Wednesday, 15 February 2017

WEDNESDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2017

WEDNESDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

National Lamb Day—First Refrigerated Lamb Shipment Leaving New Zealand, 135th Anniversary

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to move a motion. I want to lay out what it is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need a brief explanation as to what the motion is.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I wish to move a motion without notice and without debate to celebrate National Lamb Day and the 135th anniversary of the first refrigerated shipment leaving this country.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder, before we accept that motion, whether the member might tell us what his reflection of the weather on that day was.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it related to this matter?

Dr David Clark: It is related.

Mr SPEAKER: On that basis, I will hear from Dr David Clark.

Dr David Clark: Given that the lamb export went out of the finest electorate in New Zealand, I can assure the member that it was a lovely sunny afternoon.

Mr SPEAKER: I need to put the leave, as to whether leave is given for that motion to be moved without debate. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I want to thank the House. I move, That this House congratulate New Zealand’s red meat farmers, our No. 2 merchandise export, on National Lamb Day, which not only falls on the 135th anniversary of the first refrigerated meat shipment leaving New Zealand but is also a chance to try our national dish, lamb, some time this week. For the benefit of Mr Brownlee, yes, I can recall there was a buffoon on the wharf, but he would not do any work.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Without the last part, the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Ministers—Confidence

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so, why?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, because they are competent and capable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Finance, previously the Minister for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, when its present Minister, Simon Bridges, had to ask questions of his staff on why almost $39 million was spent in the last financial year on contractors and consultants by his predecessor, the Hon Steven Joyce?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister of Finance is an improvement on the last one—I can assure the member about that. I know that in the process of the Budget, they will be going through departmental expenditure with a fine-tooth comb.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a document obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA), dated 9 September 2016, detailing the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s recruitment consultant spend with just some of the companies of the all-of-Government contract.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information obtained under the OIA. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not; it can be tabled.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have faith in the Minister for Building and Construction, who yesterday disputed the Auckland Council’s records confirming that well over 13,000 fewer dwellings have been completed than consents in the 5 years to October 2016?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand there is some dispute about that member’s version of those numbers. The fact is that we have the longest, strongest construction boom the country has seen in decades under way. Last year around 10,000 houses were consented in Auckland, and we would expect that that would continue. That construction boom is a sign of a growing economy, where more Kiwis are staying home, and we believe that is a good thing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, when in a written answer received from her today she questioned whether foreign-owned Latitude Financial Services was a large company, despite it having assets of $1.4 billion, revenues of nearly $300 million, and was last the subject of an Overseas Investment Office application in 2015? If she does not understand what a large company is, how did she get her job?

Mr SPEAKER: There are, I think, three questions there. The Prime Minister can address any of the three.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I do have confidence in the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. I am not aware of the particular circumstances the member is referring to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To help the Prime Minister, I seek leave to provide information just received and not publicly available: the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ reply to me on why this foreign-owned company has not filed financial statements with the Companies Office, which is something it is obligated to do.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just check—I take it that it is an answer to a written question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: And can I just be assured that it is one that has just been received by the member, and, therefore, has not yet been published?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Precisely, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Therefore, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular answer. Is there any objection? There is none; it can be tabled.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If—from Official Information Act answers—Police are still working through deployment details, where is the soundness in public policy behind the Minister of Police’s boast about increased police staffing, when she does not know where the police are going to go? How did she work out what numbers were needed?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister of Police is not boasting about the increase in police numbers. It is a decision of the Government to increase the police numbers: 11,025 staff, 880 of them uniformed. But the Minister is not the Commissioner of Police. The numbers have arisen out of consultation with the Police, but, in the end, the commissioner will decide where they go.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Defence, who has provided no update about the defence headquarters when he knows that this building will now have to be demolished?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am advised that, actually, the Government does not own the defence building. In fact, I do not know why the member is picking on the Minister of Defence, because that Minister knows more about earthquake building and compliance than anyone in this House and anyone except the most experienced engineers. So I would be more inclined to listen to his advice than to listen to the member’s advice.

Economy—Tax, Growth, Financial Position Compared with Before Global Financial Crisis, and Surplus

2. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What impact is New Zealand’s growing economy having on the Government’s tax revenues?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): New Zealand’s growing economy is having a number of positive effects: increased exports, rising real wages, and, as I mentioned yesterday, good growth in employment. That growth is flowing positively through to the Government’s books. Core Crown tax revenue in the year to November, which is the latest data, was $72.9 billion, up from $67.5 billion in the previous November year, an increase of 8 percent, or 6.6 percent in real terms.

David Seymour: Can the Minister describe a scenario where a growing economy would not increase the Government’s tax revenues?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member, of course, is quite a strong advocate for decreasing tax revenue, so I could imagine one if he were ever the Minister of Finance.

Andrew Bayly: How does this growth in tax revenue compare with Treasury’s forecasts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It compares well. As I have stated in the primary answer, tax revenue was up 8 percent over the previous year. That compared with a forecast increase in Budget 2016 of 4.7 percent. So it is again worth reminding members that forecasts are only forecasts, whether they are positive or negative.

David Seymour: Did the Minister intend to imply in his earlier answer that the only way taxpayers will get tax relief is if ACT holds the Treasury benches?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is drawing a long bow, and no. I think, for the sake of the whole country, if that were what was required that would be a very bleak outlook, because it does not appear it will happen for some time yet.

Andrew Bayly: How does our financial position now compare with where it was at the height of the global financial crisis?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It has been a significant recovery. Tax revenue in the year to November 2016 was $72.9 billion, compared with tax revenue in the November 2009 year of just $51.8 billion. So it has grown 27 percent in real terms, when adjusted for inflation. Of course, back in those days we had bigger deficits, because we maintained spending for the vulnerable in society and through the Canterbury earthquakes. These increases do highlight the importance of having the right economic policies in place to encourage economic growth.

David Seymour: In light of the Minister’s earlier answer, how much more revenue does this Government have to collect than its expenditures require before it will consider reducing tax rates or adjusting tax brackets?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I have said previously to the member, there are a number of considerations that the Government has in terms of allocating its budget—for example, public services, the infrastructure that the Government invests in, and also, of course, making sure we get debt down to below 20 percent of GDP, which is a target this Government has set to happen by around 2020. But, yes, tax considerations are very important, and, as I have said more than once in this House, it is important to remember that the money that this Parliament gets to appropriate comes from the work of hard-working Kiwis.

Andrew Bayly: What impact is the improved financial position having on the Government’s surpluses?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is too early to say yet, as I would note we have some significant costs coming through, like the Kaikōura earthquake, and, of course, other demands on spending to support a growing economy. It does, however, show the importance of fiscal discipline and a focus on economic growth in what is still an uncertain global environment, so that we are in a position to deal with any significant economic shocks and also unplanned events, like the earthquakes that Kaikōura has just experienced.

Child Poverty—Efficacy of Government Measures to Address and Hardship-related Hospitalisations

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is the Government doing a good job at ensuring the health and well-being of every New Zealand child?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): I believe the Government is doing a good job of ensuring the health and well-being of most New Zealand children, but there are children for whom we should be—and are—doing more. No Government has spent more time understanding in gritty detail the persistent deprivation and hardship of some New Zealand children, and that is why we took two steps. One was the extra $25 a week for all beneficiary families with children, starting on 1 April last year. That is also why the Government from 1 April will have a new children’s agency to revamp the care of the children who come into the care of the State.

Andrew Little: Is he concerned that the Salvation Army and now today the Children’s Commissioner say there is no evidence his Government’s policies have had any impact on reducing child poverty?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with them, for two reasons—for two reasons. One is that the Salvation Army measures published do not take into account the first increase in welfare benefits in 40 years over and above Consumers Price Index inflation—[Interruption] Well, it just did not count it, because it has not covered that period yet. The second reason is this: there are now 40,000 fewer children in benefit-dependent households than 3 years ago—40,000 fewer children in benefit-dependent households than 3 years ago. The Children’s Commissioner and the Salvation Army may not regard that as progress; we certainly do, and so do the families who work so hard to get themselves off benefit and into work.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with the Children’s Commissioner that the current level of child poverty is unacceptable, and is he concerned that the Children’s Commissioner found no evidence his policies are making a difference?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, I do not actually agree with the Children’s Commissioner. I do not believe he is taking into account actual changes for children and the change in approach that the Government is taking, which is twofold: first, to increase incomes where that is possible in a number of ways, including lifting benefit levels and lifting the minimum wage; and alongside that to dig into the multigenerational cycles of criminal offending, child abuse, and welfare dependency, which afflict the lives of far too many children. That is why we are changing the way the Government does business, ranging from family violence policy to the new children’s agency to break those cycles.

Andrew Little: Why does he continue to say that the increase in benefit levels implemented by his Government and increases in the minimum wage, which have now been completely wiped out by increases in housing costs according to the Salvation Army, are somehow this panacea to child poverty, when every other element of evidence says it clearly is not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unlike the member, we do not think there is a simple panacea to child poverty, because a lot of it is to do with deeply ingrained patterns, which the Government has actually reinforced in some cases, and now we are trying to change that. But if the member thinks that $25 a week is worth nothing to those households, then he ought to get a bit more realistic about what their lives are like. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The interchange here—[Interruption] Order!

Hon Annette King: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that.

Andrew Little: I am obliged, Mr Speaker. How can he say—the Prime Minister, that is—that his Government is doing well for New Zealand’s children when we have more homeless children than ever before, and including, now, children living under tarpaulins?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I mentioned, when I think the member or someone else raised the case yesterday that, apparently, there were some children living under a tarpaulin somewhere, this is a country that has the resources to be able to meet that kind of very serious housing need. Of course a rise in house prices has put some pressure on housing costs in families. That is why we look forward to the Labour Party’s support for the changes in the Resource Management Act and other changes in local government to make sure we can get more houses on the ground faster, because that is what those families need.

Andrew Little: Is he satisfied that in National’s 9th year in Government more than 41,000 children are admitted to hospital with diseases linked to hardship, and when will he accept that his cuts to health services are causing this problem?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In fact, a feature of this Government’s pursuit of social policy is relentless dissatisfaction. There is always more that can be done, particularly for our most complex and vulnerable families. So, for instance, in the case of hospital admissions, the rheumatic fever project has been pretty successful. We have cut rheumatic fever rates by around 40 percent over 3 years with a pretty complex set of solutions, and we are going to continue down that path with that particular problem and cut hospital admissions.

Andrew Little: When we have 90,000 children in New Zealand living in the worst kind of poverty, is it not time that he showed some leadership, put politics aside, and picked up the Children’s Commissioner’s call to lead a cross-party plan to reduce child poverty in New Zealand?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the last thing those families are waiting for is a cross-party plan that includes the participation of one party that is pulling itself apart over picking one mediocre candidate. I do not think they will be able to contribute that much to a child poverty plan. What those children need is more of what the Government is doing, and that is raising their incomes and working with those families to break the cycles of dependency.

Police—Safer Communities Package and Numbers

4. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Police: How will the Government’s Safer Communities package make police more accessible and easier to reach?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Police): It is important that people can contact the police at all times of the day and night, whether the matter is life-threatening or less serious. That is why our Safer Communities package includes a new non-emergency number that people can ring to contact police when their issue is not urgent enough to call 111. There are currently more than 300 local police station numbers, many of which are not answered 24/7. The new number will mean people can get through to police any time of the day or night.

Ian McKelvie: How will the new non-emergency number work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Many people have found themselves in a situation where they need to speak to the police and it is not serious enough to call 111, and they do not know whom to call or how to get through. People will be able to ring the new number for anything non-urgent. It will also be linked with the 111 system so they can be transferred immediately if it is something that is more important, and they will be able to report things like suspicious activity, historic or low-level crime, or simply ask advice of the local police.

Ian McKelvie: How will the number help police respond to people more quickly?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The number will be answered by some of the new 245 non-sworn police staff. They will be well trained to assist people with whatever they need. Thanks to the extra 880 sworn officers we are funding, there will be more police out patrolling and ready to respond when they receive these calls.

David Seymour: Has the Minister asked the commissioner to prioritise more police hours at community policing centres such as the Epsom community policing centre?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Where police are deployed is entirely up to the commissioner. However, he has assured me that because of these extra police more than 15 stations that were open only business hours will now have a community police person 24/7. So that is good news.

Stuart Nash: Is the increase in announced police more, less, or exactly the number of sworn police she asked for?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is exactly what I asked for in the Cabinet paper.

Stuart Nash: Is the 880 announced police more, less, or exactly the number of sworn police the Police asked for in its original business case requesting greater resource?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Since the Police wrote the Cabinet paper, it is exactly what it asked for in the Cabinet paper.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! A point of order has been called. It will be heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a record of a video on Twitter, at 9.20 a.m., from that Minister, saying 140 of the 880 sworn officers will be going into rural New Zealand, which indicates she knows a lot more than she is saying—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I am not prepared to put the leave. It is obviously something from the media, available to members if they want it.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Just before the member makes his point of order, I hope he is not in any way going to relitigate a decision I have just made. But I will hear from the member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point is that not every member of this Parliament is on Twitter.

Mr SPEAKER: No, but every member—[Interruption] Order! Members who want the information can be on Twitter and get it if they find it useful. [Interruption] Order! Mr Mark.

Economic Growth—Wage Growth

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe working New Zealanders are getting a fair share of economic growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes—a fair and growing share. Thanks to the growing economy, more New Zealanders than ever before have jobs, and we have seen 21 consecutive quarters of wage growth above inflation. That is the longest period of continuous real wage growth since that series began in 1993. Overall, since 2008, average Kiwi wages are up around 25 percent, which is almost double the increase in the cost of living over the same period. That means the purchasing power of Kiwi workers and households is steadily rising.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, is it correct then that, for him, working people are getting a fair share when, according to Statistics New Zealand, an annual housing cost increase of 11 percent last year wiped out most of the wage increases, leaving the average household in New Zealand with less than a dollar a day more in their pocket?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: After housing costs, the increase for the average earner was $365 over the year. But I would point out to the member that, yes, housing costs rose significantly last year, but, fortunately, they are nothing like what they used to be, because back in 2007, housing costs, average mortgage repayments on a median-priced house, cost 49 percent of the average wage, and now it costs 38 percent. So although costs have gone up in the last year, they are significantly lower than they used to be under the Labour Government.

Grant Robertson: So—to confirm—the Minister of Finance believes a fair share in economic growth for the average working household in New Zealand is less than a dollar a day?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I did not say that.

Grant Robertson: Yes, you did.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I did not. I pointed out to the member that the particular statistic he raises in terms of $365 after housing costs is in the household expenditure survey, but in terms of the growing share of the economic growth for New Zealand wage earners, over the last several years, real wages have been growing at twice the rate of inflation. Wages have been growing at twice the rate of inflation. Mr Robertson is very good at trying to pick out one statistic from a small period of time, but, apart from him, the rest of us who are not trainspotters are interested in what happens to New Zealanders over time.

Grant Robertson: Is it a fair share for working New Zealanders when average ordinary-time hourly earnings dropped in the December quarter, according to the latest household labour force survey—which he was very keen on yesterday?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the member wants to talk quarterly numbers in any statistical series, he can. But I will tell him what I think is fair. What I think is fair is that in this economy 66.9 percent of New Zealanders have employment, which is a higher proportion of adult New Zealanders than ever before. We have the second-highest rate of employment in the whole OECD, and Kiwi wages are growing at double the rate of inflation. Back under the previous Labour Government they were growing, but only at the rate of inflation.

Grant Robertson: Is he prepared to do anything new or different to give working people a better share of growth in the economy than a dollar a day, or is his idea of a fair share when consultants earn $40 million in one year on his watch at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In answer to the second part of the member’s question, the consultancy costs at MBIE are going down. The costs of core Government administration are going down. It does not matter how often the member says what he just said, in terms of workers in the economy, the simple fact of the matter is that average Kiwi wages are up 25 percent since 2008, which is double the increase in the cost of living over the same period. We have seen 21 consecutive quarters of real wage growth, and the member can focus on one quarter if he likes, but, actually, for real New Zealanders it is about the trend over time.

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill—Māori Children’s Welfare and Consistency with Treaty of Waitangi

6. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes.

Jan Logie: How could he say in his Prime Minister’s statement that he is looking forward to a strong and effective relationship with the Māori Party, when his Government introduced the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill despite knowing how fundamental tino rangatiratanga is to Māori and the Māori Party, particularly in respect of their own children?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is ongoing discussion about the way that the objectives that the member is referring to are achieved in that bill. The Government believes that we have gone a long way to recognising the fact that many Māori children are in State care and that that system should be very responsive to and respectful of their whakapapa and their whānau. Just exactly how that is captured in legislation has been a subject of a lot of discussion, and no doubt there will be more.

Jan Logie: Does he agree with the co-leader of the Māori Party Marama Fox, who said about this bill, “We cannot have a new stolen generation by removing links to whakapapa in this new design.”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member has the opportunity to look at the legislation and decide for herself whether that is a correct assessment. I would say that it is not, but we do share with the Māori Party a strong desire to change what has happened to so many of our most vulnerable children. New Zealand can do a better job, and under this Government we will do a better job. After a number of years of very hard work, to which a lot of people have contributed with goodwill, on 1 April the new organisation will begin, starting a period of another 3 or 4 years of significant change. In the end, this is fundamentally about protecting our children better, particularly those who are most at risk.

Jan Logie: Will he push ahead with removing the requirement to prioritise placing tamariki Māori within their own whānau, hapū, or iwi despite the Māori Party describing these changes as creating a new stolen generation—surely a pretty fundamental disagreement?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I acknowledge that when we are dealing with issues related to our children and the awful circumstances in which the State would take them from their families—bearing in mind that it is a rare and very unfortunate occurrence—in those circumstances some strong words are going to be spoken. I do not happen to agree with the member’s description of either side of the argument.

Jan Logie: Does he agree that the Government is breaching Te Tiriti by cutting across rangatiratanga and putting tamariki Māori at further risk, as the Māori Women’s Welfare League said in its claim to the Waitangi Tribunal against these policies?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not agree with that, nor do I think it is fair to characterise any number of these groups as fundamentally opposed to the policy. Many of them have participated because they know in nitty-gritty detail what has gone wrong, so they have participated in the whole process of setting out to put it right and change the system. It happens that at this stage, against the background of an enormous amount of goodwill and a surprising breadth of consensus about what is radical change—the most radical change in the care of our children in decades—there are some issues about how the intent is expressed in the legislation. But we actually have very similar intent, and I do not agree with the characterisations of Government policy.

Jan Logie: Is he concerned that his old friend the former co-leader of the Māori party Dame Tariana Turia, knowing the content of the legislation, is threatening to march on Parliament again, saying “If we can walk for our land, if we can walk for our foreshore, we can certainly act for our tamariki.”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course I would be concerned about anyone who is as focused as Dame Tariana on the welfare of our children feeling that strongly. That is why it is a good idea for us to make sure everyone understands what is at stake and understands what the actual legislative proposals are—because it is not that well understood that the legislation is available for scrutiny—participates in a select committee process, and makes propositions about how they think these issues can be resolved. I am sure it will take a bit of movement to achieve that. Ideally, we would be able to get, at least, significant agreement on the way forward.

Marama Fox: If we are to believe the statistics that say 63 percent of children in the care of Child, Youth and Family are Māori and 71 percent of young people in prison are Māori, is the Government prepared to continue to negotiate with the Māori Party to ensure that the rebuild of Oranga Tamariki is done with a kaupapa Māori perspective?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course we are. As coalition partners, we are always open to a discussion, as the member knows. I think we do need to keep in mind, for those groups outside the Parliament, that we do not want to let a philosophical discussion between adults get in the way of a better path for our children. Sometimes these things are easier to solve in practice than in theory.

Jan Logie: How can the Government push ahead with these policies, described as creating a new “stolen generation”, against the informed opposition of the Māori Party, Dame Tariana Turia, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, and, most recently, the Iwi Leaders Forum?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We will be pushing ahead because if the alternative is to leave in place the system that has destroyed the lives of many of our most vulnerable children and whānau, in my view there is only one choice, and that is to change it. Now, of course, whether we can bring everyone along with that change is still open to debate, but the member should not be in any doubt that we are proceeding, because every month we take means that some of our children are suffering in ways that are avoidable.

Marama Fox: Can the Prime Minister confirm that subsequent legislation that governs the rebuild of Oranga Tamariki will reflect adequately the position of Māori when dealing with Māori children?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course that is what we would like to achieve.

Broadband, Ultra-fast and Rural—Progress and Targets

7. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Communications: What progress can he report on the rollout of the Ultra-Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband initiatives?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Communications): Today I released the latest quarterly broadband update, which highlights that 31 percent of New Zealanders with access to fibre are now connected to ultra-fast broadband (UFB). That is up 13 percent in the last 3 months. This means that over 320,000 households, businesses, schools, and hospitals are connected to UFB nationwide. Today’s update also shows that deployment of the first phase of the UFB programme is 71 percent complete, with 21 towns now fully fibred, and over 300,000 rural households and businesses now able to access much faster broadband.

Sarah Dowie: How does the recent announcement of phase 2 of the UFB programme help deliver on the Government’s targets?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The overall deployment of UFB is now some 6 percent ahead of schedule, and uptake is continuing to track above expectations, with New Zealand boasting the second-highest growth rate for fibre subscriptions in the OECD. The extension of the UFB programme, which was announced at the end of January, will see another 423,000 New Zealanders able to access fibre by the end of 2024 across a further 151 towns. By the end of 2024 more than 84 percent of New Zealanders will have access to UFB fibre under both phases of the Government’s UFB programme. It is fantastic to see more and more Kiwis getting on board with UFB, as access to fast and reliable internet helps create an environment for economic growth, and is critical for helping businesses and communities all around New Zealand to thrive.

Clare Curran: Why do the people who live on the fringes of Auckland, Taupō, Rotorua, Napier-Hastings, Upper Hutt, Nelson, and Queenstown, or in Kaitāia, Warkworth, Wellsford, Ōtorohanga, Whangamata, Kaikōura, Culverden, Waimate, Waikouaiti, and many more towns have to wait until 2023-24—that is 6 or 7 years—to get connected to ultra-fast broadband 2? Is it not true—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question is far too long. I will give the Minister an opportunity to answer it.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I would note that Labour in fact voted against it, and under this Government it is happening. I am really proud that over time we are getting to 85 percent. We have gone from the back of the pack in the OECD to above the middle, and, actually, under the packages and the hundreds of millions—in fact, the billions—of dollars invested by this Government, we will be there at the very front of the OECD in ultra-fast broadband. I am really proud of that.

Housing Supply—Construction Rates and Reports

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): My question is for the Minister of Housing—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will ask the question as it is written on the sheet. If he cannot manage to do that, I am quite happy to move to the next question. Question No. 8—Phil Twyford.

Phil Twyford: They don’t have a Minister of Housing; that’s the problem.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave the member a chance. I am very tempted to move immediately to the next question. I will be generous on this occasion, but the member had better not abuse my generosity.

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he stand by his statement, “this building boom is 30 percent stronger than the boom back in 2004 in inflation-adjusted terms”; if so, what does he think has been a larger cause of that, the 137 percent increase in the cost of building a home in Auckland or the fall in consent numbers there by 2,185?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): I absolutely stand by the statement that the current building boom is 30 percent stronger than in 2004. The raw numbers are $19 billion in 2016 as compared with $11 billion in 2004, which adjusts to $14 billion in today’s terms. That is a $5 billion real increase. The exact increase is 34.8 percent. There are two reasons the value of building work is much higher compared with the number of homes. The current building boom is not just houses. We have record levels of commercial, industrial, and infrastructure construction. That should be welcomed, because we want jobs, schools, and services for people, as well as homes.

