have available to them so they could continue to be the backbone of their community, continue to support their children in their day-to-day lives, and continue to support their husbands.

I would ask the Government to listen now to the statement I have just made and reach out to rural women. Here is in an announcement for you, Minister for Women. Here is an announcement that you could make this Friday or Saturday, whichever day it is that you are actually going to that conference. You could make this announcement and provide this funding so that we can support the women who are doing it hard right now out there in the rural sector. The rural mental health initiative is attempting to do what it can, but without literal support from this Government, women will continue to suffer, women will continue to fail, and women will continue to be among the suicide statistics of our rural communities. Kia ora.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Women): I do agree with the member, Tracey Martin, who spoke prior to me about really recognising the vital role that rural women provide across the country. As a rural MP, I know first hand how important they are and also the challenges that they have faced over the last little while. But I was disturbed, earlier in the House today, to hear members opposite actually scoffing at the highest level of women’s participation in the workforce ever. I found that a bit disturbing because I would have thought that that side of the House would be celebrating the achievements of women in employment as well as in leadership, which I spoke about earlier.

One of the challenges, of course, when you have such a strong, growing economy is looking at how we provide even greater and deeper opportunities for our young people. As the Associate Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, I am particularly proud of the release of the Building Skilled and Safe Workplaces chapter of our Business Growth Agenda. This is one of six chapters that are really fundamental to how we are going about growing the economy. It contains the 55 initiatives that are currently under way, as well as announcing 12 new ones. They are about ensuring that we are continuing to grow our economy and continuing to grow the skills that, actually, young and old New Zealanders have.

Part of that announcement was the two new skills hubs in Auckland. The Auckland CBD Jobs and Skills Hub, which, of course, is in the Wynyard Quarter, will revolve around the extensive commercial development that is going on in that area. One of the keys though, and one of the things you will hear more and more about, is the partnership approach. These hubs are a partnership between central government, local government, businesses, tertiary providers, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development, and industry training organisations.

We have seen the huge success of what has occurred in Canterbury with this very joined-up approach, and I am particularly proud of the significant increases in the number of women in construction in Canterbury. This partnership is a vital approach and one that we are seeing as leading to even greater levels of success because of leveraging off one another.

Of course, today we have announced a new target to have 50,000 people training in apprenticeships by 2020. No matter what part of New Zealand you are in, we will see that there are more and more employers who are seeking out young New Zealanders who are willing to train in their areas, whether it is the whole range of fields in construction—of course, the primary industries are still crying out for more people to train in their areas.

Another of the initiatives that have been under way is the Sector Workforce Engagement Programme. Yes, there is one in tourism, as well as horticulture, the dairy industry, one that is particularly important in my electorate is the one for the road freight operators, and, of course, construction. When we have a significant building boom, like we do now, we need to make sure that we are training more young New Zealanders in the area of need.

But there have been a few conversations over the last few days about the young people who are not in education, employment, or training. From what I have heard, Labour is clearly out of touch with this particular group, whereas our Government has put in a range of different initiatives. We are continuing to innovate, whether it is the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training Initiative, trades academies, Youth Guarantee, or the skills hubs that we have announced. We are also trialling an initiative called DualPathways, which supports tertiary education providers in secondary schools to again, as I said, work in partnership with employers and industries. It means that students can be enrolled part-time in secondary school and part-time in tertiary education. We are working hard on that very group of young New Zealanders whom we want to provide with the greatest of opportunities, whether they are male or female.

I am particularly proud, as I said before, that we are providing more opportunities to young New Zealand women. This is a Government that is working hard to provide opportunities for all New Zealanders, to make sure that they are valued for the work that they do and that they upskill in the areas where there is high demand, high wages, and greater opportunities in the future, so that we can build a New Zealand we will all be proud of. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Yesterday morning I had the privilege of visiting an organisation called the Bridge the Gap Project, run by a woman called Amanda Betts. That organisation works with our young people, some of whom have come through the Child, Youth and Family system and some of whom have come through the youth justice system, and it focuses on the potential that they have.

Much of what that organisation does is slightly out of the box, and it is really hard, I was saying to her, for any Government agency to put the Government agency framework around it, but it is successful, and I can see why. It starts with these young people, by allowing them to have the opportunity to see what their potential is, even physically. Many of them show up in their “gangster gears”, never really having had anyone model to them what they need to do when going for a job or how they need to look when going for a job. This organisation shows them what they have the potential to look like. That is only one part of it, because we know that there is a whole lot that needs to go on internally, but it does make a difference to their frame of mind and how they feel about themselves.

Just reflecting on what we have seen over the last 8 years of a National Government, it is incredibly disappointing that we have not had that same potential-based approach taken by the National Government. Instead what we have had is this deficit approach, where it looks at our young people, it looks at people on benefits, and it looks at people who are unemployed as liabilities. It measures the forward liability of these people. The Government talks about the risk of long-term welfare dependency. So it is all about that deficit take on human beings, rather than asking what this person has to offer, what the value is here, or what the potential is that needs to be realised.

Unfortunately, that is the view that the National Government has taken, but what I am grateful for is that on the weekend, at the Labour Party conference, our leader, Andrew Little, made it very clear that that is not the perspective that we are taking and that is not the way we will be treating our young people. We are looking for the potential. Andrew Little talked about the importance of investing in our people. He talked about the importance of investing in our future. He said that Labour—and he meant this—is committed to rising to the challenges that we face, including the challenge of 74,000 young people being unemployed or out of work and training. It is not acceptable that so many young people are out of work and training. They are not having their potential realised. They are not being supported by that Government.

Andrew Little also went through the many values that Labour has, those values like fairness, opportunity, and aspiration, our absolute belief in the importance of achievement, and our absolute belief, also, that once you get there you also give back. That is what that side of the House all too often seems to forget.

We had an announcement around our Ready for Work policy and the fact that we will not allow 74,000 young people to languish, doing nothing, not in employment or training, as that side of the House has. We have had members on that side of the House mock that policy. How unfortunate that we have had them mock that policy. But why should we be surprised? Why should we be surprised, when the Deputy Prime Minister has been recorded—recorded—as saying that our young people are “pretty damned hopeless”? We have had the Prime Minister alluding to the fact that our young people have a problem with drugs. And we have had that side of the House put everything back on those young people, as being their fault that they are not in employment or training, rather than looking for solutions, like this side of the House has.

This side of the House is about opportunity and making sure that we secure our future by investing in our young people now. It is about that Ready for Work policy that Andrew Little announced on the weekend, but it is also about the entire comprehensive package that Labour has announced over the last year at least, and probably the many more policies that we will go into the next election with that actually complete that comprehensive package, which is about investing in our young people.

As my colleague Grant Robertson said earlier, it is about our 3 years’ free post - secondary school tertiary education policy. It is about helping businesses to meet the cost of new apprenticeships. It is about ensuring we have professional careers advice in our schools, to help our young people make good decisions about work or further study. It is about things like grants for young Kiwis who might want to start their own businesses. Those are all solutions to a problem that we face, and thank goodness we have got the leadership over on this side of the House to actually do something to deal with the problem of 74,000 young people who are unemployed or not in training.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a great pleasure to rise to take a call in this general debate. I want to remind the member who just took her seat, Carmel Sepuloni, that just because she talks about it does not mean that it is actually the reality. This Government has, in fact, added 144,000 more jobs in the past year, with 35,000 of those in the past quarter. Just in case the Labour Party is not very good at arithmetic, “quarter” means “3 months”. Our unemployment rate is at the lowest level in years, at 4.9 percent. We are the envy of the world—a 4.9 percent unemployment rate. This is a great achievement by this Government and by our honourable Ministers. It is an achievement for all of us, in fact, because when unemployment is low, jobs are high, and our economy is working for New Zealand, our aspirations as a nation can truly be achieved and we can actually succeed as a nation.

Jobs and social investment are two key aims of the National Party. The National Government is providing real tangible outcomes, supporting the best interests of the wider New Zealand community, and working to ensure more New Zealanders can, in fact, follow their aspirations and their dreams as part of a fantastic, growing world-class economy.

This week the Hon Paula Bennett announced a massive $300 million investment into social housing, for emergency housing. This announcement translates to supporting up to 1,400 extra emergency housing places, with at least 600 of those in Auckland, and 800 others in other regions of high demand around the country. Under this funding boost, there will be an extra $71 million a year for annual rent subsidies, while another $102 million will be held for community providers of social and emergency housing, to support tenants to transition into longer-term housing options. Some members across the House have actually said that this is a Government that does not support people who are vulnerable. I have to say that that is, in fact, not true, and that this is one aspect of the Government’s work that has actually delivered for the people who are vulnerable. There are many, many others.

Of course, in the past year the National-led Government was, in fact, the first Government in 43 years to raise benefits for families with children, to give greater support and engagement to vulnerable families—the first time in 43 years. Of course, New Zealand has been named top of the global prosperity index, a week after the World Bank rated us No. 1 for ease of doing business. These great acknowledgments from the world market show what a great country New Zealand is to work in, and how much we are, in fact, respected by the world.

When that result came out this week, I was very proud, obviously—being a New Zealander—so I posted it on my Facebook and on my Korean social media. I have had numerous replies from my friends who are living in Korea, who are actually envious. Their comments ranged along the lines of “I wish I lived in New Zealand.” and “I want to move to New Zealand—what are the things that I have to do to migrate to New Zealand?”. These are the comments. They are envious of New Zealanders. I think we should all be very, very proud that we have that status in the world.

Wages are up, near 2 percent on last year. Compare that with inflation of 0.2 percent. There are better wages in the job market, which are all growing the opportunities that young and old New Zealanders alike have, to seek out their dreams in our great nation.

I also want to raise the importance of the social housing accord in Auckland, and the work that we have been achieving to get more homes into the market. There are over 150 special housing areas in Auckland, everywhere from Clarks Beach near Manukau Heads, to North Shore, and even in Mount Albert, where I am a list MP, in Auckland. These new developments will increase the housing stock, help more Kiwi families into affordable homes, and improve the lives of many. It is a shame when Opposition members decry such an amazing initiative by this Government to step up, get land open, get consent granted, and support construction jobs, infrastructure, and the social welfare of the people of our largest city. It is a real shame that they oppose every Government initiative, hold their own constituents back, and fail to recognise the excellent plan the Government is putting in place for the improvement of Auckland and wider New Zealand.

To me, we are very blessed here in New Zealand to have so many opportunities to progress and develop our aspirations. I just want to say that New Zealand is a wonderful place. When a Korean-born woman can actually become a member of Parliament in New Zealand, this country is in fact a great country.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): A few weeks ago I asked our Minister of Health whether or not he would investigate a sugary drinks tax, because on that very day the World Health Organization had come out pushing for countries across the world to implement a sugary drinks tax to help fight the huge rise in chronic diseases, like type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic tooth decay, which have all been spiking since there has been a huge rise in the consumption of sugary drinks.

Unfortunately, our Minister of Health was unwilling to investigate such an initiative, despite the World Health Organization pushing for it, despite the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor chairing a global commission on childhood obesity that recommended this very policy, and despite 70 public health experts here in New Zealand having written him a letter saying that, in fact, there was much more evidence in favour of a sugary drinks tax and its impact on health benefits than there was for any of the initiatives in our Government’s childhood obesity plan.

What this reflects to me, I think, is the problem that we have with this National Government. When its ideology conflicts with the evidence, it falls back to its ideology. Although I know its members mean well, and I am sure that the Minister of Health does want to ensure that there is a reduction in chronic diseases, the reality is that the Government is not taking any practical, evidence-based steps to ensure that we are protecting the health of our children and our people for the long term. That is what the Green Party is here to champion. We want a healthier, happier New Zealand, and we are going to use proper, evidence-based policy to deliver it.

The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor has advocated for this very policy, but it is not only that. Just last week there was a new study published. I think it is going to make it very, very difficult for our Minister of Health to continue saying that there is no clear evidence that a sugary drinks tax will reduce obesity or chronic diseases related to obesity, because in the latest peer-reviewed journal we have got this Projected Impact of Mexico’s Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Policy on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease: A Modeling Study, which demonstrates that over time the reduction in consumption of sugary drinks is predicted to significantly reduce type 2 diabetes, strokes, myocardial infarctions, cardiovascular disease, and other related costs, and that the benefits of this policy overall, in terms of avoided health costs, are over US$1 billion.

My question and my challenge to this National Government is: if you really believe in protecting the health of our children, if you really believe in reducing the cost to the health system, and if you really believe in governing for the long term, then follow the evidence and the recommendations of the experts on the World Health Organization and here in New Zealand—the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor—and start investigating policies that will actually make a difference to reducing the consumption of harmful, sugar-sweetened beverages.

If the Government is unwilling to do this, I think the only conclusion that New Zealanders can reasonably come to is that it is on the side of the big food and sugary drinks companies that stand to gain, which are using lots of money to confuse the public about this issue because they want to continue selling as many sugary drinks as possible, no matter how sick it makes our kids. That is their goal. Just like the tobacco industry before them—and I note that there are two former tobacco lobbyists on the Government’s side here in the House—and the fossil fuel industry now, they are using their power and money to fight positive public policy that would benefit all people in this country. That is what the sugary drinks industry is doing—and does it not make sense? Does it not make sense that they would not want to see policy that would actually result in a reduction of consumption?

Of course, if we actually believe in economically rational policy, it makes perfect sense that a tax on sugary drinks would work. Of course it is going to reduce consumption, and not only that, it is probably the very best incentive we can give to that industry to develop alternatives that are healthier and do not make people sick. That is already what is happening in the UK, where Tesco is deciding to reduce the sugar content in its own drinks line as a result of the tax that was implemented in the United Kingdom. The revenue for such a tax can be used to fund health services and health promotion, and so it makes sense. Thank you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, mauriora! I really need a nice, cold, refreshing glass of Coke to wash that cloying taste of the nanny State out of my mouth after that last contribution. Can I say what a great time it is to be a Kiwi; what a wonderful time it is to be a Wellingtonian. It must be a worrying time for our friends and cousins in the United States, and we wish them all the best as the world’s greatest democracy goes through its 4-yearly ritual. It is a great time to live under this constitutional monarchy, where we have a head of State who is completely and utterly reliable at all times, and we have a Government that is doing a fantastic job.

Here in Wellington, which I am proud to work in as a list MP, the economy is going very well. Jobs are on the increase. It is a delight to be able to report to the House that in the year ended September, employment in Wellington was massively up—in fact, unemployment was down by 1.6 percent, so we are well below the national average of 4.6 percent. Wellington is making a significant contribution to our country’s GDP, and a significant contribution to job creation and growth in the services sector.

So what does the success in growing employment in Wellington look like? It means bigger and better events. This year we had an absolute record time with the World of Wearable Art Awards. We had the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo, where the town was absolutely sold out. We had the success of the Shakespeare Globe Centre’s battle between primary school children, re-enacting the Battle of Agincourt, from Henry V, at the Westpac Stadium, which I was pleased to go to yesterday. There were 500 primary schoolkids who participated in that event, and I want to shout out to Dawn Sanders, who organised that wonderful event. We hopefully will have a revitalised format for the Sevens next year. So these are events that drive jobs and economic activity in the capital.

The hospitality sector is performing strongly. Visa Wellington on a Plate, here in Wellington, had over 20,000 tickets sold last year, and there were 126 different kinds of hamburger on offer—something that really appeals to my taste and sensibilities. We have to thank the hospitality sector for the work it does. I want to call on the police, the medical officer of health, and the council to respect the decisions that have been made by Parliament and the laws we have enacted to allow the hospitality sector to successfully operate and to continue to employ thousands of people here in Wellington.

Accommodation is going gangbusters, with insufficient rooms in Wellington—as there previously were. We have seen the construction of new hotels, from the five-star Sofitel, to the 137 rooms of the Park Hotel on Lambton Quay. Congratulations to Alex Cassels on getting that one off the ground. And we look forward to a new Rydges breaking ground shortly at the airport. We have seen burgeoning transport links from this Government’s investment in Transmission Gully so we have the road piece of the puzzle, through to new flights linking Wellington to Canberra, then on to Singapore, where we have seen an expansion of freight capacity, from 2 tonnes on a narrow-body aircraft, to 15 tonnes on Singapore Airlines’ airliners. This is very positive.

What is the Government doing to back up this success and to underpin it? We are doing a lot. The Government is running a fiscal surplus. We are managing the State’s books—the Government’s books—in a very fiscally responsible way. This gives business the confidence to invest their own money into creating new jobs. We are warming against the maladies that result from failed policy prescriptions such as Labour’s bungled announcement on the weekend over its jobs policy. Aside from this picture of overall sensible economic management, there are a number of specific programmes that are successfully underpinning local growth. I want to reference a couple of them.

By setting up a new ICT graduate school in Wellington we have trained up even more highly qualified digital gurus, who are going on to work in the film sector. Combined with the Whitireia and WelTec combined creative campus on Cuba Street, the software design sector is getting a supply of good quality, locally trained graduates to meet its needs.

Last month, in October, two out of three of the business accelerator grants that were given out by the Government went to Creative HQ, which is a local incubator. It is doing wonderful work. We are seeing financial sector technology and energy, which fit really well within our capital’s brand as an innovative and clean and green city. I will point out—as have other colleagues—that New Zealand featured on the Legatum Institute’s Global Prosperity Index, released last week, as No. 1. This does not make us the wealthiest country in the world, but it means we have the best quality of life, with the resources we have. I want to shout out to Harriet Maltby, who leads the work on that, at the Legatum Institute in London. Harriet will be visiting New Zealand shortly, and we hope to be able to show her how correct she was when she pointed out that we are No. 1 in the world.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I have attended a few Labour Party annual conferences, and the one that we attended last weekend by far has been the most exciting and most inspirational one that I have ever attended. Andrew Little and Labour—we are committed to investing in our people and ensuring opportunities for all, and ensuring that we have a comprehensive housing policy. Andrew Little made the commitment that we will address homelessness and ensure that fewer of our families are living in cars or garages. Andrew Little is committed to addressing inequality, as well as addressing childhood poverty.

Labour, during our conference, also launched its Future of Work report, and I would like to acknowledge and commend my colleague and friend Grant Robertson for leading this project. It was a project that took over 2 years and involved a lot of members of Parliament from the Labour Party, but it also involved a lot of presentations—hundreds, actually, that Grant Robertson himself did—a lot of talking to a lot of people, and listening to and gaining the advice from people in the field about what it is that we should do. The Future of Work policy is something that the Labour Party has worked on, as I say, for about a couple of years, but it is one that has actually given us the opportunity to look at how we would address this issue. It is not just the Labour Party in New Zealand that is looking at this issue. There are so many other countries in Europe that are looking at the fact that in the next 10 to 20 years, with automation and with technology, we will have to address this head-on. Labour is the party of ideas. Over 100 years, we have a record of delivering progress for our people.

If I can just look at two announcements that this National Government has made today. National is so proud of its two new initiatives that it has chosen today, of all days, to make its announcement on apprenticeships as well as on the skills hub in Auckland. But why has National chosen today—the day on which the media, not just in New Zealand but the media around the world, are going to be focused on the US elections? Can I just say that one of those reasons might be that we have 74,000 young people who are not in education, employment, or training. So many of our young people—27,500 of those who are “neets”—are Māori, and over 11,000 of them are Pacific, which is disproportionate to the numbers that Māori and Pacific make up of the total population.

But that is not the only reason, I think, why National has chosen today to make these announcements. When we look a little bit closer at this $183 million—it sounds like a big amount—it is only $10 million that is new money. When you look closer at the target that the Government has, it is going to have 50,000 apprenticeships in 4 years. But when National came into Government in 2008 we had, at that time, 53,400 apprenticeships. Today there are only 41,800 apprentices.

Chris Bishop: No, no.

JENNY SALESA: There are. Why is it that this number of apprenticeships has dropped dramatically under National? It is because it has not had a focus on apprenticeships and on making sure that it is fixing up its own mess. This is one of the reasons why National is hiding its initiative, by announcing it today, of all days, when everyone else, including the New Zealand media, is going to be focused on the US elections. We have 12,000 young people who are unemployed today, and that is 12,000 more young people, compared with those who were unemployed in 2008. National just does not care enough about our young people. Our Deputy Prime Minister was calling our young people “pretty damned hopeless” and writing them off. This announcement today, of two new initiatives, is far too little, far too late, to fix the damage that National has done.

Let us look at what happened in 2013. It was the year that Hawkins Construction and Fletcher Building, as well as Auckland Council, and many others, wrote a report called Workforce Skills Roadmap for Auckland Construction Sector (2013-2018) and presented it to the Hon Steven Joyce. That particular report mapped out that in Auckland they are going to be short by 32,000 skilled people by 2018. This announcement today is too little, too late.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Earlier today my colleague Melissa Lee referred to New Zealand’s world-leading financial performance and, just earlier, my other colleague—my learned colleague—Paul Foster-Bell also mentioned a world-leading performance by New Zealand from the Legatum Institute. I would like to just explain what that means for New Zealand. What it means is that we, as New Zealanders, are receiving the biggest bang for our buck. We have been independently assessed as getting the best in our society for our taxpayers out of every tax dollar spent, and that means in social services, healthcare, education, social housing, and emergency accommodation for our most vulnerable. That is an independent assessment of this Government’s performance.

As many of you know, I am based in the most beautiful part of the world, in the West Coast - Tasman region. Sometimes we have had a few challenges with job losses. These were in the coalmining sector, held across generations. Some of our grandfathers, sons, and grandsons had a traditional rite of passage into jobs in the mining sector. We had losses in jobs in Westport-based cement works, the dairy sector also took quite a hit on the West Coast, and still other jobs were lost in other industries. But, rather than just sitting back and feeling sorry for themselves, under the leadership of Mayor Gary Howard from the Buller District, they picked themselves up and looked to find solutions. That drive, creativity, hard work, and determination are basic prerequisites of success, whether it be individuals, a community, or a country, and this Government has that drive. It is creating new models. It is working hard and is determined that we all succeed.

Earlier this year, a partnership was formed between the Buller District Council and Government through the Ministry of Social Development and the local economic development trust, Development West Coast. The outcome to date is an employment initiative that has seen the creation of 22 new positions. Six people have come off Work and Income benefits, seven apprenticeships have been created, and not only has this partnership created new jobs—and real jobs—it has given the community hope for the future and a belief that it is well-supported to achieve.

But probably the most significant partnership that has been formed is between this Government and the whole West Coast region, in the form of the Tai Poutini regional development study. In my view, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for communities across the Coast in business, iwi, and local government service groups to work together with Government—and a willing Government—to identify the potential growth and investment areas and then make progress on delivering on them. This study has identified a multitude of low, medium, and highly achievable opportunities, some of which are gathering momentum as we speak. I look forward to February of next year, when the implementation plan will be delivered.

This regional growth study has provided an opportunity for our most capable people to lead this study, provide input, and steer our own future direction. It is another exciting example of forming a great working relationship with this Government, enabling the Coast to benefit hugely from ongoing investment and support. This study complements the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. It is supporting business growth, creating jobs, and improving the standard of living for our people across the Coast. It will look at initiatives in a multitude of areas, including tourism, minerals, ICT—some of the smartest people I have ever met work out of EPIC in Westport—forestry and wood processing, horticulture, food and beverage, education, and fishing and aquaculture, as well as transport, communications, and energy.

This Government has backed up its support of the regions, and we have benefited from the Government’s Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative, the West Coast Wilderness Trail, the Old Ghost Road Trail, and various other investments. As Henry Ford once said, coming together is a beginning, keeping together is progress, working together is success. This Government is willing and open to working with our partners in the region to continue our work on building a strong economy. It is a hand up, not a hand out, and it works. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill

Third Reading

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I move, That the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the trustees and the supporters of the trust up in the gallery. Welcome, folks—this is your House. Thank you for your support. I thank you for your initiative in driving this bill through the House. It is has been a little time coming, but this is the third reading.

Secondly, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, particularly around what could have been a hiccup—what could have been a delay—when the idea of translation into Te Reo was brought into the discussion. I know that, ideally, that would have been the case. Ideally, we would have had the two languages side by side in this bill, but I do thank the committee for seeing the pragmatic, practical, and real solution to the issue at the time, which was to stick to the one language. There is an opportunity down the track to have Te Reo Māori at a later date. I appreciate the pragmatic decision made by the select committee.

I would particularly like to thank the chairman of the committee, Nuk Korako, for his leadership and guidance and assistance to me through the process. I would also like to particularly mention Meka Whaitiri and Marama Fox, two local MPs who have also supported me and contributed to the process of the bill through the select committee and through the House. I also look forward to their contributions when they relate and talk about their whakapapa back to Papawai, which I am sure they will. I will bring the point about whakapapa back to Wairarapa. I cannot whakapapa back to any iwi in the Wairarapa, or any iwi in any region of New Zealand, so I do not—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What about iwi Karori?

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Exactly, ha, ha! Therefore, I do not pretend to understand the importance of the link Māori have to their land. I do not want to even attempt to traverse that subject. I will leave it to the aforementioned to discuss the importance of the land.

I am very pleased for the trustees and, especially, the beneficiaries of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts today. This is an important piece of legislation, not just for the trustees and the beneficiaries but, in my view, in a small way, for all New Zealanders. I will try to explain.

When I first read the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act of 1943, I was struck by how sanctimonious the language was. It was really terrible. This bill removes the patronising attitude that is so prevalent in that Act. Of course, we are 70 years down the track and we are much better educated, we are much more aware, and we are much more empathetic and understanding. This bill allows Wairarapa Māori to determine their own future relating to the assets of this trust for themselves.

The old Act was very restrictive and very prescriptive. There was no ability for the Māori trustees to determine for themselves the choice they should have. There were a lot of hamstrings in the Act. In terms of the type of recipient, it was very restrictive. The type of assistance that was able to be given to the beneficiaries was very restrictive. We had the Ministry of Education and the Māori Land Court restricting the wishes of the local people. This sanctimony at the time was saying, basically: “Sorry, guys. You guys don’t know what you’re doing over in the Wairarapa. We here in the Māori Land Court and in the Ministry of Education know best. We know best what is good for you and we will determine how this thing should be run.”

I did not write the words of this bill. This is not my bill. This is the bill written by the trustees of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts, and that is the way it should be. After all, who am I to determine how the assets of that trust should be run when, in fact, as I have already said, I have no whakapapa back to any iwi in the Wairarapa? It is not my business to say what should be in this bill. It is the business of the iwi of Wairarapa. You will see—it will be mentioned later on, I am sure—that no particular iwi are mentioned. It has been a collaborative effort of all the iwi of Wairarapa, and I am very proud to sponsor this bill on behalf of those people.

Taking initiative is what these trustees have done. Taking responsibility, individually and collectively, is a mantra of the National Party. Trusting families and communities to make the right decisions for themselves is a principle of this side of the House, so removing the patronising, sanctimonious, nanny State legislation that the old Act represents is a very good thing, not just for Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri but for all of us. We do not want or need a nanny State. People do know what they want, and people do know how to achieve their goals.

I am here to support those New Zealanders, and, in a small way, to support these people who have shown that initiative and taken the initiative to get this bill through the House. I am sure it gives the trustees a lot of pleasure and a lot of relief and a lot of satisfaction that this bill will enable them to do what they want with their assets and their time for their young people. So, again, I appreciate the support of the trustees and their supporters. I appreciate the support of each party across the House, the select committee members, and the chair. I commend this bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. It is indeed my privilege and honour to participate in the third reading of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. If there is any particular part that I think we as politicians enjoy the most in this House, it is always the third reading. This is a non-controversial bill, which Labour supports wholeheartedly. The intent of the bill, like the member who has just resumed his seat, Alastair Scott, said, is to modernise the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board in terms of the original intent of why it has been set out, and, I guess, to modernise it in today’s context.

I just want to touch briefly on the four objectives that the trust attempted to do and that the Māori Affairs Committee addressed. The first objective was to better describe the relationship between the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board, the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, and the tangata whenua o Wairarapa—that was objective one. Objective two was to establish a more robust nomination process for board members. Objective three was to provide a fairer distribution of funds for tangata whenua o Wairarapa, and fourth was to facilitate a long-term development of their lands.

When you look into the bill, those two front-end objectives—i.e. the relationships and the nomination process—are explained further in the bill. Once upon a time, they had 10 members, appointed through various mechanisms; under this bill, it is eight members who will be appointed. Four will be selected by the bishop, and as the bill says: “The Board must have 8 members consisting of (a) 4 members appointed by the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika”—and just so that we have no ambiguity on that, we are talking about the bishop as defined, as appointed under the title by the Anglican Church in Aotearoa / New Zealand and Polynesia, commonly known as the Church of England, or the bishop of any replacement diocesan. Where the rubber hits the road in terms of empowering the tangata whenua o Wairarapa, they get to choose the other four members of the board and advertise the process that they are going to follow in a public way. Those two objectives, if that was the intention of the trust, I believe have been met.

The third objective around the fairer distribution of funds—to say that the trust will apply its funding and no longer limit distribution just to Anglican Church schools. Can I just pause there? As an Anglican myself, and also to the iconic Māori Anglican boarding schools that this trust has helped, I want to acknowledge Queen Victoria School and Hato Tipene College, St Stephen’s College, which, unfortunately, have both closed; Hukarere Girls’ College, in my electorate; and, of course, Te Aute College. These are iconic Māori boarding schools, and I know that the trust, along with many, many other educational trusts, was instrumental in supporting many people, so I just want to acknowledge the contribution of the trust in terms of schooling many of our secondary students.

The fourth objective, which I just want to comment on briefly, is to facilitate the long-term development of lands. In so far as the bill goes, it covers that the board may sell the Clareville land but not the Papawai land or Kaikōkirikiri land. In our previous contributions, obviously, the corpus land, which is the Papawai land—we want to make sure that that is protected, and that is done under this bill. In terms of the Clareville land and giving the trust board more flexibility to make decisions around how that is leased, managed, or sold on, I think that is a good compromise; so we support that. It says further in the bill: “To avoid doubt, the Board may not consent to the sale or otherwise permanent alienation of the Papawai land or the Kaikokirikiri land.” That is, again, a very important aspect of the bill.

So those are the four objectives that the trust, I understand, sought in presenting the bill to the member for the Wairarapa. I want to just quickly note that the trust, I do believe, wanted the bill presented in both languages. We have traversed that issue. There just was not enough time. It is a commitment. I want to acknowledge my colleague Nanaia Mahuta, who mentioned during the Committee stage that if we are going to move down that track—and I do hope this House considers that seriously—we do plan for it through the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I think it is timely that we are actually acknowledging the three official languages in this country, but particularly for Māori and English to be set aside.

I want to just move to the acknowledgments. To the member who has brought this bill to the House, Alastair Scott: ngā mihi ki a koe. Thank you very much for bringing this local bill to the House and for the commitment that you have, obviously, presented in terms of supporting this particular trust that sits in our electorate. Ngā mihi ki a koe. I want to also acknowledge the hard-working Māori Affairs Committee, ably chaired by Tutehounuku Korako. Thank you very much for the work that you have done, and all the members of the Māori Affairs Committee. The submitters—and at this point I do want to acknowledge Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, which, in its submission, talked about the use of Te Reo and of ensuring that the whakapapa to Wairarapa was also adequately recognised in the bill. I do believe that has been achieved.

Fourthly, I want to acknowledge the Labour members who contributed during the Committee stage. It was interesting reading their contributions to that Committee stage. I know there were some issues that my colleague Peeni Henare talked about in terms of the Reo and whether it was correct or not. Rightly so, Mr Assistant Speaker Trevor Mallard, you reminded him that that was not the time to address it, but it is a timely reminder for us that accuracy around the use of Te Reo needs to be managed and observed much more closely—reiterating the point made by the trust around Te Reo, and I have made that point.

I guess, in closing, my comment is to the trust members, who I know may be in the gallery. I want to acknowledge them, the current trustees, plus all the previous trust board members who may no longer be with us, who have served gallantly the original intent of the Act, and, more importantly, I acknowledge their absolute financial contribution to the hundreds, if not thousands, of Māori around this country, which enabled them to attend those schools.

On a personal note, my mother attended Hukarere Girls’ College in the late 1940s—1948 to 1949, and finished in Hukarere in 1953. I mentioned this particular bill when I was back home with her recently, and she recalled receiving financial assistance back in those days to attend Hukarere. So, just from me to the trust, I want to make that acknowledgment.

I also want to acknowledge the trust and thank the trust, which also contributed to the education of my two sons, who went to Lindisfarne College. It is not an Anglican school, I must admit, it is a Presbyterian school. But for me it is important to acknowledge those who help our people to further their aspirations and their dreams of a good quality education.

So, on that closing note, again I want to thank the trust. I want to thank the member for bringing this bill to the House. It is, as we have said, a very non-controversial bill. Labour supports all legislation that empowers people who do really wonderful things in our community, and the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts have shown that they have done it for many years. The passing of this bill to modernise the trusts will ensure that that service to our people in the Wairarapa, particularly, will continue. I commend this bill to the House.

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā, nō reira, ngā mihi ki te whanauka o Te Waka o Tākitimu, Ngāti Kahungunu, ki a koe, ki a koutou o Te Waka o Kurahaupō. Tēnei te mihi ki ngā rakatira o Te Hāhi Mihingare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. E nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[So thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you, the relative of the Tākitimu waka, particularly you, Ngāti Kahungunu, and you collectively of the Kurahaupo waka. I acknowledge you, esteemed ones of the Anglican Church, greetings and accolades to you all. So welcome, welcome, greet the House, I salute you all.]

It is indeed my pleasure to be able to speak on behalf of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill in the third reading. I want to acknowledge those who are in the gallery today who have come all the way from Papawai. I also want to acknowledge you too, Mr Scott, because I know you have been sitting there for quite some time because I saw you come in. It is only part—almost the finish—of the journey that you have been on to bring your bill to the House and to actually have it go through the parliamentary process and then get it to the third reading stage, the final reading; so, greetings to you. When I see you there, I think of my uncle Ben Couch, the Hon Ben Couch, because, as you probably know, he came from our village, Rāpaki o Te Rakiwhakaputa o Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū, Kaitahu tūturu Ngāti Uripehu [Rāpaki o Te Rakiwhakaputa of Banks Peninsula, a Ngāti Uripehu, a true Kaitahu].

I want to, first of all, acknowledge two wāhine toa, and they are the ones from Kahungunu, from that area—and I am talking about Meka Whaitiri and Marama Fox. They are members of the Māori Affairs Committee, and they were very instrumental in assisting my colleague Alastair Scott, whom I also acknowledge now, who was responsible for shepherding this bill through the House. I want to acknowledge those, but also the Māori Affairs Committee, which took great pride in ensuring that this bill had a smooth passage through to where we are today. I also want to acknowledge all those who submitted to the Māori Affairs Committee and, in particular, again acknowledge those trustees of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts. Their input in the drafting of this bill and also in the select committee consideration process has been very important in shaping the final bill itself, which we are actually debating here today in Parliament.

This bill amends the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act 1943 to enable this trust board to better manage its functions—and that is the essence of this bill. You could also say that this bill futureproofs the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri trusts and brings them into the 21st century as well. When the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act was established, it was in response to a need to make more practical use of the income available from the lands held by these two trusts. But it was also important to retain the trusts’ purpose of furthering mātauraka—of furthering education.

We have heard here in the House from Meka Whaitiri about some personal things that the trusts have done, particularly for her children. As an old boy of Hato Tipene College, St Stephen’s College, in Auckland, I know that there were many of my fellow students whom I went to school with who were actually beneficiaries of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts, so I acknowledge that again.

This is really, in some ways, when we talk about this bill and we talk about mātauraka, why the administrative changes had to be made to this board—because it needed some flexibility in managing its assets. It was about flexibility. But we can also look beyond that to the kaupapa of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri trusts, which is actually, as I said, about furthering mātauraka, but particularly in the area of the Wairarapa. This is such an important kaupapa based on raising Māori educational achievement, which is a key priority for this Government in particular.

When I look at the incredible work that is being done here by our Government in the realms of Māori education—looking only at the number of Māori 18-year-olds achieving NCEA, this has risen from 44.6 percent to over 70 percent. When we look at other Government achievements, there is also an importance placed on the rise of the whole of the Māori population around mātauraka. There is also a much higher number of tertiary students, Māori, who go to university. There has been a huge increase, particularly over the last 9 years—as a matter of fact, it is up over 60 percent. Also we have kura hourua, or partnership schools, in place with specific goals of lifting achievements for Māori. These are actually being supported by the incredible idea of getting those who are not doing so well in mainstream schools and putting them into these partnership schools so that they may learn—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK, the member has now had 3 minutes on his research notes, and I think he could come back to the bill now.

NUK KORAKO: I just want to acknowledge that throughout the country there have been trusts, community groups, and other organisations that, like the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri trusts, are doing their bit to raise achievement for Māori. So it is good to be able to come to this House today to support a bill that assists the trusts board in carrying out its great work and to extend that. It is certainly our hope that by allowing the trusts board more flexibility to effectively run the trusts, it can get even greater benefit for students of the Wairarapa.

Just to reiterate the objectives of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri trusts, the first one is to better describe the relationship between the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board, the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, and tangata whenua ki Wairarapa. Also, the second one is to establish a more robust nomination process for board members, and the third is to provide fairer distribution of funds for tangata whenua of Wairarapa. The other part is to facilitate the long-term development of the lands that are actually being held by the trusts. This bill will achieve these aims well, and I am glad that it has widespread support within the House.

I just want to reflect on a couple of things, though, that came up in the select committee and also came up in the different readings of the bill. These include changes to the bill, particularly around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, by changing the way that the bill would deal with issues of personal capacity related to mental health issues. There was the other one that Meka Whaitiri mentioned and highlighted, which came from Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā, which was around the Te Reo Māori version of the bill itself. I completely tautoko her in the fact that if we are to do a bill in dual language, Te Reo Māori and English, it needs to be done right from the beginning. But we are learning as we go, and that is the whakaaro of the Māori Affairs Committee that we do want to support and continue to support.

So, looking at this bill, it is indeed, as I said before, a bill that futureproofs this now. It gives you more leeway to be able to be in charge of your own destiny. So, on that note, I wish the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri trusts well, but I also wish, for the recipients of the funds that you will provide to our Māori rakatahi, that you continue to do that and we will see the fruits of this in the future. On that note, it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Reo Māori e Te Māngai o Te Whare, kāti e Te Whare e mihi atu ana au ki a tātau ki roto i ngā āhuatanga o te wā, ā, ka tautoko i ngā mihi ki Te Poari Whakahaere kua tae mai ki te whakarongo ki te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire. Ka mihia e tērā taha, ka mihia e tēnei taha ki a rātau me te mana e mau mai ana e rātau ki raro i te tāhūhū o tō tātau Whare. Anā, e kawea nei e rātau i te mana o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna nā rātau i whakakī ai i ngā tūru i roto i ngā taumaha kua pahure ake nei. Nā runga i tērā me te whakaaro ake ki ngā mātua me ngā tūpuna, ka tangi ahau ki ngā aituā kei runga i a rātau, ki runga i a tātau hoki, haere, haere, haere!

Kia whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātau e Te Whare, e tautoko ana ahau i ngā mihi ki Te Mema o te wāhi rā, arā, ko Alastair Scott, kua mauria mai i tēnei pire ki roto i Te Whare, he aha ai, ki te whakatutuki i ngā moemoeā o rātau mā, ki te whakatutuki i ngā wawata me ngā hiahia o Te Poari Whakahaere o ēnei whenua, arā, ko Papawai, arā, ko Kaikōkirikiri. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana au ki a ia!

Ka tāpae atu i ngā mihi ki Te Heamana o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori, me te kāhui o taua rōpū i āta wetewete i ngā kōrero kai roto i tēnei pire, me te whakaae kia Reo Māori tēnei pire, ā, tae hoake nei! Me te whakaae kia whakapakari ai i ngā mahi Reo Māori ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei wā. Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō tēnei pire, me te iti o ngā kupu kei roto ēngari, ko te hōhonutanga o ngā hiahia me ngā wawata kai roto, nō reira, ngā mihi atu ki Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori! Ka tautoko anō hoki au i ngā kōrero kua utaina ki runga i ngā mema ā-rohe, arā, ko Meka Whaitiri kua kōrero i mua ake nei i a au, anā a Mārama Fox e noho mai rā. Nō reira, ka haere tonu ngā mihi, he aha te take i pērā ai? Tā te mea, e hari koa ana tātau katoa, otirā, Te Whare whānui ki te whakamanahia i tēnei i te pō nei.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, ko tēnei pire, he pire ka taea tēnei mea e whāia nei e tātau Te Iwi Māori, arā, ko te tino rangatiratanga. Ko ngā kupu kei roto i tēnei pire, he pire whakapakari i Te Poari Whakahaere o ēnei whenua. Ka āhei rātau ki te tutuki i ngā moemoeā o rātau mā, kia whakarite oranga mō ngā uri whakatupu e haere ake nei. Nō reira, koinā te pai o tēnei pire! Koinā te pai o ngā pire pēnei nā! Kua kōrero ahau mō tēnei mea, te tino rangatiratanga. He aha tēnei mea? Nā, ka titiro atu ahau ki ētahi o ngā kōrero kai roto e mea atu ana, me wāwāhi i tetahi pūtea hei āwhina atu i ngā tauira mā te karahipi, hai tautoko i a rātou, i a rātou e haerēre atu ana ki Te Kura, ki Te Wānanga rānei. He mea pai tēnā ki a au nei! He mea pai kia whakamanahia i tērā wāhanga kei roto i te pire kia whiwhi oranga, kia whiwhi mātauranga ngā uri whakatupu ā taihoa ake nei. Ēngari, kaua te tangata e pōhēhē mā taua tangata te mātauranga anake! Kāhore!

Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā kāinga Māori puta noa! Ko ngā mahi o ngā mātua, kia tukuna atu i ngā tamariki, mokopuna ki te kura kia whāia tēnei mea te mātauranga, me te wawata, kia hoki mai ngā tamariki me ngā kura ki te wā kāinga. Nō reira, ka awhi mai i te kaupapa, i Te Poari Whakahaere o Papawai, o Kaikōkirikiri. Koinā te pai ō tēnei whakaaro! Me kaua e pōhēhē ko tēnei puna ēhara i te puna hōhonu, kāhore! Ko ngā whakaaro kai roto e pā ana ki ngā karahipi he mea pai tēnā ka tautoko mārika tātau!

Me te mea anō hoki ki roto i tēnei pīre, āe, ka āhei Te Poari ki te hoko atu i ētahi o ngā whenua. Ēngari ko te mea pai ki roto i tēnei pire kia tiaki i tetahi wāhi whenua tūpuna e kōrero ake nei kia kaua e ngaro atu! Kia kaua e hokona atu! Kia kaua e riro atu! Koinā te pai kia tiaki i ngā whenua ēngari, ka āhei Te Poari Whakahere ki te hoko atu i ētahi o ngā whenua, hei whakapakari i a rātau, hei whakatupu i te pūtea, he mea pai tēnā! E whakamana ana tērā whakaaro i te whakataukī o ngā mātua tupuna: “Kai roto i te whenua he oranga mō te tangata; kai roto i te whenua he oranga mō te tangata!”. Nō reira, e tautoko ana Te Whare i taua whakaaro, kia hokona atu ētahi o ngā wāhi whenua ēngari, ko te mea nui ki a au nei, he wāhi anō kei roto, hei tiaki—hei tiaki i tetahi wāhi whenua tapu, i tetahi wāhi whenua tupuna, kei roto i a Papawai me Kaikōkirikiri.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, i te wāhanga tuarua o tēnei pire, i kōrero ahau mō taku whakapapa ki Te Marae o Papawai. I kōrero ahau mō ētahi o ngā pou whakairo o te marae rā, anā, kua tapaina e ngā mātua tūpuna i te ingoa o tōku tupuna, a Taurekareka Hēnare, anā, māua ko Te Mema nei a Pita Paraone. Nō reira, ngā mihi nui ki tērā whakaaro! He tauira tēnei pire, he tauira tēnei poari ki te nuinga o ngā poari Māori puta noa i te motu whānui.

[I will speak in Māori, Mr Assistant Speaker. Everyone in the House; I acknowledge us all under today’s circumstances and endorse the acknowledgments to the administration board that have arrived here to listen to the third reading of this bill. And there they are, bearing the integrity of the forefathers and ancestors who filled the positions during difficult past moments. Under those circumstances my thoughts go back to the forefathers and ancestors, and grieve the deaths that are upon them and those as well upon us. Farewell, depart, journey on!

And so I bring the focus of the contribution back to us the House to endorse the acknowledgements to the member of that place, Alastair Scott, who brought this bill into the House and for what purpose—to fulfil the dreams of those gone, to fulfil the expectations and needs of the administrative board of these lands, namely, Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri. And so I commend him. I add my tributes to the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee and to the members of that committee who analysed the contents in this bill, and agreed that this bill be in the Māori language eventually, and that the use of the Māori language in Parliament be strengthened at this point in time.

I reflect on this bill in regard to the dearth of detail in the commentary, but as far as the depth of the aspirations and needs is concerned, it is huge, so I commend the Māori Affairs Committee highly. I also endorse the complimentary sentiments bestowed upon the electorate members, namely, Meka Whaitiri who spoke before me, and Mārama Fox sitting over there. So tributes continue to be accorded, and why, because we are all happy but at the same time, the House at large, to validate this bill this evening.

Mr Assistant Speaker, this bill is one that will enable us the Māori people to pursue what we have been seeking for which is self-determination. The sentiments in this bill are about strengthening the administrative board of these lands. It enables them to fulfil the aspirations of them all, to consider well-being for those generations to come. Therefore, that is the beauty of this bill. That is the beauty of bills like these ones. I have spoken about this thing self-determination. What is this thing? Now I look at some of the sentiments within, saying that some funding should be apportioned to assist and support students with a scholarship, to support them while they are attending kura or wānanga.

To me personally, that is a great thing. It is a good thing that it be enacted in that part which is in the bill, so that descendants in time to come receive well-being and education. But one should never think mistakenly that education is solely for that person. No; not at all. I think about Māori homes throughout in regard to what parents do sending children and grandchildren to school to pursue this thing called education, in the hope that children and schools eventually return home and, therefore, assist with the matter with the administrative board of Papawai, and of Kaikōkirikiri.

That is the beauty of this thought. Do not think mistakenly that this pool is not a deep one, not at all. The thoughts inside it about scholarships are a good thing, which we indeed endorse totally. It also states in this bill, yes, the board is able to sell off some of the land but the thing that is really good in this bill is that a particular piece of ancestral land referred to is protected and not lost forever—it is not sold off and taken. That is the beauty of it; lands are protected but the administrative board is able to sell some of the land to develop the board and to grow the funding. That is a good thing. That thought empowers the proverb of the ancestral forefathers: “Within the land is well-being for mankind, within the land is well-being for mankind!”. And so the House supports that thought that some sections of land be sold off, but the most important thing to me is that there is a part inside to protect and preserve a section of land that is sacred and ancestral within Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri.