The second reason is that in 2004 there was an unusual one-off boom in shoebox apartments as small as 40 square metres. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. The level of interjection now is totally unreasonable. If I have to take more action, I will do so.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We now have a point of order.

Hon David Parker: You having called my colleague Clare Curran to order for an overly long question, the Minister is now being allowed to make a very, very long answer, better characterised as a speech.

Mr SPEAKER: And as I have pointed out to the member many times, I am the judge of that, but I did neglect to inform the House at the start of the question that my office had been advised the answer would be longer than normal to fill the details. I was distracted because of the way the question was delivered at the time. The Minister can now complete his answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Buildings costs per square metre have risen more slowly under this Government at an average of 5 percent per year as compared with 8 percent per year under the previous administration.

Phil Twyford: Why is he boasting about the biggest building boom in history, when the real difference between now and the last peak in 2004 is not the number of homes being built but that building is getting more expensive, and if the cost of building had remained the same as in 2004, the value of building work today would be half of what it is today, only $9.5 billion compared with the $19 billion he boasts about?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think that member should be welcoming the fact that more houses were built last year than in any year for more than a decade. In respect of cost increases, the member should ask the colleague sitting next to him, because the cost per square metre of building houses grew by 8 percent per year under the previous Government and has grown by about 5 percent per year under this Government.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What reports has the Minister received in support of the Government’s housing policies?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have read reports saying you cannot boost house construction overnight and that it would take any Government many years to achieve a goal of 10,000 houses per year. I have also read reports from the same person saying that the Government does not control house prices. I agree with both of those statements from Mr Little.

Phil Twyford: Will he confirm that the number of dwellings consented in the last year is not higher than in 2004 or 1974, but only the cost is?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The number of homes built last year was just under 30,000. That is a record period of 5 years of 20-plus percent growth, it is the highest in 10 years, and in all of New Zealand’s history is exceeded only by 2 other years. In anybody’s terms that is a building boom.

Phil Twyford: When the actual number of dwellings consented per 1,000 of population is 6.2, less than half the 13.1 in 1974 when Norman Kirk was Prime Minister, how can he claim we have the most building activity ever?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the member reads the history of what occurred in 1974—it was a Labour Government where spending was out of control and there was a massive building boom that collapsed in 1976. What you see from this Government is steady ongoing improvement. This is the longest and strongest period of home construction growth, of 20 percent per year, 5 years running.

Phil Twyford: When will he stop trying to confuse the public with alternative facts and admit that his housing policies have failed, that not enough houses are being built, and that the dream of Kiwi homeownership is falling further and further behind?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is a bit rich, from the man who is the architect of Chinese-sounding names. I am happy to stand by my figures any day, compared with some of the garbage that member has been spinning.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table analysis done by the Parliamentary Library based on Statistics New Zealand’s building consents issued data, produced earlier today.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information, sourced from the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none.

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

Infrastructure—Resource Management Act Reforms

9. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister for the Environment: Are the Government’s resource management reforms helping deliver timely consenting decisions on the infrastructure New Zealand needs to support a growing economy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): An important change that National made in our first phase of Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms is a streamlined board of inquiry process for nationally significant projects. This provides a one-step hearings process and a legal requirement for decisions to be made within 9 months. This has enabled major projects like the $630 million Kapiti Expressway and the $1.4 billion Waterview Connection to be consented in a timely way. Both projects, which are due for opening in the next month, are a product of the successful reform.

Jami-Lee Ross: What further infrastructure projects are being considered for the streamlined board of inquiry process introduced by the Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Today I have announced that the $700 million Northern Corridor Improvements project on State Highways 1 and 18 in Albany is nationally significant and is to be referred to a board of inquiry, chaired by Environment Court judge Melanie Harland. I have also jointly determined with the conservation Minister, Maggie Barry, that the $1.5 billion East-West Link project between Onehunga and Mount Wellington will be referred to a board of inquiry, to be chaired by retired High Court judge, the Hon John Priestley. These boards of inquiry will ensure a robust process and a fair say for communities, but also a timely decision, which is so important for Auckland with its transport issues.

Eugenie Sage: Does he think the RMA is supporting 21st century economic development when it still allows new climate-polluting coalmines, as if we were in the 1900s?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am very proud of this Government’s record with the emissions trading scheme, which, actually, has seen emissions from the electricity sector drop significantly. Actually, under the previous Government, of which the Greens were part, we saw an increase in thermal emissions from the electricity sector. We came into Government at 65 percent, and it is now up to 80 percent. I understand from the Minister of Energy and Resources that we are on target to get to 90 percent renewable by 2025.

David Seymour: Does the Minister know what the Prime Minister had in mind when he challenged the Labour Party to support further resource management legislation reforms earlier today in question time?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Parliament has the major second phase RMA reform bill before it. It will enable us to build more houses, it will enable us to create more jobs, and it will enable us to address transport issues. That is why I get so frustrated with members opposite, who want solutions on those problems but will oppose the very measures that will address them.

Hon David Parker: Given that more houses were built during the mid-2000s than are being built now, how can he blame the RMA for that decline, given the RMA was in force back then—as it is now—and that he has already spent 8 long years blaming everyone else to avoid taking responsibility for the housing crisis that National has caused?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That member should take responsibility for the very specific changes that Labour made to the RMA, because in the 2002 amendments it determined that regional policy statements and—it is noteworthy—the tight metropolitan urban limit actually took dominance over housing. That, actually, for the Productivity Commission, was at the core of Auckland’s problems. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford.

Eugenie Sage: What does the Minister say to the people of Waimakariri, who are worried that they will not be able to have a say about a big new quarry in their neighbourhood because National changed the RMA so that they do not have to be consulted?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The ultimate decision about what activities are permitted in a district, such as a quarry, rests with councils. But help is on the way in that the new RMA reform bill provides for standardised plans so that we can get a greater degree of consistency. But let me make no bones about it: this Government’s ambition with the RMA is to support jobs, to support new houses, and to support growth, because at the moment, the RMA is preventing New Zealand from being able to make progress on those fronts.

Eugenie Sage: When his current controversial changes to the RMA further reduce the public’s ability to have a say in decisions that they care about, are his reforms not all about tilting the Act in favour of development and against communities and the environment?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, the RMA reform bill is about tilting in favour of more houses, and it is true that members of the Greens and the Labour Party favour consultation and appeals over people having roofs over their heads.

Te Ārai Beach—Access and Public Consultation

10. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Why did he refuse to allow public consultation regarding access to Te Ārai Beach in line with his responsibilities under the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The member mischaracterises the situation a little in this matter, in her question. It was not a case of refusing to allow for public consultation. The Act is quite clear, and in this case required that the responsible Ministers consider whether the change significantly affected the public access easement. Having reviewed the easement proposal, I am satisfied that it does not, and, in fact, that it improves public access to Te Ārai Beach.

Tracey Martin: What advice has he received regarding section 27(1)(b) of the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989, where interpretation requires the responsible Minister to accept submissions from any person or organisation not less than 40 working days after a published notice in a principal metropolitan newspaper, in circumstances where an easement is cancelled?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I did receive advice in terms of how to respond to the application, and I did consider the submissions that were made. It is important to note that the land is iwi-owned land with a public access easement on it on to Te Ārai Beach. The iwi sought a change to the current easement to allow for a larger public carpark near the beach, and that necessitated a realignment of part of the public access way by around 25 metres. To be clear, public access is still guaranteed, and, in fact, improved, with the access way increased in width from 8 metres to 58 metres for the first 800 metres, and from 8 metres to 20 metres for the remaining 220 metres.

Tracey Martin: Is the Minister aware that his Treasury has confirmed in written statements that “There is a small section of the existing easement”—that is, the public access—“that is to be cancelled”; if so, how does he justify his refusal, in his letter dated 7 February 2017, to allow public consultation on the public access to Te Ārai Beach?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there—the Hon Steven Joyce.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In answer to the second part of the question, because it was quite clear that the responsible Minister’s test was to consider whether the change significantly affects the public access easement. I reviewed the easement proposal, and I am satisfied that it does not, and, in fact, it improves public access to the beach.

Tracey Martin: When will his Government put the rights of New Zealanders to public access to their coastline, and to public consultation first, before the whims of mega-rich foreign buyers, or does the fact that members of Cabinet play golf on this exclusive club somehow give dispensation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Dear oh dear, the member is well wide of the mark here. It is important to note that this change actually enhances the access. I went through it earlier for the member; I am happy to take her through it again. I considered it carefully. I considered the submissions and made a decision. I appreciate that in many cases the member and her party are against any form of development, but it is important that, actually, the Ministers follow the Act.

Tracey Martin: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister dated 7 February 2017 to the New Zealand Fairy Tern Charitable Trust and Te Arai Beach Preservation Society, where he outlines the reason that he has declined public consultation.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify the date of that letter?

Tracey Martin: It is 7 February 2017.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Business, Innovation and Employment, Minister—Procurement Process and Untendered Spending

11. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister for Economic Development: Is he answerable to this House for the more than $20 million in untendered contracts at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment reported in the previous year; if so, how can he be sure those contracts represent best value for money when they were not tendered?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): I am the ownership Minister for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). I think what is true is that for a large entity within Government such as MBIE it is not unusual—indeed, I do not disapprove of it having contractors and consultants and using them. I think there is a range of ways that it procures these services. Just because it is not in an open tender does not mean, as the member seems to be suggesting, that it is in any way not a robust procurement process. I would note, actually—this is important, because I do expect value for money in this area and for MBIE to be continuously driving on that—that MBIE has had a good record of managing down its procurement expenditure, from, I think, some $48 million in 2012-13 to $38 million in the 2015-16 year.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice. The first bit he answered directly: he is the ownership Minister—i.e., he is answerable to the House. The second part asked how he could be sure that it represented the best value for money. What he went on to describe was why he believed it was value for money, but he was unable to answer the part about why he thought it was the best value for money. I do not think he addressed that, and it was on notice.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened very, very carefully to the answer, and on this occasion I do not agree with the member raising the point. The question was addressed. The member has further supplementary questions; that is the way forward.

Dr David Clark: Does he support spending $1.2 million on a single untendered contract, and is this a practice he expects to continue under his watch?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I have every confidence that MBIE has followed the rules of procurement in this area. What I would make very clear is that these are operational matters, ultimately, but I have no reason to believe that there is anything untoward here. I would also note, as I said earlier, that in a large organisation like this, which quite literally is in a range of areas and requires expertise in areas from rockets to construction to labour to administration, I would expect to see it using consultants and contracting. But I also expect value for money, and have made that quite clear. I have had an assurance that it will continue with its track record of driving down the costs in this area.

Dr David Clark: Can he explain to the House what “coaching and evaluation support for customer-centric co-design initiatives” is, and why the taxpayer is forking out $439 an hour for consultants to deliver this service?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It sounds like the sort of course the member should go on. But what I would say to the member is that ultimately we can do this and go through courses and specific consultancy services, but they are operational matters for MBIE. If the member has specific concerns in relation to them, he has appropriate processes to raise them with me, but I have every confidence that MBIE is, firstly, following the rules in this area, and, secondly, actively driving down the costs. As we are seeing, its record in this area is good.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your clarification. I think the member was implying this was not an appropriate forum to ask these questions. You are saying it is an appropriate forum. I just ask that he respect that, because he was implying that this was not an appropriate question to be asking on behalf of the taxpayer—where that money is going. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the question was asked. There were actually two questions in there. The second part of the question was addressed very quickly by the Minister. He then went on to make comments that related more to the first part of the question. There is no doubt in my mind that the question has been addressed—clearly not to the satisfaction of the member. I think most of us will accept that, but the way forward, again, is further incisive supplementary questions.

Dr David Clark: Why has he directed his “please explain” letter to the ministry when his colleague Steven Joyce, who has form with $140,000 TV—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And now I do apologise. I cannot hear the question because of the interchange coming from my left and my right. I invite the member to start the question again.

Dr David Clark: Why has he directed his “please explain” letter to the ministry, when his colleague Steven Joyce, who has form with $140,000 TV screens, $67,000 signs, barbecue sundecks, blow-up sheep, and hair straighteners continued in the last year to oversee untendered expenditure of more than $20 million of taxpayer money?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, because while I have got confidence that the rules of procurement are being followed here, and while I have, I think, a sense of confidence based on the fact that actually MBIE’s record has been to drive the costs down from $46 million or $47 million to $38 million since its inception, the member has asked questions about these things, he has raised a number of issues in relation to a number of particular matters, and I just want to be sure and be satisfied that there is nothing in them. Given that it is the member asking the questions, there probably is not.

Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial—Installation

12. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Associate Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What announcements has she made regarding the Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Today a significant greenstone installation has been placed near the entrance of the Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial. The 265-kilogram pounamu has been sourced from South Westland and gifted by Te Rūnanga o Makaawhio of Ngāi Tahu.

Joanne Hayes: How will the installation help to enhance the Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial will provide a place to reflect on the events that changed Canterbury for ever on 22 February 2011. It pays respect to those who lost their life, to those who were seriously injured, and to the first responders; and it recognises the impact on the wider community. The Māori traditional ritual of touching the pounamu connects visitors back to the land and to all of those who have been there before. It is a special contribution to an area that will mean much to Cantabrians and to the families who were affected by the earthquakes.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 14 February.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Is it not great to be back here in the House for the start of election year, and what a time it is for New Zealand and for the National Party—with GDP growing faster than Grant Robertson’s self-regard, an economy more diverse than the range of Labour caucus factions, and an unemployment rate heading in the same direction as Andrew Little’s approval ratings. But do not take it just from me. What are others saying about the National-led Government in New Zealand? Well, I would point you to The Economist of 10 December 2016, which says the Government is “popular, with a wide lead over the … Labour Party. It is not hard to see why. On a long list of yardsticks [New Zealand] has been a striking success.”

But, to be fair, I have taken a wide range of soundings. I was in the Northcote Tavern on Friday afternoon, speaking to a long-term Labour Party supporter. I said to him: “What is it like watching your party perform under Andrew Little?”. And do you know what he said to me? He said: “Mate, it’s like watching your favourite pub being burnt to the ground.” So what is the Labour Party leader to do when the fight against National is getting so tough? Why, turn on his colleagues, of course. It is the only natural thing to do: focus on internal Labour Party politics, look on which candidates you can take out, look on what you can do to upset your own caucus members, and then focus on upcoming electorate events.

So here are a few headlines: “Andrew Little: No formal deals with the Greens in run-up to election”; “Labour and Greens won’t cut deals in marginal seats”; and, finally, “Little denies electorate deals”. But then yesterday, there was “Andrew Little’s U-turn on dirty deals”. So he has had a lot to say about that. He is just determined to get gun-crazy Greg O’Connor into Ōhāriu and on that basis a deal is OK, and the Greens are not running.

But I can tell you what: Andrew Little will do deals with absolutely everyone—everyone, that is, except Poto Williams. I must say we have got to commend the bravery of that lone Labour MP; the only support she got was from disgraced King’s College old boy Iain Lees-Galloway and serial list-seeker Sue Moroney. But where were the rest of them when they were needed to speak up and support her, as unpopular candidate Willie Jackson came in to start taking their list places?

I tell you what, it is going to be pretty interesting there, on 23 June, when the Labour list is announced. There are seven list places available if they keep on polling 28 percent and they will be scrambling to get on that list lifeboat. I tell you what—there is not a lot of room there, so they will be doing the calculations. They will know which one of them is going, and there is going to be very little room for new talent in there.

But anyway, on this side of the House we are focusing on the important things—the things that matter to New Zealanders—and I would urge you, I would urge the public, to read the Prime Minister’s statement, because that lays out the agenda and the progress of a busy National-led Government. We are backing New Zealanders; we are not talking them down, like the Opposition. We are backing people who are prepared to take risks, to get ahead and grow this economy. We are about aspiration and backing Kiwis to spend their own money in the best way possible, to do the right thing in terms of making decisions about their own lives. But at the same time we are there to help those at the most vulnerable end of the spectrum.

The Prime Minister has spoken extensively about social investment, about making sure that we are investing for the long term, to help those who are the most vulnerable in society to build a decent life here in New Zealand. And actually, as the Prime Minister has said, it is working: 40,000 fewer kids are living in benefit-dependent households than 3 years ago, and that is real progress.

The thing behind that is that there is a philosophical base. We are actually doing something that we believe in, something that is going to work. We are not just talking about it; we are taking action. But we have taken a long-term sensible approach to fiscal management in New Zealand, and you can see the way the books have gone over the last 8 years. We are in a great position now.

The Government has got some real choices around what we invest in, to continue to make the lives of New Zealanders even better. GDP growth is up 3.5 percent over the last year and is forecast to grow at a rate of 3 percent over the next 4 years. Unemployment is under 5 percent. There will be 140,000 new jobs over the next 4 years, to complement the 130,000 jobs grown in the last year. The average wage is predicted to go up by $7,000, on top of the $12,000 it has already gone up, under this Government. Wages are growing well ahead of inflation, and that means the average New Zealander is better off than ever before. When we have got that prudent financial management approach, and the $8.5 million of surpluses forecast, that is a signal to New Zealanders that the books have been in the right hands.

But that is not just what it is all about. ACC levies are forecast to drop by $126 million, with $2 billion in reductions over the last 5 years. The Business Growth Agenda is focusing on the infrastructure that we need. It is focusing on supporting our regions. Legislation is making it easier to do business at the board, and, of course, Paula Bennett, Deputy Prime Minister, is taking steps on climate change, to progress that target of 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The economy is diversifying. Tourism is now bigger than dairying.

In terms of infrastructure, $18 billion has been spent in the last 5 years. You can see it, I can tell you, in Auckland. Cranes are everywhere. Building is taking off. It is happening around the country. Five more roads of national significance are to be progressed over the next 5 years. There will be $32 billion of infrastructure spending over the next 5 years across transport, hospitals, defence, and housing. We are just getting on with it. We are tackling the issues that are important to New Zealanders. And, of course, that broadband roll-out—we are spending $300 million, and over 400,000 extra New Zealanders will be connected over the next few years. It is all positive.

In terms of health, we have spent 8 years improving services, and in over about 100 services across the country you would struggle to find one that has not improved. That is the big picture—an extra $4.3 billion has gone into health. There are 150,000 more specialist appointments per year, 50,000 more operations, and 6,000 more doctors and nurses. We have been building extensively across the health system. A billion dollars has gone into Canterbury hospital infrastructure; the West Coast hospital is well under way; Dunedin is next. We have been left with some tough challenges in the health area but the system is responding and, at the same time, New Zealanders are getting access to the new technology they need. In the last Budget there was $39 million to roll out a national bowel-screening programme over the next 4 years in Waitematā, Hutt Valley, and Wairarapa, and next off the block is Counties-Manukau.

Hon David Cunliffe: 10 years late.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member over there says it is 10 years too late. The fact is that the Labour Government talked about it but it did not put one dollar into it. It did not save one life. Labour just stood around, talking about it.

There are 1,100 extra police coming forward, with National. So that is going to mean 95 percent of New Zealanders will be within 25 minutes of 24/7 police help. So we are tackling the issues that really matter to New Zealanders, and they are law and order, health, and education. There is massive building going on across the country in terms of schools’ infrastructure. I look at my local school, Northcote Primary—a fantastic 10-classroom block is going to be built there by the end of the year. We are focusing on the infrastructure that this growing population needs.

If you look at it and put all that together, there is a strong 8-year history of sensible economic management, and we are reaping the dividends. You have got to look at the wider picture and see how New Zealand is comparing on the world stage. Economic growth is faster than in just about any other country in the OECD. We have growing surpluses and balanced books. We are providing the social services that New Zealanders need and demand, and, very importantly, we are responding to those issues that are really important to them. One of the very important things that this party believes in, of course, is free trade. The public will be very aware of the Labour Party’s stance on that particular matter. We believe in a free and open economy. We believe in welcoming people from overseas and bringing in the skills and the capital that we need, to continue to build this country. So in summary the outlook for New Zealanders in 2017 and beyond is a great one. Kia ora.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Jonathan Coleman wanted to be the leader of the National Party, yet he could not even fill a 10-minute speech telling us about what the Government’s plans are for this year. But he got one thing right: it is good to be back. It is good to be on this side of the House, taking the real issues to this Government—the real issues that this Government is failing to deal with.

We have had a wonderful start to the year. We have had the traditional start to the year, with visits to Rātana and visits to Waitangi, and we have got something a bit different, of course. We have got a by-election happening in Mt Albert, and we have had one of those new political set pieces, or something that has become a political set piece, and that is the Big Gay Out. They are all opportunities for our new Prime Minister to present himself to the public, to demonstrate that he has a plan, and to demonstrate that he is prepared to front up to the difficult challenges that New Zealand faces.

So what did he do at Waitangi? He ran away. He did not even show up. OK—he did not want to show up to the political bit. He was too scared to face up to the kaumātua at Te Tii Marae. Fine—but did he even show up for Waitangi Day itself to celebrate with people at the Treaty grounds? No. “Run-away-Bill” ran away from our national day. What about the by-election—a fantastic opportunity for National to take its record to the people of Mt Albert and talk about what a good job it is doing for New Zealand. What did Bill English do? He ran away again. “Run-away Bill” cannot face up to the real challenges. What about Rātana? Well, he did go to Rātana. He even spoke at Rātana. And what did he say when he got to Rātana and spoke to the people at Rātana? He said: “We have reached the limits of what Government can do. There is no more we can do for you.”

Well, Bill English, I think that is a sign that it is time for you to run away, because if you are out of ideas, if you are out of passion, and if you are out of verve and out of the ability to face up to the challenges New Zealand has, then it is time to run away and hand the Government benches over to a team that is actually ready to take those challenges on. And, of course, he went to the Big Gay Out, that political set piece, but could he bring himself to speak to the crowd? No. Why not? What was the purpose of showing up and not speaking to people? What was so difficult about that? This is our Prime Minister—and he cannot even get on a stage and speak to people who are for him, where people have invited him along and want to hear what he has to say to their community? No, he could not even do that. Compare that with Andrew Little. He went to Waitangi and went on to the marae at Te Tii Marae. He had some things to say to the kaumātua there, and he did it kanohi ki te kanohi, exactly the way that Māori expect it to be done—face to face. Not running away—face to face, he delivered the message.

We are in the battle for Mt Albert and, I tell you, we are going to win it as well. We showed up at Rātana and we listened to what they wanted from the Government, and we told them what we can do if we work together, if Labour goes into Government. And, of course, Andrew Little went to the Big Gay Out. He got up on stage and he told them what Labour’s plans are for eradicating HIV in New Zealand. That is what a real leader does. He listens to people, he faces up to the challenges, and he tells people what his party plans to do in Government. That is a leader, that is a statesman, that is a Prime Minister—that is Andrew Little, and it certainly is not Bill English.

But with Bill English, of course, we have gone from the Key team—John Key would have gone to all of those events—to the B-team, led by Bill English, but also we have got the new Minister of Finance, Steven Joyce. Steven Joyce loves to use taxpayers’ money to line the pockets of wealthy individuals. He did it with Mediaworks. There was a nice, sweetheart, low-interest loan for Mediaworks, which he used to be an owner of. South Canterbury Finance, of course—a $1.6 billion bailout of South Canterbury Finance. With Skycity, it did not cost us anything in taxpayers’ money; it just cost us our democracy, but, of course, it did result in a 30 percent increase in profit for Skycity. Rio Tinto—a $30 million subsidy.