Mr Assistant Speaker, in the second reading of this bill, I spoke about my genealogical connections to Papawai Marae. I spoke about some of the carved pillars of that courtyard, and the ancestral forefathers named one of the pillars after Taurekareka Hēnare, an ancestor of mine and of this member Pita Paraone. Therefore, a huge acknowledgement to that thought! This bill and this board is an example for the majority of Māori boards throughout the country at large.]

Pita Paraone: Ā, i ngā poari nunui?

[Do you mean the very large boards?]

PEENI HENARE: Āe, ngā poari nunui! Ngā poari whai rawa—ngā poari whai rawa! Ēngari, he āhua āwangawanga ahau! E āwangawanga ana au tā te mea, e mōhio ana tātou; ā taihoa ake nei, ka haere te pire hou o Te Ture Whenua Maori ki roto i tēnei Whare! Ka whakaaro ake e ahau, he aha nei ngā tapānga o taua pire e whakamanahia e Te Kōti Whenua Māori i ngā whenua Māori. Kāti, tino waimarie Te Poari o Te Papawai o Kaikōkirikiri ta te mea, kei a rātou tā rātau ake pire, tā rātau ake ture e whakamanahia i te tū, me ngā mahi o Te Poari. Ēngari, me kaua tātau Te Iwi Māori e pōhēhē kei ngā rōpū whenua Māori katoa wā rātau ake pire, kāhore! Āini, ka kitea atu he hua ka puta mai i Te Ture Whenua Māori, ā taihoa ake nei!

E Te Māngai o Te Whare kua kōrero ahau mō ētahi o ngā wāhanga kei roto i te pire e mea atu ana, āe, ka āhei Te Poari ki te hokona atu i ētahi o ngā whenua ki te whai rawa, ki te whai oranga mō Te Poari ki te whakahaere, he mea pai tēnā! Ēngari i te rā nei, i puta mai tetahi kōrero e pā ana ki te Resource Management Act. E Te Māngai o Te Whare, āini tātau ka kite mehemea ko tērā pire a te Resource Management Act, he mea hei haukoti i ngā mahi o Te Poari Whakahaere o Papawai, o Kaikōkirikiri! He haukoti i ngā mahi, he haukoti i te mahi whai oranga pai, i te tino rangatiratanga, i te mana motuhake kua kōrero nā e au, ki roto i ngā meniti e 9 kua pahure ake!

Kāti, ka waiho nā atu i ērā kōrero ki te taha e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ka whakahokia mai ngā kōrero ki te kaupapa nei me te kī atu, e tautoko ana mātou Te Rōpū Reipa i tēnei pire. E tautoko mārika ana nā runga i te mahi papai rawa atu i oti i ngā āpiha o tēnei Whare, me ngā kaimahi o Te Poari Whakahaere o Papawai, o Kaikōkirikiri, kāti ake e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ka waiho nā atu ngā kōrero ki konei me te kī atu ki a tātau, kia kaha rā a Hillary Clinton ki roto i ngā mahi, kia ora tātau katoa!

[Yes, the very large ones, the rich ones. However, I am somewhat concerned because we know that very shortly the new bill relating to the Māori Land Act is about to go through this House. I wonder what afflictions indeed about that bill have been mandated by the Māori Land Court in regard to Māori lands. The board of Te Papawai is lucky that it has its own Act to enact its stance and the functions of the board, but we of Māoridom should never be deluded that all Māori land groups will have their own bill, far from it. We will see soon enough what benefits emerges from the Māori land.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I have spoken about some parts in this bill which states, yes, the board is able to sell off some of the lands to enable the board to acquire benefits and well-being for it to administer. That is a good thing. But a statement emerged today about the Resource Management Act. Mr Assistant Speaker, we will find out presently if that bill about it becomes an instrument that cuts right across the Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri administration board’s actions. It obstructs operations, work relating to well-being, autonomy, and self-determination which I have been alluding to in the past 9 minutes. Enough! I leave those sentiments aside.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I bring the focus of the contributions back to this matter here by stating that we of the Labour Party endorse this bill. We absolutely support it because of the wonderful work carried out by the officials of this House and by those of the administrative body of Papawai and of Kaikōkirikiri. Enough, Mr Assistant Speaker. I leave the sentiments here and say to us, go hard Hillary Clinton in the work at hand. My appreciation to us all.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Ā, tēnā koe, ka nui te mihi atu ōku whānau nō Papawai me Rangitāne ki Wairarapa me Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa hoki, kia ora, nau mai, haere mai!

[Thank you; a huge welcome to my families from Papawai and Rangitāne at Wairarapa, and to Ngāti Kahungunu at Wairarapa. Hello there, welcome, and come hither!]

I stand to take a call on the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill, shepherded through the House to the third reading by my colleague here, Alastair Scott. My colleagues have outlined the purpose of the bill very eloquently. As I have said in previous contributions that I have had in the House, it is a bill that has been modernised. It has been brought up to date so that the governors of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board can get on and do the work that they have been doing over the years that the trust has been in action.

I guess, for my contribution to the third reading, I want to talk a little bit about the whakapapa around Papawai, because it is around the Papawai Marae. It is the key to the basis of this trust, because without the history around that, this trust would never have come into being. Papawai Marae used to be one of the biggest marae in Aotearoa. Many people, many Māori, looked up to the Papawai Marae because of its history around the first Māori Parliament—the Kotahitanga—and its history around the education background that emanated from Papawai Marae. That is why when we look at the whakapapa behind Papawai Marae, we can see that its maunga is Tararua, its awa is Ruamāhanga, and its marae is Papawai. The whakapapa cements the relationships that have gone through over and over in that area. It is something that binds all of us. And when I say it binds all of us, I am saying myself, Meka Whaitiri, Metiria Turei, Ron Mark, and Marama Fox: we all whakapapa to that marae.

When we look at the history of Māori MPs, I think this would be the first time in the history of this Parliament that we have representation of Māori MPs who whakapapa to that one marae. That is something that we can be proud of, because that is the education background. That is the kaha and the mana that comes from being a descendant of Papawai Marae. That is the educational background that we all stem from. I am very proud that our whānau are sitting up there in the gallery and that they are witnessing today the updating of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act.

As I said before, Papawai Marae was revered throughout the country; it was looked upon. I can say that the ancestors, or the major lines that made up Papawai, came from Paikea/Iratūroto, which connected the northeast to the south and the original Wellington tribes. It was also Whātonga that connected Papawai to the Rangitāne tribes, and it was Tamatea that connected our people to the Tākitimu tribes. That is why it is really, really important that I put this in the House today as part of my final contribution. I do not know whether it has been said in as many words, but I did want to put that as I was talking about the bill.

The Māori Affairs Committee received a number of submissions on this bill, and everybody around the table at our select committee was all in favour of what was to eventuate today. We too want to see the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts go forward and help not just the tamariki from Wairarapa and Kahungunu but those from right along the East Coast—and, actually, throughout the whole of the motu—who have whakapapa lines into Papawai in Wairarapa. This is an important stepping stone because there are other Māori trusts that our tamariki can access education scholarships from but this particular trust comes with a lot of good history behind it. It has been run very smoothly, and that could be due to the fact of the education prowess that actually emanates out of Papawai or it could be a number of things. But the way that the trust has actually worked with the Anglican Church to be able to deliver various scholarships and such to a number of our tamariki is a credit to the work that it continues to do.

I was fortunate enough to visit Papawai with John Hayes a couple of years ago—not a relation of mine, but an MP here—and I took a group of overseas students on to the marae. The kaha and the feeling that you get when you enter that marae, when you see the tekoteko—the pou that surround it, and they all look inwards into it. Most pou stick out, you know, as a protection thing. Well, these pou actually look in, and that is to look after and nurture the people in that marae—and that is really key to the basis of Papawai. It is the—how would you put it—a feeling of wairua when you go on there. It is no wonder that Papawai Marae was the basis for our Kotahitanga, our first Māori Parliament.

All in all, as I said, the trust gives a third of its income to post - primary education funds and scholarships, as well as going across the whole of the country, to people who belong to the Anglican Church who are of Māori descent and who whakapapa to Papawai.

There is not much more that I can really add to my kōrero. I just want to finish off with this whakataukī. I think it is poignant for Papawai because it has had years of history, and when I translate it, you will see that it is very poignant for closing my speech with today. Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi, he toa takimana. [My strength is not individual, but comes from thousands.] That describes the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts. Kia ora.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, ā, tuarua ki ngā mema ō tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou katoa, kia ora koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and, secondly, acknowledgments to you, all members of our House, hello there.]

And kia ora, Papawai, I am so glad you are here. It is awesome. It is good. We are doing another bill and we are in the final part of the process for this bill. Although it is a small bill in some respects, in terms of the trusts, it is really important to be talking about the history of these places. Oh, it is a big bill—this big. OK, this big? Ha, ha! It is enormous—it is an enormous bill. It has an enormous impact. Although it might be small in size, it is the impact that counts. I am really pleased to stand on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill. As you know, ko Tararua te maunga, ko Ruamāhanga te awa, ko Papawai te marae. So it is very nice to be able to talk about Papawai, where my family are from on my dad’s side—my dad’s dad’s side, actually. They are part of the Rangi Te Kai Waho whānau from there.

I will talk a little bit about the history of Papawai. It is really great hearing others talk about that too in their own ways. I really appreciated Joanne Hayes in her kōrero about the history of te kotahitanga movement and the Māori Parliament. I just want to acknowledge the buildings on that place, Hikurangi, which was first built in 1885 but burnt down and was rebuilt in 1888 and is named Hikurangi—the wharenui there—because Ngati Porou carvers came down and it was a way of acknowledging and respecting their work. The wharekai there is Aotea-Te Waipounamu. That, again, is another way for those who were there at the time of the rebuilding process to acknowledge both north and south and to find ways of bringing together both parts of the country, if you like—the north and south of the country—at Papawai as part of the kotahitanga philosophy, as part of that kotahitanga kaupapa. So the whole marae is established like that, which includes the fact of the tekoteko face to the inside in order to promote peace amongst te iwi Māori.

I just want to go briefly through some of the reasons for some of the proposals in the bill, the provisions in the bill, and base them primarily on the submission of the trusts board, actually, that is crucial to this bill, the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. The trusts board, of course, supported this bill because it had worked very closely with the member on its development, but it is also important to note that some of the changes it was making did come from very extensive consultation and communication with the hapū and iwi of the Wairarapa. I think that is really important. The changes are not being imposed. The changes that are in this legislation are not being imposed on the community there; they are the natural consequence of a change in time, a movement in time, the change in the way that the Church is responding to the needs of the community and the change in the way that iwi Māori themselves are thinking about themselves in response to the 21st century.

One of the big ones for me personally was the way that the beneficiaries of the trusts—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise for interrupting the member, but I just want to ask the people in charge of the sound system to do a little check on it. I seem to be picking up, over here at least, some of the conversation from the two doctors on the middle bench of the National Party. I do not know whether it is coming through my mike or other mikes. Joanne Hayes—sorry, Metiria Turei.

METIRIA TUREI: No worries at all.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): It might be coming from Joanne’s mike still.

METIRIA TUREI: Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The original Act, as I understand it, referred to the provision of scholarships through this funding for the children of British subjects, children of islands in the Pacific Ocean, which is quite broad, but with a preference for the children of the Ngāti Kahungunu tribe, and then other Māori or descendants of Māori from the East Coast of the North Island. Then the final category was the descendants of Māori anywhere across the country. So it was quite a big catchment and very generous, I might say, at the time. But the board did believe that it was important that those who benefited from the income from the Wairarapa lands were those who would whakapapa back to those Wairarapa lands. I think that is a perfectly reasonable approach to take. It certainly is very common in general law around trusts that there is a close connection between the beneficiaries and the original settlors or those who owned the land or the resources in the first place. So I think that was just a modernisation of this legislation.

The board’s submission goes on to say that, in regard to Wairarapa iwi, the 1943 Act referred to a preference to Ngāti Kahungunu only and does not specify Rangitāne in that legislation other than through a description of other Māori or descendants of Māori from the East Coast of the North Island. So the trusts did actually undertake quite a significant review a few years ago. The review was designed to recognise that the Rangitāne descendants should also be entitled to receive scholarships in respect of the whakapapa of those whose tīpuna were those who originally gifted the lands for the purpose of education, so there was an attempt to find a reason to reflect more directly Rangitāne in the provisions of the legislation. Whakapapa confirms, they went on to say, that tīpuna who gifted the lands were descendants from one or more Wairarapa hapū, one or more Wairarapa iwi, which may not have been restricted actually even to Ngāti Kahungunu or Rangitāne.

The way the bill was previously structured could actually provide more constraints than was necessary and not really recognise the rights of tangata whenua on these lands—under the desire of those who originally gifted the land for educational purposes to have a broad base for their descendants to receive the benefit—nor was there a proper recognition of tangata whenua, because, of course, in those days, in 1943, the language and concept of who iwi Māori and hapū Māori were were not the same as they are now after many years of proper consideration. So in 2006 the board undertook a consultation process, and one of those outcomes was to look at what was the best terminology to use in this legislation: how Wairarapa iwi themselves want to be described in legislation that is about them and for them. It is actually about the resources that they have provided to help their kids now and into the future.

I think that is a very responsive and collaborative conversation to have, and it moves away from that more paternalistic approach that used to be an inherent part of any law about Māori that was developed in this country. It was always very much about doing things to Māori as opposed to Māori having the right to have a say. So the terminology that they came up with was “tangata whenua of Wairarapa”. This terminology, in their view, upholds the mana of an individual who has a whakapapa to the tīpuna rangatira who established historical kinship groups in the Wairarapa. So the board itself has embraced this term, because it spent a lot of time, important time, working with iwi and hapū in the Wairarapa before figuring out what the best way is for us to describe ourselves, as opposed to other people doing it for us.

That has been reflected in the legislation. I think it is really important. It might seem small, but there have been so many times—and now and then it comes up in settlement bills too—where iwi and hapū are having some provision forced upon them, and even the way that they are able to describe themselves can sometimes be imposed on them. So if we are to be a modern 21st century democracy that is genuinely collaborative, that recognises Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a fundament for our constitutional status and our right to operate in this country, then we at least need to make sure that iwi Māori, whānau Māori, and hapū Māori have the right to describe themselves in the laws that respond to them.

It is a small thing, but it is a similar thing to the right for us to have our names said and pronounced properly. It is that kind of core identity and core right to be deciders of how we identify ourselves and how others do so. So although it is a small matter to raise here, I do think it is a critical one, and it is one that we could learn important lessons from. I thank the trusts board for engaging in that process with whānau to come up with that as a solution. I look forward to voting for this legislation in time. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā kōe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā hoki tātou e noho tonu i roto i Te Whare i te ahiahi nei. E hiahia ana au kia mōhio mai Te Whare kāre i a mātou i roto o Aotearoa Tuatahi i kite atu he take ki te whakahēngia tēnei pire, nā reira, kia mōhio mai Te Whare, kei te tautoko mātou i tēnei pire, pou te kaha. Ēngari, i rongo au wētahi o ngā kōrero i puta mai mai i waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei, nā reira wēnei te take ka huri waku kōrero ki te mema i mau mai i tēnei pire ki Te Whare nei. Nā reira, ka mihi hoki ki a koe e te mema mō Te Wairarapa, nāu nei i mau mai tēnei pire kia āta whiriwhiringia e mātou i roto i Te Komiti Whakawhiri mō ngā Take Māori, tua atu i tēnā kia whaka mai te pire ki konei, nā reira, weinā te take kei te kōrero i a tātou mō te wāhanga tuatoru mō tēnei pire. Nā reira, ngā mihi hoki ki a koe.

Ēngari, i rongo i wō kōrero, kāhore koe i honongia ki te iwi o Wairarapa. Tēnā pea, he tikanga tēnā ēngari, māku e mea atu, tēnā pea mō ngā tupuranga i muri mai i a koe, tēnā pea wō tamariki, wō mokopuna rānei, ā, kei reira te wā kia honongia tō whānau ki Te Wairarapa. Nā reira, kia kaha ana koe, kia mōmoeā koe, tēnā pea kua tau kē tēnā whakaaro. Kia ahatia.

Ki a mātou i roto o Aotearoa Tuatahi, e tika ana kei te tautoko i tēnei pire, me te whakahoungia te āhuatanga o tēnei Ture. Nā reira, e hia te tau, mai i te putanga mai o tēnei Ture, tae noa ki tēnei, kārekau kē i rerekē ngā whakaaro, ngā kōrero i roto i Te Ture. Nā reira, wēnā te take kei te mihi hoki ki tēnei o ngā hunga mai i te hau kāinga, i waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei. Nā reira, ēhara ana ahau i wareware ki te mihi atu ki a koutou mā ēngari, kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e ngā kaikōrero i mua i a au, ki te whakatau i a koutou i waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei.

Tetahi o ngā kaupapa i roto i te pire nei, kia whakahonongia, kia whakamārama hoki i te whanaungatanga i waenganui i Te Iwi o Te Wairarapa me ngā kairīwhi, arā, ko ngā tarahiti, ā, me Te Hāhi Mihinare. Ki tōku mōhio, i tēnei wā, ko te tangata i whakakī i te tūranga, hei pīhopa mō Te Upoko o Te Ika, ko tetahi i a mātou o te hau kāingai, o Te Aupōuri me Te Rarawa. Nā, mēnā i heke mai te tangata, mai i Te Aupōuri me Te Rarawa, he honongia i a ia ki a Ngāti Kahu puta noa, nā, ka hara mai ki konei i Ngāti Kahungunu, ko Muru Walters tēnā. Nā reira, mōhio ana au ki te āhua o taua tangata, mēnā kei konei a ia i waenganui i a tātau, kei te hari koa ki a ia ki te whakarongo ki te āhuatanga o tēnei pire i taka mai ki waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei.

Tua atu i tēnā, ko tetahi o ngā kaupapa o te pire, kia whakangia te āhuatanga kia whai ngā tarahiti hou, tua atu i tēnā, kia whakatikatika te tohatanga o ngā pūtea ki ngā tauira Māori o Te Wairarapa. Nā reira, e tika ana kia whakahoungia te pire, kia whakawātea ki ngā uri o Te Wairarapa ahakoa, kāre rātou e noho ki te hau kāinga ēngari, kei reira tētahi pūtea hei āwhina mō rātou. Ēngari i taku titiro i roto i te pire nei, ka kite anō au i te wā i te tīmatanga mai o tēnei tarahiti, kei te wātea ngā pūtea ki ngā kaitono i haere ki ngā kura mihinare. Ēngari, ko te mate kē i aianei nā, kua kapihia te nuinga o ngā kura pēnā. Nā reira, ngā mihi hoki ki te tarahiti, ka huri wā rātou whakaaro, kia whakawātea aua pūtea ki ngā uri o rātau mā. Nā reira, ngā mihi hoki ki a rātou.

Tua atu i tēnā, ko tetahi anō o ngā kaupapa mō te pire nei, kia āta titiro, kia whakatakoto kaupapa ki te whakapakari i ngā whenua i noho nei i raro i wā rātau mana. E tika ana te kōrero a te mema mai i Tāmaki Makaurau, kia āta titiro tēnā pea kia āta tūpato, ko tēnei ngāngara, ko te ture whenua Māori i kōrerohia e tātou i roto o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri mō ngā Take Māori nā te mea, ahakoa e hia te roa i whaka haerengia tēnei tarahiti, i runga i te huarahi e hiahia nei i a rātou kia haerengia. Kauwā e wareware kei te pāngia taua pire, arā, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act ki ngā whenua o rātou mā. Wēnā ngā tino kaupapa o te pire nei, horekau he raru i a mātou o Aotearoa Tuatahi ki te whakahēngia taua kaupapa nā te mea, wēnei te hiahia o ngā kaiwhakahaere o te tarahiti nei, kia whakatau.

Ēngari, i te wā i whakawhiriwhiri i a mātou i roto i Te Komiti mō ngā Take Māori, ka puta mai te kōrero e pā ana kia whakahou tēnei pire i roto i tō tātōu Reo Rangatira. Ahakoa tēnā tā mātou hiahia i taua wā, ka kī mai ngā kaiwhiriwhiri ki a mātou, kārekau rātou e whai rawa ki te mahingia taua mahi, nā reira, wēnā te take i karanga atu ki Te Kāwanatanga i te wā i āta kōrerohia tā rātou ōhanga mō te tau e tū mai nei, kawa e wareware kia whakawātewa he pūtea mō tēnei take nā te mea, ko Te Reo Māori tetahi o ngā reo o Aotearoa i ngā marama e taha ake nei, i tino kaha ana i a mātou ki te kōrero i te mana o tō tātou Reo Rangatira. Nā reira, tēnā pea, he kaupapa e hiahia ana Te Whare nei kia whakatau. Nā reira, e hiahia ana au kia tukuna atu tēnei pire e tēnei Whare kia whakataungia. Nā reirā, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and those of us who remain in the House this afternoon. I would like the House to know that we of New Zealand First have not seen any reason to object to this bill, so therefore we support this bill emphatically. However, in listening to some of the discussion raised among us today, I would like to address the member who brought this bill to the House. Therefore, thank you to the member for Wairarapa, Alastair Scott, who brought this bill for careful consideration by us in the Māori Affairs Committee and, in addition to that, returned the bill here for the purposes of the third reading that we are concerned with here. Therefore, I thank you.

However, I did hear your comment that you are not connected directly into the iwi of Wairarapa. Perhaps that is correct, however may I say that perhaps in the generations to come after you—perhaps your children or your grandchildren—maybe then will your family be connected directly into the Wairarapa. Therefore, may you be steadfast in your resolve and aspiration, and perhaps it may come true. I digress.

For us in New Zealand First, we do indeed support this bill and the updating of this Act. Therefore, although it has been many years since this Act was introduced, until the present there have been no changes in thinking or discussion within this Act. Therefore, this is why I also thank these people from back home among us today. Therefore, I have not forgotten to thank you all, indeed all of you; rather, I append my greetings to those of the speakers before me who welcomed you all here among us today.

One of the purposes within this bill is to engage and express the relationship between the people of Wairarapa and the agents—that is to say, the trustees and the Anglican Church. As I understand it, at this time the person fulfilling the role of bishop of the Wellington diocese is one of us from back home, from Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa. Now, if a person is of Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa descent, they also have a connection throughout Ngāti Kahu and also relate here to Ngāti Kahungunu, and that is Muru Walters. Therefore, given I knew the nature of that man, if he was here among us he would be delighted in hearing about this bill that is before us today.

In addition, one of the purposes of the bill is to strengthen the standards for new trusts, and furthermore to rectify the distribution of funding to the Māori students of Wairarapa. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the Act is updated and made available to the descendants of Wairarapa; regardless of whether they reside back home, there is a support fund available for them. However, when I look at this bill, I note that at the time this trust was founded, the funds were available to applicants attending Anglican schools. However, the problem now is that most of those schools have closed. Therefore I thank the trust and their change in thinking, to make those funds available to the descendants of their ancestors. Therefore, I thank them.

In addition to that, another purpose of this bill is to examine and to establish a pathway to develop the lands they have under their authority. The member for Tāmaki Makaurau is correct in saying to carefully examine and perhaps be extra cautious in regard to this creature, the ture whenua Māori legislation discussed by us in the Māori Affairs Committee, especially given the length of time this trust has been operating on its own path. Let us not forget that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act relates to the lands of our ancestors. Those are the real matters pertaining to this bill, and we of New Zealand First have no problem if that matter was objected to, because it was the wish of the trust management to have this settled.