Then, of course, we had the terrible deal where that well-known New Zealander Peter Thiel was able to get access to the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund, to invest in Xero. He was incentivised to invest in Xero, and you might say: “Well, what’s wrong with that?”. There was no need to give him an incentive to invest in Xero. He had already done it. He had used his own money to invest in Xero. He thought it was such a sure thing that he put his own money in without any support from the taxpayer, but Steven Joyce said: “Peter, my friend, we’ll help you out.”, and Peter Thiel made a cool $3 million, or a $30 million—sorry, I underestimate—profit off the back of the taxpayer. Steven Joyce, the B-team’s finance Minister, loves to gamble with taxpayers’ money. He should not be allowed anywhere near the Government books.

So we have got the B-team, but let us talk about the A-team—Andrew Little’s team, ready to take the Government benches in September and ready to deal with the real issues. Housing affordability, and everybody knows there is a housing crisis in New Zealand—everybody, that is, except for the Government. Those members cannot bring themselves to say the word “crisis”. Only Labour will take the crucial steps to deal with the housing crisis. Ban foreign speculators, build more houses, raise rental standards—that is a real plan. That is a comprehensive plan for housing. Only this side of the House has one. Not that side, not that Government—only Labour can deal with that.

Health—I heard how Jonathan Coleman thinks that the health system is going brilliantly. Well, I want Jonathan Coleman to come to my electorate and talk to two men who live in my electorate, Russell and Kurt. Russell and Kurt went to the hospital last year—they went to the emergency department because they could not afford to go to their GP—because Kurt had a mole that he was concerned might be cancerous. The emergency department staff were not really able to deal with him. They looked at it briefly and they said: “We don’t think it’s cancerous, but we really think you need to go to your GP to get it sorted out.” They could not afford to go to the GP because the cost of going to the doctor has got completely out of control under this Government, and, sadly, that mole, left unattended, did become cancerous. And they have been through all manner of turmoil not just with the health system but also with the way they have been treated by Work and Income and also with the way they have been treated by Housing New Zealand.

That is what is really happening in New Zealand. Kurt will die soon. Kurt will die soon, and that did not need to happen, and it could have been avoided if we had a health system that really delivered for ordinary New Zealanders. So, Jonathan Coleman—I take issue with him coming in here and telling us that everything is fine with the health system in New Zealand.

But it goes on. It is not just the health system. I have got young kids. Many of us in here have young kids. We want the best opportunities, the best future, for our children, and the best way that the State that we, as a community, through the Government, can give our kids the best opportunity for the future is through having a world-class education system that everybody can afford. The education that our kids get should not depend on how much we can afford in parental donations or on whether we can afford the school uniforms, whether we can afford to send them on camp, or whether we can afford the sports kit for our kids to be able to play in sports teams. But the truth is that what quality of education you get in New Zealand, even in the State system, is now becoming entirely dependent on how much you can afford as a parent. Class sizes are getting bigger. Our education results, compared internationally, are sliding year by year and—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, they’re not.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, Mr Brownlee, look at the facts.

Sue Moroney: The PISAs—look at the PISA reports.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Look at the facts. Read the Programme for International Student Assessment reports. Mr Brownlee, you might believe in alternative facts, but on this side of the House, we like to look at evidence, and the evidence tells us our education system is slipping. That Government is failing our children.

We have got the B-team—Bill English’s B-team—failing New Zealanders. It is time—and September this year will be the opportunity—for New Zealand to go to the A-team. Go to Andrew Little’s team. Elect a leader who is a statesman. Elect a leader who will face up to the challenges, who will rise to the challenges that New Zealand faces, who will deal with the housing crisis, who will sort out our health system, who will sort out our education system, and who will do a proper job of law and order, and not some watered down version that Bill English gave in his sad state of the nation speech.

It is time for a change. Change the Government and elect a team that will work in the interests of all New Zealanders.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Each year I say it is great to be back, and, indeed, it is great to be back. I am very conscious that last year, in the course of my speech on the Prime Minister’s statement, I mentioned my great hole in one, so it seems only fair that this year I should acknowledge that I had far too many treble bogeys. For those who do not understand golf, that is the, sort of, golfing equivalent of Labour’s candidate selections. Frankly, my putting sucks—I totally missed the mark, just like Iain Lees-Galloway’s questions in the House.

So it is fair to say I had a shocking summer—I agree with Andrew Little that Wellington had a shocking summer—and what I was forced to do was spend a lot of time reading. Because we are on the verge of the centenary of the Russian Revolution, I spent a lot of time reading about the Russian Revolution. The first book I read was all about Rasputin—now, there was a chap who had more staying power than Winston Peters. Did you know that it required five cakes laced with arsenic, five bullets, and he needed to be tossed into the Neva River before they could get rid of him? I am sure Winston would not be as hard to get rid of.

The other book I read, which was very interesting, was a book called Lenin on the Train, which told the story of the perfidy of the Germans, who let Lenin leave Switzerland in a sealed train and travel across Germany so that he could get into Russia, where, of course, as Churchill said, he was nothing more than a plague bacillus who gave Russia and, indeed, the world nothing more than a massive calamity, probably the worst calamity of the 20th century. Of course, Lenin’s views are utterly discredited, except for in North Korea and for the few Marxist-Leninist lunatics that there are around the world, who sometimes emerge from time to time.

I want to read the House a couple of statements that were recently made by such people: “our struggle for social justice brings us into irreconcilable conflict with the capitalist mode of production, and all other forms of class society. This requires us to take a strong stance on the struggle of the working class.”, and then: “capitalism is a violent and antagonistic relation between workers, and those who exploit them. As workers, … we experience perpetual violence and that this violence must be brought to an end. We therefore fight to bring about the end of capitalism.” So did these words come out of Pyongyang? No. Did they come from the mouth of Stalin or Lenin? No—they came from the Green Party in New South Wales. Those are the sorts of sentiments that you get from Green parties around the world. Were we to have our own equivalent of the October Revolution—a calamity here—with the Greens in Government, those sorts of views would be exhumed here.

I do say to the Labour Party, and Stuart Nash would understand this: remember what the Bolsheviks did to the Social Democrats. That is what the Greens want to do to Labour. They regard the Labour Party as nothing more than a party of useful idiots that can be liquidated in the fullness of time—and that memorandum of understanding means nothing. It may seem that—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s very hard to disagree with that.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is. It is hard to disagree with any of my fundamental propositions. I say to this: do not be deluded by the dirty, dirty deal that has been done in Ōhāriu, because there are dirtier deals that the Greens have in store for the Labour Party. One of the best things about standing in the great seat of Rongotai this year is not necessarily that Annette King will not be my opponent—because she is a formidable opponent—it is that I will not have to put up with Russel Norman going on in that Australian twang of his, talking about “dirty deals”, because there is nothing dirtier than the dirty, dirty deal in Ōhāriu.

I just want to say this: we have had a fascinating last few months. This Government has successfully changed leaders. We are a happy and united team—as I look across at my beloved colleagues. Our opponents cannot even sort out the ranking of list candidates. But I particularly want to say that I admire Poto Williams, who is a strong and decent member of Parliament. As John F Kennedy once said, it takes a lot of courage to stand up to your enemies; it takes even more courage to stand up to your friends. That is what she did—admittedly, with the help of a PR person, but that is what she did, and she had to face the music. Mr Jackson is not fit to be a candidate for anyone. He is a disgrace, and the comments that he made about Grant Robertson a few years ago were totally and utterly disreputable and inappropriate. You can argue with people over the issues, as Annette and I have done over the years and as Winnie Laban and I did in Mana, but you can still like the person and not resort to the kind of gutter tactics that we had from Mr Jackson.

I can admire my opponents. I thought the member for Mt Roskill, Michael Wood, made a very good maiden speech, and I wish him all the best for the future. Stuart Nash is a good bloke. But sometimes the line is crossed, and people like Mr Jackson—

Fletcher Tabuteau: The touch of death, Nash.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —I am being charitable—have nothing to contribute to this place.

We are an infrastructure Government, and I say it is great to be back because I approach this year with the same enthusiasm that I have approached every year since I was so lucky and privileged enough to become a Minister. When you look at what we have achieved in the last 8 years, frankly, it is mind-boggling. As you would expect an Attorney-General to say, the legal infrastructure is steadily being updated. Mark my words, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is true legal infrastructure reform, and the day will come when people will truly recognise the wonderful contribution that the Minister for Māori Development has made in this area. It is worth billions to the economy. It has been a huge task—it was started off by me in 2011—but it is worth the effort.

I look across at the member for Ilam. Of all my colleagues, I have to say—I do not think I have ever said this to you—the member is my favourite colleague. He is an outstanding Minister. He has rebuilt Christchurch—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You’ve just disappointed 58 people.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, that is the way of the world, because Mr Brownlee has been an outstanding Minister. He picked up the issue of a totally wrecked city and has done a fabulous job. It is the second city of the country, and he is going to be remembered for that wonderful contribution, just as the work that he has been doing in Kaikōura is going to be recognised. Look at the roading infrastructure that Mr Brownlee worked on and which has been picked up by Mr Bridges in recent times.

Tomorrow, of course, the Kapiti Expressway is open. That is something we can be really proud of, but we are not stopping there. After Peka Peka, it is going to be opened up to Ōtaki. Look at Transmission Gully. Look at the Waterview project that is shortly to be opened. These are exciting projects, and if you go back to 2008 they were not even dreamt of. We would achieve a lot more in Wellington if the city council would stop acting like luddites, get off their chuffs, and start focusing on a bit of infrastructure, because the Basin Reserve is easily sorted out but it is going to require a bit of leadership from the Wellington City Council, and, in my experience in recent years, it cannot even get cycleways in Island Bay right. Even the tramways union wrote to me about that, and I found myself agreeing with what the tramways union had to say.

Just today, boards of inquiry have been announced for major roading infrastructure in Auckland, and, just today, the Minister for Communications has been talking about the work that we have been doing on ultra-fast broadband (UFB) infrastructure. The UFB uptake is up 13 percent on the last quarter. There is so much good there to talk about that, in the immortal words of Mrs Thatcher, I could go on and on and on—the minute I mention Mrs Thatcher, of course, Judith Collins’ head popped up, because she is one of the heirs of Margaret Thatcher—but, let me say, I approach this year with the same positive view and the same enthusiasm that I had when I first became a Minister.

On 13 January I met with Ngāpuhi in Auckland, and it is going to be Ngāpuhi’s year if they knuckle down, put aside personality difficulties, and focus on the issues. Then, the following week, I was visiting Ngāti Maniapoto, Te Whakatōhea, and Te Whānau-a-Apanui. It was a tremendous week, getting out there, talking to iwi, and talking about their aspirations. I approach my ninth year as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations with that same positive view, that same can-do attitude. I love working with my colleagues in the Office of Treaty Settlements and my Crown negotiators—a couple of whom are former Labour MPs—and anyone over there after this forthcoming election is welcome to approach me, because I am sure they would make great negotiators.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call, so I will ring the bell at 4 minutes—Dr Kennedy Graham.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): In opening this debate, the Prime Minister offered four goals for the 2017 election: opportunity for people to get ahead; new jobs and businesses; assistance in raising families; and support for those in need. That was a fairly standard set of political goals—motherhood, more or less. Anyone can sign on to them, at least if times were normal, but times are not normal.

People will not get ahead if the global climate is out of control. There will be no real jobs and business creation if countries are ravaged by extreme weather, not least in Australia and New Zealand. People will not successfully raise their families if their children’s lives are blighted by the planetary stress that extreme climate change is causing. The Government will struggle to support those in need if its capacity to do so is dwarfed by global pressures as the world transitions to a low-carbon economy faster than we do. We are, in fact, all in this together, and so the Green Party seeks to work with the Government—support it when justified, cajole it when desirable, condemn it when necessary—in developing a national climate policy that is worthy of the name of New Zealand.

One year after the Paris Agreement and 2 months after the last climate policy conference, the Government is assuring us that it is taking a new approach to climate policy. I believe this to be true. I want to acknowledge the positive approach that the Minister, the Hon Paula Bennett, is bringing to bear on the subject. We welcome this. Our cross-party group, GLOBE-NZ, is working together on a British consultancy project, and we are making good progress. It does not follow that the Green Party agrees that the policies her Government has developed to date are sufficient in light of the urgency and magnitude of the global ecological crisis we face. She assured us in question time that more is to come. We shall see. We shall judge, and so will the people of this country—they who wish to get ahead, create new jobs and businesses, raise their families, and flourish and prosper.

The Prime Minister devoted a fleeting mention to the Government’s climate policy in the course of his speech. It will progress initiatives, he said, to meet the Government’s Paris Agreement target of 30 percent of 2005 emissions levels by 2030. That means, of course, 11 percent of 1990 levels. This will be done, he said, through a review of the emissions trading scheme and a strengthening of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, and that is all he said.

Setting aside the palpable inadequacy of these two extreme measures to reach even the Government’s 11 percent target, the main weakness of the Prime Minister’s statement is the inadequacy of the target itself. It may be lost on him, but it was 10 years ago that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended that developed countries needed to reduce emissions by no less than 25 percent by 2020. That would mean about 30 to 40 percent by 2030, not 11 percent. It may be lost on him but the Paris Agreement calls for an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change. Developed countries, he said, should continue to take the lead. It may be lost on him but in adopting the Paris Agreement the parties noted that much greater emissions reduction efforts will be required to stay under 2 degrees. It may be lost on him, but the Paris Agreement said that a party may at any time adjust its target with a view to enhancing its level of ambition. Yet there was nothing of that in the Prime Minister’s speech, and nothing in the Minister’s answers in the House.

In 2015, the Green Party adopted a policy of a 40 percent target by 2030, and all of this through domestic reductions, not reliance on international offsets, and we advanced policies and measures to get there. That would be on track to carbon neutrality by 2050, just as Norway and Sweden have done. New Zealand can do this. New Zealand must do this. With the Greens in Government after September, New Zealand will do this.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): First, I would like to offer my congratulations to Bill English for delivering his first statement in the House as Prime Minister. Unfortunately, I found the promises in his statement to be hollow, because every year that National is in Government, it becomes obvious that its obsession with growth at all costs is costing us. It is failing to fix poverty, and the growth that we are seeing has come at the expense of our rivers and clean water. The Waikirikiri, the beautiful river that my children just a few years ago spent many hot summer days in, swimming and playing, now has toxic algae and has been reduced to a slimy green trickle at Coe’s Ford. Is this the brighter future that National has promised? Is this bright green slime that brighter future?

It is not just this river. Right across the country we are seeing rivers visibly deteriorate before our eyes. There are now 10 rivers in Canterbury alone that have toxic algae this summer. By these rivers, children have to be driven half an hour to the nearest swimming pool because the river at their doorstep is now too polluted to swim in.

We are told by scientists that the condition of these rivers and waterways is only going to get worse because there is a wall of pollution coming down upon them, and this is a direct consequence of National’s obsession with growth. It has also come at the expense of our precious wildlife, with more species being threatened with extinction each year. Nearly 4,000 of New Zealand’s precious and unique plant and animal species are currently in danger of going extinct. Eight hundred are listed by the Department of Conservation (DOC) as at high risk of extinction, which is an increase of nearly 200 just in the last 5 years. We have the highest proportion of endemic endangered species of any country on earth, and the vast majority do not have any active recovery plan, presumably because DOC is too starved of funds to develop them.

National is sacrificing much of what we hold precious—the simple things that give meaning to our lives—in order to feed a greedy economy: clean water, swimmable rivers, healthy seas, a stable climate, and secure homes. All of these fundamentals are currently being sacrificed by National on the altar of greed. What makes it worse is that any wealth that is being created is not reaching those in need. The fact is that after 9 years this National Government has not even made a dent in child poverty rates. The Salvation Army report released last week showed that we still have 200,000 kids in poverty. How is that even possible when the economy is supposedly doing so well? This has happened because the Government has chosen to prioritise making the wealthy even wealthier, literally handing over millions of dollars to millionaires—as in the Saudi sheep deal, for example—while continuing to deprive those in need, our most vulnerable families, of the basics.

I note that the Prime Minister even stooped so low as to have a dig at disabled people, who face massive failure to find employment, by implying that we are just not trying hard enough. National’s obsession with growth at all costs has also come at the expense of affordable homes. The situation is now so bad that even families on decent incomes are being priced out of the million-dollar housing market. This is not acceptable. We can do better. We must do better.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Thanks for the opportunity to speak to the Prime Minister’s excellent statement to Parliament. Can I say how lovely it is that the Labour Party and New Zealand First love me now. I never knew they loved me, and I understand that after they have finished asking John Tamihere to re-join Labour, they are going to ask me to join Labour. Despite having been brought up Labour, I was never silly enough to actually join it. I think they are going to ask me to, because they now love me. They love me because they are always wanting to talk about the new numbers announced by the Prime Minister on police—the police numbers. Yes, it is true; I worked for 6 months negotiating and all these sorts of things that you do in getting it right, and I am very happy to see this followed through by the Hon Paula Bennett as Minister of Police and Deputy Prime Minister.

Of course, I am also interested to see that Mr Greg O’Connor wants to stand against my good friend Peter Dunne in Ōhāriu in some sort of very dirty deal with the Greens. Just because I am wearing my lovely green jacket today does not mean to say I have come over to the Greens. But, anyway, I thought that was interesting, because I well remember Mr Greg O’Connor when I was Minister of Police, just before Christmas some time, saying to me that burglaries do not matter. I do not know if that is the new Labour Party official view, but I recall him telling me that as I had made some very public statements about burglaries—

Tim Macindoe: Why did he say that?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —and the police actually attending them and therefore, hopefully, solving them. It is very hard to solve burglaries, Mr Macindoe, if you do not attend, or even get the evidence. Mr O’Connor told me that. So I am really looking forward to the Hon Peter Dunne asking some questions around that, because I think that is something that the public needs to know. Do burglaries matter or not? Well, actually, they do. I do not believe for a moment that Stuart Nash, the Labour spokesman on police, thinks that burglaries do not matter, because I think he believes that they do.

Sue Moroney: Under a cash-strap. You know, when they’re cash-strapped by the Government.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: In fact, apparently they do not matter. So I think Ms Moroney thinks they do not matter but I certainly think they do. Anyway, I want to talk about some of my portfolios and some of the stuff we are going to do this year, so let us look at tax. I think tax is a very interesting field, and I also understand that I got a lot of sympathy for having the revenue portfolio. Well, I love revenue. I love tax. I am one of the few people who actually get excited about tax policy and the implementation of it.

Fletcher Tabuteau: You and Mr Bayly.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Me and Mr Bayly? Well, of course. Mr Bayly is a very sensible person. Actually, tax is so important because it pays for all the money that we get to dish out—

Denis O’Rourke: Not all of it.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —and hand out. It is what is paid, other than, of course, the levies on petrol. What it really does is it actually means that we can give additional income support to people who need that support. We can pay for education. We can pay for hospitals. If the tax system does not work well, then we will not be able to do that. So it is really important that it does. In the tax area we are actually going to deal with some loopholes and some of the actions that have been around some of the multinational companies, and also some New Zealand - based companies, where some actions would be, I think, very much classed as tax avoidance but are not strictly illegal at the moment, but I hope soon will be. I will make some announcements about that very soon.

Could I also talk a little bit about energy and resources. This is a great area. Petroleum is fantastic—and I just want the Greens to all get up on their hind legs and tell me that it is not. But most of us are wearing it, by the way—well, women are anyway, mostly. That is because all of the synthetic fabrics that we wear come out of oil—petroleum. Oil has been our No. 1 export to Australia for about 20 years; it even surpassed people, I have to say. These days it still is, and people in New Zealand do not know that. We have 17 recognised oilfields and we are using one. The oil prices have been rising, so there are going to be some more announcements about opportunities there as well.

Before people get too upset that this is all happening, these dreadful things, I suggest that they not be hypocritical about these issues, because, actually, most of us use oil products every day. In fact, most of us use them most of the time.

Denis O’Rourke: So what?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, plastic, for instance. Let us have a look at some of the materials that are made out of it: polyester, acrylic, nylon, rayon, acetate, and spandex—so all you men in your Lycra who insist on biking on your bikes in front of me driving my vehicle, you are wearing oil—latex, Orlon, Kevlar. This is just some of them. There are also all sorts of other things made out of them, like your sunglasses, your reading glasses, my contact lenses—all these things are made out of—guess what—oil. So before people get all worried about various things around oil and synthetic products—actually, that is how we live these days. Our mobile phones—made out of oil.

So I actually think we need to be very sensible about the opportunities available in New Zealand. We are an extremely wealthy country when it comes to our resources and our energy. I mean, look at energy: 84 percent of our energy that we use, in terms of our electricity, is from renewables. We are a very unusual and very lucky country. That has been brought about by the hydro dams of the 1960s and 1970s, the big projects. That is something that you would not be able to do today, by the way, under the current Resource Management Act, and I am very much in favour of the reforms that the Hon Nick Smith wants to put through.

And, actually, when you look at roading, for instance, roading is an area where we are very much committed to doing better, particularly around the use of the road-user charges and around the National Land Transport Fund, and I am really pleased that we have got more action happening there as well. Roading is one of the big issues of my electorate, and the big issue is really around the Southern Motorway and the lack of resilience around that. So I am really pleased that we got $282 million a couple of Budgets back to get that widened, and it is already ongoing. Hopefully, one side of it will be opened up this year.

But when we look, as well, at the ethnic communities, another of my portfolios—very important to us. Labour does not care about ethnic communities. It lost interest and it lost the interest of many ethnic communities when it decided that it did not like people who had funny surnames. How bad is that? So I am very, very happy to have the assistance of Melissa Lee MP, parliamentary private secretary, and, also, Dr Jian Yang MP, parliamentary private secretary, in this area. We cover an awful lot of events—a huge amount—and we have just had a month of Chinese New Year. I have to say that about two people from the Labour Party turned up, one to get his name acknowledged and then he left—but I should not be picking on Mr Grant Robertson like that, and I do apologise for being so uncharitable.

But, actually, we are very much committed to these communities as well, as part of New Zealand. One of the reasons for that is that we are a country of immigrants. We have all come here, or our families have come here, whether it was 1,000 years ago, 200 years ago, or, actually, last year. We cannot put up the drawbridge and say: “Oh, yeah, we don’t want anyone new coming in.” We used to lose 40,000 people a year to Australia. Under this Government, that stopped. We are actually getting more Australians coming here, and, actually, that is OK. We should not be mean about that, because they are seeing that we are such a fabulous country to live in and a really good Government to work under.

And, actually, that is what is raising the population—that, and the fact that we are, in fact, a place where people want to come and to migrate to and be part of. We are very fortunate in New Zealand. We do not have to put up fences, we do not have to put up borders—we have got ocean. But it is not the only thing that we have. We also have a very decent system of immigration, a points system. We look at family reunification, and we actually—

Denis O’Rourke: Far too many.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And it is all right for Mr O’Reilly to say: “Far too many.” What I would say to Mr O’Reilly is: actually, where did he come from? Where did he come from? He might say Christchurch, and I would say it is not actually a country. But, actually, everybody came from somewhere.