However, during our considerations in the Māori Affairs Committee the point was raised that this bill should be updated in our majestic Māori language. Although that was our desire at that time, we were told by officials that they did not have the resourcing to undertake that task, so this is why we called on the Government at the time it was discussing business for the upcoming year not to forget to make funding available for this purpose, given the Māori language is an official language of New Zealand that in recent months has seen much rhetoric among us about the prestige of our majestic language. Therefore, that is perhaps something this House may like to consider determining. Therefore, my desire is that this bill be offered for this House to determine. Therefore, thank you collectively, and my appreciation to all of us, once again.]

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. There is a number of things that I want to address before I start. One is that I have spent the last couple of hours since I learnt I was speaking on this bill searching the internet. I was not searching to see how Donald Trump was doing; I was searching for that whakapapa to Papawai that, certainly, Jo Hayes talked about and many others have. I could not find any, so I apologise for that. Like Alastair Scott, I am going to have to get there in the future—I am relying on future generations. I am also going to have to speak to the English version of this bill because I certainly would not be able to understand the other one, and I apologise for that, but I am very pleased that it is currently in English.

This is a very topical thing today, and before I get onto that, I want to congratulate Alastair Scott for bringing this bill to Parliament. Although I did hear him say that he has little to do with the bill, in fact, he has brought it here, he is the member for Wairarapa, and he is representing the people of Wairarapa in doing so, and I think that is really important. I also want to quickly acknowledge Nuk Korako and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for speedily expediting this bill through the House. I think that these little things are aggravating, and unless they get pushed through in a reasonable fashion—and, obviously, with the agreement of everyone—then I think they are difficult.

I want to just talk very briefly about trusts, because in this morning’s paper there is a very interesting headline that says: “Ignorant trustees run risk of nasty surprise in court”. I am not for a minute talking about the trustees of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri trusts, but it is interesting that many trusts in New Zealand have been let go, I guess. They brought up some interesting statistics about that in the course of this article this morning, and I think it applies to many trusts in New Zealand at the moment. Some of the statistics were that a third of trustees did not know the contents of the trust deed they were administering, over half did not keep an up-to-date minute book, and only 60 percent of them met annually. That is pretty staggering when you think about the fact that there are half a million trusts in New Zealand, set up for all sorts of reasons.

Many of them were set up in answer to Government legislation, to protect either assets or people. A large number of them are set up to ensure older family members are looked after and protected by their trustees. Interestingly, taxation legislation throughout the ages has influenced the formation of many trusts. Right now, I think you will find there are discrepancies—not discrepancies, necessarily; there might be deliberate discrepancies—in the tax legislation that actually penalise trusts to some extent. In other words, they are taxed at a greater rate than companies or individuals, even. So there are all sorts of influences, quite outside of the normal course of events, that influence trusts being set up. I think that is interesting, and in some ways it causes the large, large number of trusts—and, as I said, half a million trusts in New Zealand have been set up for various reasons. Many of those trusts are charitable; many are not. This trust is a charitable trust. Also, many of the trusts set up in New Zealand throughout history have been primarily for education purposes. This is another one of those trusts.

I want to go back to the fact that this trust was set up in 1943, and I guess that this is the first time that it has been back through Parliament. It was set up by a 1943 Act, and this is the first time it has been back through Parliament to be reviewed since then, so the trustees have certainly done a pretty good job throughout the history of this trust, because it is still in existence and still pretty strong. I want to congratulate those trustees, both those who have served before and those who serve now, because I think it is a pretty significant effort to have kept a trust going for this length of time and to have it in such a state that it can come back to Parliament to be renewed for future generations and to enable them to use the proceeds of that trust for whatever they see fit for their people, particularly for education purposes.

I myself was educated through an Anglican school. My electorate, the Rangitīkei, has a large number of Anglican schools in it, and a number of boarding schools of Anglican origin. We also have the odd Catholic one, and I imagine that this has freed up a bit of cash for the Anglicans to give to the Catholics, which is a little unfortunate, but we will forgive them. I imagine that, particularly with a school like Hato Pāora College, which is owned by the Catholic Church, no doubt the Anglicans are going to part with a bit of cash. I also remember, in my younger days, spending a fair bit of time playing rugby against Te Aute College. They were always a lot bigger than I was, those fellas, so obviously in the Wairarapa they fed them pretty well, as well. But it is an interesting piece of our history, the fact that we have education. Also in my electorate we had the Turakina Māori Girls College, which very recently closed—another Anglican school, which was set up first of all in Turakina and then moved to Marton.

But I think what we should remember is that education, like life, has changed dramatically. So the reasons that this trust was set up in 1943—to provide education for the young people of the Wairarapa, and particularly Ngāti Kahungunu—have changed dramatically. Now there are different reasons for us to need to distribute income. It is still equally as important that we give our rural children, particularly, the opportunity to attend boarding schools, because in many parts of our more remote electorates it is very difficult for families to get their children away to school and get them back on the same day. Having the opportunity to send our remoter rural children to boarding school is hugely important, and I imagine that that is one of the objectives this trust will have in some way in the future. I think that is a really exciting opportunity for the trust, too.

I want to congratulate all those who have brought the trust back to Parliament in this form with a view to giving it a new life. Most trusts in New Zealand are set up with an 80-year lifespan. It is quite easy to see that trustees, or beneficiaries, even, seldom last that long. Often these trusts wind up early, see significant change, or even require resettlements. That is an alternative, of course, for a trust like this: to resettle in a different form. I think Nuk Korako informed me earlier that in order to bring this legislation back to Parliament and run it in dual languages, it had to actually start again because, effectively, you cannot change legislation half-way through the system and change the language structure of it. For it to be reinvented in Te Reo and English, it is going to have to come back to Parliament and recommence its lifespan—I guess a little bit like a resettlement. It is not so long ago, in fact, that we had the Waitangi National Trust through this Parliament for a little modification, and I guess that is another such example where the deed had passed its use-by date and needed restructuring. The structure of many trusts’ governance modes is no longer suitable in this day and age.

Changes by the trustees courtesy of this bill, presented to Parliament by Wairarapa MP Mr Scott—I just want to talk a little bit about those changes and what they hope to achieve. I think the really important thing is that they enable our young to have an opportunity they may otherwise not have had. I think the other objective of this bill is to spread the opportunity for the trustees to distribute income, and I notice that the Rangitāne have got their opportunity to get their hands on a little bit of this cash. I just hope the Rangitāne o Manawatu are not coming over the hill to try to nick a bit of it—but I am sure they would not do that. I think it is very interesting, because, as someone said to Alastair Scott a little earlier, we do not know what is going to happen to future generations of our families, so it is best we are prepared for all eventualities.

I think that this kind of trust and the history it brings with it to Parliament are what New Zealand is all about, and I think it is really important that this House is able to give these sorts of trusts the opportunity to reinvent themselves and create, I guess, a place in modern New Zealand where they can serve their people, give them opportunity, and enable them to make the best of what I think is an extraordinary country. So I just want to very briefly congratulate the trustees once again, and the member who brought this bill to the House. It has been very interesting for me to speak at such short notice on a bill like this, but I congratulate everyone, commend it to the House, and hope it makes very good progress in the future.

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

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, huri noa ki a tātou katoa, ngā kaihoamahi, ngā hoamahi o Te Whare Paremata, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to us all, fellow officials and colleagues throughout the House of Parliament, greetings.]

It is an incredible privilege to stand and tautoko the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. I want to absolutely acknowledge the trustees and whānau who may be here listening to the final reading of this amendment bill tonight in the House—tēnā koutou katoa—particularly because I have had the privilege of visiting Papawai Marae in particular with my colleague Metiria Turei, who does have Kahungunu whakapapa. I had the absolute joy of being taken down to the awa behind the marae and literally meeting, face to face, the tuna—the eels—in their awa, which are being brought back to help bring both life and mauri back to the awa by the people of Papawai, helping to keep their awa strong and healthy. I was able to help with the riparian planting alongside the awa, down the back there—they had a pair of gumboots for me to borrow during the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election some years ago. So it is a particularly special privilege for me to stand and speak on this bill, to support the trustees regardless of the fact that I do not have particular whakapapa to Kahungunu.

At this point I also want to acknowledge the naming of the wharenui, which is actually Hikurangi and which does connect me with my Ngati Porou whakapapa and is, in actual fact, a direct acknowledgment of the Kahungunu and Ngati Porou links. So it is an absolute pleasure to stand and speak today.

I want to acknowledge, with my colleagues, the importance and the learning, actually, that the Māori Affairs Committee will have in the future in suggesting to colleagues to introduce members’ bills as dual-language members’ bills, so that we can, from the get-go, include and introduce them into the House in Te Reo and in English, as well. Ka pai, Alastair Scott, for supporting this bill through the House and for empowering the trust and the trustees and beneficiaries to take some control, to be able to design some destiny over the way that they run their own affairs—we really support that.

In my examination of the history behind the trust, in 1932 a college was destroyed by a fire, and they could not afford to rebuild that college. I understand that the trust was set up for the scholarships, and that they were, at that time, and until now, for Ngāti Kahungunu in Anglican schools, in particular. The amendment in this bill seeks to describe better relationships between the key stakeholders and establish a more robust nomination process for board members, which is fantastic; provide fairer distributions of putea, for descendants—or tangata whenua, as is the term—of Wairarapa; and to facilitate the long-term development of the lands.

I do recall, also, in the Māori Affairs Committee, the references to both Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu having vested interest in the trust, but, as my colleague Metiria Turei just described, that was left wide for self-identification. I am a “Queen Vic” ancient girl, so I am absolutely pleased to see that the amendments mean that the scholarships no longer have to be restricted to Anglican schools. I do acknowledge that some of the Anglican schools—one of which I went to—have been struggling over the years. Nevertheless, I fully support wider choices being made, and empowering more choices for the scholarships to go towards whānau to see the education of their tamariki.

I am particularly pleased to see—wrapping it up, yes, thank you—the Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri lands are maintaining those tūpuna whenua in this bill. They cannot be alienated. We have huge support for this bill. Kia ora.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, kei te mihi hoki au ki a koutou ngā mema o te poari kua tae mai ki tēnei Whare ki te whakarongo ki te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire, nō reira, tēnā koutou, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time I acknowledge you also, the members of the board who have arrived here at this House to listen to the third reading of this bill, so accolades to you collectively and to all of us indeed.]

I want to acknowledge again the promoter of this bill, Alastair Scott. I think it is really important that these kinds of bills come to the House. This bill updates a 1943 Act. I support what he said about the prescriptive and restrictive nature of the 1943 Act. It needed to be updated, and here we are doing exactly that. I said in the second reading that the Act was paternalistic, and I stand by those comments. For me, this is all about education and support for educating the next generations to come.

The changes allow, as has already been spoken about, the ability for the trust to give scholarships not only for Anglican schools but for other schools as well, as we heard from the member for Rangitīkei, Ian McKelvie, and there are just a couple of things—well, three things, actually—that I want to mention. The first is that Turakina Māori Girls College is actually a Presbyterian school—or was until it closed. Hato Pāora College is a Catholic school, and offers places not only to Catholics. There are quite a few tamariki who go from Te Kura o Rātana, actually. The other thing is that I am absolutely certain that my whanaunga from Rangitāne o Manawatu would not dare to try to encroach over into Wairarapa and try to get some scholarships for their tamariki. We are quite capable of taking care of ourselves. I just wanted to let the House know that.

I think the other changes, which have not been mentioned, are around the purpose, and the fact that the ability for the board to make distributions also includes grants to governing bodies of schools—not just to students but also to governing bodies—as well as making grants for the establishment of furnishing, maintenance, and management at a school. This is fine by me, but I do want to point out that that is actually a Crown responsibility. Although that is OK in my mind, I think that we do not want to discharge the Government’s responsibility to those schools. I just wanted to mention that.

I also want to congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee on the work it has done on this bill. I agree with the wording around who qualifies for a scholarship, and I think that the terminology that has been used allows for a much broader scope for those who wish to apply for scholarships from the trust.

I want to, lastly, just touch on the governance arrangements. I quite like the way that there has been a staggered arrangement for the appointment of trustees. I think that ensures that there is good continuity, and that you do not have all of the trustees leaving after the first term. Having that staggered approach is a very good way to maintain continuity, and I want to acknowledge that. I want to acknowledge that the number of trustees has been reduced under this bill. I think that makes for a much smarter and a much more efficient running of a trust, from my experience. I think the optimum number of trustees is about seven. In this case it is eight, so it is very close. Thank you.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. Anei te mihi atu ki a koutou o Te Whare e hui nei i tēnei wā, anei te mihi atu ki a koutou o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, koutou e tāpiri pai nei i ō koutou kōrero ki tēnei o ngā pire, ki tēnei kōrero i te pō nei, anō nā ki a koutou e noho tata nei, koutou o te hau kāinga o Papawai o Wairarapa, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou ōku pou, ōku rahi tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you of the House gathered here at this moment, you of the Māori Affairs Committee who added your comments to this bill and this address this evening, and also to those of you seated close by from back home, from Papawai of Wairarapa, I commend you collectively, my pillars, my greatness, and my appreciation to us all.]

It is absolutely a fantastic time to come to the Whare. I do not know what else is going on in the rest of the world, but this is the most important thing in front of us today, bar nothing else that has happened—no press conferences, no live feeds on our phones, and no exiting of people to offices to watch something that is going on on TVs across the world.

While we all hold our breath, there is time to pause and give acknowledgment to the people of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts who have come today to listen to the third reading, which will, essentially, put in place the aspiration of their rangatiratanga. This is the bill that says “We know what we’re doing, thank you very much. We’ve been trying to get this bill changed for a long time. We’d like to make some changes to the trustees—the way we govern our land. We want to be able to get better funds from the land that we have so ably governed for a long time, and we want to disperse them in a way that suits us, which has changed over time.”, as we have heard from all of the participants in the debate today. So I am not sure what everybody else is holding their breath for, but this is something we should give proper consideration and proper celebration to, while everybody else—ah—takes a big breath and hopes for a good outcome.

Well, there is a good outcome here today. It comes, as the Hon Joanne Hayes—well, the member Joanne Hayes; almost “the Hon”, give it a couple more years—has expressed, from the fact that we are the culmination of our ancestors, who have departed into the realm of our tūpuna. They are the people who put aside some land in the hope they could realise the aspirations of educating their tamariki in a way that suited them, and yes, for a while, that was done through the Church-sponsored schools—through the Anglican Church. That seems to have changed over time, with fewer children moving out of the area to be schooled, more staying in Māori-medium education, and more finding different opportunities for their educational needs in different parts of the country. So the trustees wanted to be able to have the ability to utilise those funds for their descendants in a way that supports the aspirations of their descendants—hence, this bill has come to the House.

Our whānau came to me at the very beginning, and they said: “Marama, we’ve been waiting for a long time for this bill to go through, and now you’re there. Please hurry up and make it happen.” I looked at them and I said: “Well, here’s the problem. As a party of two, we get to put one bill into the ballot and hope that at some time in the next 3 years it might get drawn out.” I thought “Well, this is not about me; this is about our whānau and our tamariki.”, so a better pathway was that if the bill was adopted by the member for Wairarapa and became a Government bill, it could make a speedy entrance into the House because it was non-controversial. It did support the aspirations of our people and, therefore, a better pathway was designed. I want to acknowledge the member Alastair Scott for sponsoring this bill in the House.

I also want to acknowledge in this Whare the descendants of Papawai Marae, of which we have five. Five current MPs in this House, two of them who are leaders of their respective parties, are all descendants of Papawai, and the legacy that has been left behind by our formidable ancestors—our formidable ancestors. They are the likes of Mahupuku, of Ngātuere, of Rangitakaiwaho, of Manihera—all of those—of Niniwa-i-te-rangi, and of Whatahoro Jury. Those ancestors came together in the very early days and said: “We must have the right to put our future in our hands. We must have our rangatiratanga. We must be able to establish our own Parliament.” Hence, Papawai, after moving that Parliament around many of the marae of this nation, decided that that would be the birthplace of the Māori Parliament movement, the Kotahitanga.

One of my ancestors, Niniwa-i-te-rangi, marched out into the middle of that marae and, with all the mana of a wāhine toa, hitched up her skirts and mimied into a pot. I am not going to explain what that is, but I think you can guess. She drank it and threw it at the feet of the men who were all debating whether or not to let her speak, and said: “If any of you men can do that, I’ll sit down.” While they were aghast, she launched into her kōrero and then was given the right to speak on marae around the motu.

These were people who had their own newspaper, their own shops, their own future, their own Parliament, their own bill-making, and their own determination, and the descendants of those people are the trustees whom we have today. Five of the descendants of that formidable movement are members of this House today. It is a legacy, and this bill supports the legacy for them to determine for themselves what they think is best for the future of their children—just like we did with the resource management bill today—by handing the power to the people and to the iwi around us to determine for themselves, through a mana whakahono arrangement, how they want to be represented in their own rohe. That is power to the people, power to the tangata whenua, as is articulated in this bill.

So I stand proudly to support this bill because it is the culmination of years of hard work, not just in the living memory of those of us who are gathered here but in the ancestral memory that is the realisation of that whakatāuke: “Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi ēngari taku toa, i te toa takitini” [Mine is not the strength of one but rather of the many].

We stand here today, as the culmination of the efforts of all of our ancestors, to bring us to this point. Our young people across Wairarapa have benefited from the proceeds that have been ably developed and gathered from the management of this whenua to ensure that they could be educated across the country. That will continue in the hands of our trustees who are here today, and I acknowledge them and acknowledge the people of Wairarapa. We have a song in Wairarapa, which says: “Ko Wairarapa tēnei e tū ake nei, e karanga ana ki te iwi” [This is Wairarapa who stands here before you, calling to the people].

Wairarapa people, stand and call to the rest of the people. It is time to be self-determining, to have faith in yourselves as a people, so that you do not have to be hindered by blue undies or red undies; you can, in fact, put your own undies on and determine your own path for yourselves. That might be a little bit—everyone is looking at me, thinking: “Marama, what are you talking about?”. I am talking about the right to choose. I am talking about the right to be self-determining. I am talking about the right to put your aspirations in the hands of your future generations, your tamariki and your mokopuna, and that is, essentially, what we are voting for today.

I proudly, proudly recommend this bill to the House. I am grateful to all of those who have participated in the conversations and in their presentations to the Whare today.

Ka hoki anō au ki Te Reo Māori hei whakakapi i taku kōrero, ka hoki au ki te kōrero o ō tātau tūpuna, rātou kua mene atu ki te pō, kai roto i ngā ringa o ngātimoe e tū ake nei, kia tū kaha nei a ngātimoe, ka pahū a Ranginui i runga i tō rātau kaha. Tēnei te kaha e kite atu nei i roto i te ture, te ture kua manahia i a tātau katoa, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa.

[And so, to conclude my contribution, I go back to the Māori language and to the statement of our ancestors, to those who have assembled in the void, in the arms of those who sleep, who arise before us in order that they stand resolute when the great Sky Father explodes through the greatness of their power. I see this power in the law that empowered us all, therefore accolades and acknowledgments to you collectively and my congratulations to us all.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Ā, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou. Tēnei ka tāpiri atu aku whakaaro ki ērā i waihotia i mua i te aroaro o Te Pāremata. Ka tukuna ngā mihi ki a koutou ngā mema o Te Poari o Papawai me Kaikōkirikiri, tā koutou taratī e kaha ana ki te hāpai i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki ngā mātauranga ō ā koutou tamariki, mokopuna. Heoi anō he maha ngā kōrero i puta mai, ko tāku nei he tīpako i ētehi o ngā kaupapa kāre anō i kōrerohia e koutou.

[And so my appreciation to you and to you collectively. I add my thoughts to those that were placed before Parliament. I extend my thanks to you, the members of the Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri Board, and to the efforts by your trustees to support matters relating to the education of your children and grandchildren. Indeed many contributions emerged, and I merely highlight some matters not referred to collectively by any of you.]

In offering a contribution to this debate, and having heard all the contributions of other members, I want to comment on the modernisation aspects of the bill, which are useful for any trust. But, more importantly, in the spirit of the amendments that are offered with this particular bill, I situate my comments within the context of a trust wanting to determine for itself a way forward. I do not have any connections to this particular area, so I did read with interest some of the initial aspects about the bill.

Firstly, in so far as the scholarships are concerned, in the original Act of 1943, section 12(4) states: “(a) the provision of scholarships for … children of British subjects of all races, and for children of other persons being inhabitants of islands in the Pacific Ocean, but so that preference is given to boys and girls of the Ngatikahungunu Tribe residing in the Wairarapa district south of a straight line passing through Akitio and Pahiatua, and then on to other Maoris or descendants of Maoris residing on the east coast of the North Island of New Zealand, and, failing such, to Maoris or descendants of Maoris of any part of New Zealand:”. Well—there is a broad definition of who were the original benefactors of this particular legislation.

We can see that over time the definition has really come right back to where the lands are, which is in the Wairarapa, and is more specific in clause 9 of the bill, which amends section 12 of the Act. For completeness’ sake, it says: “(a) the provision of scholarships for the post-primary education of children who have whakapapa in relation to the tangata whenua of Wairarapa:”. So that is a nice summation of who will be the benefactors of this particular bill.

I listened with interest to my colleague Meka Whaitiri, who acknowledged the trust and the work that it does to fund students. I noted that on the website there are scholarships available to Hukarere Girls’ College, Rathkeale College, St Matthew’s Collegiate School, Te Aute College, and other colleges. The trust has a leadership and personal development grant, as well as a scholarship for the stated purposes of the Act. I am sure that all manner of positive stories can be told about the assistance that has been given over a long period of time to those young people who have gained from their pathway in education.

My colleague Adrian Rurawhe talked about the rotation period for the board. This is really good because the board can now implement its succession plan and actively ensure that it will have members who will regularly be able to be appointed to the board, gain skills, contribute to the legacy of the board, and plan actively in terms of succession. In the vacancy clauses, it is clear that should a trustee vacate their position for whatever stated reason in the bill, then a new member will be appointed for the remaining term of that particular member, and the rotation will continue. So that is very clear, and I am sure that was the intent.

I read with interest that in terms of the contracting aspects of the board there is no provision now for oral contracts. That provision has been repealed. So I thought: “Oh, that’s interesting. Were oral contracts allowed?”, and I went back to the original legislation, and it said that, yes, oral contracts were allowed by trustees of the board, but for no sum greater than £10, which was then amended to $20. But it is interesting to see that that has been repealed altogether, and that certainly makes sense to me. There are other aspects around removing the prescription of scholarships to Church of England - only schools. Again, that links back to comments made by colleagues that as long as the students whakapapa to tangata whenua of Wairarapa—that is the criteria, so that is very clear.

I heard, in the contribution of a previous speaker, that the bill empowers the board to make its own decisions. Clause 11, which amends section 14 of the principal Act, makes clear the role of the Minister. It removes the parochial oversight of the Minister in terms of selling or leasing land. It makes it very clear that only Clareville land can be sold, not Papawai or Kaikōkirikiri lands. Ultimately, that decision is made on the determinations of the board and does not have to go back to a second or third party. Also, the role of the Māori Land Court has, it appears, been removed from this decision as well. So that really is affirming the ability of the board to get on with its business and make decisions as it sees fit, for the investment and management of these lands and business operations.

The other aspect that I read with interest—just to try to give some context to some of these changes—was the repeal provisions in relation to the leasing of certain Kaikōkirikiri lands. Previously, leases were allowed for a period of 7 years, with a right of renewal for the same term or a shorter period, and the rent was able to be determined by valuation in those renewal periods. That has been repealed, and the board again has the ability to determine for itself the leasing provisions.