I am very proud to be part of a Government that acknowledges that New Zealand was not born and created and finished on one day. We actually are a country that is evolving. We are a country that is changing, and, normally, for the best. And I would like to say that it would be great to see the Labour Party come back to that point of view, rather than to go down those nasty, nasty little attacks on people based on their surnames. I know that under Stuart Nash it would never have done that, because he would have thought back to his grandfather, who would never have done that, either.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): In a way my portfolios have sort of mirrored Judith Collins’. But I am very lucky in that respect—I know people are wondering what I am talking about, but I am lucky because Miss Judith Collins actually seems to be the only Minister who is doing something in this Government. It is astounding. So I am the spokesperson for energy; Judith is the Minister of Energy and Resources.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

STUART NASH: I have been calling for an inquiry into petrol prices for 2 years because I firmly believe that the people of New Zealand are being taken for granted, or, if not, ripped off—for 2 years. Judith Collins has been the Minister for about 2 months, and suddenly we have an inquiry. The AA comes out and says that this is fantastic. Family Budgeting Services says it is well needed. Finally we have a Minister who is doing something. I highlighted for about 8 months the problems around policing. I went really hard. Judith Collins put together a package and they came out with policing policies. Judith is working hard.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

STUART NASH: The problem is, only Judith is working hard.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have now corrected the member on three occasions. He will refer to the member properly, either by an electorate or by her full name.

STUART NASH: I apologise. Sorry—Judith Collins. Judith Collins did ask the question: do we think burglaries are an issue? Well, of course we do, and the reason I say that is that fewer than 10 percent of burglaries in this country are being solved. I believe it was the pressure put on by the Opposition that actually forced the commissioner and the Minister to say: “Hey, we’re going to change our policy. Every single burglary is going to be investigated.” The problem with that is they had done nothing about police numbers. So what did Labour do? We came out with a policy for 1,000 more police, because we understood that the health and safety and well-being of our community were paramount.

I have immense respect also for Chris Finlayson. I think he is a very good Minister. He is an intelligent man and he has got a good shoulder on his heads. But the problem—

Tim Macindoe: Maybe a good head on his shoulders? Ha, ha!

STUART NASH: —a good head on his shoulders. Ha, ha! But when one of the most articulate and intelligent men in the National Cabinet spends only 5 minutes out of 10 talking about the National Party, you sort of get the feeling that they have just run out of ideas. Hearing about Rasputin—that was interesting. Hearing about Stalin—that was not too bad. I do not think he quite got the irony that in the great battle of ideology between left and right, actually, the left won that battle. But that was pretty interesting. Chris Finlayson also talked about Margaret Thatcher, JFK, Russel Norman—all these characters that in fact have no part whatsoever in our political landscape at this point in time. It was a bit of a history lesson, and that is the thing about this Government.

I am going to give credit where credit is due. In the first 3 years, especially when Simon Power was a Minister, that Government did a lot of work. There was a lot of legislation that went through and it made a lot of changes, and some of that was needed. It took a lot of Labour bills that were on the Order Paper and it put them through. In the second term the work rate was still there. It decreased a little bit. The ideas sort of dried up a bit, but it was still a reasonably hard-working Government.

I have come to the conclusion that, actually, the natural term for Governments in New Zealand is about 9 years. There are only two instances where they went longer than 9 years. The first one was the first Labour Government, and we all know the impact that the first Labour Government had on our society. It was a Government of social revolution and, certainly, evolution. It changed the way we do things in this country and every party acknowledges that. The second time was Keith Holyoake.

I think it is going to probably stay at that for a long time, because in the third term of this Government it has just run out of ideas, and it is sad to see. I give credit where credit is due. If this was a Government that was going really hard on the issues that were important, then I would not be saying this. But the first major announcement this Government made in election year was actually a Labour announcement about more police. Last night in the House there was a tax bill that went through and it was to make tax easier for the small to medium sized enterprise sector of our business community, and it took the Government 9 years. It is just getting a little bit tired, a little bit complacent, a little bit bored, and a little bit out of touch with what is going on.

It actually is time for change. I am not being glib when I say that. I am not being ideological. I am just saying that at the moment the party of ideas is actually the Labour Party. We are the party of ideas and it has taken us 7 years to get there. We have been through three leaders and we have finally got a leader who gets it. We have finally got a leader who is standing up and showing leadership and the type of integrity that New Zealanders demand and respect in their leader.

We have not got that in Bill English. He was not a bad finance Minister, but he is just not a Prime Minister and there is no shame in that. There is no shame. But he is just not a Prime Minister. I think New Zealand would probably be a better place where, after the election, Mr English is on the list. He will lose and he just rides off into the sunset. He will probably end up getting his knighthood, and his legacy as a finance Minister will be probably sad. I mean, we would have done things completely differently.

But it is just time for change. They have just run out of ideas. The momentum has gone. The energy has gone. Every now and again Mr Bishop will stand up and give a rip-roaring speech, but he is the new generation of Nats and in 10 years’ time he will get his turn—well, maybe 12 years’ time. He will get his turn but it will be a while, because what needs to happen now is the political evolution that happens every 9 years. The Nats will disappear. They will be in turmoil for 6 years, and maybe then they will come up with a leader. Will it be Mr Bishop? It probably will be, actually. I think he is probably planning it already. He will get his chance, but it will probably be in election 2023—actually, 2026.

But during that time we will have a Labour-led Government that will make the sort of change necessary; the sort of change that will grow sustainable economic wealth in our regions; the sort of change that will take ”Brand New Zealand” and lift it up where it needs to be. We will not be talking about water of a quality that is wadeable; we will be talking about swimming in the rivers that we all used to when we were growing up. Not only will we return to the values that I think New Zealanders expect but we will take our economy up to the next step. There will be jobs for all. We will provide houses for everyone who needs a house. We will provide the sort of education system that I think New Zealanders demand and that we prided ourselves on in the past but are just not delivering now.

Ray Smith, the head of Corrections, came and spoke to the select committee I was on last week. I think New Zealanders would be astounded to know that there are 20,000 Kiwis now who go through our jail system. Let me quote something: “Prisons are a fiscal and moral failure.” And: “Building more of them on a large scale is something I don’t think any New Zealander wants to see”. That was Bill English, and yet he announced a $1.3 billion prison build. That is a failure of leadership. We should not be investing in our prisons; we should be investing in our schools. We should be investing in our police stations. We should be investing in our regions. We should be coming up with plans that give people hope and give people opportunity.

The other thing that Ray Smith told us is that 91 percent of prisoners who come through his doors have or have had a mental health and/or addiction problem; 62 percent of prisoners have a current mental health and/or addiction problem. That is 12,000 men and women who enter the prison system with a mental health problem, at the cost of $100,000 per year per prisoner. I do not think that is social investment. That is a failure. Mr English was right when he said prisons are a moral and fiscal failure. Now is a chance to give the Labour Party the opportunity to go out there and address these issues. It will be done through jobs. It will be done through education.

Education is the key. Malcolm X—one of my favourite quotes—said: “Without education you are not going anywhere in this world.” Well, 20,000 New Zealanders every year go through the doors of our prisons. That is wrong and it needs to change. I do believe it is time for change. I do believe it is a tired Government. I do believe that Labour has the ideas and the passion and the energy and the drive and the leadership to take New Zealand to the next step and to begin to realise the potential that we have. Well done on what you have achieved in the first term, but it is time to say goodbye—and welcome to a Labour Government after election in 2017. Thank you.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Mr Nash, unfortunately, does not represent all of the Labour Party. Unfortunately, Mr Nash is part of the younger crowd and is relatively new. He talked in a complimentary manner about Chris Bishop, who represents new blood, new ideas, and new leadership. You are quite right. In 2023 and 2026 Chris Bishop will still be here. He will be about 45 years of age, and he will be a senior Cabinet Minister.

One of the other people who will be here will be Ruth Dyson. She will still be here. Andrew Little will still be here, Stuart Nash will still be here, and, no doubt, Willie Jackson will still be here, representing the new blood of the Labour Party for 2023 and 2026. Mr Nash, although you talk about new ideas, new blood, the actual fact of the matter is that there are no new ideas, there is no new blood, and there are no fresh faces over on the Labour Party side. So you are talking as a lone voice on the Labour Party benches, unfortunately—unfortunately.

It is quite an advantage to be speaking towards the end part of a bill or even a debate, as we are today, because you get the advantage of hearing a lot of other speakers before you. I am not going to repeat everything that my colleagues have said. But what I would like to make comment on is the fact that the Labour Party really does not like what is being said on this side. Labour members really hate the good news, the numbers, the facts, and the figures. That is the reality. They do not like what is the reality—whether it is the extra police numbers that have been dedicated to the country, or whether it is the ultra-fast broadband (UFB) roll-out that is going to be taking place. I am pleased to say that I have 10 towns in the Wairarapa electorate—10 towns—that will have UFB rolled out to them. That is news that Labour Party people do not like to hear. They do not like to hear about the fact that—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I just want to warn the chief Opposition whip that he must not keep making comments about me like that, especially when they are grossly inaccurate. I was there on Sunday.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: The idea of more people passing NCEA disturbs the Labour Party members because they do not want the National Government or, in other words, the people of New Zealand to succeed. Why do those members get angry? It is because we have got pragmatic and sensible solutions that are in touch with the people of New Zealand. That is the difference between our policies and the policies of the Opposition.

Labour is not the only party that dislikes our policies. The Greens do not like us because we have cleaner waterways policies. We have a 2050 aspirational goal of being pest-free.

Hon Member: That’s hilarious.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: You see. There we go. That is exactly my point. They do not like the stuff that we are doing for the environment, for New Zealand.

Kris Faafoi: Pest-free by September 23.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: The other side—well, there is a lot. We have signed up to the Paris Agreement. We are going to be cutting emissions by 2030. Again, this is stuff that the Greens do not like to hear.

New Zealand First is in the same boat. They do not like hearing about our defence policy. They do not like hearing about the fact that we have invested millions and millions and millions of dollars into our Defence Force. Again, they do not like the fact that there are going to be more cops in the regions. New Zealand First members do not like the idea of a sensible immigration policy. They would rather just put up a wall and keep people away from New Zealand—forgetting that we are all immigrants, forgetting that we need skilled migrants in order to continue to grow this economy and to continue to grow this country.

The people of New Zealand expect sensible, pragmatic policies, and that is what we, the National Government, are delivering. That is why we get the votes. I am sorry, Mr Nash, but your party is the party that is out of touch. You talk about building 100,000 houses, for example, but forget about who is going to build them, where they are going to build them, the consents that are going to be required for them, and the cost—the $50 billion programme that that represents. Mr Nash, have you tried to find a builder in the last few months? You cannot find one. They are employed. They are out there, building. They are building the economy and they are building the houses. There are more houses being built now than ever before.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and a happy New Year to you. I stand to carry on from my colleague Alastair Scott. I do want to shout from the hilltops our Safer Communities policy of 1,125 additional police, with 880 of those being sworn officers. Our policy states that there will be police going across the 12 districts in New Zealand, and the Canterbury Metro Area will be part and parcel of that with the new group of officers coming to us. We need them in Christchurch, and we definitely need them in the area of New Brighton. There have been a number of burglaries, and crime runs rife in New Brighton, and we need the new officers to come along, to help those who are already there and to actually help curb the crime that has been happening in those areas.

Last year I did approach the police Minister and ask: “When are we going to get some new police officers for New Brighton?”, so this year, with this announcement, I am shouting from the rooftops. I am saying: “Thank goodness for our leader, Bill English, being able to bring this through.” The work that Minister Judith Collins did last year and work that Minister Paula Bennett did will continue within that whole area of Safer Communities.

I applaud the 24/7, around the clock, emergency call centre. In my previous life, when I lived in Auckland, I tried ringing the police over an incident that was happening on the motorway between Wellsford and Whangarei. I could not get them. I had to actually drive to the police station, knock on their door, and ask them whether they were ever going to answer my call. There was a car—a hatchback that did not have a back on the hatch. There was a child sitting in the back, with no seatbelt on, holding on to the two front seats, and I rang the police to see whether they could please come and stop that driver. So I am pleased that there is going to be a 24/7, around the clock, emergency phone number for all types of emergencies and non-emergencies. I am also really happy that 95 percent of all New Zealanders will be within 25 kilometres of the nearest police person.

Where our farm is, up in the North Island, we have a policeman. This is a place called Kimbolton. They had him taken out, but put him back again. We need to have the police as close to our rural sectors as we can possibly get them. It is important that the rural sectors are not forgotten in all of our policies. This is a Government that actually cares about all of New Zealand, and the rural sector is part of it. As part and parcel of that, 98 percent of the burglaries that are being reported will be seen to. They will be seen to within 48 hours, by a police person. I am saying “police person” because there are policewomen and policemen.

The police Eagle helicopter will also have 24/7 capability, and that is important for a number of the crimes that are being committed, for the emergencies that require the police helicopter to be available and ready to assist. There is also the 10-second time frame for a 111 call. I say that to anybody out there who has the 111 number and has not had much joy in being able to get somebody to respond—the 10-second rule will apply.

This is an amazing piece of policy that has come from this side of the House. I am very, very proud of it because it flows into the $680,000 worth of investment that we put into Christchurch—the boost that Minister Anne Tolley has invested into the Christchurch family violence pilot, which is currently being undertaken in Christchurch. This is amazing. Coupled with the new Safer Communities policy, there are going to be some really good services for the people of Christchurch.

To wind up, I just want to mention the education side for our electorate over in Christchurch East. There are three brand new primary schools that Minister Parata opened last year, and also the new community learning centre is to start up this year. This is a hard-working Government. It is for the people, it is by the people, and it is National. Kia ora.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The Prime Minister is going to go down in history as a “Mr Do-Little” and as a two-time failure, determined to do as little as possible about the country’s most serious problems and, in fact, to even deny that they exist.

Take housing: Treasury reported just recently that the housing shortage in New Zealand is 60,000 houses right now, and growing by 40 houses a day—growing by 40 houses a day. What was the Government’s response to that? Just to deny the figures, as it always does. It denies that there is a housing crisis. Whenever the figures are not favourable—truthful figures, factual figures, from independent sources—it simply denies them. That is the Government’s response.

In that context, I want to quote from today’s New Zealand Herald, because I think it is well put: “Last September, the International Monetary Fund put New Zealand top of the class for housing unaffordability in relation to how much we earned compared with 30 other rich countries. We also topped a list of 64 countries for house price growth in the past year. What’s the Government’s answer? To fiddle with the figures.” I think that puts it very well and demonstrates beyond doubt just how awful the Government’s housing policies have been.

In fact, those policies are going to continue to worsen, because we now have immigration running at a net 70,000 per year. We in New Zealand First believe that that is as least 10 times too high, putting huge pressure on prices, rents, infrastructure, and services like health, education, and social services. In the last 5 years Auckland’s population has swelled by up to 188,000 migrants. House prices in Auckland in the last 2 years have jumped a staggering 29 percent.

The Government has scrambled to try to look as though it is doing something about the housing crisis—a crisis that it still denies. It does not actually want to solve the housing crisis, because its members and its supporters rather like it. These are people who do not care about others who cannot afford to buy a home and who cannot afford rents.

Immigration continuing at the current rate will mean that Auckland will need 140,000 houses over the next 7 years. That is the short term. In fact, less than half that number of houses are actually being built. All the Government does is talk about the rate of the increase in consents, but they are still well below what they were even only a few years ago.

So the National Government cannot claim any success at all as a result of its housing policies. In fact, it is introducing a number of desperate measures, which include, for example, the Point England housing development. That means that 18 hectares of valuable recreation land is going to be taken to produce only 300 houses some time in the future, but at the cost of valuable reserve land and at the cost of compromising wildlife habitat.

Then we have the disgraceful Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, which will damage the Resource Management Act irrevocably and will not result in any enduring benefit for housing. New Zealand First will not support a piece of legislation that requires the wholesale reduction of appeal rights and restrictions on public participation and notification, removing local decision-making in favour of big Government, putting the real power in the hands of Ministers. Most of all, we oppose the ridiculous iwi participation agreements, which are inconsistent with the democratic principles of local government. National’s housing policy has been a total failure and an utter shambles.

Transport policy is equally shambolic, arising from poor leadership and lurching from one crisis to another. Overconcentration on the so-called roads of national significance just means more money spent on useless big roads, mostly in Auckland, which will, in fact, solve absolutely nothing at all. There is a failure by that Government to provide sufficient alternatives, especially passenger rail and light rail, which other cities in other countries around the world are moving to introduce and have been doing for the last 10 or 20 years. But there is nothing like that under this Government. In fact, Auckland needs a heavy rail link to the airport, not just the light rail system proposed.

If that is not bad enough, look at rail freight. The potential for that is being held back by a Government that will not invest in the railway system, will not properly fund the railway system, and sees more and more lines being closed and the whole system compromised. Modern electrification to optimise freight capacity is essential and should be expanded, but, in fact, this Government is doing the opposite.

I would like to just say this about KiwiRail’s announcement during the holidays—during the holidays, because it is so ashamed of this policy that it did not want anybody to notice it, and so it released it at a time when it thought people would not notice. During the holidays KiwiRail announced that it will soon close the electrified part of the main trunk line in the North Island and use cheap, nasty, polluting, and unreliable Chinese locomotives instead. The Government could stop that, but it has no political will to do so. That is against what the Government says that it wants to do about climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases, because, in fact, an all-diesel fleet will push up carbon emissions by a staggering additional 12,600 tonnes. Diesel is the worst of the fossil fuels, producing more carbon dioxide and particulates than any other fuel. And, of course, that proposal for more diesel locomotives will just mean more imported oil.

I want to finish with some comment on the environment, because the Prime Minister did not mention it at all in his speech—obviously, he is not interested; nor is the National Party. The truth is that fresh water in this country is under threat. It is under threat from special deals with the Māori Party and other Māori, and from Government inaction on the protection of freshwater resources. Takes of fresh water, surface water, must not result in the degradation of major lakes and rivers, but that is what is happening more and more. Takes of groundwater must not result in water-mining or reduction in quality, and that also is happening more and more. When fresh water is exported from New Zealand in a purely or substantially natural state, a royalty should be charged on that, of at least 25 percent, for return to the area and for the people who live in the area from where the water is taken. That is New Zealand First policy.

Finally, forestry—because forestry can make a major contribution to economic development. Plantation forests in New Zealand are our third-largest export earner, but it is just raw logs and it is too, too many eggs in a very small basket. A narrowing range of markets, a declining processing capacity, and grossly inefficient infrastructure are also the ways in which forestry is being hampered in New Zealand. This Government does nothing. The industry needs an alternative path, with high-value wood-based manufacturing industries, diversification of export markets, thorough Government leadership and incentives, and better supporting infrastructure, especially including rail. New Zealand’s dismal planting of production forests has fallen from a peak of 100,000 hectares, to 3,571 hectares today. It shows you that this Government is doing nothing much about forestry, and it needs to target that if it is going to create a situation where this country can prosper.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the excellent statement made by the Prime Minister last week. I would like to begin by echoing the Hon Chris Finlayson’s comments about it being great to be back. What an honour it is for me to share my speaking slot with my favourite, Tim Macindoe, chief whip of the National Party and the best MP Hamilton West has ever seen—oh, sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker; I forgot that you were once a member in Hamilton West. Apologies, but he is one of my very favourites. Mr Finlayson talked about the great summer that he has actually had, and Auckland has had a most fantastic summer. I am showing a little bit of proof that I have actually had a great summer, with different coloured hands from playing golf, but I have to say that I did not actually play as well as the Hon Chris Finlayson did. I just maintained my handicap, without the scores that he was actually showing off.

What a fantastic Waitangi Day Auckland had. I accompanied the Prime Minister to the Ōrākei Marae with Ngāti Whātua, and what a fantastic welcome we actually did, in fact, receive from Ngāti Whātua. I was so impressed and, actually, inspired by our Prime Minister. He actually spoke in Te Reo, and I was inspired, because as a new migrant of 30 years or so in New Zealand I always said that I was going to learn Te Reo, and I have not quite managed to. I speak just a few words here and there—you know, the odd greeting—but when I saw the Prime Minister speak at the marae in Te Reo, I was inspired. I thought that I had to do something about that, and I am going to be taking some lessons so that maybe one of these days I can actually speak at a marae in Te Reo. To do so will be my aspiration.

It has already been a great start to the 2017 year, particularly with the announcement that was made in regard to the 1,125 more police officers who will actually be introduced to keep our community safer and to support the most vulnerable in our society. I am proud to be part of the strong National caucus, which is supporting police numbers to work for our communities to ensure that our society actually does, in fact, get help. I am particularly proud of the additional 20 ethnic liaison officers that were announced. These ethnic liaison officers do so much good in our community. They are the major links between our communities and the police, not just because of their expertise in their language but because of the cultural knowledge that they actually have. They provide the link. I have seen many instances where these people have prevented incidents that could have escalated beyond basic trouble that we might see on our streets. They have managed to calm them down because of their knowledge of the community’s cultural issues. We have many police officers who speak a wide array of languages. Their expertise is welcome, and more of these ethnic liaison officers are also welcome.

I am also very happy about the announcement of the 24/7 non-emergency service line. I have heard many other members speak in this House about the non-emergency times when they want to ring the 111 number but do not want to hold up the 111 line because it is important—it is a number that people use for emergencies, and they do not want to take it up. But there are times when you want to ring the police, and people do not remember the number of the local police station. I think having a 3-digit number like 111, or even an 0800 number, that is easy to remember is very important, to report non-emergency issues that the police can actually attend to, and I know that many people in the ethnic communities have welcomed these announcements.

Our economy is actually working well. You know, one of the things that I just want to say is that New Zealand is considered the fourth safest country in the world. I await the day that I can proudly tell all my friends overseas that New Zealand is, in fact, the safest country in the world. That will be a day that I will be very, very proud of. This year is going to be a very, very busy one, with 23 September looming. I wish all members best of luck in their electorates and in their campaigns. I have got only 4 seconds to hand over to my chief whip.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Happy New Year to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to all members, and gong xi fa cai to all New Zealanders—including my very good friend Melissa Lee—who have been recently celebrating the new Year of the Fire Rooster in the Chinese lunar calendar. I am delighted to take one of the final calls in this debate on the Prime Minister’s excellent annual statement to the House on the Government’s plans for the year ahead.

I want to put on record my huge admiration for the great start that the Rt Hon Bill English has made to his time as Prime Minister. Back home in my Hamilton West electorate I am hearing constant praise for his style, his dry humour—people love that—the intelligent decisions he has been making, his shearing skills, and his general performance to date. It has been a very smooth transition to our new leadership, and the Rt Hon Bill English leads a team that is freshly energised and highly motivated. In this all-important election year, the race is on.

I want to congratulate the four new members of the Prime Minister’s ministry, including my very good friend the Hon Alfred Ngaro, who is sitting behind me, and also my good friend and neighbouring colleague in Hamilton East, David Bennett. News of his elevation has been warmly welcomed back home in our city of Hamilton, where, it has to be said, we have not had our share of Ministers over the years and where we are still hoping for a few more. I also want to acknowledge—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: God, did you say that with a straight face?

TIM MACINDOE: Ha, ha! I also want to congratulate and acknowledge the four new select committee chairs, and wish them well, especially my very good friend Jo Hayes, who has been a very loyal and valued member of our whips’ team for the last 2 years, so I know that she will do a great job chairing the Social Services Committee. I wish her well. I also welcome our new third Government whip, Barbara Kuriger, to our team. I am really looking forward to working with her.

Could I congratulate Michael Wood. I enjoyed his maiden statement. I congratulate him on his election, and I wish him well in his service to the people of Mt Roskill. Could I also congratulate my friend the member for Mana, Kris Faafoi, on his elevation to the position of senior Opposition whip. As long as he is reasonable and always does things my way, I know we will get on just fine.

On a sadder note, could I extend the condolences of all my National Party colleagues—and, in fact, probably all members of this House—to the New Zealand First whip, Barbara Stewart, on the recent death of her husband, Gordon. A number of us were privileged to attend a lovely memorial service for Gordon in the Salvation Army centre in Cambridge last Friday. It was a warm and fitting tribute to a larger-than-life character—somebody I had been privileged to know for about a decade—and we send our sympathy to Barbara and her family.

As a Hamilton MP, I am hugely relieved by the news this morning that the little girl who was lost overnight has been found safe and well. What a terrible ordeal that was for her and for her parents and extended family, but could I put on record my huge thanks to everybody who worked so hard overnight to try to find her. They are often the unsung heroes in our community, and I know that a large number of people were out doing a wonderful job.

It has also been a tough week, of course, for many people through fires. I extend my sympathy to the community of Port Hills and, in particular, my condolences to the family of Steve Askin, who, tragically, lost his life in the helicopter accident while fighting that fire yesterday. Also, up in a town I know and love very well—I was married in Havelock North—the communities of Hastings and Havelock North have also been battling with a terrible fire this week.

Finally on this theme, I would also like to just acknowledge the personal battle of one of my new friends, Chris Brady of Christchurch, who is currently battling serious illness. He is an avid watcher of this House, and I imagine he may be watching now. As he fights his serious illness, I want to say to him, Chris, you will always be the Minister of sport in my ministry—knock this one for six, mate.

This is a Government that remains full of energy, determination, and ideas. The huge success of our roll-out of the ultra-fast broadband programme is literally transforming personal communications and the way that New Zealanders do business. The incredible progress that we are making with vital infrastructure projects around the country, and particularly in my Waikato region, is stimulating our economy, providing new jobs and GDP growth, improving road safety, and enhancing the quality of life in our regions.

In particular, the Government’s major investment in the Safer Communities programme is warmly welcomed. It is a more than half-billion-dollar investment to boost police resources. That announcement has gone down very well back home in my electorate, as I am sure it has right around the country.

So this is a Government that is investing in people, lifting up New Zealanders, and helping those who need our help. It is a Government that is focused on what needs to be done. We have a great record to take to the election and plenty of new ideas, and I am looking forward to being a part of the campaign.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to take a call in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, and I think for me the challenge really is: what does leadership look like today, given the challenges faced by many of our constituents—the people whom each of us are here to represent and serve? So when I look at the challenges of the electorate of Manurewa I think about the levels of homelessness that we have within our community and I also think about issues such as child poverty.

I want to reiterate something that colleague Denis O’Rourke said earlier: we now know, through Treasury reports, that we are 60,000 houses short of the number that we need to house New Zealanders. We have seen images of people living in cars, living under tarpaulins, living on the streets, and for some of us, actually, that is why we are here. That is what we are passionate about. We are passionate about making sure that every New Zealander has access to the basics in life: a warm home, food on the table, access to school, and access to good employment so that they can have dreams and aspirations and contribute to our society. So I am incredibly distressed and dismayed that the Government has not prioritised ensuring that every New Zealander has a home. I actually think it is a fundamental human right and something that we would commit to.

The reality of the people who are homeless is that over 53 percent of homeless people in New Zealand are children. So I think about the legacy that this Government is creating for the next generation and I think about children who live in those types of situations and the fact that they have got no food. All of the schools in my electorate feed our children, so I want to acknowledge KidsCan, which provides food and coats and shoes—and actually, to some students, sanitary products. I want to thank Sanitarium and Fonterra, which are providing Weetbix and milk, and making sure our children have breakfast. But I also want to highlight that last year this Government had an opportunity to ensure that all of our children, and especially those who go to decile 1 and 2 schools, had access not only to breakfast but to lunch. That Government through its lack of leadership voted against that piece of legislation.

I have not got much time, so I want to focus on what I think are failings of the Prime Minister and his lack of leadership. Actually, we could see it graphically over the last couple of days in him coming out really clearly and saying that the Government will not support my colleague Jan Logie’s Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill, within the context of Women’s Refuge, the National Council of Women, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, the New Zealand Public Service Association, and the Human Rights Commission coming out in support. We had employers: The Warehouse, Countdown, ANZ, University of Auckland, GCSB, and Business New Zealand. The interesting contribution from Business New Zealand was that it thought it would be useful to hear from small businesses. So we have got large businesses that are committing to this issue. Why? Because we have over 100,000 domestic violence incidents every year—there are 100,000 police engagements with this issue.

I thought Christie Hall’s contribution was particularly interesting too. She is the chief executive of Ernst & Young, and she said that the biggest thing that this bill will contribute is to reduce the stigma associated with family violence, so people can actually say it is not OK, and we as a community and as a society can deal with these issues.

For me, these are leadership issues and we need Governments that provide leadership, that actually want to stand with business. For me it is a nuanced social contract. Why? Because Governments are here to serve the people, to serve citizens, to serve our constituents. Businesses are actually now understanding that the people who work for them are part of their family, their team—the ANZ family, the Countdown team—and so I want to highlight what James Walker said, because he said that it makes clear that family violence is not OK and that employees asking for help and employers supporting them actually benefits their team, their Countdown team.

So the Government is not on the side of history—again. For me, this shows a lack of leadership that New Zealanders need to wake up and look at, because if it will not address issues such as domestic violence, which is so critical to be addressed in our country because of the prevalence of it, then I am sad—then, actually, we will be the Government. We must be, because these issues are fundamental to the work that we do. Kia ora.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): It is a pleasure to speak to conclude Labour’s remarks on the Prime Minister’s statement. It is a real pleasure because the very first speech I heard in this House, some 8 years ago—it feels like 8 years ago, given the National Government members’ speeches this afternoon—I mean 8 days ago, was the Prime Minister’s statement, straight after I was sworn in. I came to this House full of enthusiasm, vigour, and verve, hoping to hear from the leader of our country some vision, a plan for the future, and a sense of direction. Instead, I felt the energy seeping from my pores at the end of that 20 minutes.

What I was looking for was a sense of some imagination from the Government, some policy innovation, and some political courage. Instead, what we had was a reaffirmation of the Prime Minister’s statement earlier in the year that this is a Government that has reached its limits. That is what we heard for 20 minutes from the Prime Minister. And was there any better example of that than in his comments about housing, and the ensuing speeches about housing from the Government benches? Because what we heard from the Prime Minister in his statement was that 10,000 houses have been built in Auckland over the last year. This is the best that the Prime Minister could claim. That is what he put on the record. He did not mention that we needed 13,000 houses. So the best that this Government could claim was that we had a shortage of 3,000 houses built in Auckland this year. So we wonder why we have house prices of $1 million average in working class constituencies—like mine in Mt Roskill—where an ordinary person used to be able to buy a house. We wonder why we have had an increase of 40 percent in rental prices over the last 5 years. It is because there is that singular indifference.

Later on we had Ministers Smith and Joyce boasting, apparently, that this is a better time to buy a house than it was under the previous Government. Well, I simply challenge those Ministers to make that statement outside the warmth and comfort of this House and in the community centres and the town halls of the suburbs of Auckland during the election campaign this year.

What we also heard from the Prime Minister was an admirable objective. He claims that he wants people to get ahead—he wants people to get ahead. Every member of this House would support that objective. We are all here because we want this to be a better country in which people can achieve their dreams. But what he did not go on to mention is that we have 90,000 young people who are not in work, not in education, and not in training. How is this Government helping those young people to get ahead and to achieve their potential?

What he did not mention is that we have got 40,000 people who have been turned away from elective surgery in our public health system. How is that fact—that those people cannot get the health services they need—helping them to achieve their potential and helping them to get ahead?

What he did not mention is that we have had school operations funding frozen over the previous years. How is that helping our hard-working public schools—

Hon Jo Goodhew: That’s an alternative fact if ever I heard it.

MICHAEL WOOD: Well, I can tell those members, as someone who sits on a board of trustees, that I know just how hard it is for our low-decile schools to make ends meet.

What we also heard from the Prime Minister and other members on the Government benches was a lot of pride about the announcement around police officers—1,000 new police officers, slightly less. I have to say it was something of a surprise for me, coming off the Mt Roskill by-election where for 6 months the member opposite, Parmjeet Parmar, was telling the people of my constituency that we had enough police, that there was actually no problem, that it was all under control.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: That’s a lie.

MICHAEL WOOD: So what we had was some belated recognition—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I withdraw and apologise. That is untrue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Because the member is a relatively new member, I will not take the normal action of asking her to leave the Chamber. What she will do is she will stand, withdraw, and apologise—and she will add nothing.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I withdraw and apologise.

MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you, Mr Assistant-Speaker. So what we have from the Government in that area is a patch-up job—a patch-up job after our police force has been run down over the last 8 years. What we actually needed to hear from the Prime Minister was some vision. What we needed to hear from the Government was not the idea that we have reached our limits but the idea that, actually, this country is full of potential and full of opportunity if only we will let people harness that.

What I look forward to in this House, when I come back next year, is having Andrew Little delivering the Prime Minister’s statement and making a commitment to building the affordable houses that our families need, and making a commitment.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

MICHAEL WOOD: It is a laughing matter on the Government benches that a Government might actually get stuck in and build those houses. Those members laugh at it. What I look forward to hearing from Andrew Little next year is a Government committed to investing in our public health and our public education systems, and what I look forward to hearing from Andrew Little when he delivers the Prime Minister’s statement next year is a commitment to unlock the opportunity and the potential that is in every single one of those 90,000 young people who are currently not in work, education, or training. I look forward to that day in 1 year’s time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Hon Simon Bridges—and his time is somewhat abridged, I understand.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): No problem, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a privilege and a pleasure to end this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, and for a couple of reasons. First, to follow the new member Michael Wood, with his big, bold, brassy red tie. I am told he bought it at Trump Tower—it has got that look about it. Another reason, of course, is that this is the Prime Minister’s statement and, on this side of the House, we are so proud of him for the cracker of a start to this year that he has had.

He has been to Europe, where he has represented our interests as a country with aplomb. He has met with the leaders there—Merkel and May—where he has talked trade, talked about our interests, and progressed them. New Zealanders expect and are glad to see those things when they watch the television in the evening. And, of course, he has done that with Michael Wood’s fashion ad, Mr Trump, as well. There, in doing that, he again represented us and our interests very well.

He has also made some incredibly significant announcements. Safer Communities is, I think, the best package we have seen in relation to policing in this country in many a long year. Over 1,000 policing staff around the country—

Hon Member: How much?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —about 900 around the country—meaning that every single region in this country will have more police in due course, and that is because of the Prime Minister’s leadership in this area.

Of course, there is UFB2. It is an investment of over $300 million—a superb announcement—which means that over 150 additional townships around this country are getting ultra-fast broadband (UFB), which is, effectively, the gold standard in broadband, internationally, coming to these towns and centres.

Clare Curran: They’ll all go and get it somewhere else—7 years is too long to wait.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We go from a goal of 75 percent to 85 percent coverage, on the back of that. We go, Clare Curran, from the back of the pack in the OECD to past the middle. Actually, with these decisions being made and the work going into this, we are near to the very front of the pack in the OECD. Despite our situation as a sparsely populated country—a country with interesting geology, shall we say—we will be up there with the Japans, with the Singapores, and with the South Koreas. We will be right at the top with UFB. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his leadership and the communications Ministers before me for their hard work—like Amy Adams and Steven Joyce, who worked so hard on this. The best that Clare Curran can say, having voted against the progress in this area not once but twice, is: “Not long enough.” Well, the only answer to what would have got this happening faster in New Zealand is if we had become the Government earlier. That is the only thing that would have got this faster, and so I say to the people of New Zealand: if you want to see this continue, you know what to do in the end, at election time on 23 September.

The contrast between this side of the House, under the leadership of Bill English, our new Prime Minister, and that side of the House, is absolutely stark and could not be starker. This Government, under Bill English, is focused on the important issues, and on that side of the House they are totally focused, at the start of the year, on their internal issues. They are absolutely focused—[Interruption] They want to hear it again. This side—the important issues. That side—the internal issues. As a constituent of mine said on the doorstep in Tauranga: “How can we expect them to run the country when they can’t even run themselves?”. That is the situation.

We over here are focused on the important issues—on the economy, on law and order, on infrastructure, on health, on education, and on the environment. When it comes to the economy—Amy Adams is here next to me—what is a really interesting thing from getting briefings from Treasury and so on is that a sign of the strength of our economy right now, under this leadership and this Government’s policies, is that the biggest threats to our country are in fact external. They are international. A Labour Government—that is almost an external threat as well. But over on this side, we know that the economy has grown by 3.5 percent and is one of the strongest in the OECD. The average annual wage is growing; it is at almost $59,000 and is up more than $12,000 since we came into office. We could go through all of that. We have a diversifying economy, an economy that is the easiest place to do business and voted most prosperous by a number of surveys in the world. We have a lot to be thankful for as New Zealanders, when it comes to the economic direction and leadership we are seeing from the Bill English - led Government.

It would not be a speech if I did not mention infrastructure, because, as Chris Finlayson said earlier today in his contribution—amongst talking, I must admit, about Rasputin and Lenin and the Australian Greens party. It was a typical Chris Finlayson speech, but he made this very important point, I think: the National Party is the party of infrastructure, and we are really delivering, whether it is in education, whether it is in health infrastructure, or whether it is, of course, in transport.

If you want a sense of that from the regional transport projects, from the smaller end right through to the bigger ones, here is a list of a number of things that we started, which we are doing in this country right now and will open this year, in 2017. Tomorrow the Prime Minister will open the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway project, which is over $600 million of investment in a four-laned motorway and is going to make a massive difference—

Kris Faafoi: It doubled in price.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —to the people in Kris Faafoi’s electorate. He is sniping right now, but he squealed and begged like a little boy to go along and have a look at it and take photos with his leader, because he knows how popular these projects are and how important they are.

Whether it is the East West Connections, which we are making strong progress on and will be opening some initial works on; whether it is the Normanby Bridge in Taranaki and Whanganui, costing over $11 million and which the local MPs have been working hard for; whether it is the widening of the Southern Motorway, for which we will have the opening of the first parts this year; whether it is at the Brynderwyn Hills in Northland, where over $18 million of safety improvements will be opening this year; whether it is the bridges of Matakohe and the Taipā, where we will be starting construction this year; or whether it is the Waterview tunnel, which will be a game-changer for Auckland—it will have a palpable effect. That is bad news for Labour, because, despite how many times Annette King says it, we started projects and we will finish them, because we are the party that does that. There are many more projects—Auckland Airport, Kirkbride underpass, another section of the Waikato Expressway. There are many, many projects.

But let me finish by saying this just one more time: we are going to win this election in a few months’ time. The reason for that is that on this side of the House we are focused on the important issues for New Zealand, not our own internal issues.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the amendment in the name of Andrew Little be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

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.

Amendment not agreed to.

That all the words after “That” be deleted and replaced with “this House expresses no confidence in this National-led Government because it is out of ideas and out of touch on the housing crisis, because it has cut the health services New Zealanders rely on, because it has underfunded education and undermined our children’s futures, and because New Zealanders are crying out for a leader who will stand up for Kiwi values.”

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that the motion be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, .

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Motion agreed to.

That this House express its confidence in the National-led Government and commend its programme for 2017 as set out in the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament

Bills

Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Communications): I move, That the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Telecommunications Act 2001. If I can give a little overview, the amendments in this bill will make it easier for people to connect to ultra-fast broadband (UFB), improve the liability allocation process for the telecommunications development levy, and extend regulatory requirements to the second phase of the ultra-fast broadband programme. An additional subpart was introduced during the Commerce Committee’s consideration, to provide statutory rights of access to use existing electricity works for deploying fibre-optic cable. A number of other minor changes were also made.

The bill creates a new consenting process that telecommunications companies must follow when installing modern telecommunications networks, such as ultra-fast broadband. I recently announced that additional investment will see 84 percent of New Zealanders with access to ultra-fast broadband by the end of 2024. Over 1 million households and businesses are already able to connect; however, not all of those with access can connect. An estimated 71,000 households may be prevented from connecting in instances where multiple parties need to provide consent for the installation, such as for shared driveways or common areas or multi-unit complexes. The current process also creates delays. As of December 2016, the UFB network operators across the country had almost 800 orders on their books where the consenting process had been running for 50 working days or longer without resolution.

The bill aims to reduce delays and cancelled orders for UFB in order to produce better outcomes for those who want connections. A tiered consenting regime will allow installation methods to be prescribed into two categories, depending on the impact on a shared property. Installation methods with the lowest impact, such as those that disturb only soft surfaces like grass, will no longer need consent from other parties. For methods with more lasting impacts, such as those that disturb hard surfaces like concrete, parties have the opportunity to object on limited grounds within 15 working days. This improves on the current situation, where parties must actively consent and do not have any time limit to do so.

For multi-unit complexes governed by a body corporate, the consenting process will vary slightly from this tiered regime to better fit with these existing governance structures. Bodies corporate will have the ability to request an extension to the time to object and the ability to object on additional grounds if they consider an installation could expose them to liability. Installation methods that do not fit into the new categories will be subject to existing consenting requirements.

As well as speeding things up and allowing more households to connect, the bill could also benefit homeowners in other ways. For example, it incentivises the use of lower-impact methods, where possible, to help roll out UFB more quickly to those who want it. A disputes resolution process will also be created to ensure that any disputes that arise as a result of the new consenting regime are dealt with fairly and efficiently.

The bill amends the requirements for the provision of financial information in the Commerce Commission’s telecommunications development levy liability allocation process. Since the levy was established in 2011, a number of possible improvements have been identified. These are minor, technical changes that will reduce compliance costs for the industry. The bill extends the regulatory requirements relating to the first phase of the UFB programme to the extension of this programme, which I announced at the end of January. These minor, technical changes will ensure consistency with what Parliament has already enacted for the first phase of the programme. This means that the companies contracted to build and operate the UFB network in new areas will be subject to requirements, including open access undertakings and information disclosure to the Commerce Commission relating to the costs and characteristics of their network and services. Two statutory authorisations are also provided in the Commerce Act 1986 for potential partnering arrangements between Chorus and the Crown.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: “Turn the page.”

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Let me turn to the Commerce Committee’s recommended changes. Clayton Cosgrove will find there are some real doozies. The Commerce Committee supported the bill and recommended a number of changes, some of which were minor—

Clare Curran: We actually worked really hard.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and technical in nature. I will come to that. Changes to the property access part of the bill included narrowing the definition of property to shared property where at least one party with an interest in the property has requested a fibre to the premises service. This change will better target the powers of the bill to apply only where they are needed.

By far the most significant contribution or recommendation was the introduction of a new subpart of the bill, to further accelerate the roll-out of fibre to the premises in rural areas in order to enhance access to high-speed communications for businesses, schools, and individuals. Although this proposal was not originally part of the bill, its support for inclusion was noted in over half of the submissions the committee received on the bill, and it was subsequently drafted for inclusion during the committee’s consideration. Creating new policy during select committee consideration is an unprecedented occurrence and is a great example of the value that can be achieved through this process.

On 3 November 2016 the committee released an interim report, proposing the insertion of a new subpart in Part 4 of the bill that would grant statutory rights of access to use existing electricity infrastructure—for example, power poles—for deploying fibre-optic cable. The proposal was introduced in its entirety during the committee’s consideration of the bill in order to encourage the deployment of fibre as widely as possible, including in those areas of the country where it is generally more difficult to deploy fibre-optic cable than in urban areas. The statutory rights of access would provide owners of existing electricity infrastructure—for example, power poles and overhead lines—with a right to enter the land on which such infrastructure is located and to use such infrastructure to deploy, maintain, and upgrade fibre-optic cables for delivering telecommunication services.

Utilising existing infrastructure for this purpose provides an opportunity to improve rural connectivity in a cost-effective way while also making progress towards connecting as many New Zealanders as possible to better communications networks. To balance out the impact of the right of entry on to private landowners’ property rights, the landowner would be entitled to receive free access to a fibre connection. The proposal meets the bill’s objective of allowing more people to realise the benefits of next-generation telecommunications networks and was widely supported by submitters.

In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleague Melissa Lee for her excellent work in chairing the Commerce Committee, and the rest of the committee members for their efforts in getting the bill to this stage. Not only—as Clare Curran has said in her interjections in the House—was it very hard-working, I understand it was a veritable love-in on the select committee.

Can I also just thank very much the submitters on the bill for their valued contributions. The process has strengthened the bill undoubtedly, thereby helping it achieve its purpose of allowing more New Zealanders to realise the benefits of next-generation telecommunications technology. I commend this bill to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Well, that will be a hard act to follow. It is not very often that a member of the Opposition stands and says that they are actually proud of a bill that has come out of a select committee and is ostensibly a Government bill but, ultimately, was not. Labour supports this bill and considers it to be quite a revolutionary bill. In fact, we helped draft a substantial part of it, and it is, mostly, a bill that has come from this side of the House in terms of driving and supporting what lies behind it.

Labour has been supporting the telecommunications industry for a number of years to reduce all of those barriers that the Minister talked about—or started to talk about but really did not go into depth on. Barriers have been experienced by thousands and thousands of businesses and by people who either live down driveways or in apartment buildings or run businesses in buildings that have got more than one tenant.

People listening to this tonight—and I hope there are people listening on their radios and watching on their televisions—there are literally thousands of people who are so frustrated, angry, and upset, and who have been waiting months to try to connect to ultra-fast broadband (UFB). The UFB itself, once you get it, is great—there is no doubt about that—but the palaver that you have to go through to actually get connected is actually quite appalling for many New Zealanders.

For those who live down driveways and those who live in what they call multi-unit dwellings, apartment buildings, etc., this bill will remove impediments. It will do other things as well, which I will get on to, but that is so important. The industry and New Zealand have been waiting for this for years. Labour outlined, in its 2014 policy, how we would support a change of legislation—that was 3 years ago. It was 3 years ago, and we have only got the legislation now, because the previous Minister for Communications, Amy Adams, has been sitting on her hands on this piece of legislation. It was absolutely ready to go. The ideas were there, it had been largely worked through, and it has taken this long to get to the House. That is just shameful. It has taken far too long.

The Commerce Committee was told last year by the Telecommunications Carriers Forum, which is the peak body for the industry, that 17 percent of connections require a consent, and that a third of them were experiencing major delays. However, we also heard from Enable Networks, which is a lines company that is rolling out fibre—the UFB—to Christchurch, that 60 percent of its work was experiencing delays because of bureaucracy and barriers in the system. Thankfully, this bill will get rid of some of those barriers and some of that bureaucracy; it will not fix everything. That is another story, and hopefully we will have time to go into that during the Committee stage, as we will with some of the many, many stories of people who are having so much difficulty connecting.