The bill provides for copies of the report on the operations of the trust to be provided to the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, which is consistent with how the membership of the board has been modernised to reflect the office of the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika. Previous to that, reports were sent to the Minister of Māori Affairs and the synod of the Diocese of Wellington, as well as the General Synod. So what it has done is it has again reaffirmed the relationship with the church through the Bishop and its reporting lines and site functions as well.

I comment on the issue of Te Reo translation. It is a shame that we were not able to achieve what might have been a good, I guess, template for small and useful bits of legislation like this by having dual language. Sadly, we were not able to accomplish that, based on the advice from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, but going forward, it is the intent of the Māori Affairs Committee to ensure that new bills coming to our committee are able to be planned for, in so far as having dual-language bills. I hope that gives some comfort to people listening to this debate and thinking about whether they should modernise their own bits of legislation, which will be useful, I am sure.

In order to address the Te Reo Māori aspects, we as the Māori Affairs Committee, under the good guidance of our chair, will have better guidelines to be able to navigate our way through these particular issues so that we not only have good, useful, modernised laws to guide the activities of trusts but also can broaden the scope and role of Te Reo Māori within the legislature. So without saying much more, Labour happily supports this bill in its third reading.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise and speak in full support of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill in its third reading. Can I just acknowledge the trustees and supporters in the gallery today. It is the first time I have spoken on this bill, which is now in its third reading. When having a look through the bill, I must say that some of the narrative that underpins this bill—when you look at part of our role as legislators, and that is what I am going to talk about in my contribution today, it is to modernise and update legislation.

This legislation was enacted in 1943, which is 73 years ago. As my colleague Ian McKelvie highlighted, not a lot of boards and trusts survive to be 73. It is a good innings. Congratulations on the longevity and the ability to maintain your values through that. So I do not think this bill is looking to change any of the underpinning values; it is just modernising and updating this legislation.

I acknowledge Alastair Scott, the hard-working local electorate MP. When we think about the focus today that is very much on what is happening around the world, it brings back the saying that “politics is local.” That is exactly what Mr Scott has achieved with this bill today. It is very much a local bill that is at the heart of politics, being local and very supportive, and it means a lot to the people in his electorate. Also, I acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of Nuk Korako, which I heard was very collaborative and productive as it shepherded this bill through the legislative process.

There were only a couple of submissions and some minor changes, but one thing I want to focus on, in the modernising and updating of this bill, is that it actually reflects some of the changes through time, over the 73 years since the primary legislation was enacted. One is around mental health. Many in the House will know that my career before entering politics was in mental health, and it was said to me that my background would be very good for engaging with other politicians. When you look at that, in that humour, there is some truth. We still very much battle with the mental health stigma around “us” and “them”, but when you look at mental health, we know that over the course of our lives we will all have good and bad mental health. So we are very much all in this together.

Section 5, “Vacancies in membership of Board”, in the primary Act, which is replaced in clause 5—the original legislation stated that any person with mental health issues would cause a vacancy on the board. Quite rightly, when we got the section 7 report back from the Attorney-General, it identified section 5 as being inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and as being discriminatory. It is great that we have learnt from these things over the years and now understand that mental health issues are not something that can stop people participating.

Another key area that underpins this bill is around the role of education, and, just to acknowledge the fundamental belief of the trustees, very much the underpinning of education around social mobility. When we look at the range of incomes that New Zealanders will receive, there is a strong correlation between their education, their educational attainment, and what they will go on to earn over their lives, so it is right that this trust invest heavily in the education of its young people. We live in a globalised world today, and, very much, in this globalised world it is very competitive for jobs and incomes. Many of the young people whom the trust will be supporting through its education scholarships will probably go on and travel a bit over time, and they will realise how competitive the world is. Very much, it is people like the trustees who are setting them up for great success in life—to be productive members of society—by providing them with scholarships for their education, and I acknowledge the trust for that.

Another key underpinning of this bill that I want to talk about in my short contribution is around self-determination. It is fantastic that bills like this, as we update and modernise them, will give this board the flexibility to self-determine, to think about where they are going to invest their capital to get the best return that they will, ultimately, disperse to the young people whom they are overseeing, to increase their education, to increase their educational attainment, and to increase their outcomes in life. I wholeheartedly support this bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill

In Committee

CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions of this bill to be taken as one debate.

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

Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

CHRIS BISHOP (National): It is a great privilege to be here tonight speaking in the Committee stage of this very important bill, and I want to thank all parties in Parliament for their support of this bill so far. The bill has had a title change; it is now called the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill. It changed from the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill, and that reflects the fact that the Health Committee considered that compensation for lost earnings was a better reflection of the bill’s purpose.

In my introductory remarks for this debate that we are going to have tonight, I wanted to just outline for the Committee the purpose of the bill again. The purpose of the bill, really, is to—I suppose you would say that the overriding purpose of the bill is to reduce the financial barriers for live organ donation, and the corollary purpose to that is to better compensate those who altruistically decide to sacrifice, literally, a part of their own body to help other people. We need to recognise, I think, that people who are live organ donors are heroes—they truly are heroes in our society. They selflessly sacrifice a part of their body to try to create a better life for somebody else.

In fact, we heard at the Health Committee, which I was very privileged to sit on—and I want to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Scott Simpson for swapping with me on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to allow me to come in and hear some of these stories. We heard stories from people who have donated organs—typically kidneys, but also other organs that are available for donation—about the hardship that they had to endure when they made that sacrifice, when they did decide to try to help out a friend, a family member, or a loved one. Actually, there are people out there in society who choose to donate to people they have never even met. Truly, what a heroic thing to do to donate a kidney, typically, to somebody else whom you do not even know because you want to contribute to society and try, through the bonds of friendship and love, to create a better place.

What we know is that the financial barriers to people when they are considering whether or not they donate are considerable. The status quo at the moment is that people receive the equivalent of what we used to call the sickness benefit. I would not say it is a paltry sum of money, but it would certainly be a large sacrifice for many people when they do choose to donate. Typically, people take anywhere between 6 to 12 weeks off work. For people who are earning money, for people who are on any sort of moderate income, to have to take time off work and sacrifice that sort of salary is just not a starter for most people. Indeed, we heard lots of people who came before the select committee and said exactly that.

What this bill does is it increases that support to 100 percent of earnings that were forgone. So it is compensation at that 100 percent rate. The bill as originally introduced, as we know, set that level of compensation at 80 percent, which was in line with ACC. At the second reading, I think, we canvassed in the House why the analogy with ACC is actually inappropriate, and the biggest reason for that is, of course, that people who decide to sacrifice a part of their body, the people who decide to donate an organ, are not enduring an accident as we would typically think of it in terms of the accident compensation legislation. We do not need to create that gap between what you are earning on ACC and what you are earning at work because these people are going to go back into the workforce once they have recuperated from that operation. So the analogy with ACC is inappropriate.

Instead, what we decided to do at select committee was make that rate 100 percent of earnings forgone. This brings New Zealand into line with what they have in the United Kingdom, which is 100 percent earnings compensation, and will essentially adopt the principle of cost neutrality. In other words, you should be no better or worse off from having donated. What that means is that, essentially, it gets rid of that financial barrier that may exist. We have to be very careful in walking a fine line between disincentivising people by placing a financial barrier and the commercialisation of organ donation or the potential commercialisation of people’s body parts. So I think the 100 percent compensation is the appropriate balance. It does not over-incentivise people; it just gets rid of that financial barrier. That is the major purpose of the bill, and I am looking forward to the conversation tonight.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Labour supports this bill, the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill. You have heard of that old saying “pass the parcel”, I am sure. Well, this is one of these bills that you would call “pass the bill”. I do not mean the passage of the bill. I mean that this is a bill that has gone through the hands of a number of members: Cam Calder, Michael Woodhouse, and, finally, Chris Bishop. There is an old joke that is often told at celebrity debates, and I am sure Mr Bishop has heard it. It goes like this: “He was so lazy he married somebody who was already pregnant.” In the case of Mr Bishop, he took over a bill where the work had already been done, then sent it to the Health Committee for further work to be done while he sat taking the credit for it. I can see an analogy between that joke and Mr Bishop. The truth is that this bill came to the select committee in a very poor state, Mr Bishop—

Chris Bishop: Here we go.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I am going to say this, because I want to rename this bill. I want to rename it the “Health Select Committee’s Bill”—not in the name of Mr Bishop, but in the name of the Health Committee. This is because the bill was not in a fit state when it came to the select committee. Mr Bishop had just put his name and the glory on it—and it was out there in the media—but he had not done the grunt work on this bill. So it came to us at the select committee and we set out to turn it into something that was going to be workable, and I believe that the changes that we have made do make it workable.

We started off by changing the name. We changed the name so it does reflect that it is about financial assistance for live organ donation. So we changed the name, and we added a new purpose clause—and that is usually what the bill is all about, so we added a new purpose clause. We rewrote substantive portions of this bill, and then we worked out how you could actually give some financial compensation to people. What we put into the bill was 100 percent compensation of income to donors for up to 12 weeks during recovery. We even included beneficiaries, so they are excused from a work test and related obligations. So I just wanted to get that on record. It is all very well having a bill and getting the glory, but be thankful, Mr Bishop, that you had a Health Committee that was prepared to turn it into something that is for the benefit of New Zealand—and it needed to be, because by international standards we have very low rates of both live and deceased organ donation.

I want to, at this point, pay a tribute to Andy Tookey. I have known him for a long time. He is a long-time campaigner for organ donation. I think I first met him in the early 2000s and he said that the system is a mess. So why is it a mess? It is because in New Zealand we have not had good levels of donation either from live donors or from those who are deceased. We looked at the issue of deceased donors at the select committee, and I think it is worth mentioning why Andy Tookey believes that there are such low rates of organ donation at death.

At that time there was—I think he brought it up—a story on Stuff in March 2016 about a young man called Michael Boyes who died suddenly in February. His family honoured his last wish by donating his organs. Seven strangers were helped by that donation, but the point was made that it does not happen in many, many cases. In fact, when you look at what happens for those who have deceased and the donation of their organs, most family members refuse to allow their family member’s organs to be donated. When they are asked, six out of 10 refuse. You could say—and I think it is true—that it is the worst possible time for a family to be asked. So it is understandable that often families will overrule the dying wish of that family member.

Interestingly, an online survey that was undertaken showed that 88 percent of New Zealanders believed that the wishes of a person should be followed through even when they have died, but that does not happen. I think it is probably because we would have to change the law, because once a person has died they are no longer viewed to be a person, and the family takes control of the body. They then have the say over whether a person’s organs can be donated. We could not address this issue in the select committee because it does require I think, as I said, a change of law, and it is probably going to need something like a proper register, not just a driver’s licence that says you are willing to give your organs. So in that area there is still work to done and I think I will return to that a little later on.

But in terms of this bill, I think what is important is that we changed it so that it is now fiscally neutral for a person. It is no incentive for someone to go and give an organ and be paid for it. That is immoral and we would certainly not support that. Just as we do not support people being paid to give blood in New Zealand, we certainly do not pay for people to give organs in this country. But what this bill does—and we looked at it so carefully to make sure that we got it right—is that it does allow for 100 percent compensation of income for those donors. Financial barriers are a problem. People have to give up their work, be off sick, and it can take up to 12 weeks before they can return to work, which can be a big financial turnoff for anybody who might have been willing, say, to donate a kidney to a family member. So I think removing that financial barrier is what this bill is really all about.

As it was introduced, the Attorney-General said it was inconsistent with section 19(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that was because there was unjustified discrimination against beneficiaries. We fixed that problem as well so that they could be excused from a work test—as you know, that is a requirement—and other related obligations. So I think what we have done with this bill is to make it—well, certainly far better than when it was introduced, but something that I hope will increase the number of live organ donors.

But I just wanted to raise this issue: the Minister said that what we need to do in New Zealand is to change the culture to lift organ donation. Yes, we do need to change the culture. He said we do not need a register; I disagree. I think if you are going to collect organs from live and deceased donors, you do need to have a register. Putting that to one side, if we are then going to change the culture, you would have thought that the Minister would put some funding behind the organisations that are out there to change the culture. Can I tell you that there has been no increase in funding to donor liaison coordinators—none at all, it has stayed the same—since the 2014, 2015, and 2016 Budgets. There has been no additional funding for Organ Donation New Zealand since 2012—and we have got funding from only five Budgets. Every year the money has been the same. So you have to say that there has not been a real interest in changing the culture and working with those organisations and people who could lift the information and knowledge to work with our surgeons in intensive care. The intensivists are there. They are there with patients who are dying; they could be working with families if they had greater information. I was really disappointed to get this answer in a written question and to see lots of fancy talk from the Minister about the culture change needed to lift organ donation, and very little contribution has been made towards that.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Can I start by saying, on this evening, what a great day it is to be a monarchist—when you have an apolitical head of State and you do not have to go through what republics are. I just want to put that on record.

Mr Chair, I want to acknowledge the member sitting in the chair beside you, Chris Bishop, for the work that he has done. I think it has been rightly pointed out that he is working and has worked with a number of people to bring this bill to the House and now into the Committee stage. Chris Bishop has worked very hard and cooperatively with the select committee to take the bill from how it was packaged to us originally to the package that we see now, and as a sign that he continues to work, there is a Supplementary Order Paper in his name on the Table, and I might get to that a little bit later.

There is undoubtable need for this legislation, and I am in agreement, actually, with what the former speaker, Annette King, just said. There is a lot more to be done, and we can touch on that where necessary as well. But in this Committee stage we are here to look at the particular parts of this bill and where we as a select committee have got to. I just want in this first contribution to really keep my focus on Part 1—I know all parts are being debated together—and, as people who are looking through the bill will see, Part 1 is a substantial rewrite.

In terms of trying to understand why the rewrite happened, there have actually been a number of changes that have occurred. In clause 4—something as simple as the definition or interpretation area—you already see why the member and the committee had to make changes: we had to make allowances for the health practitioners Act. In fact, we have only just made changes around that recently in this House, so I think it is really important to give the context that the changes have happened partly as the discussions in the committee occurred, but partly as well when trying to adapt to the ever-changing health situation that we are in. We have also sought, in the deliberations that we have had, to align this piece of legislation—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted, and I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Kia ora mai tātou, tēnā tātou katoa. My mihi this evening: e kore ā muri e hokia [what is done is done].

Members, the House in Committee on the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill is resumed. Members, before the dinner break, we were considering all provisions in one debate. Simon O’Connor had the call, and he has less than 2 minutes and 46 seconds remaining.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Chair—2 minutes and 46 seconds of his first call and we will see whether he gets the second! Serendipitously, I have just actually come from a function with the Lung Foundation. I have been talking to some of the medical staff, who were telling me about some colleagues who, at this very moment, are actually doing a lung transplant. I think that is actually quite, well, as I say, serendipitous to this topic. What is happening there is just a small example of what this bill in the name of Chris Bishop is trying not only to support in that particular instance moving forward but also in terms of trying to see an increase. Ultimately, behind this bill is the desire to see more donation in New Zealand—in the first instance, live donation, but as I have referenced many times before, wider donations than that.

At the break, I was just indicating first and foremost, looking at Part 1, one of the reasons why there have been some substantial changes to this bill. The first that I had touched on was actually that the legislation in and around health is changing. I use the example of the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory Reference to Medical Practitioners) Bill, which is now an Act, that has been before the House. We have been trying to integrate that, and you can see that in clause 4.

In respect of clause 5, I was just noting that, actually, it has been really important for the committee that we did not wish to recreate the wheel. So you will see in the likes of clause 5 in Part 1 that we have tied the notion of earnings to what is in the Accident Compensation Act of 2001. If I get an opportunity later to take a call, I will actually expand on how we have dealt with the whole ACC question, because for those who have been listening to earlier debates, it was one of the little conundrums that we faced in the committee of how we provide entitlement to people who are on ACC, but, in giving them entitlement through this bill, make sure that they do not subsequently lose their ACC entitlement. That is in later parts. So it has been important, particularly in Part 1, to link things back to existing Acts and to keep it relatively simple.

We then move into the area of Part 2. This is primarily around earnings, and members will know that when we started this process it was a remuneration of about 80 percent. But it did not take long, with not only the encouragement of the member but through the work of the select committee, before we thought we would move to something like 100 percent. So that has been a really good step, particularly on the basis of cost neutrality. We have taken that from other countries and introduced it here—that this is not just simply about 80 percent recompense but we can actually go to 100 percent. In fact, there are further elements, and I think they are in Part 2, that also allow for elements around travel and so forth.

So we have taken a long time as a committee to delve through that. As people might anticipate, there are a number of complexities in this. As other people have noted, as has the member in the chair himself, what was an initially good suggestion has brought about a whole range of changes, and quite rightly so. So what we are doing here is 100 percent. We have made sure that there are transitional arrangements, in particular, around this. I want to tease both those elements out. So, as I said, 100 percent recompense—that is really important. The transitional side is that we want to be very careful in how we have drafted this, to make sure that no one is going to hold off the altruistic action of donating an organ. So transitional arrangements have been discussed in the committee and added into this bill.

I will not go, at this point, through all the complexities of that. We did look around at who should be donating. We have discussed this, and you will see articulated in clause 9 of Part 2 provisions around who qualifies for a donation. Again, I suppose it is just trying to draw to the attention of the Committee that it is very easy for us to talk about the good that is live organ donation, but from that simple concept comes a whole complexity.

One element we have looked at is, obviously, those from overseas, and we have dealt with that, and we have also looked at income thresholds. Again, there was a lot of debate in the committee, but it was a collegial one, and we said that, actually, it is going to be 100 percent of whatever a person’s income is. So granted you could be earning millions and millions of dollars, and in theory we will reimburse that. First and foremost, if this is the altruistic action that you are taking, then you should not be at any loss. Again, we see that neutrality principle that we have brought into the bill. The other issue, of course, is that there is a relatively low likelihood; it is almost scandalous—and I had to use that word—how low the rates are. We are not trying to trade off that, but it is a recognition that it is regardless of your income. We believe, and I am hoping as the House continues to support this, that you should have that earning remunerated fully.

We are also making sure that that earning is up for 12 weeks. Those following the bill will see that is in clause 10. There is some discretion—that is in subclause (2) of clause 10. I draw attention to that specifically, of course. I think it is important to know that it is not just hard and fast; I think we appreciate in the Health Committee—and I am sure everyone here does as well—that not everyone is the same. That element of discretion rolls right through this bill in a number of clauses. In order to wrap up, because I can see other colleagues are keen to take a call, discretion is being operated by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), and depending on whether I get the opportunity to take further calls, we have made the decision in this bill to put this under—sorry, it is the Ministry of Health; I apologise, it has gone to the Ministry of Health, not the MSD. We have taken it from MSD and put it into the Ministry of Health, and, again, there is a high degree of discretion to the Director-General of Health in this space. So I am just going to leave my initial thoughts there, and I am looking forward to other contributions from the Committee.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and my colleague Barbara Stewart tonight to talk about, in the Committee of the whole House, the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. This is a good bill, but New Zealand First feels that this bill should have come to the House a lot sooner than it has, although we do understand the passage and journey that it has taken in terms of the time of 12 months that the bill spent with the Health Committee to make sure that it was able to have significant changes made to it and that when it got to the House it was a bill that represented everything that a member’s bill should represent and everything that it should do; that is, to enhance and remove barriers for the betterment, to make a difference no matter how big or how small to the lives of New Zealanders.

New Zealand First supports the recommendations from the Health Committee to change the title of this bill from the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill to the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill. This is justified because it provides donors with the appropriate compensation for lost income for doing such a selfless act that will have a significant impact on their lives, not only for the organ recipient but also for the donor themselves. This is a life-changing decision, and we believe that this bill—and the title will reflect this fact—is not merely financial assistance but it actually recognises the significance of the importance of this bill. New Zealand First believes that it is vital that live donors should never be financially disadvantaged or financially advantaged from donating organs.

The concerns raised by the Attorney-General with regard to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act have been taken on board by the select committee, which has accepted that there are beneficiaries who may receive income and be entitled to compensation, or people who may work part-time and receive New Zealand Superannuation or even our veterans pension.

New Zealand First supports the cost neutrality for donors by increasing the original compensation rate from 80 percent to 100 percent of lost income. New Zealand First does recognise that there are additional issues that do come about pre - organ donations and post too. We realise that the recovery rate for some people takes longer than it does for other people, as well.

New clause 4 does provide a definition of what are qualifying organs. This is good to see. We in New Zealand First think that it is important to define that not only is the donor a person who donates to a person funded by the public health service here in New Zealand but also the definition further sets out a “qualifying organ” as the “whole or a part of any of the following types of human organ: (a) kidney: (b) liver: (c) any other type of human organ declared by regulations to be a qualifying organ.”

I just want to touch briefly on new clause 29, “Regulations”. This will provide: “(1) The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister of Health, make regulations declaring a type of human organ to be a qualifying organ …” This is actually really good, because this bill has also been futureproofed for donor transplants that are currently carried out in other countries, but not here in New Zealand. These include the small bowel, the pancreas, and lobular lung transplants. We are also pleased to see the Health Committee has allowed for new entitlements to be backdated for eligible donors to the date this bill receives the Royal assent. This further takes away the deterrent to people who want to donate but hold back from donating an organ.

In summary, New Zealand First supports the member Chris Bishop’s bill. This will not, however, deal with the issue of the low organ donor rates here in New Zealand, but it will enable people who need help to get the help that they do need to get. These are members of our communities, our families, and our friends. This bill, as I said earlier, is what members’ bills should represent. It should be what it is all about, and that is to the betterment of New Zealanders. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to take a call on the Committee stage of this bill. Can I firstly commend the member Chris Bishop, who is sponsoring this bill and who has brought it through the House to this point. It is a very worthy bill that meets a serious, serious issue and a serious need that afflicts many, many patients out there. I think of just the many people whom I have come into contact with who are undergoing renal issues, or who have to do dialysis and are awaiting transplants. It is just a very unfortunate situation, and they are all hoping that they can have a donor to donate a new kidney for them. So, yes, this is a worthy piece of legislation. Can I also commend the Health Committee, because it has done the heavy-duty panel-beating on this—because if we look at the bill it is pretty much all rewritten. It has been rewritten, and there have been very large improvements made to the bill, and we do commend the work that it has done.

I wanted to raise a point regarding the entitlements. We know that on application to the Director-General of Health there is a set definition of what is a “qualifying donor”. For a qualifying donor there is the entitlement to a 100 percent financial support over the 12-week period of recovery following the surgery in which they donate their particular organ. But there is a second part to the application process, under Part 3 of the bill, and that involves a discretion that the director-general has to provide an entitlement for work that is done prior to the actual surgery itself. That is a discretion that the director-general has to grant financial support to the donor for undergoing tests or any other medical procedures that may be required in preparation for the surgery itself.

I just wanted to draw the Committee’s attention to what I think is an inconsistency in the drafting. If we look at Part 3 and we go to clause 16, it says: “A person must apply to the Director-General in writing if the person wishes to—(a) be a qualifying donor; or (b) receive discretionary earnings compensation.” In that clause there, we are talking about alternatives. Either there is an application to be the donor, “or”—so they are quite separate. I guess the “or” in that clause is there to link alternatives.