This is a very unusual bill because half of it—and the Minister played this down, and he played it down because it actually shows that it was not Government policy—was introduced during the select committee process, as a result of a submission from Northpower, which is, again, a lines company. It is an electricity lines company rolling out fibre in Northland. Northpower asked the select committee to allow it to put fibre for telecommunications purposes on its existing network poles that were situated on private land without the need to acquire easements. Northpower is, as I said, already rolling out UFB around Whangarei. It is a poster child for good practice. Northpower wanted to extend its reach to the whole area that it covers, to be able to provide fibre to rural New Zealand, but the law did not allow it to do so. So it, effectively, submitted the framework for a Supplementary Order Paper at the select committee, which was not in the bill, and it begged the committee to consider it.

This idea had been around for a while—again, on this side of the House, we were supportive of that idea and were a bit horrified to find that it was not in the bill that was originally tabled in the House. But, no, it was not in the bill—and I will come to that in a minute. What Northpower was suggesting bypassed the ministerial process—it bypassed ministerial policy. It is a revolutionary provision because it bypasses the Government’s own rural broadband programme. Should the opportunity provided by this legislation be taken up by electricity lines companies, it will fast track the ability of rural New Zealand to get fast internet. I cannot emphasise that enough, and that is why it is revolutionary. It is an economic development opportunity. It is a regional development opportunity that is now going to be made available, and—guess what—it is not the Government’s own programme, and it was not even the Government’s own idea, and yet it is coming to the House in a bill. That is why it is so unusual, and that is why I am standing here today saying why we support it so much.

It is actually going to help close the digital divide. Now those electricity lines companies have got an opportunity right around the country—or, if they choose to do an arrangement with a third party, the legislation provides for that as well. Now there is an opportunity for any of you MPs in the House today who have got a rural constituency and people who have been banging on your doors, asking: “Why can’t we get fast internet? Why are we on dial-up speed still?”. There are so many of those communities—I read them out during question time in the House today—asking: “Why can’t we get it? Why are we the second-hand cousins? Why aren’t we considered as important—that we can’t get it?”.

Today Simon Bridges crows about the Government’s second version of UFB. Rural New Zealand is going to have to wait for 7 years to get connected to UFB under the Government programme. Well, this legislation is an opportunity now for the lines companies to make a business case in their areas and offer fast internet—not Government-sponsored—to the rural constituencies. That is a fantastic thing.

I cannot wait for this legislation to be passed, because we know that the digital divide is real. So far, the Government has spent $300 million on the rural broadband programme. Many New Zealanders outside the main centres are held back because of poor connectivity. In Southland, 24 percent of rural businesses lack connectivity. It affects their ability to attract staff and people to move to the regions—41 percent say the internet service does not meet their needs. In Huntly, just 44 percent of households have internet access, 51 percent in Tuakau, and 51 percent in Taumarunui. In Clutha, it costs $100,000 to connect to fibre, through a transition cable that goes through the Clutha area, because there is no break-off point. This is quite revolutionary.

To finish, I want to commend the committee—I do want to commend the committee. We worked really hard. There was a lot of goodwill, and this was an example to me of how a select committee can improve, build on, and make real legislation that makes real changes for communities. I really do commend the work that the committee members did and how seriously they took it, because we were not receiving guidance or policy input on this major part of the legislation. The sticking point for the proposal, originally, was whether or not Federated Farmers would support it. They realised how important it was and a negotiated arrangement was come to, and that shows just how a select committee can drive a really powerful process that will deliver for people. This is not really a Government bill—just saying. This is a bill that has come out of the select committee. It is going to be revolutionary, and it really is going to deliver good connections and close that digital divide in New Zealand.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would like to thank the member who just took her seat, Clare Curran. She has been a very active member. Before I go on with the bill, I just want to thank her for the clarification she gave. When she first began her speech, I was thinking that she was claiming that the Opposition had come up with the bill and given all the answers and that none of us had actually done any work. The Supplementary Order Paper, she explained, came from Northpower, which was one of the submitters that seeded the idea into the select committee. I would like to thank them for that, and for the hard work that the select committee did. I agree with Clare Curran that the Commerce Committee worked really well together. This is one that we need to be very proud of. It is us doing the job that we are supposed to do. When a bill is introduced into the House, it is sent to a select committee, we hear submissions from the public, and it is our job to hear them and improve the bill if we can. I wish we could do that with other bills that the Opposition just simply ignores and opposes on the principle of its politics.

The telecommunications legislation is designed to help the community in situations when there are shared driveways, multiple occupancies, or other factors where multiple consents may be required before the installation of ultra-fast broadband (UFB) can be achieved to a building or an area. There are a number of reasons why difficulties may come up, whether it is an absentee owner who lives overseas or out of town who becomes unreachable or whether it is internal disputes between adjoining properties where owners or neighbours cannot come to an agreement and give permission for them to have ultra-fast broadband down the back of the driveway, for example.

The committee discussed this matter significantly during the past year, with around 30 submissions having been received, and 12 oral submissions were heard across the committee. We heard from a number of providers and stakeholders, including the Electricity Networks Association, Northpower, which I mentioned before, and Federated Farmers.

We were put in a unique position, as Ms Curran said. We were following hearing processes as one part of the bill as reported back was redrafted to incorporate means to support a deployment of fibre or broadband to rural areas where there is existing electricity infrastructure in place, where currently it is not able to do so. This will allow providers using existing poles and pylons, where it is appropriate, to run UFB and supply people who are living in rural areas who currently do not have ultra-fast broadband.

This also meant clarifying the relationship between the owner of existing works, the landowner, and the telecommunications provider that was required. A lot of conversations were had in the committee. This is to ensure that the issue would not limit the uptake of access to broadband, and allow third parties to provide services where the existing owner of the infrastructure was unable to do so.

One of the key discussions during the committee process was on the issue of lead-in requirements—for lines, for example. The majority of the discussion was about a maximum distance of between 200 metres and 500 metres. I remember to-ing and fro-ing between the committee members to decide what, in fact, was the best option for the bill. We have to say that, in the end, the committee determined that where a connection is non-standard beyond 200 metres, the owners of the existing work are to contribute 50 percent of the cost of aerially installing the fibre-optics cable up to a distance of 500 metres. I think that was actually a good compromise. I thank members for the discussions that we had in the committee.

At the moment, there are around 800 orders on the books of network providers that have been waiting for consents for up to 50 working days or more. In effect, this is 2 or 3 months that a household or business has been waiting for their applications to go forth but has not been able to get what they want. It is important to balance the rights of landowners and rights holders with the needs of our nation’s future. As someone who remembers what the internet and telecommunications were like in New Zealand 30 years ago, where, with mobile technology, you could save only about five numbers, I welcome the more than 320,000 households, businesses, schools, and hospitals that are now connected to UFB.

This is a good bill. I thank the members for the hard work that we put in together, and for the compromises that we have achieved. I commend the bill.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It really is a pleasure to be able to take the floor and echo the comments that the chair of the Commerce Committee, Melissa Lee, has made and to acknowledge her for the good stewardship she gave the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge a Minister who was prepared to listen to submissions and work in a very open way with the select committee. I acknowledge all members of the committee, noting Mr Hudson’s contribution, which was rich in its information, and particularly Clare Curran MP, my Labour colleague, who played a leading role in bringing together some of the various submitters.

In these brief remarks, I will note the background to the innovative part of the bill, the process that we went through in outlining the compromise that was reached, and then background a little further the needs of the ultra-fast broadband (UFB) rollout and where to from here on multi-unit dwellings and access, which are other parts contained in the bill.

The bill as it was originally sent to Cabinet contained a provision that would allow UFB to be strung up along power lines owned by electricity companies across farmland with no need for an additional easement, provided that a sensible arrangement could be reached with the farmers concerned. We understand that Federated Farmers opposed that provision at the time, and it was withdrawn from the bill at Cabinet. The bill was sent to the select committee without those provisions that would have enabled the fast and far deployment of UFB cable through to our rural and remote areas, to the benefit of farming communities.

Northpower and others submitted to the select committee that they really did think that there was potential to make this happen. Federated Farmers, which had the opportunity, with our encouragement, to have offline discussions with Northpower and others, were able to find a zone of agreement. As the chair has pointed out, there was a bit of debate about whether it was going to be rolling something 200 metres inside a farming property before a connection was established or 500 metres, the latter being more generous to the farmer but more costly to the lines company. In the end, a compromise was reached. It was a win-win. It allows the rollout. It does not penalise the farmers—they get better access to broadband—and it makes the economics of the lines company better because it has more connections for all those long rural lines.

It did need an open and innovative approach by the Minister, because the select committee was in the position, on a bipartisan basis, where, in partnership with submitters, it was actually crafting policy. That is normally done over the road in the Government departments and presented to Cabinet. So this was an unusual but extremely useful and very productive process. The product of that—the fruit of that, if you like—will be that a lot of farmers get a lot of broadband a lot faster and cheaper than they were going to get it before we were able to bring the lines companies and Federated Farmers together around a compromise deal.

So for those many people around New Zealand and around the world who are looking at political goings-on, whether it is here or overseas, and thinking “Oh, my God! How are we going to make any sense out of this mess?”, this is an example—just one little example—of where good sense prevailed and people put the politics aside and went for the solution, and a good, win-win outcome was found. I just say congratulations to all concerned—I did not play much of a role—and I acknowledge those who played a much more important role than I did in reaching those good outcomes.

Some more background on the bill: the bill does a few other really important things. It tackles the issue of UFB roll-out into the—wait for it—30 percent, nearly one in three connections, that are in multi-unit premises: apartment blocks, condos, businesses where you have got multiple dwellings, or business units in the one building or off the one main supply line. So this allows, long story short, a UFB installer to get deemed consent and to be able to proceed if they have not heard objections from the body corporate within 15 days of notice. For homes down a right of way, no consent will be required, although 5 days’ notice must be given if a fibre installation is non-invasive—that is, if it is shallow-trenched under grass and it does not require ripping up their driveways or going through fences. If an installation is categorised as invasive—for example, if it requires cutting concrete, work will proceed if no neighbours on the shared right of way object.

So, if you like, the bill is shifting the presumption in favour of roll-out unless there is a serious objection because of serious damage. It is yet another measure that has bipartisan support in this House, to get faster, cheaper broadband to a majority of New Zealanders, and to as many, many as possible. That is certainly something I championed when I was Minister of Communications and Information Technology, and I must say I am very gratified at the bipartisan support and the progress that New Zealand has made during the time of this Government to carry that forward, and New Zealand has risen up the broadband rankings in the OECD as a result. It is something that both sides of this House have supported, both sides of this House have worked on in turn, and New Zealand as a whole is benefiting. I think Kiwis can be rightly proud of not only the progress that has been made but the way our system has worked together to get a good outcome.

Having said that, it is not all fixed yet. The digital divide is still real. Despite spending $300 million on a rural broadband programme, many New Zealand communities outside the main centres are still held back because of poor connectivity. I want to note, in particular, our whānau up in Northland, because—I see Mr Henare is here. He has spent a bit of time up there. Kelvin Davis would say the same if he were here, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters would be saying the same: you cannot drive from here to Kaitāia without your mobile phone falling out multiple times. That is not a First World country, so that requires fibre backhaul and more cell towers, and it is not rocket science. That is one example. We cannot expect First World regional development in a region as important and far-flung as Northland if we do not have broadband connectivity from one end to the other. That is just one example where it has not yet penetrated.

Southland is another—part of the fabulous Te Tai Tonga electorate—and Rino Tirikatene is the champion for it here. Twenty-four percent of local businesses in Southland say lack of connectivity has affected their ability to attract staff. The other 76 mentioned the weather, and 41 percent said that their internet service did not meet their needs. That is, nearly half of them said they did not have enough internet—sounds like my kids.

According to council surveys in Huntly, in the Waikato, only 44 percent of households have internet access, only 51 percent in Taumarunui. I agree with my colleague Clare Curran that internet access is now pretty much a civil right. That is because the Crown requires citizens to interact with the Government online. It has got easier to do that for most people who have got connectivity, but it has similarly got harder to do it face to face. You can do your IRD filings online, but the local IRD office has been withdrawn out of the country towns.

The post office is no longer the massive one-stop shop for Government services that it once was, because you are expected to go online. That is fine if you have got connectivity, but if you are one of the half of the people in Taumarunui or the 40 percent in Huntly who do not even have an internet connection, then you are penalised.

I want to put in a word for all the school kids out there. I see my kids come home, they are 15 and 11—12 later this week, Cameron—and they do so much of their homework online. The nature of homework has changed from rote learning to primary research using all the resources of the internet, and it is fantastic to watch, and they are learning much faster than our generation did when we were at school. But it works only if you have got internet connectivity, if it is affordable, and if it is fast enough to be fit for purpose.

There is such a downstream economic and social spin-off from getting broadband roll-out right, for which this bill makes a very helpful further step or two. We need to get those three Cs right: the three Cs of connectivity, which this bill is about; of user capability and confidence; and, of course, of content creation. That is probably five Cs, but three categories. Those are the magic three categories that must be done well to have a rich online environment.

So we have still got more to do as a country. I know we will not rest on our laurels. I know that the incoming Labour Government later this year is going to pick up rural broadband, give it a shot in the arm, and roll it out faster than it is being rolled out at the moment. It is going to build on the progress represented by bipartisan consensus on this bill and get fast, cheap broadband all around New Zealand. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise, as appears to be the case across the House, in support of this, the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, in its second reading. I would just like to begin by acknowledging and commending Mr Cunliffe for his comments about the work that was done in the Commerce Committee, by individual contributors and by the committee as a whole, on the provisions around helping to extend fibre to our rural areas. I note that the committee worked—in fact, it was an absolute joy to work in this committee on this particular bill for these very provisions and reasons—and Mr Cunliffe himself, I will note, worked very hard to ensure that we maintained consensus across all of the parties and individuals on the committee, and that work of his contribution and the other members has absolutely made this a bill that I think we can all be quite proud of as members of the committee and, also, as members of this Parliament.

Before I move to talk a little bit more about the rural connectivity side, I will just note, as other members have said, that the heart of the bill, as it was introduced to the committee, was about making it easier for people in multi-unit dwellings, and for people who share common infrastructure and facilities with other people, to connect to our faster broadband. If you look at some of the problems that have been articulated in the current consenting process, it is understood, or estimated, that approximately 71,000 households may currently be prevented from connecting to ultra-fast broadband due to consenting requirements, the processes, and potential objections under the current provisions. In fact, in December 2016, there were 800 orders sitting waiting for connection where consenting had been running for 50 or more days. All that is doing is preventing people from making use of the services that faster broadband can provide to help them, whether it is in their own lifestyles, in study, or, in some cases, for businesses to use in support of conducting their business more effectively and more efficiently. So the heart of those measures will help those people to connect much faster and will ensure that more and more people can take advantage of our high-speed broadband.

But in the area of rural connectivity, and particularly extending fibre to the rural areas, I have to say I would like to commend Northpower for its wonderful submission. In some respects, it could have been termed as non-compliant, but it introduced an idea that it was willing to use infrastructure it already had to help New Zealand and New Zealanders in rural areas to get even better internet connectivity. I commend the then Minister for Communications for agreeing to allow the committee to consider that as an amendment to the bill as it stood. In fact, the committee was afforded an opportunity to undertake policy work during our consideration of the bill.

It was an extremely good process to be a part of. It was robust. The conversations in the committee were clearly articulated by members coming from different perspectives, and ultimately we reached a point where we were all very comfortable that what we are doing will give the opportunity for more New Zealanders across the country, particularly in rural areas, to connect to broadband—and it does so while protecting individual property rights and also protecting the business interests of those electricity companies that may offer their existing infrastructure as facilities for fibre to be strung across. So this was a wonderful process to have been a part of. I commend the committee for the work it did, and I commend this bill to the House.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I too would like to echo and share the love. This has been a phenomenal bill to work on. It has been a great group of people to work on it with, and along with the unanimous support of the House, I would also like to commend it.

This bill started off as a pretty practical bill to deal with some of those cases where a household wants to get ultra-fast broadband access and has to cope with shared access. We know from officials’ advice that around 13 percent of properties fell into this category. About 25 percent of them had a problem. The output of that was tens of thousands of people had difficulty or a much slower, more prolonged, more legalistic, in a sense, process to finally get the ultra-fast broadband turned on.

That is where the bill started, with some small rats and mice around the telecommunications development levy and disputes resolution. But what the Commerce Committee was able to do based on submissions that we had heard, particularly from Northpower, was to include an entirely new subpart—Subpart 4—which gave it a drastically new power, or provision, in the legislation that allows for electricity lines companies to string fibre up or contract third parties to string fibre up.

What it means is we spent more than $1 billion rolling out fibre and hundreds of millions of dollars on the rural broadband initiative to put up towers to reach people, and all along there have been power lines strung up to almost every single property, including rural properties in the country, which we could have been stringing fibre up on. So we have grasped the opportunity, based on the submissions, to allow this. I think most people are going to be pretty happy with the provisions. We have seen previous arguments and debates in the past between landowners’ rights and the right to be able to access: who is going to communicate with whom, and who has liability issues. I think we have come to a very pragmatic and reasonable set of decisions there. There was an argument as to whether lines companies should be forced, in effect, to open up their infrastructure so that a third party could string fibre up. Again, I think we have reached a pretty good compromise where the powers have been delegated to the Minister, through Order in Council, to provide those.

But these are the practicalities and the common sense amendments we have introduced, which people can see; what people probably did not see was the work behind the scenes. I think there is a salutary lesson, perhaps, for this House. What we saw in the committee was an entirely split committee, so all decisions had to be reached by consensus, unlike in the debating Chamber in our Parliament, where the Government has quite considerable executive power in terms of the agenda and decision making. Such a close committee meant that we had to work together as a team, in a constructive atmosphere, trying to find consensus. On many issues we were not able to reach agreement, but we worked through it.

I would like to acknowledge the members. It was an incredible group of people to work with. First of all, I would like to thank the officials and the select committee staff, who gave us excellent advice. The chair, Melissa Lee, did a fantastic job bringing the parties together. I would like to acknowledge former communications Minister David Cunliffe, who, obviously, had a huge amount of expertise in this area, through to Clare Curran, his colleague, who has worked on these issues for many years and has a great deal of knowledge, through to Brett Hudson from the National Government, who came in with some very valuable contributions based on his background with IT in business. So it was a good committee, which was able to reach agreement on the big issues that were facing it.

We managed to write a whole new subpart to a bill, which I have never seen in my 7 years in this Chamber. Hopefully, it can be a bit of an exemplar for other select committees: that we are stronger when we work together. Other parties have differences, but actually that is our strength. We can bring different opinions, different viewpoints, different backgrounds, and different expertise to craft something stronger than what it originally was. So it was a great process and a great outcome for New Zealanders. It is going to see more fibre strung. It is, hopefully, a great example for this Parliament going forward, that the parties can work together in a true, collaborative select committee environment. Thank you.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and speak to the second reading of the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Before I get into the nitty-gritty of this bill, I would like to congratulate Gareth Hughes’ kids on sitting through this bill. Although they are jittery, and actually quite clearly over it, I just want to tell them that it is OK, kids, because you are going to need this bill in your future.

I do want to say that Tracey Martin, my colleague, took the New Zealand First call in the first reading of this bill. Tracey is the spokesperson on broadcasting and communications, and I kind of sat there and thought “God, I’m glad I’m not getting that bill.”, because the gobbly-gob technology to do with ultra-fast broadband and rolling it out was actually not something that I was all too familiar with at the time. But I have since learnt that I have to be careful what I wish for, because I find myself today in the House taking a call in the second reading.

I want to ask you, Mr Assistant Speaker, just to bear with me for a wee moment. Prior to being a member in this House, I, as a customer, used to get absolutely frustrated with online services—the talk about megabytes, gigabytes, giggle town, funky town—and many Kiwis who are watching this second reading tonight will also be nodding their heads in agreement. We in this country have faced a rapid growth in internet services. Even in my generation, when I was at high school and I was taking computer studies, I used to sit in front of a big, clunky monitor with a wired-up keyboard, and I had yellow font to work with. You know, in those days we did not even have a mouse. Actually, in those days a mouse was a mouse—four legs and a furry thing. These days, a mouse is something we can navigate round our computers, and we can have them wireless, as well.

Cellphones, as well—I remember that you used to be able to identify who the rich people were from seeing the big, clunky cellphones they held to their ears while they were walking down the street. Those cellphones had a massive big aerial. I am sure that those members who remember that will know that they noticed those people with those new technologies, with those new devices, and I think, even in my generation, “My, how times have changed in terms of technology.”

I am sure that members in this House right now know that the advancement in technology has seen an absolutely phenomenal boom globally. Today, I hold here in my hand everything that exists, and I use it in my day-to-day structure and my life. In here is a TV, a computer, a stereo, a camera, a video—everything that we used to buy individually through shops is actually on this one device right here. In my life cycle—to go from that big ugly television to this cellphone—that in itself is making huge leaps into the future with what we are going to need to access in terms of our online services.

I also would like to point out that for us here in the House today, I can see members are already using their devices. Predominantly with this bill, as members who have spoken before me have said, we want to be able to open up access for ultra-fast broadband and faster services for other people in New Zealand. We want to be able to give schools access to better connectivity. We want to be able to provide farmers with internet connections so they can pay staff on their farms online. We want to be able to ensure that children at home can actually do their homework and do it at a rate so that, unlike in my day, they do not have to wait for a dial-up connection, because it is rather annoying for the people in the rural areas who still face those issues today. So it is about being able to provide dwellings in our rural areas with the speed and the coverage that people actually need and require to do their business.

I just want to touch on some of the comments that colleagues have actually spoken about previously. I know that in our farming area in Southland, because of the issue of not having connectivity in some of our areas, labourers on farms actually tick the box, thinking that this is going to be a fantastic job, but then they turn the job down because of the lack of internet. I hear it all the time. The lack of internet is absolutely not desirable to these young ones, or even people in their 20s and 30s. They live so much of their lives on cellphones—like this one I am holding here—and on social media that they are actually turning down employment opportunities because of a lack of internet.

Essentially, when this bill came to the House for its first reading, it was quite evident that it needed to go forward into the select committee process. I am really proud—as other members on all sides of the House have already said this evening, we had some hard work to do on the Commerce Committee. There were some moments when, literally, you had to bite your tongue because we had differences of opinion. But, as everyone has already said, we had to find the common ground, and the outcome of that common ground was to ensure that New Zealanders had ready connectivity to ultra-fast broadband and also the fibre roll-out.

I can certainly say that the submissions we had from submitters—we actually had 33 who submitted to the Commerce Committee and, from memory, around about 13 or 14 who spoke to their submission. We were fortunate to get feedback from our submitters—particularly from Northpower, which helped the committee by providing us with an amendment so that we could ultimately strengthen this bill—and, by developing policy and taking the expertise from our officials and our advisers, we could ensure that this bill was going to be fit for what we wanted and needed it to be for New Zealand, now and into the future.

I think that I was technically challenged by some of the gobbly-goo speak that went on throughout the select committee process—

Chris Bishop: Gobbly-what?

RIA BOND: Gobbly-gook.

Chris Bishop: Oh, gobbledegook—oh, OK.

RIA BOND: Gobbledegook. I have to say—

Chris Bishop: That’s in Hansard now.

RIA BOND: Ha, ha—thank you. I have to say that although we, as members, do not profoundly know everything there is about certain legislation-building, it was certainly quite helpful for members of that committee that explanations were given so that you were able to identify that, yes, actually this amendment is a really good amendment, and one that, ultimately, in the end, is going to strengthen this bill and make a bill that we all, as members, can be quite proud of.