But if you look at the provisions to do with the granting of the discretion that the director-general has in clause 12, you will see that the discretion can be given only to a qualifying donor. So the applicant has to be a qualifying donor to meet the test to actually receive that discretionary compensation. Yet in Part 3—the application that is made—it is not a requirement, I guess, that the person who does apply be a qualifying donor. So in my reading of it, it does apply to a person applying to the director-general solely for the director-general to apply the discretion for compensation prior to the actual surgery itself. So I just question the use of that definition of “or”, because they are quite separate requirements in that clause—they are not linked. I would imagine that, obviously, the applicant would want to be a qualifying donor, but the fact that this has been separated out as an either/or scenario does not quite follow, in my reading of it. So I think it might be more appropriate if it was an “and/or”—you know, if there was an inclusive-type definition to cover both scenarios.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): For those who are currently reflecting on the events of today, which will end up being historic, I have actually just spent the dinner break at Tātarakihi—The Children of Parihaka, at the invitation of Marama Fox, and I have spent that time with my Youth MP, Leah Bell. It does put things in perspective.

It is a pleasure to stand here tonight and speak in the Committee stage of the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill—and it is much more appropriate that we call it compensation, rather than financial assistance. I take my hat off and appreciate the love and the generosity of people who offer to donate their organs. For them, it is not about the money. For a lot of people, it is about the care of a loved one, although there are some very amazing people who choose to donate an organ to a complete stranger. I think that really takes some courage, so I would like to thank anyone who has been able to do that.

This bill has been brought to the House as a result of a member’s bill from our member Chris Bishop—so thank you, Chris—and I will acknowledge Michael Woodhouse prior, and I think it was Cam Calder before that.

Chris Bishop: That’s right, Cam Calder—Dr Calder.

BARBARA KURIGER: Yes. So we are finally here. When bills like this get here, it seems like a simple process about which everybody thinks “Hey, that’s a great idea.”, but when the Health Committee actually did come to work on this bill, there were quite a lot of fish-hooks that needed to be taken care of—specifically, how this bill related to other bills. So we spent a lot of time talking about cost neutrality, because it was important to the intent of this bill.

This bill is not going to be a silver bullet, but it is a significant change to how we encourage organ donations. A lot of people have had donations from victims of car accidents, and, as we know, there are a lot of people who offer to do that. They put that on their driver’s licence or they intend it in their wishes, and then, when the time comes, the family, for whatever reason, decides that it is something they cannot go through with. So we have heard from previous speakers tonight that there is more to be done in this area, and it is important that at some stage in the future we look at that further.

In the meantime, I am just really thankful for those donations of organs from those families who have lost loved ones in car accidents. A lot of what we talked about was about what a fair and reasonable compensation was, and that is how we came to the rate of 100 percent of the income. For some people they really dearly wanted to do this but did not have the financial capability to be able to do it, and I think it is only fair that if someone takes that time out—and it is time out, and it is a big decision—that should not have any detrimental effect on their income or deprive them of the ability to be able to do it. So I think it was really important that we went to that 100 percent rate and that no one is out of pocket for doing this.

We also made an effort to futureproof this piece of legislation, because, as we know now—most of us really talk about kidneys as the main one, but as science and technology and medical advances progress we are going to find other organs that we are going to be able to transplant, and we do not want to be back in the House doing another piece of legislation every time we have an advance in medical technology. So this is futureproofed.

I want to say what a pleasure it is, always, to work on the Health Committee under the chairmanship of Simon O’Connor. It is a committee that works extremely well together. As we have worked through this bill, which has had its frustrations in terms of taking a little bit more time than we originally thought it was going to, I think we have worked a way to get this into a really good state, and it has been a pleasure to be part of it. I look forward to the next stage in the third reading. It is a really big pleasure to take this call. Thank you.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Let us start with the assumption here, which I think this bill works under, and it is that donating our organs is a good thing—OK? It gives quality of life to people who have not got it or, better still, it actually saves lives. So when I look at clause 9 in this, I wonder why this is limited only to people whose surgery is carried out in New Zealand. I am talking about paragraphs (b) and (c) of clause 9(1), where the qualification is that the surgery must be carried out in New Zealand and “the recipient of the organ is eligible to receive services funded under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act”.

The reason I ask this is that medical science is advancing at a great rate of knots. It is one of the areas where a significant amount of money is being invested around the world, but more so in other countries. I would have thought that if we started with the premise that saving lives or giving quality of life is the overriding premise—if, in fact, a person is better served or the country is better served or our community is better served by the donor and the donee going across and having the surgery in Australia or America or Israel or anywhere else around the world, and that is going to actually create a benefit over and above the cost, then why would we not make provision for the donor to actually have compensation no matter where this is undertaken? Keep in mind that this is not talking about the payment for the surgery itself; it is talking only about the compensation to the donor. So my question to Mr Bishop, the member in the chair, is this: why limit this to New Zealand?

One of the unintended consequences here may be that as a result of this bill, a number of people decide they can now afford to do this because previously they could not see a way forward even though they wanted to do it. An unintended consequence is that, in fact, the number of surgeries required to meet the demand reaches a point where the waiting list is such that it does not meet that overriding objective of saving lives. I would have thought that in order to overcome this, what we should do is say that no matter where that transplant takes place, the donor is going to be compensated. So do not just limit it to New Zealand, because what we do know is that the New Zealand health system actually, under certain circumstances, for example, sends patients to Australia. It certainly used to.

My question is that if advances in medical technology are occurring at a great rate of knots in other countries where the surgery could be expedited and lives saved and the overriding outcome or objective of this bill met, then why do we not open this up to every country? Why do we not say that no matter where the donor goes to have the surgery, or the donor and the donee go to have the surgery, we are going to pay compensation? If that means that the donor and the donee have to come up with $50,000 to go across to America to have the surgery, then so be it. But I do not think that it should be limited purely to New Zealand, because I think the unintended consequences of this may be that the overriding purpose of the Act is actually denied, which is to save lives and to increase quality of life.

There may well be a rationale for this that I have just completely overlooked, but I have looked through the reports, I have looked through the regulatory impact statement, I have looked through the debate pack, and I cannot see any reason why this must be in New Zealand. Whether this is an oversight or whether we think we are actually doing the New Zealand medical industry or our surgeons a service or not, I am not sure. Ideally, of course this takes place in New Zealand. Of course that is the ideal, because we know that the costs to both parties, or any parties, of heading overseas are going to be high. I just think that what we need to do is remove the words “carried out in New Zealand” from clause 9 and just say that we are going to compensate the donor no matter where this is undertaken. Or, if you really wanted to tighten it up, you would name a list of countries that we think have an acceptable health service.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Just a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First. Just a comment on the contribution by the member Stuart Nash, who has just resumed his seat, New Zealand First had not considered that at all—the argument put forward by Stuart Nash. There is trade in organ donation in the world and also there are different standards of surgery throughout the planet. So I would suggest that the Health Committee—and we think, quite rightly—has settled on 100 percent support for those individuals, those New Zealanders, who provide this gift to other New Zealanders; they should be supported at 100 percent.

But I personally, and I think my New Zealand First colleagues would support me in this—we would like to be assured that the people carrying out the surgery were of a standard that if there were any complications we could be confident that they met a certain standard and the complications were unforeseen, as opposed to perhaps getting a cheap operation somewhere else on the planet. That is an interesting situation put forward by Mr Nash but not something that New Zealand First, I think, had considered at this stage.

I would, however, be interested in the member in the chair, Chris Bishop, taking a call. Firstly, can I congratulate the member in the chair on his member’s bill getting this far. I do not sit on the Health Committee but I am aware of the work that it has done, the effort that the member has put in, and how vital this bill is with regard to the support. Ms Kuriger mentioned those who pass on, who have signed over organs so that others can live, even though their families are facing great tragedy. But what we are talking about here is supporting living New Zealanders to continue with their life and to be compensated—well, not compensated actually. We are not selling organs. We are merely supporting New Zealanders who provide a gift to other New Zealanders.

But I would ask the member in the chair, if he would like, to stand and perhaps say—as I say, I am not on the Health Committee—what consideration has been given to the futureproofing of the situation with regard to 3-D printing of organs. At the beginning of this year actually, the first toddler in America had a 3-D printed liver, and there has been quite a lot of research done with regard to 3-D printing of organs so far, or the possible future of it. So I just wonder whether the member has considered it, and whether the futureproofing in this bill, referred to by Ms Kuriger and other speakers, covers the capacity of 3-D printing around living tissue.

I would be fascinated if the member, Chris Bishop, could rise to his feet and give, perhaps, a small comment about his knowledge of that area and how that technology and the growth of that technology has influenced this bill that we have before us. Would the bill need to come back to Parliament, for example, if the leaps in technology that are being made right now with regard to this particular area are covered inside this legislation? Or is it an area that we will need to come back to as a Parliament, to consider compensating either the individual having to undergo the surgery, perhaps, or the individuals who are researching or printing it? It is an interesting area, and it is disruptive technology, which I think we are going to find going forward.

But at the end of the day New Zealand First congratulates the member on seeing a need. There are some areas around encouraging New Zealanders, living New Zealanders, to provide, to donate organs in this way, to other New Zealanders. There are some areas of cultural sensitivity that need to be addressed when these things happen. We know that Māori, for example, are among the highest recipients of organs, or in need of organs, from other New Zealanders, and we understand there are some cultural sensitivities around that.

We would, firstly, welcome comment from the member with regard to 3-D printing and the possibilities of the future for that, but at the end of the day, we support the legislation. We hope that more New Zealanders will now be encouraged to provide this gift to others, whom they may or may not know, and that they understand that the capacity of giving an organ provides a greater expanse of life for these individuals. We acknowledge that it takes a lot for a member’s bill to be drawn and to get such consensus across the House. Kia ora.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): As a member of the Health Committee, perhaps I can give some clarity to the thinking that went behind some of the decisions that we made as a committee in bringing the bill back to the Committee of the whole House. Firstly, I want to reference a couple of people whom I worked with, for whom this would be a very pertinent piece of legislation. Firstly, there was Richard. Richard was able to successfully get a kidney transplanted. Then there was my very dear friend Catherine Mary Jacobs, who was on dialysis for a long, long period of time and, unfortunately, died before she was able to have her kidney transplant conducted.

Why I reference these two people I worked with is because they both came to needing kidney transplants because they were diabetic. They had long-term diabetes—a condition that actually resulted in the fact that they had renal failure. Richard was lucky enough to find someone to donate a kidney to him and he went on for many, many years after that point to have a very fulsome, a very rich and active life. My friend Cathy, on the other hand, although she had a donor, was unable to then translate that into a transplant because of the financial implications upon that person who could have donated a kidney to her, but was financially unable to do so.

That is why we are here debating this bill, because it would provide an opportunity for people like my friend Cathy to reach out to her family and friends to find people who were compatible to donate a kidney, and for those people not to suffer any financial hardship because of it. Why that is important is because when we look at people with diabetes, they are often people who are Māori or Pacific, and there are increasing numbers of Indian people, but, particularly, Māori and Pacific people who may be impacted financially should they choose to donate a kidney to their family member. This bill is really, really important to that cohort of people.

I want to thank not only the select committee for the work that it did on this but actually the officials too, because, when you read through the bill, there is not a single section of it that has not been rewritten in some form. The officials have been instrumental in guiding us, providing us with information and advice, and then actually crafting this into something that has come back to the Committee in a decent form. I want to thank the officials wholeheartedly not only for that advice but for the drafting that they have had to do subsequent to that as well.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Thank me, cos I arranged it.

POTO WILLIAMS: And, OK, if the Attorney-General wants some thanks as well then great.

The reason we are talking about the difference between compensation and financial assistance, which is why we have changed the title of the bill, goes back to my original argument. It is actually about ensuring that we can provide for the number of people who are seeking transplants in this country, who may have somebody lined up to help them, but for whom there will be an impediment unless they are able to be compensated for the wages or the income that they will forgo. It is not about going overseas to have transplants; it is about being in the New Zealand health system where you can have the appropriate safeguards and review of any of those procedures. Let us face it, for people who have kidney donations, particularly—because that is the bulk of the transplants currently carried out in this country—their life improves exponentially because they have had that opportunity.

We really want to encourage people to donate and that is the whole purpose of the bill. Indicating on your driver’s licence that you are an organ donor does not actually provide for that donation to occur, because sometimes our whānau, at the time of our passing, make some decisions that may not have been what we would have decided if we had been able to. It is really important if you are going to want to gift your organs that you talk about this with your whānau before anything untoward happens, and that your whānau, your family, are really clear about your wishes and how important it is to do that—for people like Richard and my friend Cathy.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Let me just deal with a few of the questions raised by members opposite in the debate on this—in fact, on all of the bill, because we are taking it all as one question. Let me start with Mr Tirikatene’s questions on the bill. He wanted to know why the word “or” is used in clause 16(1) of the bill. The reason is that to become eligible for discretionary earnings compensation, which is the compensation that would be paid to an eligible donor, in advance of an operation—so that is distinct from recuperation, post an operation—you have to get through the gateway of being a qualifying donor in the first place.

The qualifying donor section, which is in clause 10 of the bill, which is the key and substantive part, is where people become eligible to become qualifying donors, or not. If you become eligible to be a qualifying donor, you are entitled to that compensation post the surgery, post the donation of an organ—typically a kidney, as other members have made mention—and you are also eligible to apply to the director-general for some of that discretionary compensation. But the point is that you have got to get through the gateway of clause 10 in the first place.

The second question was from Tracey Martin, and this was about something that I had not actually considered before, which is 3-D printing. What do you do about 3-D printed organs—kidneys? I guess there are two things to say to that. The first is that there is actually an argument that it would be outside the scope of the bill because if you 3-D printed a kidney, for example, would that be an organ donation? Perhaps not. It could just be one of the advances of modern medicine and it would not necessarily fall within the scope of the bill. Regardless of that and whether or not it is correct, Ms Martin will know that clause 4 of the bill, which is the interpretation clause, provides that a qualifying organ means a kidney, or a liver, or, in paragraph (c), any other type of human organ declared by regulations to be a qualifying organ.

In the bill, we are futureproofing the advances in modern medical technology. We are giving the Minister, through regulations, the ability to declare a particular type of organ to be a qualifying organ for the purposes of the bill. So it is a good question, but one that I think arguably is outside the scope of the bill, but, nevertheless, it is probably covered.

The third question was from Stuart Nash. He was very concerned about clause 9 of the bill, about why you would limit it to New Zealand. And, actually, I think Tracey Martin, in her contribution to the Committee, and I very rarely say this about contributions from Tracey Martin—I very rarely say this—but I am going to pay her a bit of a compliment. I actually think she answered that question herself. Before I even had a chance to stand up and speak, she answered that question herself. Actually, Poto Williams, in her contribution just before, said that overseas health systems have varying standards. We do not know very much about them in the New Zealand health system, and, actually, we want to make sure that this bill is focused on increasing organ transplants in New Zealand. We want to make sure we focus it on increasing the number of people who donate organs in New Zealand. We might be worried about varying standards overseas, and that is exactly the point that Poto Williams made and that Tracey Martin made, as well. So I think that deals with the three questions that have been raised so far. I thank members for the consensus support, I think, around the House, and I will hand over to somebody else.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I am pleased to take a short call for the Green Party on the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill. I do congratulate Mr Bishop and the Health Committee. This is how select committees should work, not like with the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, which the Minister for the Environment issued a press statement about today and which the Local Government and Environment Committee was not even allowed to report back to this House on—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): But moving on.

EUGENIE SAGE: —and where there have been closed-door negotiations outside of the select committee. But this bill—and I like Rino Tirikatene’s line about heavy-duty panel-beating because it has been completely rewritten in the select committee, with the assistance of officials, to bring back what was a very sensible bill in terms of providing financial assistance to people making live organ donations, to improve the way in which the financial assistance is considered, and to change the decision making and the gatekeeping—as Mr Bishop referred to it—from the Ministry of Social Development to the Director-General of Health.

It was interesting, I think, in terms of the points raised by some submitters that they thought the Director-General of Health was a much better decision maker here because of the difficulties people had had in getting assistance from the Ministry of Social Development, and the Director-General of Health is, obviously, much more acquainted with the issues around this.

There have been other improvements to the bill. When it was introduced, it was going to provide only 80 percent of the equivalent of what you get under ACC. The select committee changed that so that if you were donating an organ, it would be cost-neutral and you would receive 100 percent of the income that you would have received from ACC. That is a significant improvement.

As others have commented, our rates of organ donation in New Zealand are very low compared with countries like Spain. That is often in the area of organs being donated by people who have died, and this bill is restricted to live organ donations. It is interesting that New Zealanders consider themselves as altruistic people. Many people support the concept of organ donation, and I think that for those people who are extremely generous in donating an organ while they are alive, there have been a number of barriers to that. This bill is a really good initiative because it is removing the barrier of suffering financial hardship, because there is currently no compensation for lost earnings if you are on a benefit. But I think we need a much greater review of the whole system around organ donation generally—the institutional structures, the mechanisms available to support donors, the way in which the health and hospital services work for live organ donation, and also the donations from people who have died. There needs to be much more support there.

I think there is quite a comprehensive review happening. There are various papers on the Ministry of Health website, and this bill is a useful initiative not just for what it does in terms of providing an even playing field in relation to financial assistance but also for helping to raise public awareness of the issue of organ donation. When we have increasing rates of diabetes in New Zealand and the renal failure that goes with that, we are looking at more and more people requiring assistance there, so we need to increase our rates of organ donation.

One of the other things I would just like to comment on briefly is clauses 21 to 25 where there are dispute resolution procedures included in the bill. People can apply to the director-general for a review of his or her decision and the role of the director-general is in being a gatekeeper in determining whether people are actually eligible to get that financial assistance, which is more sensible than what was in the bill when introduced.

So the Green Party supported the bill at its introduction, We are very pleased by the very sound select committee process and the improvements to the bill as a result of the select committee. We hope that all bills go through a similarly robust committee process. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill. I thank the member for bringing it to the House, but, more importantly, I thank the work of the Health Committee for knocking it into shape and giving it clarity for our debate tonight.

Of course, New Zealand has a low rate of live organ donations by international standards, and we want to improve that. I want to refer particularly to Part 1, Preliminary provisions, clause 3, where we talk about the purpose of this bill “to remove a financial deterrent to the donation of organs by live donors.”

I want to just reference the written submission provided to the select committee by the New Zealand Nurses’ Organisation. I see they didn’t appear, so I am going to highlight some very important points that they made in their written submission. Concerns they raised were that organ transplants are a health matter—and I know that that has been picked up in this bill; and the financial burden on the donors—and I am glad to hear from the member that we are talking about 100 percent compensation for those who are considering donating. The third point, and the bulk of my contribution, is the point around disparity for Māori and Pacific people. It is interesting to note, also, in the organisation’s written submission where it talks about the current number of deceased organ donations being 67 per year in New Zealand, and in terms of live organ donors it is 72 per year. If we look at those on the waiting list, it is acknowledged that there are about 550 people on the current waiting list.

But, as I said, there is a particular community out there in New Zealand, Māori and Pacific people, who face the greatest burden of what is called end-stage renal failure, ESRF, yet they are least likely to receive a kidney transplant. This is due partly to the transplantation body mass index (BMI) criteria, which does not take into consideration Māori and Pasifika body shapes and sizes. Questions should be asked whether the BMI threshold creates an unfair disadvantage for populations that are naturally bigger. The nurses also give some helpful hints in terms of not just supporting the bill—which they clearly do—but I want to just bring to the House their comment around recommending further research to be undertaken to capture the diversity of Māori and Pacific views on donations.

Perhaps the member Chris Bishop, when he does, if he wants to get on his feet and answer the question—going back to how I started with Part 1, Preliminary provisions, clause 3, where we say that we are addressing a financial deterrent—I want to ask the member whether he considered any other barriers that this bill should be addressing. I acknowledge to the honourable member that the financial barrier is a credible one, but I ask whether he contemplated any other barriers, as raised and identified in the nurses’ submission.

My further point to the member is the recommendation—again from the Nurses’ Association—around the further research on and, I guess, the education required for many Māori and Pacific potential donors; whether he has thought about how he would socialise that with the Government around the real need of addressing the disparity between Māori and Pacific renal failure and some of the requirements that the nurses have identified from the many years that they have worked with Māori and Pacific patients, to ensure that we can maximise the potential that this bill is trying to address by increasing live donors across the spectrum throughout New Zealand.

All I want to do in the time that I have been given is to impress upon you, given that you are a Hutt South - based person in Wainuiōmata, where you have got lots of constituents there who are facing several health considerations—I implore the member to consider that as he progresses this bill through. Kia ora tātou.

BARRY COATES (Green): This bill is very welcome. I rise to take a short call. My Green Party colleagues and I warmly welcome the introduction of this bill and congratulate Mr Bishop and the Health Committee on the hard work that they have put into it, as is obvious by the extensive rewriting. We agree with the principle of 100 percent compensation for lost earnings. We think that is fair. We welcome the removal of discriminatory treatment against donors.

I am in a position, as many of us are, of having friends who have been organ donors or have received organs. From personal experience, I know that both sides of that donation are immensely difficult processes. I had the great honour of knowing Jonah Lomu, and I have a good friend who is currently on dialysis. The issues for organ donors are profound. This is a major undertaking, and certainly this bill, I think, recognises that by way of financial assistance. I welcome the title becoming more about compensation than financial assistance. But it is also a huge deal for the organ recipient, and I think we have to remember the people who spend long hours on dialysis—the pain and suffering that they experience with kidney failure, and the huge costs that are borne by families, by communities, and by the country as a whole.

The increase in quality of life when an organ donation is made and is successful is huge. The organ recipient is able to benefit from decent food, from water, from exercise, from travel, and from such an increase in the quality of life. This bill should, hopefully, enable New Zealand to up our rate of live organ donation. It is a worry that we have one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the world. As other speakers have noted, there are significant numbers of Māori and Pasifika who will benefit from this bill, and they are disproportionately affected by kidney failure. This is a good bill. It is good for those incredible donors, good for needy recipients, good economics, and good for our health system.

I just want to conclude that we should not really stop there. We should also be asking why we are having the level of this problem that we do. What is it that is causing such a high rate of failure of organs in New Zealand, particularly kidney failure? One of the reasons is that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of diabetes in the world, and diabetes causes complications for kidneys, which are particularly at risk from diabetes. Taking action on diabetes and obesity should be a major focus of our health policy. This is one of the areas where we spend an inordinate amount of money on measures to treat a problem, but we spend far too little time on prevention. Health prevention, with regard to diabetes, is important for our society, both at an individual level, at a community level, and for our country as a whole.

I should say that the issue is incredibly important to our Pacific neighbours. In many of the Pacific countries—I think, the latest figures show that nine out of 10 countries in the world with the highest rates of diabetes are Pacific Island countries. So we ought to be recognising that this is a problem for us here in Aotearoa, but it is also a major problem for our Pacific neighbours. Certainly, we would hope that the Government may be listening sympathetically when Green Party members stand up and talk about the need for sugar taxes, and when we talk about the need for proper health education around diet and nutrition. I would also add that we ought to be looking at the things that we export to the Pacific, such as waste meat exports, which are a contributing factor to diabetes in the Pacific. Again—I give my congratulations to the member in the chair and to the select committee on this bill. We strongly support it. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute in the Committee stage debate of the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill. I want to acknowledge the member who was responsible for bringing this piece of legislation to the House, Chris Bishop, and also the Health Committee.

The relevance of this piece of legislation to many families is actually immense. We have a waiting list of over 550 New Zealanders requiring organ donation. Of those, 450 require kidney donation. I just have some statistics from the Organ Donation New Zealand Annual Report 2015. The longest surviving kidney transplant has been 42 years, 168 kidney transplant recipients have lived longer than 20 years, and another 30 have lived longer than 30 years. The relevance of this piece of legislation is huge. On average, in terms of the kidney donations, in 2015 there were 139, and, as my colleague Meka Whaitiri highlighted, of those donations, 72 were from live donors and 67 were from 46 deceased donors, and of those, five were Māori. So Māori are not participating in this particular area very highly, within a context of being some of the most needy in terms of it being us who require these organ donations.