There were a few situations where we were lucky enough to get submitters to come back and talk further to the evidence before us, so that we could get better clarification as well. I felt that having access to that, and having the submitters being really open-minded and trying to share their knowledge with us, and being quite up front and honest too—I think that is a credit to the submitters.

Some of the submitters were not big business. They were not councils. They were actually mums and dads and grandmothers who were at home and had to work with their children and help them with their homework. They wanted to be able to do a night’s homework without the barriers that they currently have.

So we had a wide range of submitters who submitted, and I absolutely thank each one of them for taking the time to submit to the Commerce Committee. It certainly helped us to come to the position we have come to with this bill today.

I am quite aware that there has already been a lot of technical jargon from both sides of the House, and I do not want to add to that and bore you to tears this evening. I am looking forward to this bill taking its passage through the House. I am sure that in the Committee of the whole House each of us will stand up and talk to each one of these clauses and amendments and say why these amendments have been fantastic for this bill.

I want to say that New Zealand First is supporting this bill. Once again, I would like to thank all sides of the House for the fantastic work that we managed to collaborate on.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to take what will be quite a short call on the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Hon Members: Oh!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Members should have realised this was coming. In my first speech, I noted this was an ultra-fast broadband approach. It was over before it had even started. So I do not need to go on for too long.

Peeni Henare: Give us the dial-up version.

SIMON O’CONNOR: The dial-up version is what we heard from the Labour Party members earlier on. It went on and on and on, and off, and did not connect.

If members and those in the public are going through the bill, it looks like a fairly substantial bill—and it is, materially—but what it is trying to do is relatively simple. It is reducing costs and trying to get rid of some of the bureaucracy imposed around installation. The catalyst for this bill is, ultimately, those with shared driveways or in bodies corporate, or where there are shared arrangements. If one person or two out of, let us say, a group of five want to get their broadband installed, there can be objections, which slow the process down unreasonably. I think it is really important to stress that word “unreasonably” because, of course, there are going to be times and instances where objection is quite right. This bill deals with that as well, including having a disputes mechanism in place, particularly around bodies corporate. It allows for more time for objection if required.

But, overall, this is about speeding up the process so that those vexatious, if you will, and litigious approaches that, ultimately, stop people, for whatever motivation, from getting ultra-fast broadband are stopped. As others have mentioned in previous contributions, access to the internet these days, particularly ultra-fast broadband, is becoming akin to that of electricity and water. We would find it quite odd if someone was not allowed to receive electricity to their apartment because the neighbour objected, and, in a similar way, why should someone not get access to ultra-fast broadband?

So it sounds as though, with the agreement across the House at the moment, the Commerce Committee has landed this bill in the right space—weighing up everybody’s property rights, but realising that there is a good here, with ultra-fast broadband.

As I said, I am not going to speak for much longer on this. I think the technical elements are going to come out in the Committee of the whole House. We can get into the minutiae then. But I do look forward to the passage of this second reading.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): The Labour Party supports this bill. It is really difficult for us to understand why it is taking this Government so long to implement it and just pass it. As they have stated time and time again, this bill is good for the country. It enables everybody who needs fibre-optics to access that information. This is supposedly the 21st century that we are living in, and yet we still have a digital divide in this country of ours.

We have said all along, all the way through, that we support this bill—we support this bill. Get a move on. But that, again, is another sign of what my colleagues have been saying earlier, of this Government, in its third term, just running out of ideas. It is not sure what to do. We simply ask this Government to please pass this bill and pass it quickly so that we can get on with it, so that we can bridge that internet divide—that digital divide. It is just not fair that in this day and age of the so-called 21st century we have people who are able to access information on the internet and another group of people in New Zealand who just cannot. They cannot, as a result of the failure of this Government to address that inequality of service.

It is similar to what my colleagues said earlier. The Government is not doing what it should be doing as a Government in its third term. It has run out of ideas. It just does not have the leadership to be able to lead this country in the years ahead and be able to realise the full potential of this country of ours.

I have to say, it is embarrassing, because in Māngere we have got people who come through other phone companies, like Bluesky, an American company that services the Pacific region, including Samoa and Tonga. They are in Māngere on Saturdays, selling internet connections—selling internet connections. They are showing that they are doing a far better job than so-called developed New Zealand. During the last 9 years, we have not moved forward; we seem to be moving backwards or standing still. If we are standing still when it comes to trying to bridge the digital divide, it is solely the fault of this Government—its refusal to advance, its refusal to ensure that there is equality amongst all our population.

Here are some notes that I have seen in terms of what is not happening in the regions: “spending $300 million on a rural broadband programme, many New Zealand communities outside the main centres are held back because of poor connectivity.” In Southland, 24 percent of rural businesses said lack of connectivity affected their ability to attract staff, and 41 percent said that their internet service does not meet their needs. According to council surveys in Huntly, 44 percent of households have internet access, 51 percent in Tuakau, and 51 percent in Taumarunui. In Clutha, it cost $100,000 to connect the fibre, because a transmission cable, not a connecting cable, was run through the region. In Southland, although 50 percent had heard of the Government’s broadband programme, only 4 percent had noticed any improvement.

Do you see why this is such an urgent matter? We do not understand the reason for the slow pace of movement by this Government, other than that it has just simply run out of ideas. I would simply say to the Government that if it has run out of ideas, if it cannot look to Bill English as a leader, then the only other choice is to vote for a Labour Government, vote for Andrew Little, vote for the Labour Party come election day, on 23 September. It seems like this side of the House is ready, able, and willing to take over the controls of power so that we can implement some of the ideas, so that we can better provide housing, better provide education, better provide healthcare, and better provide internet connections. I would say: “Get rid of these buggers.”

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is resumed. Before the dinner break, we were debating the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Does a member wish to seek the call?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I was just waiting for the instruction from my whip. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in the second reading.

As you know, ultra-fast broadband is the name of the game now. We need to connect to the internet. The faster it is the more we enjoy it. That is why UFB is the game-changer in New Zealand. We have been providing these connections, and uptake is also increasing day by day. We know that a lot of people live in shared-driveway properties and they live in apartments, and to have access to connect them was a challenge. This bill will help to give that opportunity so that they can connect to the internet in a much faster way.

We want the maximum number of people reached. We know that 90 percent of the population will be connected through the internet in days to come. We want to ensure that they do not have any hassles while getting connected to ultra-fast broadband. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill

Second Reading

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill be now read a second time. Before I go to the substance of my remarks, can I just simply say that our hearts and our thoughts are very much with the men and women of the New Zealand Fire Service at the moment as they are battling those horrific fires in and around Christchurch. Our admiration and support are for them and what they are doing.

This bill repeals two Acts, the Fire Service Act 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977, and brings together the urban and rural organisations that currently form the fire services of New Zealand into one single organisation, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, or FENZ, as it is popularly known. The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill is the culmination of many years’ work. Indeed it could be argued that its genesis lies in the 1948 report of the commission of inquiry into the disastrous Ballantynes fire in Christchurch the year before, which recommended the establishment of a national fire service. More recently, the 2012 Fire Review Panel report made a number of recommendations, which led to the 2015 discussion document seeking the feedback of the fire services and their communities. That feedback highlighted the need for change, for modernisation, and the passion and the commitment of our fire services. This bill recognises that the role of the fire services has greatly expanded since the passage of the current legislation in the 1970s and that modern legislation is required to support and enable the current and future work of our fire services.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Government Administration Committee for their thorough and robust consideration of the bill, not even halted by the Kaikōura earthquake, and particularly to acknowledge the work of the Hon Ruth Dyson as chair of the committee, and the hard work that she and the other members have put in to progress this bill. They received 104 written submissions on the bill and heard 47 submitters orally. The submitters commented on a wide range of topics, from the use of fire as a land management tool to the impact of the fire levy. The submissions highlighted the importance of the fire services to communities. The changes to the bill, I think, directly respond to the submitters’ concerns.

Let me highlight a number of the changes recommended by the committee. Local committees will now be known as “local advisory committees”, to better reflect their role within FENZ and the advice they will provide. Their role is to provide knowledge and expertise on local risk profiles, issues, and needs to Fire and Emergency New Zealand. The committee has recommended that the local advisory committee’s clauses be reordered to make it clearer to whom the clauses apply—to the committees, the board, or to FENZ.

Second is the explicit reference to the use of fire as a land-management tool. Fire is an important tool, particularly in rural communities. A number of submitters were concerned that the bill removed their ability to use wanted fire in a safe manner. The use of fire was still permitted under the bill as introduced; however, changes have been made to make this more explicit. As part of its promotion of fire safety, FENZ must now provide guidance on the safe use of fire as a land-management tool, and a definition of fire as a land-management tool has, consequently, been included in the bill. The offence relating to causing or allowing a fire to get out of control and spread to vegetation or property has been clarified so that it does not duplicate other offences such as arson. The bill has also clarified that the decision to let a fire burn may well be a valid response to a fire. That was a key concern of many firefighters, as it is sometimes appropriate to let a fire burn. The decision is always carefully considered and made, and so the committee has ensured that that provision is explicit in the legislation.

The new clauses 58C to 58F will give FENZ the power to remove fire risks from private property. Territorial authorities currently have this power under the Local Government Act 2002, but it is the intention of this reform that FENZ will become responsible for all rural and urban fire services in New Zealand. So it will need to work with territorial authorities to ensure a smooth handover of this power with a transitional period provided through to mid-2018. To avoid duplicating FENZ’s and territorial authorities’ powers, the bill makes it clear that where there are inconsistencies between local fire bylaws and this legislation, this legislation will prevail. Territorial authorities would continue to deal with other matters such as smoke nuisance and air quality concerns.

Although it is important that FENZ is adequately funded for the critical roles it plays in communities across New Zealand, it is also vital that the regime governing its key-funding source, the levy, is as fair and simple as possible for both those who pay it and those who collect it. Many submitters provided comment on the levy and, as a result, various changes have been made to those clauses of the bill. The committee has clarified and expanded the procedures for hearing and settling disputes between FENZ and levy payers over just how much levy should be paid. The committee has also amended the levy avoidance provisions to allow FENZ to pursue an insurer, a broker, or a policyholder for levy avoidance where that is appropriate.

The committee has also introduced defences against avoidance penalties for parties who can show an absence of fault and reductions in penalties for good behaviour. The regulation-making powers of the levy have been amended to create a far more flexible and responsive regime. For example, it will now be possible to set different levy rates and caps on the total levy payable for different types of properties. Levy exemptions will now be set out in regulation, allowing them to be consulted on and reviewed from time to time.

Many other smaller changes have been made to the levy provisions such as streamlining the process for reaching agreement on the valuation of assets. The use and transfer of response assets are seen as an important part of the transition to FENZ. The bill makes it clear that the transfer of these assets must be agreed by all parties. Fire and Emergency New Zealand will not have an automatic right to own response assets, but it will be able to access them to carry out its functions. It has also been made clearer that community-funded assets will remain with the communities that purchase them. These changes, along with other minor technical changes, improve the clarity of the bill.

The changes recommended by the Government Administration Committee reflect, I think, its careful consideration of and response to the submitters and their concerns. So can I thank all of those who took the time to make submissions on the bill, and also, again, thank the committee for its work. The upshot is that we are now poised to establish an integrated national fire and emergency service, one that brings together our paid staff and our urban and rural volunteers, and one that ensures adequate and proper resourcing and support across the board. There will no longer be any “poor relations” within the fire services of this country.

When I took on this task, I was reminded of the daunting reality that, over the last 20 years, various Ministers have made a total of 16 different, unsuccessful attempts to reform the Fire Service. This current reform process has gone far further than any of those, and it is succeeding because of the thorough consultation that there has been at every stage, and the very deliberate and methodical approach of the board of the Fire Service and the officials at every stage. I want to acknowledge the board of the current Fire Service, the senior management, and the officials of the Department of Internal Affairs for their efforts. They have taken what was a concept 18 months ago to the reality of this legislation.

I said at the beginning that one of the recommendations arising from the Ballantynes royal commission way back in 1948 was the establishment of an integrated national fire service. I am delighted that after nearly 70 years of trying we stand today on the verge of achieving that outcome in Fire and Emergency New Zealand. With a huge degree of pride and a great deal of satisfaction, I very proudly commend this bill to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): First, before I begin, can I start by offering my deepest sympathy to the family, workmates, and former SAS colleagues of Steve Askin, who died after crashing into Christchurch’s Port Hills while fighting the fires in Canterbury. Secondly, can I offer my thoughts and the thoughts of the House and this Parliament towards the serious situation that has quickly worsened today. There is now a civil defence emergency in effect in Canterbury due to those fires. Thirdly, can I note that tomorrow there are cross-party talks occurring on civil defence and New Zealand’s response to serious civil defence events and the absolutely critical nature of good communication occurring.

I also note that the Minister of Civil Defence, Gerry Brownlee, said today that there was no hurry. Clearly, there is a hurry that good communication should occur. He has just been quoted tonight as saying that it is “one huge frustration” that there was not a civil defence emergency declared earlier, and around the communication of the agencies involved in fighting this fire. What that tells me and should tell this House is that we have some issues that we have to deal with and address urgently in this country around good communication and around breaking down the silos.

Can I commend the Minister of Internal Affairs—Labour is supporting this bill, and I am going to get on to it in a minute—for the steps forward that have been taken with this legislation, but we have to break down the silos at the local level and we have to break down the silos at the national level. Our communities all around New Zealand depend on this. They are depending on us to show good leadership here, and to ensure that when there is a serious emergency—and yes, we seem to be having a lot of them lately—we are able to work with agility and with professionalism and not do patch protection. People’s lives are at stake, people’s houses are at stake, and people’s communities are badly affected, and so we have got to get it right. We have to step up our game on these things.

Labour is supporting this piece of legislation. It creates a single, unified—or integrated, as the Minister, Peter Dunne, described it—fire services organisation for New Zealand, to be called Fire and Emergency New Zealand, or FENZ, and repeals the Fire Service Act 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977. It is seriously ironic, and quite disturbing, that as we are speaking on this legislation tonight, we have a serious fire emergency, and that we have rural and urban fire services working side by side. No doubt there will be others coming in from other parts of the country.

These changes are well overdue. We welcomed the opportunity to examine them. I did not sit on the Government Administration Committee. I did not hear all of the submissions. I was fortunate to be present for one of the sessions of submissions and so have been paying some attention to this. We support this bill. We acknowledge the more than 110 individuals and organisations that made submissions, and I also need to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson, who is the chair of the Government Administration Committee and has taken the lead on this bill. As a Christchurch MP, as the MP for the Port Hills, I think everybody knows where she is tonight and why she is there. She has gone back to her community to support her community, and our thoughts are with her tonight and with any other MPs who have headed back to Christchurch.

The bill does a number of things, but one of the things that the bill introduces is a new insurance levy payment system to fund the new Fire and Emergency New Zealand—FENZ, I think we are going to start calling it. Labour does acknowledge the concerns raised by the significant stakeholders about the levy system. I particularly want to speak about museums and the concerns that were raised by museums around the country. I want to reference the museum from my home town, the Otago Museum, which appeared before the committee and gave a very strong submission. I know that it was echoed by other museums. The concerns that museums have raised are very valid and do raise some serious concerns for us, because the levy cost under this bill, based on a fully insured collection, could increase their costs—our museums, our repositories of our cultural heritage—substantially and would seem disproportionate to some policyholders’ need to call on the FENZ services.

It was suggested during the submission process that the levy could be waived or capped in the case of public gallery or museum collections but could apply to their buildings or other property. We would like to see consideration given to this approach in the regulations proposed to be developed under this legislation. I do want to emphasise this to the Minister, because this was an issue of significant concern. I just want to make reference to the submission made by Museums Aotearoa, where it said that “An increased levy is likely to impose significant financial hardship on museums and galleries which would need to be passed on to their communities of support.”

I would also note that most museums in this country manage themselves financially. They do not get a lot of Government support and they are very passionate about what they do, and as a country we should be very passionate about what they hold on our behalf. So we should be listening when they speak, because they do not speak publicly very often. Otago Museum said this “provides an incentive to declare a low value, and could lead to under-insurance.” That is really significant and something that should be taken seriously. “It will also make the option of no insurance or self-insurance more tempting, especially in the case of volunteer organisations.” They asked for an exemption to waive the levy and they were joined by others.

So I want to reiterate those concerns and say that this is something that should be considered. In essence, though, Labour supports this bill. We think that it is sensible, that it was a logical thing to do, and we commend it to the House.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Māngai Tuarua o Te Whare, tēnā koe. I would like to follow on from the member who has just resumed her seat, Clare Curran, and begin by thanking her and also Ruth Dyson, the chair of the Government Administration Committee, for conducting a very good, open process and for making sure that everyone who had a view on this issue was able to be heard, because it is a very important piece of legislation that we are dealing with. It updates two significantly out-of-date pieces of legislation from the 1970s—the Fire Service Act 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977—and consolidates the rural and urban fire services. Can I also commend the work of the Hon Peter Dunne as Minister, and perhaps call on Minister Dunne to give even greater reassurance to us all that museums will be—in terms of the levy-raising and the funding arrangements—considered very carefully and that they will not have costs imposed on them that they are not able to bear.

I think the member Clare Curran had a good point. I too heard the submission from Otago Museum, but it was similar to others around the country, from even the very big museums—the well-funded museums like Te Papa here in Wellington—through to, for instance, the Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT) in Auckland. MOTAT made the point that its Lancaster bomber may be worth a huge amount—perhaps over $100 million—but because it was one of only seven remaining such artefacts, it was, effectively, irreplaceable, and the choices that it makes over how it chooses to insure such a precious and rare artefact should be based on a sensible and prudent approach, as the manager and steward and guardian of that taonga, rather than with a view to minimising levies. So I felt reassured in the committee by our advisers and our officials that museums would receive, I think, a favourable and sensible treatment in the way levies are raised, and I hope that that is further confirmed in this House by the Minister.

We did hear extensively about the important work that the Fire Service does, and at this time when firefighters are risking their lives to combat one of the largest fire emergencies that we have faced in this country in recent times, I want to commend the amazing work of the members of the Fire Service—or Fire and Emergency New Zealand, as it will be known after this bill passes into law. They risk their lives on a sometimes daily basis to keep us all safe, to protect us, and, actually, the work goes beyond that traditional remit of a fire service; it is not just putting out household fires. We know, from the hearings that we have undertaken in this legislative process, that a significant amount of their work these days is keeping us safe on the roads and responding to accidents and emergencies in that area. So I say: well done to the men and women of the Fire Service.

This seems to be a relatively uncontroversial piece of legislation in this House. We have yet to hear contributions from some of the other minor parties, but I welcome the cross-party cooperation and bipartisanship on what is an issue too serious to play politics with. It is an example of how we can take legislation through the select committee process and improve it by working together in a constructive way, and I commend this bill to the House.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I am happy to rise in support of this bill, and I too would like to acknowledge the Minister of Internal Affairs for driving this. I think, even though he is a member of the Government, that the fact that this work is coming to fruition is an example of somebody taking the lead, of somebody just getting on with the job. I also want to acknowledge Ruth Dyson, a colleague who chairs this particular committee, the Government Administration Committee. And, to be fair, I am not a member of that committee, but I do want to acknowledge all the members of the committee because, just looking through this particular report, it is a pretty comprehensive report. It deals with and raises a number of issues that, no doubt, those who made submissions would have raised here. Effectively, what is happening here is that the New Zealand Fire Service, the National Rural Fire Authority, and 30 other rural fire authorities will merge to become one organisation, and that will begin from 1 July 2017.

As I listened to the speaker before me, Paul Foster-Bell, he repeated the name “Fire Service”. You know—and I hope that we will tease this out come Committee time—that the new name will be Fire and Emergency New Zealand. We will drop “service”. I think we may find that that will be an issue of debate in the Committee stage, because I think the dropping of the word “service” is almost, in a way, a slap to our men and women who provide the fire and emergency services for the safety and for the sake of the rest of our population.

I want to go through this particular select committee process and just highlight some things that I believe cover some key issues that arose during the consideration of the committee and, no doubt, would have been raised by members of the public. I know that the Fire Service in my own constituency of Māngere, when I spoke with the gentlemen there sometime back at the first reading of this bill, were pretty supportive. They were looking forward to it.

One of the first impressions that comes to mind when you are building an organisation is how you fund it, because big does not necessarily mean it will be cheap. I note that in some of the preliminary papers that were made available the board chair of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission, Mr Paul Swain, a former member of this House, said that “to successfully transition to the new organisation, while maintaining the high standard of service delivery by urban and rural firefighters, the Board expects the levy will need to increase by about $36.00 per year for the average homeowner, or 70 cents per week.” I suspect that during the select committee stage that would have been an issue that people were concerned about.

So just from the report here, one of the key issues that would have been raised is the local advisory committees. They are dropping “local committees” and now using “local advisory committees”. I understand that the select committee felt that this was more appropriate because the committees are advisory in nature but local in their representative capacity. I note, also, that their report, as I said earlier, is comprehensive, because they then go through as a committee and debate some of the issues: the functions of local advisory committees—and the committee has included a new clause 13A(2)(e) “to include consideration of operational service agreements and memoranda of understanding relevant to the local area.” I think that is a key: “relevant to the local area.”

The committee also looked at guidelines for local planning, and the committee is making recommendations that “local planning would include a specific fire plan for the local area.” That is a key, because I suspect rural areas will be quite different from urban areas. I know that in my own constituency—we are called the “Gateway to the Nation”, the “Land of the Young, Gifted and Beautiful”, and “Home of the Champions”—you have got Māngere Bridge, you have got Favona, you have got Māngere central, and you have got Māngere East. There are four specific areas. People are pretty parochial about their own little area there, and that would be the same for a range of other urban areas. The select committee considered operating principles for local advisory committees, that it was “important that local advisory committees be able to retain a certain degree of autonomy.” and that “operating principles are for guidance only”. Most people, if they are elected or chosen or appointed for certain committees, want to do the best thing. So I think having those principles as a guide is going to be important.

Appointments to local advisory committees was discussed, as was the levy regime for funding the new organisation. This bill allows “for the levy to be broadened to include insurance for material damage as well as for fire damage, in order to better reflect the services that would be provided by [the new organisation]”. So there are amendments in this bill that broaden the levy base, and there are concerns, which, hopefully, the committee was aware of, in that broadening the levy to cover insurance on physical loss or damage—there would have been concerns.

Some of the concerns that I understand were raised: that the relationship between the new organisation and the types of risk covered by this type of insurance is unclear, that the levy payable and resulting costs would increase substantially in some instances, and that there would be disproportionate increases in levy costs relative to risks. I hope that the Committee of the whole House will tease out some of those concerns, and it would be good to note whether some of the submissions that raise these concerns could be made available.

The select committee did say that it was “pleased that there is a requirement under clause 106 of the bill … to publicly consult on the making of levy exemptions, and we consider that this would facilitate better public understanding of the potential benefits”. This is critical, that there be public consultation on levy exemptions and, hopefully, on the levy itself, because, in effect, we are asking members of the public to pay for a service, a public service. We might call it a levy, but, in effect, it is a tax, and therefore the people whom we are taxing should have a say in the increase in the levy and in the exemption and in anything else with regard to this particular levy.

I also want to highlight, for the benefit of the House, that this is fundamental to why we pay taxes. I pay my taxes so that we can provide some of these public services. I pay my taxes so that we can ensure that we have a public education system, a public health system, and that we can provide housing. So the same principle that should have applied to some of those other key services is being spelt out openly and publicly in this particular bill. I am pleased that that is happening.