In terms of international statistics, we actually have an incredibly low rate—it is 9.3 per million. France has nearly three times the rates of donation to ours, Britain has nearly two times more, and Australia has one and a half times more. What this piece of legislation is attempting to do is remove the barriers that have historically prevented a number of our families from donating. If the needy are Māori and Pacific, then it actually makes perfect sense that within that unmet needs base, which is approximately 70 percent of those who need organ donations—actually, our Māori and Pacific families and communities are not in a position to be the donor. I think this is going to create an opportunity now for Māori and Pacific communities to start talking about organ donation. I actually think that by removing that barrier, many more whānau members will put their hands up and say: “Yes, we want to be donors for our whānau, because it is not going to affect the financial viability of our families.”

What I really want to highlight is that in Part 2, I think that having the earnings compensation for up to 12 weeks is at the extreme end of that recuperation time frame. I want to commend the select committee and the officials for making sure that we provided the maximum time for recuperation, because for recovery from a kidney transplant, there is an estimate of between 2 and 12 weeks in terms of recuperation or rehabilitation post-transplant, so to provide that minimum—well, I guess it is a signal to the community that for up to 12 weeks, you will be able to be 100 percent compensated because we are not treating this as an accident, which is how this bill was introduced in the House. That is why it was under the accident compensation legislation, and how we ever assumed that donors were having an accident and that it was unexpected is an interesting little quirk in the legislation.

What I also wanted to highlight is that for the people who donate, there are a lot of emotional and psychological effects of the donation. I mean, it is not just a straightforward process, and some people do have detrimental consequences for their health and well-being. So it has also been good to see, under clause 10(4)(b), that if anybody requires more than the 12 weeks’ compensation, then a medical clinician can authorise an extension of that time period. I think that is an incredibly important clause in this legislation because it allows for the worst-case scenario, which is that somebody has an adverse event from being a donor, and to have that factored into the legislation I think is commendable. Kia ora.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 238 in the name of Chris Bishop be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Education (Charter Schools Abolition) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 19 October.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): When we were last discussing this bill, Stuart Smith had the call, and he has 4 minutes and 45 seconds remaining.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I was cut down part-way through, and I was really just getting going last time, so it is great to be able to have an opportunity to come back into the House and have my say. I thought that today I would not make it back in time, but I have. I would like to start by acknowledging Chris Hipkins, who has a new addition to his family, and I think that is fantastic. Unfortunately, he is not here tonight—but good on Chris; I think it is fantastic. I know, as does anyone who has been through that, that it is a fantastic, momentous occasion. However, I cannot say that I support this bill in any way. I think it is really rather sad.

One of the things I found most surprising when I came into Parliament—and it was completely contrary to my views, before I came in—was the conservatism of the members opposite. I really thought that would not be the case. But it is quite obvious that the home of progressive thinking is on this side of the House. This bill aims to stop what is a really good opportunity for people to make choices in their education. I think that is what partnership schools offer—an opportunity for people to have a choice. If they do not work, people will not go there—I think that, quite clearly, they do.

Children have a myriad of styles of learning. Some schools, and particularly partnership schools, are set up to meet a target group of people—and to teach them in a particular style. All power to them. It will not suit everyone—of course it will not. It is not meant to be for everyone. We are meant to have a choice, and that is the one thing that I think has been missing. Why would you oppose that? Conservatism, as I have laid out, may be one reason. The other one, of course, is supporting major donors to political parties, perhaps. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I do want to make it clear that the comments the member has made, if he looks back through the Speakers’ Rulings, are regarded as grossly disorderly. I suggest he does not continue with them.

STUART SMITH: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for that direction. We have 2,500 schools in New Zealand, and yet only eight of them are partnership schools. So really, what is the threat? Why are they so threatened? I really find that conservatism is quite surprising—and rather disappointing, I have to say.

In New Zealand at the moment—particularly in Marlborough—we have only 2.8 percent unemployment, and it is 4.9 percent across New Zealand. The big issue for employers is that people are coming out of schools not able to be work-ready. They have not progressed through the school in the way that makes them work-ready. Having partnership schools gives a very good opportunity for people to get to a work-ready status, and to be able to participate fully in the workplace. Certainly, I know in Marlborough with 2.8 percent unemployment—I think 3 percent is considered worldwide as full employment, so we are actually below that—it is a significant challenge for employers to meet. So anything that can help in that area will be fantastic.

We set up Better Public Services targets of 85 percent of 18-year-olds having achieved NCEA level 2. In 2011 there were only 74.3 percent who had attained that level. We are now at 83.3 percent, as of 2015, so we are well on the way to that target of 85 percent. Partnership schools are a part of that. They are helping us to achieve those targets.

I think there have been a number of concerns around not meeting the curriculum, but under section 158G(b) of the Education Act 1989 the curriculum has to meet the standards laid out under section 60A(1)(aa). Quite clearly, the curriculum will be a part—and has to be a part—of partnership schools. So that does not really meet the test. Targets are set, and they have to be set. They have to be measured against national standards, which is a fantastic initiative—anyone who cares about education would really care about national standards and NCEA—and they have to report it. I think it is absolutely vital that this bill does not pass. It would be a real impost on the choice of New Zealanders. I think it would be quite shameful if it passes. I quite clearly stand against the bill. Thank you.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call after that member, Stuart Smith, has just resumed his seat. This is what happens, unfortunately, when you have members of the National backbench who get a few notes with some statistics in them and a couple of actual clauses, and who know nothing about what they are talking about. That is what is really unfortunate about discussions like this.

New Zealand First not only will be supporting this bill but will commit at the next election to exactly what this bill does, if it does not pass tonight. That is because—for the education of the member who has just resumed his seat—there was absolutely no need for charter schools inside the New Zealand system. If there is madness going on today in America, this is madness that came out of America. Failing charter schools in America have shown the way that this is not necessary in the New Zealand system.

David Bennett: Madness.

TRACEY MARTIN: The lovely David Bennett, a seat-warmer from way back, has decided to join an education debate that, again, he knows nothing about. New Zealand First, which actually speaks to the current education system, which knows that charter schools have had no higher outcomes than any other State school across the nation when you take them on—

David Seymour: Rubbish.

TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Seymour, given half a chance, will rise and say: “Charter schools—Vanguard Military School has had 100 percent NCEA level 2.”—yes he will. I will ask him to go and have a look at the number of State schools—Mahurangi College, for example, which in the last academic year had a 100 percent pass rate for Pasifika students. Will Mr Seymour stand up and acknowledge any of the State schools? No, he will not, because Mr Seymour and the ACT Party hang their hat on single privatisation of the education system, which is charter schools.

The reason why charter schools must be disestablished is—I refer to a conversation with Alwyn Poole, before charter schools even entered the market place. Mr Seymour and other members of the ACT Party went to meet with Mr Poole, and said: “We guarantee you”—we guarantee you—“between $12,000 and $15,000 a student so that what you’re making in a private school, we can guarantee you that from the taxpayers’ pocket.” This is a waste of money. This is a waste of education dollars. We do not have enough precious education dollars in the current system.

I notice that Marama Fox is in the House. I note that Ms Fox, in the last few days, has asked for every Māori MP to stand up for Māori students, 95 percent of whom are in mainstream English-medium schools. Yet she supports the same Government that strips out the funding for Te Kotahitanga. She supports the same Government that strips out the other supports for those Māori students inside mainstream schools—to do what? Te Pūmanawa o te Wairua was closed. The Whangarei kura could have been a special character school. Alwyn Poole should be a private school. Vanguard Military School should be an alternative school. I do not—[Interruption] Do not come near me, Mr Seymour. Do not come near me, Mr Seymour, unless you are crossing the floor for a vote—then, come on over. Come on over and see the error of your ways, Mr Seymour. Vote on the side that knows education. Vote on the side that stands up for education in the public system of New Zealand. Here is a young man who spent 6 months in a thinktank and, unfortunately, it has gone to his head. This Government has allowed that party, ACT, to dictate and waste New Zealand taxpayers’ dollars on this system.

I compliment Mr Hipkins. He is a wise man. He is a lucky man to get this bill out of the ballot. It is a shame he cannot be here, although he has bigger things to do with his life—I understand it. But I stand with Mr Hipkins. I stand with the Opposition parties.

David Bennett: Go stand with them, then. Go join the Labour Party.

TRACEY MARTIN: I stand with those who care about public education, Mr Bennett. I stand with those who believe in public education, who believe the Government should not say to parents: “You just vote with your feet, have at it. And if it fails, too bad for your children.”

We believe in standards. We believe in The New Zealand Curriculum. We believe in the teaching profession, not like that party. Not like that party, which says: “Anybody can teach. Just have at it, and let our children be the losers.” New Zealand First will support this bill because the bill should be supported, and charter schools should close.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Kia ora, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou, my colleagues in this House. The Green Party will absolutely be supporting Chris Hipkins’ Education (Charter Schools Abolition) Amendment Bill, which will abolish charter schools. I want to remember the New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa and what it has said: “All New Zealand children deserve to be taught in a properly funded public education system by qualified teachers.” That is a fantastic starting point.

I want to completely tautoko all the words of the previous speaker, my colleague Tracey Martin. I am going to focus somewhat on Māori children, because, absolutely, the evidence is thin for whether charter schools will lift Māori achievement levels. Thin is not good enough. Thin evidence is not good enough for tamariki and mokopuna Māori. There should be far more support and endorsement of the movement of kōhanga and kura kaupapa Māori in supporting Māori tamariki and mana Motuhake in Māori education. The privatisation of education undermines public education. I totally do not agree with the direction of privatising education, especially when it is going to undermine public education. The research into charter schools and partnership schools, relating to minorities around the world, is inconclusive—that is the same as thin, and that is not good enough. That is not good enough as an experiment or as giving something a go. It is not good enough that the evidence is inconclusive around the world, relating to minorities and partnership and/or charter schools. So we have to think collectively and understand that the benefit to Māori is likely to be minimal.

I also want to acknowledge that my colleague Tracey Martin referenced South Auckland Middle School. I went there, I visited there, and I understand what is going on at that school. I was very clear with Mr Poole, right from the get-go. I explained to him that I was coming to see the school and I was coming to get an understanding of how it operates, but that I am very clear in my opposition to charter schools. I was very clear that all of our children deserve publicly funded and fully qualified teachers.

David Seymour: Ideology trumps anything the member—

MARAMA DAVIDSON: No, it was not at all about ideology, because ideology is charter schools, Mr Seymour. So I was very clear that, absolutely, we need a strong, publicly funded education system to benefit all of our children. We need qualified teachers. We need accountability to ombudsmen and so forth. That is what our communities deserve; that is what our parents and whānau of our children deserve.

I want to talk about special character schools, which can happen within the public system, such as Kia Aroha College in Ōtara, which was previously led by principal Dr Ann Milne. It is an amazing school that really does model innovation and raises warrior scholars within their special character school. That we are able to initiate and allow for public schools to come up with schools—Kia Aroha College has a particular focus on social justice, on upholding the identity and the learning ways of every individual student and the collective group as well, heralding students who are critically conscious from a school that is culturally responsive. It is able to do things differently without undermining the public education system, which in our country needs to be better supported, especially for Māori tamariki and Māori students. We can do things differently. Independent thinkers and collaborators can happen, but not at the expense of public schools.

So, just to sum up, we also need to focus back on the societal drivers and issues, such as poverty, housing, health, and employment, instead of making education for business. Kia ora.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I rise to take a call on this bill tonight because I find it absolutely remarkable that we are even discussing the claim that our young people, Māori people specifically, cannot get an improved educational outcome by going to a charter school—of course they do. If public schools could have done what charter schools are doing or what Māori-medium schools are doing then, shucks, they would all still be there. But they are not, and unless we put the screws on to improve Māori education—we ignore Ka Hikitia, because it is gathering dust on the shelves of all sorts of people. We ignore cultural standards—Tātaiako—which are, again, gathering dust on the shelves with many things.

In fact, there was a study that came out just this week that compared the success—or the institutional racism—within our schooling system with that of the United States. I am not going to say whether that is correct or not, but hello, let us have a look at the results, shall we? Let us have a look at the results. We have charter schools in this country, in Whangarei, and this is why we have called out the Māori members of the Opposition—because, actually, their families attend those schools. Their family members teach in those schools, and they make those choices because they see that that is beneficial to the educational values of their children. That is the choice they made.

Iwi have come to us and said: “Marama, we would like you to support charter schools because we want to have the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of our tamariki.” That is why we do it. I have been to Whangarei, to the kura there—the kura hourua—and I have seen the work that it is doing with its tamariki. They are so proud, and they are so strong. They are members of their community. The school has become an integral part of their community. Shall we scrap that—shall we scrap that? I was a child in a school where I felt like an alien because nothing in that classroom reflected anything of my culture. I have taught in schools where that continues to be the case today. I can tell you a million examples where, actually, students in schools who are not benefiting from Ka Hikitia, cultural standards, and cultural practices want to have options.

Tracey Martin: What are you doing for the 95 percent, then? What about the 95 percent?

MARAMA FOX: They want to have options, Tracey Martin, because the schooling system that they are currently in is not providing for their needs. So we have options, and I absolutely oppose the bill to take away those options.

I would think that the Māori members and the Pasifika members who know that these schools are working for their students should be standing up to support them—they should be standing up to support them.

Hon Member: Who’s voting for the RMA changes? You guys.

MARAMA FOX: That is a bit rich from the party that wants to take away the rights of Māori out of all pieces of legislation.

Hon Member: Who supported the RMA changes? You two.

MARAMA FOX: That is a bit rich from the group that will not even let its members vote the way they want to. Ask your own members—they want to vote against this bill, but they are not being allowed to. [Interruption] Well, you know what? Stand up for your people, stand up for your families, and cross the floor. That is what you do. Stand up for your people—that is what we call a mana whakahono arrangement, where you must, by law now, have an agreement with your iwi.

What we do is we support iwi—iwi who have come to us and said: “Marama, we want you to support charter schools.” We do the bidding of our people who ask us to stand up for them. That is why we are here. That is a value added to this nation, that we have choice. You know what the difference is? If there is a poorly performing charter school, it gets closed. How many poorly performing mainstream schools have been closed because they are not meeting the needs of their students? Over and over again, I can go to schools where the pass rate for Māori is 40 to 50 percent. Do they stand up in front of those children at the beginning of the year and say: “Half of you are going to fail.”?

Tracey Martin: What are you doing about it? What are you doing about the 95 percent? Nothing.

MARAMA FOX: What we are doing about it are many things, Ms Martin—the member, Tracey Martin; I am just trying to get the rules right. We have supported schools through cultural standards, and all we need them to do is wipe the dust off it, teach real Māori history, New Zealand history, and acknowledge the place of choice in this country. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I call Chris Bishop.

Chris Bishop: Mr Assistant Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I did call you.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Sorry, I could not hear you over the applause. “The Government’s objective, broadly expressed, is that all persons, whatever their ability, rich or poor, whether they live in town or country, have a right as citizens to a free education of the kind for which they are best fitted and to the fullest extent of their powers.” This is not a quote from the National Government; the quote I just read out is from Peter Fraser and Clarence Beeby in 1939. That quote summarises exactly what partnership schools are all about: giving all persons, whatever their ability, rich or poor, whether they live in town or country, the right to a free education for which they are best fitted.

The progressive case for partnership schools is one that is easy to make—it is easy to make—but Labour members opposite, and Tracey Martin and New Zealand First, are so blinded by their hostility to innovation and by their hostility to agility, to nimbleness, and to new ways of thinking about schools that they are opposed.

The biggest progressive proponent of partnership schools or charter schools in the Western World is none other than, sadly, outgoing President Barack Obama. He declared a special week in the United States for charter schools in the United States, saying: “Our Nation has always been guided by the belief that all young people should be free to dream as big and boldly as they want, and that with hard work and determination, they can turn their dreams into realities.” The few partnership schools we have in New Zealand are different from what they have in the United States—and Tracey Martin always makes this point—but the principle is the same, and that is the principle of allowing communities to take control of their destiny, of allowing communities to shape local priorities, and of allowing innovation within the schooling system.

There is a progressive case for partnership schools if members opposite would just open their minds to the ideas—if they just looked, and went and actually visited partnership schools. Well done, Marama Davidson, for actually going to South Auckland Middle School. So often we hear from members opposite absolute blather and rubbish about partnership schools when they have never actually been bothered to go to one. It is a real shame that Marama Davidson decided to go to the partnership school with blinkers on—that she was going to tell the people who actually ran the partnership school that she was opposed to it. You sort of wonder why you would go in the first place if you are so closed-minded that you would never actually change your mind. But OK, fair enough, good on you for going—so often members do not.

Partnership schools target underachievement. They target people who have traditionally missed out on a good education. They target that long tail of underachievement. There is a progressive case for partnership schools, and members opposite should get on board with it. What are the three objections we have heard so far? The first is that partnership schools use unregistered teachers, or they have the ability to use unregistered teachers, and yet we have unregistered teachers throughout the New Zealand education system. We have them in early childhood education. We have volunteers. We have teachers under limited authority to teach. We have them in the tertiary education system, we have them in trade courses, and we have them at private training establishments. So the litmus test cannot be: “You must be a registered teacher in order to pass on knowledge to students.”

Tracey Martin: Why do you hate teachers? Why do you hate teachers?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I do not hate teachers.

CHRIS BISHOP: The second objection is that this is about privatisation, and we heard Marama Davidson say it over and over again. She said partnership schools should not be about education for profit, for business—except that all bar one are charitable trusts. They are not for business; they are charitable trusts—all bar one are charitable trusts. The second point is that we already have private schools in the New Zealand education system. Is it now the Green Party policy to immediately close every private school around the country? We look forward to hearing that. The third point to say is that this is public money we are talking about. This is charitable trusts using public money in the provision of public education. Partnership schools are public education—it is public money teaching New Zealand students, as members of the public, in a slightly more innovative way than had otherwise been delivered.

So the first two objections are that we have got unregistered teachers and that we are privatising the education system. The third objection—and this is the classic; this is the doozy—is that they say “Oh, but we’ve got special character schools.”, as if that is the answer, and “Actually, we are in favour of innovation in the education system, we are in favour of flexibility, we have got special character schools.” My point is if special character schools are fine, what is wrong with partnership schools? They are just the next step in innovation targeting underachievement.

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

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I welcome this bill on behalf of my colleague Chris Hipkins. This bill would abolish the charter school model in New Zealand. Charter schools are a blight on our educational system, they bring nothing to the table, and they should not be something that we would continue. Labour has been clear: when we are in Government we will repeal the charter school model.

Charter schools undermine teacher quality and they threaten student safety by permitting unregistered and unqualified teachers to teach our children. Our parents and the public deserve the right to expect their children to be taught by teachers who have undergone rigorous professional training and a robust registration process. Charter schools therefore should be abolished entirely.

Charter schools are an ideological experiment that was cooked up by the Prime Minister, John Key, and the ACT Party during the election campaign of 2011. Labour has been very clear, right from the beginning, that we will get rid of them.

Charter schools, as of October 2015, had a total of only 680 students in nine charter schools across New Zealand. That is an average of 76 students per schools. Charter schools, however, get funding that is up to five times more than the funding that State schools receive. They also get a guaranteed minimum roll, which means that they keep getting money even if students do not enrol. In terms of student achievement, charter schools’ student achievement varies considerably, to the point that one of the charter schools, as we know, in Whangaruru, up north, has been closed.

Charter schools have been a failed model. They are a failed model from overseas, and we see here in Aotearoa New Zealand that they have also failed here, to the point that we have actually closed a school down.

There is a lack of accountability at charter schools but they get bonus payments. In addition to the very generous base funding that they get, in 2015 four out of the five charter schools received bonuses of over $60,000, despite only one of them meeting all of their contractual obligations. This is something, as I say, that Labour will abolish. Charter schools are a thing of the past. Thank you very much.

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I seek leave for the House to rise at the conclusion of the debate on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I just want to make it absolutely clear that the member is not suggesting that we work overtime if we have not completed it.

Kris Faafoi: That is correct.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Right, so the member is seeking leave that the House, if it completes the next item of business before 10 o’clock, rises. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Bills

Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I move, That the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider this bill. Can I give a bit of background to the rates rebate scheme? It was one of the many visions that Prime Minister Norman Kirk had in the early 1970s, because he knew that for a lot of people with low, fixed incomes—particularly people on benefits, on superannuation, or in a low-income job—their annual rates bill presented a big challenge. His idea was to have a scheme funded by central government, through taxpayers’ money, where people who were in that situation, people who had quite a high rates bill and quite a low income, could apply for some financial relief. The rates had to be at a certain level, the income had to be at a certain level, and it is a sliding scale according to how high your rates are and how low your income is.

When that Act was passed in the early 1970s, the concept of a retirement village with its occupancy agreement—the licence to occupy regime—was pretty well unknown. It was the 1970s; we did not have retirement villages in the way that we have now, and now there are nearly 30,000 people living under such a regime. Retirement village residents who have a licence to occupy are required to pay their rates. They pay them through either their weekly or monthly management fee, they pay them to the owner of the village, and the owner of the village then obviously pays rates to the council. Despite paying their rates through those management fees, retirement village residents living in a licence-to-occupy home are not eligible to apply for rates rebates. That is unfair and it is that unfairness that this bill seeks to address. The bill will fix this problem by expanding the coverage of the rates rebate scheme to people living in licence-to-occupy homes. This was one of the gaps in the scheme that was identified from a review done in 2007 and was actually on our work plan to address, but, of course, we came second in the 2008 election and did not get a chance to introduce that and many other progressive changes.

Some people have registered concern with me that expanding the eligibility of the rates rebate scheme in this way is unfair to people in rental properties. I had looked at that some years ago, and I relooked at it. In my view, there is a clear difference between retirement village residents and tenants of rental properties. If you live in a retirement village, you have to pay a substantial capital sum—the same as you pay for a titled property, actually. You pay about the same amount. When you leave that retirement village unit or you die, either you or your estate benefits from funds from the sale of the unit. They do not get it back in the same way as a regular sale would, because they have often got deferred management fees to pay, but those circumstances—the capital sum purchase and the ability to recoup some of the value of the property when you leave or die—are not comparable to the situation of someone who is renting a property. They come in and leave, and they do not have any capital investment in the place, so this is a genuine gap in the scheme for people who pay rates.

Some of our local authorities have recognised and addressed this anomaly, but they have done that by using ratepayers’ money to give residents in retirement villages a rates remission. It is generally—not always, but generally—paid on the same basis as the rates remission scheme, but it is paid for with ratepayers’ money, not taxpayers’ money. That is unfair on these councils, it is unfair on ratepayers in those areas, and it is unfair on residents who live in districts who do not get the same remission from their councils. Those councils have said: “It’s central government’s role to provide a rates rebate, not ours.” So this would allow those territorial local authorities to keep that ratepayers’ money for the purposes for which it was paid, actually, rather than for something that central government should be paying.

About 50 percent of residents in retirement villages are entirely dependent on New Zealand Superannuation. Those people would be entitled to apply for a rates rebate if they lived just two houses down the road from the retirement village in a place that had their name on the title. It is only because our legislation has not kept pace with the changing living arrangements that this situation exists. For someone on a low, fixed income, facing the payment of a rates bill is often hard. The rates rebate recognises that and gives these people some financial relief. It pays only a small proportion of the total rates bill but it is certainly of assistance. In my view, residents of retirement villages deserve that support. I trust that other members of the House agree with their entitlement to receive that support and that this bill is passed to the Local Government and Environment Committee for further consideration. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It seems slightly bizarre in a way that tonight here in the Parliament of New Zealand we are discussing an important matter of rates rebate for retirement village residents on a night that will go down in history around the world as being a night of political intrigue and interest to those of us who are tragic enough to be interested in such things. I want to thank the sponsor and proponent of this legislation, the Hon Ruth Dyson, for bringing it to the House, because I do think it is an issue that the House should give consideration to.

In my electorate of the Coromandel, I have the good fortune to represent an electorate that has the second-largest number of people in the 65-plus age group of any electorate in the country. The electorate that has the most is the Ōtaki electorate held by my friend and colleague the Hon Nathan Guy. In electorates like Ōtaki and Coromandel we have large numbers of seniors who have chosen as a lifestyle residential choice a licence-to-occupy arrangement, usually in a retirement village, usually owned and managed by a private entity, and it is a model and a scheme that actually was not imagined or envisaged 40 years ago when the rates rebate legislation, which this piece of legislation seeks to amend, was actually first proposed. Back in those days, 40 years ago, the concept of a licence to occupy literally did not exist.

Nowadays many people choose this concept—non-freehold occupancy of a unit or dwelling for which, as Ruth Dyson has said, they pay a not-insubstantial amount of money, but technically and in terms of our land law system they do not have a freehold title, and, therefore by definition, under the existing rating Act, they do not hold a rateable interest in terms of the title that they have. Ruth Dyson made, I think, a fair point in acknowledging that in most of these licence-to-occupy villages the people who are occupying those licensed premises actually do pay fees.

I think it is a stretch too far to say that they pay rates, because legally and technically they do not pay rates, but the management of those organisations will invoice them on a regular basis for a range of costs that are associated with the care of the establishment, of the property, and of the village. That might include things like maintenance, gardening, and sometimes it includes an element of insurance. Sometimes it will say “rates”, but that is not by legal definition an interpretation of rates in terms of the current legislation or the current statutory position that we find ourselves in. The reason, as I say, that is not the case is because the primary principal legislation is 40 years old and simply did not imagine a situation of the type that we have now.

People who invest and buy into these licence-to-occupy homes are using a model that some people choose not to. I know that there are sometimes family members, for instance, who say: “Well, if you buy into a licence-to-occupy home as a resident in that sort of situation, then there is no potential for a capital gain. The occupier does not have a stake in the freehold of the property.” So this bill attempts, I think with a degree of merit, to actually address a situation that has developed in a legal sense—one that has outstripped the existing principal legislation, as I say, from 40 years ago.

I was delighted to see that some time ago, in fact it was September of this year, the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, made the point that he thought that for people who are living in these licence-to-occupy retirement villages the situation needed to be looked at. I would agree with that because I often, as a constituent MP, get people wanting to raise this very matter with me, as I am sure do MPs from across the country and across the House. This is because for many people the subtlety of the technicalities of our land law in terms of who is a ratepayer, who has title, and who is, in terms of the current legislation, the occupier and freehold owner of the land is lost in the detail of the invoices that they regularly receive from the management company or organisation that administers the villages when they see regularly itemised payments on a line on an invoice that say “rates” even though technically they are not rates.

This is a bill that upon first reading I think is probably a well-intentioned piece of legislation—well, in fact, I know it to be, because I do not think that Hon Ruth Dyson would do anything other than bring to this House a well-intentioned piece of legislation. I think that that is certainly the intent of her member’s bill. But there are some problems with it, and on first glance it looks to me that these are, for instance, some of the matters that relate to where costs might lie, how the apportionment might work, and what some of the technical details are. This is, I think, a bill in which—like in many pieces of legislation—the devil is in the detail.

I acknowledge the sponsoring member has suggested and indicated that should it proceed past first reading she would like to see it sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee. That would seem to me to be a very appropriate committee to send this bill to, because I think it falls neatly within the ambit of responsibility of that committee. But if it was to go to a select committee, I think that it would need some serious work in terms of the detail. For instance, there is absolutely no detail in the bill as it reads at the moment about how the scheme might be administered between the retirement village managers or owners and the territorial local authorities that operate in that area.

The Hon Ruth Dyson made, I think, a very good point, acknowledging that some territorial authorities—in my electorate, the Thames-Coromandel District Council is one, for instance—have actually created a system, a scheme whereby they can, under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, adopt a way round. It is a work round if you like. That is not ideal and it is not done in every territorial authority. So there are some parts of the country where, for instance, people living in licence-to-occupy residences do not have the benefit of a local council or a district council that is prepared to make that kind of arrangement.

If this bill is to proceed, then I think that there will be some detail that needs to be fleshed out, worked out, and probably some quite detailed analysis of the legal situation, because at the very basis of our land tenure ownership system is the indefeasibility of property in terms of freehold and the right to own and occupy land in such a way. A licence to occupy simply does not meet that measure that is the very foundation of our land law, which has been in place now for a very, very long time. I am not sure that the member introducing the bill would actually want to go as far as fundamentally undermining or changing the foundation stones and the basic principles of our land tenure law, but I do see and concede the point that she is making, because it is a point that many people have made to us as MPs.

So on that basis, and acknowledging that there are some issues with the bill that need remedying, I am pleased to confirm that National Party members will be supporting this legislation to select committee. We will be working through it diligently at the select committee hoping to make it a better piece of legislation, and, as chair, I give the member an absolute assurance that that will be the case. So I am looking forward to having it at the select committee and working it through. So just reiterating, I say that we will be supporting this to the select committee.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is my honor to take a very short call on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill—not because I do not support it. I think it is a very good piece of legislation, and I want to commend the member, the Hon Ruth Dyson, but I do not want to go over the points that she raised. Clearly, this bill is designed to address an anomaly that was created back in the early 1970s—which she covered—and, I guess, to ensure, as we have a growing aged population in New Zealand, that those who choose to live in licence-to-occupy premises are accorded the same rights when it comes to rates rebates.

This is a very short piece of legislation. The general policy statement talks about it being a scheme. As I said, it was introduced in 1973 with the intention of allowing ratepayers of residential properties who are on low incomes to receive a rebate on their rates. This was before the expansion of retirement villages, as earlier indicated, and occupation right agreements, or ORAs. Residents of retirement villages with ORAs pay rates, but in most circumstances they pay indirectly to the retirement village owner rather than directly to the local authority. Under the Rates Rebate Act 1973 these residents are not entitled to a rates rebate, and this is, like I said, the anomaly that this bill is intended to address.

The bill, like I said, is quite a short bill. It has four clauses. Clause 4 is where we get, I guess, the meat of the sandwich. It basically talks about amending section 2 of the principal Act by replacing the definition of “ratepayer” with one that recognises as ratepayers not only those persons defined as ratepayers under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 but also those residents of retirement villages who pay rates directly or indirectly in connection with the occupation right agreements. Clause 4 amends section 2 of the principal Act by providing definitions of terms related to retirement villages that are used in the replacement definition of “ratepayers”.

The last point is that some councils have recognised the anomaly and have granted retirement village residents a rates remission but, unfortunately, this is paid out of council ratepayers money. We believe this money should actually come from central government.

I am looking forward to this bill coming to the very hard-working Local Government and Environment Committee, of which I am a member—well chaired. Now that we have got a bit of a gap in our work with the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, I know that we have some spare time to give this bill the due consideration it definitely deserves. I commend the member Ruth Dyson again and, again, Labour supports this bill. Kia ora.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Well, I rise too in support of this bill, the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill, in this first reading, brought by the Hon Ruth Dyson. One of the reasons that I support this bill is that the Invercargill electorate has approximately 10,000 super seniors within it, and a lot of them—about 6 percent, actually, of over 75-year-olds—are moving into retirement villages. So, it is an expanding industry in Southland. And it is only fair that these people receive a rates rebate when they move into retirement villages and enter into their licence to occupy. Given that they are pseudo paying rates through their agreements to the village operators, it is only fair that they too receive a rates rebate, given that that is what the rates rebate scheme was designed to do—to support low-income families and owners of properties; supporting them to keep up with their rates repayments.

Look, as the Hon Ruth Dyson said, this is a bill that is going to amend the definition of “ratepayer” and extend it to include a resident of a retirement village who pays rates either directly or indirectly, in respect of the rates rebate scheme. We have heard members on both sides of the House talk about the legalese of that. People who are living in a retirement village under a licence to occupy technically do not pay rates under the current Local Government (Rating) Act. In that agreement, it is often worded that they are making a contribution to the overall rates of that retirement village property, or they are making a contribution to some form of maintenance, which is then in turn apportioned by the village owner to pay rates to the local authority. So indirectly, yes, they are paying rates, and that should be acknowledged.

Last week, I had the opportunity to go to Clare House, which is one of our newer retirement villages in Invercargill, to assist Amy Adams with the opening of that wonderful retirement village. It is quite a state-of-the-art retirement village, offering some different types of accommodation. So you have got your stand-alone houses, you have also got apartment living—one-bedroom and two-bedroom, self-contained—and then Clare House also offers a hospital wing for those seniors who need more care, when it comes to that stage in life.

What we are finding in Southland is that our seniors are moving, not only for security and that added care but also for the camaraderie of having other seniors around them, meaning that they are not so lonely and isolated in their own homes. I think retirement villages play a really important part in assisting our seniors in their later years. You know, there are limited gardens to do, they are accepting of help when they need it, and it is generally really very good for seniors to be in a retirement village when they are well looked after, especially with that camaraderie side of things. But it comes at a cost. Some of those apartments and houses are quite costly at that time of life, and so it is only fair that the rates rebate scheme applies to them, given the intent of that Act, which was put in place back in the 1970s. So let us take a look at it at a select committee, let us flesh it out, let us have a good look at it, and let us get a workable outcome so that our super seniors get some benefit from it. So I support this bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party to offer our support for the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson. It is tradition for me just to acknowledge my envy of members who get bills pulled out of the ballot—5 years and waiting. This is a bill that, as has already been mentioned, is quite simple and not particularly complex, but we are pleased to support it for three key reasons: it provides for geographic equity; it provides for the care of elderly New Zealanders; and it may also, potentially, in some small way ease some of the financial pressure on our local authorities. All of those are very positive goals, we would say.

At the heart of this, as has already been covered by other members, is the update of our Rates Rebate Act, which was written in 1973, at a time before retirement villages really even existed in this country. It was more a time when we had old people’s homes, which are a very, very, very different set-up. Since that time, we have now developed—I think the previous member, Sarah Dowie, was noting that about 30,000 people live in retirement villages across the country. In the electorate of Mana, which I live in, we have Kāpiti in the north, which I hear the new mayor has been identifying as a place that he wants to be the retirement capital for New Zealand. It is a vision for the city of active and positive retirement for New Zealanders, which I think is an interesting and quite inspiring vision.

This bill is updating us to the current environment, because people who are in retirement villages technically do not own the village, but they have a licence to occupy and they have to purchase that licence. It is a cost similar to buying a house in many cases. They can then sell it on, minus the charges from the centre—and that is always a point of debate for a lot of people—at the end, and profit may be made off that. But it is only in some instances in some places around the country that those people are able, through local government amendments, to actually get, in effect, a rebate on the rates.

It has been covered earlier—some of the technicalities—that although the bill that they get from the retirement village may state “rates”, technically they are not rates because they are not recognised by the legislation. So although it says the word “rates”, it has been suggested that legally they are not really rates, but this legislation would make an amendment and provide a new definition of ratepayer. It would add a provision to include “a resident of a retirement village who pays rates, directly or indirectly, in connection with an occupation right agreement with the operator of the retirement village”, which means that they would then be entitled to a rebate if they were eligible. I guess that it is an important point, for people listening to this, to know that it does not mean you are automatically going to get that rebate. It is only if you meet the low-income threshold that people living down the street in their own house would have access to. It would be on the same grounds.

It is, I think, really important just to have a second or a few seconds to acknowledge that income is really, really important for older New Zealanders. That is the same whether you are living in your own home or in a retirement village, and we are seeing a growing inequality in our country. For people on fixed incomes, really, every dollar matters. So although this will not change people’s entire lives, it actually could make a very real difference because income provides a barrier to participating in society and accessing social support. The research tells us that very clearly. People who are entitled to access the rebate on the basis of income already have barriers with participation. So income and giving them that rebate may help.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just seeking clarification. The last speech seemed to run for 6 minutes according to the timer that is visible to us here. I was just wondering whether—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. I think that if the member watched it pretty carefully, it started at 6, but when it got to 5 it came back another minute.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Thank you. In engaging—

Kris Faafoi: Do you want 6 minutes too?

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I did want 6 minutes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Would the member like a call? [Interruption] Would the member like a call?

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Paul Foster-Bell.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): This is a good bill that has been introduced by the Labour member Ruth Dyson—the Rates Rebate (Retirement Villages Residents) Amendment Bill. In this first reading debate, in which I am very pleased to speak, I will make the best use of the remaining 4 minutes and 46 seconds.

This bill is providing, I think, a well-intentioned modernisation of law that is now significantly out of date. The original Rates Rebate Act dates back to 1973, and the living conditions in which so many older New Zealanders now find themselves are significantly different from what they were in 1973. Far fewer people are staying at home. They are being looked after by their children, and those rest homes and retirement villages that do exist are a different world from what they were even 10 or 20 years ago.

Within the electorate of Wellington Central, where I am based and work, we actually have a paucity of retirement homes and villages. So to contrast with the member who resumed her seat, Jan Logie, who is based in Mana, although Mana and Ōtāki in fact have the highest proportion of older people and also a huge and growing number of rest home places—be they in villages or home/hospitals—Wellington Central has only three, to my knowledge. I am attending the St John of God Hauora Trust annual general meeting tomorrow—St John of God is one of the homes. There is also Huntleigh Home and Sprott House. Although they may be small in number and there may be relatively few residents in those homes, I firmly believe that those residents deserve to be treated fairly and equivalently to others.

There are a few features of this bill that we do have concerns about. I know that in the Local Government and Environment Committee, chaired so ably by the wonderful member for Coromandel, the honourable member Scott Simpson, we will take a very careful and constructive approach to addressing some of those concerns so that we can, hopefully, get this bill into an even improved shape.

Those concerns include the fact that half the people who are residing in rest homes in New Zealand are reliant upon New Zealand Superannuation as their sole source of income. Therefore, they are already eligible in many cases to access that $54 million worth of funding that we allocate in the 2016-17 year to the rates rebate scheme. The costings that I have seen suggest costs of anywhere between $5 million and $8 million to extend the rates rebate scheme to those who are in a licence-to-occupy situation, and although that is a significant investment, I think it might pay to put that in light of the overall contribution that older people make to our economy.

By the year 2051 older people are expected to pay $17 billion in taxes annually—up from the $3.6 billion they currently pay. In 2011, we should also remember, older people contributed $8.5 billion worth of voluntary and unpaid work, and this will grow to $35 billion by 2051. Seniors spend in the economy. They are important and they are valued. This is a Government that has done so much to support seniors, not least, I suppose, in the form of extra funding through the SuperGold card, which, I think, should be upgraded. It should be called the “National Platinum Card”, because it has been significantly upgraded from what it originally was, with that extra $40 million worth of funding over 4 years to make sure people can fully access the transport services they need. It has also been widely expanded in terms of the discounts and extra services available to them.

My point is that older people already contribute a significant amount of revenue, whether it be through general taxation and through council rating, and this addition of somewhere between a $5 million to $8 million addition to the rebate scheme, in terms of the funding that is required, strikes me as being fairly reasonable. I want to work through the details carefully in the select committee, but on the first reading of the bill it is certainly something that I personally support, and I know other colleagues are comfortable in supporting it to the select committee so we can have those subsequent discussions.

I commend the member for bringing the matter before the House. I commend her on her good fortune in having it drawn from the biscuit tin. As someone who has had a bill drawn this year, I know that it is exciting to be able to implement change even on a small scale, but positive change that may affect the lives and the costs of those who—and I am not talking about Dr Woods’ bill—

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

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise with a couple of things on my mind. Firstly, I am very conscious of the time of the evening and the fact that if we can get to a vote, then we will make progress for some other lucky person with their member’s bill on the Order Paper as well, which will be a really good thing. This is a very short bill. The other thing I am very conscious of is that this bill, which New Zealand First supports—and we congratulate the Hon Ruth Dyson and her fortune in getting this legislation drawn from the parliamentary members’ bills lottery, and we can go further than that to congratulate her on the thought that she has put into this particular issue—we know it has been around for a while. We know that there is a simple anomaly.

Looking at the bill—it is only one and a half pages—it basically deals with the definition and by doing that makes it possible for some superannuitants to get a little bit of relief on the charges that they are incurring in the premises that they occupy in these retirement villages. We would say this: pretty much everything that needs to be said about the bill has been said, so I will not rotary hoe that paddock again. What I will say is why New Zealand First supports initiatives such as this.

I think we could not do better than to refer the House to the media release from Statistics New Zealand yesterday, which highlights the plight that our elderly people, our superannuitants, are suffering right now. In the light of the fact that their overall costs have increased 19 percent—when it looked at typical spending patterns—that is more than double the rate of inflation experienced by New Zealand’s highest spenders. That is the first paragraph. We also look at the fact that these same people are being hit with a double whammy, with a reduced income through reduced interests on their savings and investments, if they indeed have any. When we also look at the cuts that have been made to the SuperGold card and the extra fees that have been levied back on them, it just seems like there is one thing being piled on top of another for superannuitants at this point in time.

We, in New Zealand First, are not happy with that, and this legislation provides some relief and alleviates some pressure for those people who are the New Zealanders who built this nation. They are the people who have contributed to developing this nation and giving us the privilege and the lifestyles that we lead. We do have a debt and a social obligation to those people, and this little piece of legislation is one simple way in which we can make a difference to their lives and compensate them rightfully, because they are—no matter what the Government members might think—indeed paying an element of rates in the fees that they are paying, and we can compensate in some way for that. I will just conclude by saying to the Hon Ruth Dyson, well done. We will be supporting you through the select committee. I look forward to reporting back positively at the second reading and advancing to a third.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I rise to take a brief call on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I too want to congratulate the Hon Ruth Dyson on having this bill drawn out of the ballot—out of the biscuit tin, as they say. I think that it has some real opportunities there for those who are in retirement villages and have the right to occupy their village homes.

In the east there are a number of retirement villages, and this particular issue has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions, so I am pleased to see that the bill is here in the House. I look forward to it coming to the select committee. I think there is a lot more detail that needs to go into the bill, around how the scheme is going to be administered with the retirement village owners and the local authorities. Everybody needs to have their say on how this bill will be implemented in the future.

We have heard what the bill’s aim is and we also have heard that the Government supports moving this bill into the select committee. The Minister of Local Government also said that there had been issues around the rates rebates for people in retirement villages and went on to explain, which we have heard here in the House tonight, just how that all works out with the operators of these retirement villages.

So, really, without any further ado, I look forward to the bill coming to the select committee. I look forward to hearing the submissions and, as the previous speaker, Ron Mark, said, having a positive outcome to what this bill will eventually achieve for those in retirement villages. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

BARRY COATES (Green): I will take a short call in the interests of time this evening. As my colleague from the Green Party said, we support this bill, and congratulations to the Hon Ruth Dyson on her work in preparing the bill and getting it this far. We are very cognisant of the fact that 60 percent of older citizens are dependent on New Zealand Superannuation for 70 percent or more of their income, and are in a vulnerable situation. Although most senior citizens own their own homes, there is a sizable and growing number of senior citizens who do not. Māori and Pasifika are overrepresented within that group. With the housing crisis and speculative bubble in housing, the number of senior citizens who will not own their own homes is due to grow significantly. The situation is being made worse by the sell-off of State housing and social housing, and we note that 9 percent of those on the waiting list for social housing are senior citizens. Homeownership is at its lowest level in 64 years, and, as we have recently heard, senior citizens have been hit hard, as shown in the latest Statistics New Zealand report.

We think that this measure will help those who should be qualifying for rates rebate but currently are not. We support this bill. Thank you.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill at its first reading. Could I just acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson for the bill that she brings before the House looking to amend this Act. I myself have been known to submit members’ bills around amendments that look to update and modernise previous legislation, as well. This one looks to modernise and update the Rates Rebate Act of 1973—specifically around definitions.

Currently there is a definition around ratepayers under the Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002. This bill will seek to insert a clause that will look at residents who directly or indirectly will pay rates in connection with their occupation right agreements (ORAs). I suppose that is an acronym that we will learn to understand more—the legal definition of an ORA—as well as another acronym we are learning: the licence to occupy. That is language that is progressing with the huge development of retirement homes. I know that in my electorate of Waimakariri we have got one in Rangiora—the Charles Upham Retirement Village—which is just about to open. A staggering 400 people will be living in that retirement village. It is very much a whole footprint—from independent living to semi-supported to supported care homes, right through to dementia wards—a whole footprint through the life course.

I think that as we learn more about managing and supporting our elderly, and the issues they have at certain age groups requiring support, it is quite understandable that some of these issues thrown up in this bill come to light. So I think it is fair that we are supporting this bill in its first reading to go to the select committee, to understand the issue a bit more and some of the implications. My colleague Paul Foster-Bell mentioned some of the financial implications. There is already a rates relief budget that is around $54 million. The costing of this initially, at the moment, is around $5 million to $8 million, so the select committee will be looking at that. I suppose, as legislators, we are always mindful that wherever we draw a line there will always be some people who are just inside and some people are just outside. It is about understanding that we will always need a line to have been drawn.

It will be no surprise, I think, around these issues, to any members of Parliament from any party across the House, that rates are a persistent issue that comes through in constituent work. Normally it comes through around people raising the issue of fairness of the rateable base formula versus, maybe, individuals in a house or income levels. I suppose, speaking as a politics graduate from England, we go back to the 1987 manifesto of the Conservatives when they brought in the poll tax. Maggie Thatcher brought that in in 1990 and 1991—and you all pretty much saw how that went. Rates actually motivate and stimulate people in very interesting ways, and that normally manifests in how they present through the doors of our constituent offices. I think what underpins a lot of this is fairness, and we are looking to understand how we can be fair, especially for our Super Seniors.

I have just finished a number of morning teas with my superannuitants in Waimakariri, and—just following on from previous contributions—the amount that our Super Seniors contribute to our economy, to our communities, and to our society is phenomenal, and I think they should be supported. So if we can look, through this bill, at possibly supporting some people who are under the abatement threshold of around $24,000, I think that is the right direction of travel and it is a fair direction of travel. I am glad it is getting the support of the House. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I am very much looking forward to it coming to the House and to the select committee and hearing submissions and the way forward. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I say what a pleasure it is to have brought a bill to the House tonight—particularly tonight—on something that has united every member of Parliament, particularly after the division that we have seen in politics elsewhere.

I want to acknowledge the Retirement Village Residents Association of New Zealand for the support for this bill that it has given on behalf of all residents throughout the country. I want to also acknowledge the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand, the body that represents the owners of the villages, which has also given it 100 percent support. I want to acknowledge the support of Grey Power, the advocacy organisation that is often in our ear about very important matters, and I hope they stay that way for a long time. I just want to, finally, acknowledge members of the House who have indicated their support.

I have confidence that the Local Government and Environment Committee will listen to submissions made on this bill. It knows that the Retirement Villages Association has already prepared the operationalisation of this, because it has been sent to every member. So when members queried how that would operate, I assumed that they were saying it in a rhetorical way, because they would have read their correspondence, I am sure. I look forward to hearing the progress of the deliberations of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am sure it will find improvements—you can always improve a bill—but I am glad that it has the principled support for this legislation, and I look forward to it coming back to the House for further progress. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

The House adjourned at 9.51 p.m.