I also note in the other issues here the “Power to require information” from the new organisation. Clause 86 will “require persons (levy payers or insurance intermediaries) to provide information that [the new organisation] considers necessary or relevant for administration or enforcement of the levy.” I think that that is plain in itself. It is a levy, it is a tax, and therefore it needs to be open and transparent.

In terms of “Levy disputes, avoidance, and exemptions”, the committee’s report covers that quite comprehensively. “Fire in the open air” is quite interesting, because there was “concern about the fact that there is not an explicit provision in the bill for the use of fire as a land management tool.” I see a hāngi or an umu as a land management tool, so there needs to be some leeway for that. I am pleased that the committee has made it clear that fire can be used as a land management tool and is recommending some amendments to that. It goes on: as for fire seasons and fire permits, there is a whole range of recommendations.

As I said from the start, I want to commend Ruth Dyson, the chair of this committee, and members of the committee for a pretty comprehensive report. They have dealt with a lot of the concerns that have come out, but in the Committee of the whole House stage I would expect that we will tease out the reason for the dropping of the word “service” from the title, and then we can debate a little bit more some of the concerns around the whole levy situation.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of the men and women of the New Zealand Fire Service, our rural firefighting communities, the New Zealand Defence Force, and other members of local communities who have been fighting and will continue to fight the devastating fires around Christchurch. I think nothing illustrates more the risks and danger that the men and women of those services will place themselves in to protect the lives and property of others than the tragic death of Steve Askin, who was killed in assisting to help fight those fires. I think it is appropriate that we as a Parliament take a moment to acknowledge and extend condolences particularly to Steve’s family, friends, and colleagues both current and former. It is a terrible moment but it does reflect on what the men and women of those services will do for others.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve on the Government Administration Committee, which looked at this bill. I commend the Hon Peter Dunne for bringing this bill to the House. As has been said, the nature of the functions of the Fire Service has changed dramatically over the years since the legislation was last dealt with in a major way. For a number of years, for instance, the Fire Service, and I knew this through school friends when I was growing up, and their fathers—principally their fathers—would be involved in attending things such as motor vehicle accidents.

In fact, I offer my thanks to the Fire Service. Some many years ago when I was first learning to ride a motorcycle, quite frankly they came and scraped me off the road in Pukerua Bay, just north of Wellington, when, unfortunately, as a new rider I did not quite understand what would happen to that bike in the wet weather. The point is that the Fire Service has not been funded for those types of activities. So this new legislation will bring about a better model, one where the service can be better and more appropriately funded for all of the activities that it takes on.

I think a wonderful thing I have noticed through it as well—particularly in Ōhāriu—is that we have a large number of volunteer firefighters and brigades. I would like to commend the Fire Service for doing a great deal of work in recent years to really work on the relationship between the professional Fire Service—or permanent firefighters—and the volunteers. I think this legislation reflects well the sort of legislation I think we want to endure in the Fire and Emergency New Zealand organisation.

A number of people have mentioned that the levy got a lot of scrutiny in the committee work, and that is true. I also join with my colleagues across the House in saying that we had concerns about what the case might be for organisation such as museums. I would just reflect that officials were clear to us that, for instance, if a museum only partially insures what is a total assessable value of their collection, it would not be treated as any form of avoidance and the maximum levy payable would be on the amount they chose to insure, not on what some expert might say a certain item or a total collection might be worth. I think that is a very sensible approach, and it will be interesting to see how these things are teased out through regulation.

Overall, I think this is an extremely good bill. I think it is a very welcome sort of movement for the Fire Service as a whole and it can do nothing but good across the communities of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party to take a call in the second reading of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I know that there is a lot of interest in this piece of legislation, but I suspect that many of the people who may have been following the debate on this in the House tonight may be more preoccupied with the news of what is happening in Christchurch at the moment. On that note, I do want to offer the Green Party’s condolences to David Askin’s family—the helicopter pilot who died supporting the emergency efforts in the Port Hills.

I want to acknowledge all of those people involved voluntarily and in a paid capacity in our emergency services, who put their lives on the line to protect property and people. It is a great tragedy, and my heart really does go out to the people of Christchurch. It just feels wrong that they are having to go through another such crisis and disaster. It really just seems too much, but it does make this debate all the more poignant and reminds us that what is actually at the heart of this is trying to ensure that our fire and emergency services, right across the country, are able to respond and that all of those people working in those services, in paid and voluntary capacities, are well supported to do that work.

I would also like to add my words of thanks to Minister Peter Dunne for bringing this bill to the House. You know, this is updating legislation that has not been substantially changed since the 1940s, and we have had many, many changes in our society and in our communities, let alone in technology, since the 1940s.

At the heart of what this bill is about—to completely oversimplify it—is the merging of the urban fire services and the rural fire services, which have been operating quite distinctly and have been very much based in their communities. So it is a very significant undertaking, and it is one that the Green Party supports.

I do also want to thank the chair of the Government Administration Committee, the Hon Ruth Dyson, who, I understand, has gone back to her community in the Port Hills to support them there at the moment. She is a very competent chair and, sadly, I still think her experiences from the earthquakes add a lot to the committee’s consideration of legislation such as this bill. But we were definitely aided by the 104 submissions and the 47 oral submissions, which came from a very wide range of organisations—I think, an unusually wide range of organisations—from district councils to museums, insurance companies, fire brigades, aged-care services, farmers, forest owners, and Air New Zealand, as well, of course, as all of the different fire unions and fire agencies. So I think the committee worked together very sensibly, seeking to hear what the concerns were and considering how we may be able to address them in the legislation.

This has been mentioned by previous speakers, but I will also add that we are waiting to see the resolution of the levy issue in regulation, and we did also listen very carefully to the museums and art galleries that raised concerns with us. The idea that museums and art galleries would not be penalised for under-insuring and that that would not be seen as avoidance—I do think that the possible other consequences of that need to be properly considered. There certainly was a call for a levy waiver system for these public institutions, which contribute very significantly to our cultural understanding, and that is something that I do support. I think it is important that that regulation sets up a transparent, easily understood system, so that we do not get into having people under-insuring or not insuring or self-insuring just to be able to avoid increasing the costs of entrance to their public institutions to the point where people no longer come. I do not think that would serve any of us or the intent of the legislation.

Also, I do want to speak a little bit about an aspect of the bill that others have not spoken about so far, and that is the treatment of volunteers. Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) has a direct relationship with volunteers. Through this legislation, there will be a framework created for that relationship, and many New Zealanders—I certainly was not aware, before the consideration of this bill, that 80 percent of the Fire Service’s workforce in this country are volunteers. So it is really, really encouraging to see that the bill identifies volunteers as “personnel” up front in the legislation, because we certainly need to make sure that we are looking after those volunteers, who are putting their lives on the line and giving up so much of their time and are sharing their skills for the benefit of our community. It is good. We certainly know that some of those relationships have not been uncomplicated in the past and that there are things to improve on.

So clause 34 of the bill enables FENZ to make independent advocacy and support services available so that if somebody has got a dispute and maybe they do not want to go through the United Fire Brigades’ Association, if they are a volunteer, there is actually the ability for there to be an independent advocacy and support service for them. Sometimes, when there are paid staff and there are volunteers, their interests may not be aligned, and sometimes they may be seen to be in conflict, so I think that independence will add value and security to the volunteers. It was also encouraging to see that there will be a requirement to consult with volunteers in the development of services.

I will note one more concern at this point, though, and there are not many for us, but this is an area where we maintain concern. There has not been a baseline review done of services, and this bill and, I think, the Regulations Review Committee document looked at the cost savings that would come from this merging and estimated that there would be $47 million of savings through this process. But without a baseline review having been done, there is the real potential that the organisation will drive to make those savings without first working out what is needed and what services need to be provided for those volunteers and the communities. We are very wary of that and would encourage all those involved to be very careful in that process.

I would also like to mention another concern that we have, which is about the identified functions and objectives of Fire and Emergency New Zealand, because fire investigation is not listed as a specific function. This is a very specialised skill—and it certainly is recognised separately in other jurisdictions overseas—and we are concerned that that may lead to an erosion of the competence of the investigation of fires and the ability to make cases in court when there is a case to be made. Again, I think that area should be reconsidered.

But, all in all, there are many things to be pleased with in this bill, and, again, congratulations to all those involved.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I think it is a very profound evening this evening, that we are talking about the biggest review/amalgamation bill coming through the House in the last 70 years—I think it was the 1940s when we had such a big amount of change—on a day such as this, when we have seen a civil defence emergency being called in Canterbury. Our sincerest condolences go out to David Askin and his family, his loved ones, and friends, who will be suffering at the moment because, of course, tragically, he died yesterday, in the afternoon, putting out these fires.

I would like to start off on a positive note, but I do have some very serious reservations. In the first reading in the House, we were very, very clear that New Zealand First would support this bill through its first reading in order to get it to a select committee so that we could hear submissions and look at this bill further, but we were very concerned.

I can tell you right now that there are bigger concerns than the fact that we are going to take the word “service” out of the Fire Service, and there are bigger concerns than the congratulations that we seem to be giving each other—and patting each other on the back—because this bill is very important. Outside of the submissions that we have heard in the Government Administration Committee, we have been inundated with people who are involved, directly and indirectly, on the periphery of the Fire Service, who have some serious concerns. They will be sitting at home and in the gallery tonight, absolutely with their eyes and their mouths open wide, aghast at the absolute complacency with which we seem to be walking into this trap. I will get in to that in a moment; I am going to start positively. I have been trying to keep myself calm here.

Just as a bit of an overview, we have close to a total of 14,000 workers inside the Fire Service, and 83 percent of those workers are volunteers—men and women giving up their days, their mornings, their nights, and all their holidays to go and assist in all manner of occasions. There were 5,400 structure fires last year, and 10,300 medical emergencies that the Fire Service showed up to and assisted with. There were 5,100 vegetation fires, there were 4,815 car accidents that they went to, and 3,245 hazardous material call-outs. That is just the start of it. That is not including all of the weather incidents that the Fire Service attends, such as the pumping out of water from the bottom flat of your house or your garage that has filled with water. The number of times we have seen the Fire Service working well beyond its call of duty—chopping down trees that have cut power lines. Just yesterday a young girl went missing, and who did we call? We called the Fire Service to go and find that young girl of 5 years old in the Waikato. Search and Rescue came together with the community, the volunteers, to do this.

The Fire Service adds so much value. It is far more than we are putting down on paper here, and yet we are not adequately funding this. Our funding model is absolutely flawed. There are two things that we are going to oppose in this: the funding model, which we do not believe is fit for purpose; and, of course, the culture within the organisation—the amalgamation of urban, rural, and the volunteer sectors coming together, and I will get into that a little bit shortly.

This is the 17th review that the Fire Service has had in 21 years, and the first major reform changes. We had 104 submissions, and 47 of those were oral, and, I have to say, some of the evidence coming out in some of the submissions was quite damning.

The positive aspects were that the enabling factors of fire in the open air as a land management tool is absolutely essential when you are dealing with scrub fires and rural locations. The best way to control fire is actually by lighting other small fires and controlling them. It is great for getting your vegetation back and getting it blooming. This has been a change that they have found is working very well through Europe, and it is great to see that this bill actually modernises our current situation.

The power to move fire risk from private property is another great part of this bill—as I say, I am going to focus on some positives before we get to the nuts and bolts of the issues that we have—as is the uninhibited access to water, in section 45 of the bill, which will enable fire services to tap not just into the mains water supply but into any water that is available on a property, whether it is from a farm, river, or the like. That water is now made available to them. Finally, another positive aspect is the power for entry for the fire inspectors, who may, at any reasonable time—and I underline the word “reasonable” because it is in there clearly in the bill—actually enter a premises, a building, or a landmass to inspect it to make sure that it is safe and fit for purpose.

The issue that we have in New Zealand First, and the reason that we are opposing this bill—and I am surprised that there has not been more Opposition to it. There has been a lot of fluffery and a lot of lollipops and candyfloss clouds talked about. The reality is that if any of these members of Parliament have read the Malone review from Australia, which is the Queensland review from back in 2013, or the Ferguson report from 2016 from Western Australia, outlining the major issues with their amalgamation project that they went down in 1998—and I am sure some of them may well have and have just decided not to bring it to your attention.

Let me just read out some of these reports. The 2016 Western Australian special inquiry found the fire service approach for urban and rural private lands in Western Australia did not function well to cater for the different cultures between the urban and rural environments. It goes on to say that the systems for managing rural fire has been variously described as, at best, “disjointed and disconnected”, and, at worst, “dysfunctional and broken”. The report goes on even further to say that “The FRS”—or Fire and Rescue Service—“culture is one that prioritises structural firefighting over any other type of fire, that favours incident response rather than hazard reduction, and which focuses on the Perth metropolitan area rather than the entire State.”

This is the trap that we are walking ourselves into. The Queensland Malone report came out and said very, very similar things. It said that after the amalgamation of the rural and urban services into a single service, many volunteers felt that the greater local autonomy that was put forward in 1990 by the Minister “would have never eventuated.” and “Instead rural fire service volunteers felt their operations started to be influenced by the urban fire culture,”. It is exactly the same in Greece, Canada, and California. All these other countries and States around the world have seen that the amalgamation of urban and rural does not work.

I am heavily involved in the surf lifesaving movement. We have got about 300 volunteers who give up their weekends every weekend to go down to the beach to make sure that people are kept safe. If we wanted to flip the organisation and let the 20 or so full-time employed people in the organisation tell the 200 people what to do, very, very quickly the volunteers are going to stop showing up. This is exactly what is going to happen if this is not addressed, and not a single party here has raised the concerns of the thousands of volunteer and urban fire services and the search and rescue operators who are actually going to be marginalised if this bill comes in to place. The reality is that it is going to be put into place. It is like: “Buckle up your seatbelts, because we are going to get bumpy from here on in.”

We have to acknowledge the fact that the funding model is also severely flawed. If you take into consideration everything I have said so far, that the work the Fire Service does is over and above what the levies are going to be providing for—with car levies, with a levy now on residents, and, of course, now we have got contents insurance levies coming through—the major fund is going to be supplied largely by the non-residential, the commercial operators, and owners of property. There is no cap on them whatsoever.

At the moment, the residential levy is capped at $76. We have got the contents levy at $15.20, which is a total of around $91 per annum. The motor vehicle levy is a flat rate of $6.08, but the non-residential, commercial levy is going to 7.6c for every hundred dollars insured. People are going to stop insuring their properties—they are going to under-insure them for a start—because that gets up pretty quickly. If you talk about a million-dollar property, you are talking about $7,500 in fire levies a year on a commercial building, which is going to be covering nearly half of the entire fund that they are looking for to actually run the Fire Service, which is around about half a billion dollars.

I do not think there has been enough consideration put into this bill. Certainly, listening to and reading the reports from Property Council New Zealand, talking to the rural firefighters, and looking at international studies and reviews that have been done, what we are doing here is duplicating what has not worked internationally, and I am telling the people of New Zealand: watch out. We are in for a very bumpy ride, and I cannot believe that there is no other party out there that is nodding agreeably and saying: “We should not be going into this like we are.” After 17 reviews in 21 years, I say we can do better, and we should be holding it off until we can do better. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is always a pleasure to follow behind a 5 percent party. We have just heard a speech that is aimed at a 5 percent market—a 5 percent market that will be opposed to any initiative and to any forward-moving, progressive, constructive, solid, forward-thinking, and positive idea that is presented in this Parliament. It is a 5 percent party that will always find 5 percent of detractors. That was a speech that was designed for the marginal, for the 5 percent, and, in my ranking, it was probably only about a 3.5 percent speech.

Tonight we are considering the second reading of this very important bill. It is poignant and appropriate that we should, as other speakers have done, acknowledge the work that is being done by so many in Canterbury—in Christchurch—around the Port Hills tonight and over the last few days, and will be for what sounds like several more days yet to come, if not weeks.

I too want to acknowledge the friends, family, and colleagues of the late Steve Askin, who lost his life yesterday fighting to put out and bring under control those fires. In my electorate of the Coromandel, we had a similar experience. It was not as large as the one that is currently under way in Canterbury, but a few weeks ago we had the Comers Road fire just south of Whitianga. I had an opportunity to go there the day after and see firsthand the devastation of houses burnt to the ground, and the remarkable work and dedication of volunteers—almost exclusively volunteers—from around my electorate, who had come from every part of the electorate to support that community to bring that fire under control.

In my electorate, the volunteers, the rural firefighters, and other members of our wider community are really looking forward to this legislation because it is legislation whose time has come. The environment is right, the mindset is right, and the opportunity is right for modernising what is an incredibly important part of our community first response not just to fires these days but, of course, to so many other matters of urgent need, mostly on the road.

The Government Administration Committee has done a very good job on this bill. I am impressed with the work that it has done. I would like to acknowledge and thank the committee for the work that it has done. It is my very great pleasure to support the bill in the House tonight.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a very short call for the Greens to support the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill in its second reading. I was not involved in the committee but I understand, through the submissions, that there was quite a lot of discussion about it, which is not surprising given that it has taken quite some time to get to this position. My understanding is that this bill is the result of a review that occurred in 2012 and again a couple of years later. It brings together the Fire Service Act 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977, but, essentially, the laws relating to the New Zealand Fire Service and the way it has operated have not really changed since the 1940s. Society has changed since then, so it is actually timely that we bring together—we have seen the work that has happened across these reviews—the range of services, particularly the rural and urban setting for the fire and emergency services.

Before I go any further, I also want to add my condolences and send my regards to the people of Christchurch and Port Hills. Our MP who is based in that area, Eugenie Sage, like Ruth Dyson, has gone back tonight to be with the people there, to be with part of her community.

I think it is timely to acknowledge the work that goes into providing these emergency services. Yes, I do acknowledge that 80 percent of the fire services are provided by volunteers. Between them all, they keep us safe. If we consider the type of fire that is happening now in Port Hills, and the one in Hastings recently, and if we look at the temperatures that are going through the thermostat with the impacts of climate change—we are seeing that happening in Sydney and elsewhere in Australia—it is more and more likely to occur here in drought-stricken areas in Aotearoa New Zealand. When we think about that, we need to be futureproofing the emergency services that we do have.

That brings me back to the bill. Some of the concerns that were outlined in the select committee report and in three submissions have been about funding. This bill ensures that there is one funding source rather than a range of funding sources, which had occurred for the rural fire service previously, but there are some concerns about whether the funding is adequate. In particular, there are some issues around fire investigation. That was raised several times through the submission process. The report talks about the committee having some concerns about investigations not being undertaken by the peak body, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and that it will not be required to employ fire investigators. From my understanding, this will be done through the police. However, there is a specialist area here, and I think that, actually, we should be considering that and considering having that paid for through the levy that is going to be supporting the organisations in the first place.

I guess the other thing that we need to be concerned about is the modelling of the funding. We were very concerned that the predictions of $47 million a year in savings from the ongoing support for volunteers may leave the voluntary fire service in a difficult position. That is certainly not what we want now.

The other thing that I really want to add is that this bill has been a long time coming; it came in for its first reading in July last year, so it has been quite a process to get it to this stage. Overall, despite the concerns we have around funding, we are supportive of the bill and we recommend it to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Although I was not a member of the Government Administration Committee, I certainly have a passion and commitment to rural fire services. There is always unease with change. I accept that different people who have spoken to me about this have not always been enthusiastically supportive of it for, I think, justifiable reasons.

The question of why this has been done is something that we should ask. I have been very suspicious of most of the changes that the National Government has undertaken. The question of “why” usually comes back to one of saving money, and that does not always bode well for the people who have to carry on with the service responsibility—so, too, in this case here. We have a huge voluntary component in the fire service in this country. I think the select committee acknowledged that, and we in the Labour Party certainly acknowledge that. It is huge. In fact, without them, we would not have a properly functioning fire service. The issue of funding is one that we are attempting to address in this legislation, and there will be levies imposed. I know that there was some pushback from the forestry companies, which have a lot of assets, and other organisations—museums, for example—where they think the asset value is overvalued and the levy may be excessive.

I come back to the point: the question of why we are doing this and whether we are indeed going to end up with a more effective fire service or emergency service. Indeed, in the rural areas, more particularly on the West Coast, we do not have a lot of rural fires. We have a few, but the weather, given the last summer, probably has prevented most of that. Unfortunately, we have seen the tragic circumstances in the Port Hills. I too want to acknowledge the terrible loss that we have seen over there. I guess the Askin family has to take that on board. We want to say thank you for the sacrifice that, although not willingly, has been made.

There is another issue there around the ongoing risk and risk management. If I can intervene, in a slight segue, it is to the Pike River families meeting with the Prime Minister today, who were, effectively, told that we cannot put anyone at risk to go in and recover their loved ones. The idea of zero risk is completely unrealistic. Just as those helicopter pilots in the Port Hills have continued with their risky task of trying to put out those fires, in spite of the terrible tragedy that we have seen, they have taken on board the risk and have gone forward managing it in a way that we hope will prevent any further tragedy.

We have to remember that in all emergency services there will always be an element of risk, and although we might be dealing with the administrative structure through this piece of legislation, we can never forget the objective and the reality of what happens here. We have volunteers and paid members, regardless of the funding—and it now, hopefully, will be more secure—going into risky situations every single day of this year to protect property in New Zealand, protect lives, and, in some cases, recover people who have, tragically, lost their lives.

I think we have not quite got it right in this country, and I think the Prime Minister today displayed another case of misjudged calculation in terms of risk management and said: “No risk at Pike River, but we’ll accept risk in the ongoing management of fires in the Port Hills, and we’ll accept risk through this fire service and emergency service in the ongoing protection of New Zealanders and their property into the future.” That is the reality we must face. But, in doing so, Parliament has an obligation, firstly, to acknowledge the risk that volunteers and others undertake and also to not be unrealistic and say that we have no zero-risk and there is a liability issue and someone has to carry the can—

Brett Hudson: Actually, there is.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Oh, the member over there gets a bit touchy about this. He knows full well that everyone working in the Fire Service moves into risky situations every single day of their situation. This legislation hopes to bring together the structural unity of the organisation. Let us not forget the reality for the people—the volunteers and the paid people—who undertake these services. They take on a big challenge. They take on risks on behalf of us all. They should be acknowledged and they should be funded properly, but we have got to be realistic across our whole economy.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I am going to be taking the higher ground and will not respond to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s comments, although they actually do require some response. I am just going to take the higher ground.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the work that the Fire Service has been undertaking in the Port Hills of Christchurch and in the Hawke’s Bay over the past few days. Their tireless dedication to the people of New Zealand is commendable, and they truly are, in fact, heroes in our communities. I actually see several of them sitting up there in the gallery, and I would like to salute them: thank you for what you do.

I would also like to share in the condolences that were given in this House to the family, colleagues, and friends of the helicopter pilot David Steven Askin, known as Steve. It was such a tragedy to have lost him while he was actually fighting the fires in Christchurch, and our aroha—I am sure all members will agree—goes out to the family, friends, and colleagues of Mr Askin.

This bill will repeal and replace two outdated Acts, the Fire Service Act of 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act of 1977, and will give the Fire Service a modern and future-proofed legislative framework that acknowledges the changes in our country over the last several decades. It will ultimately establish a single, united fire service organisation for the New Zealand people.

The role of the Fire Service has moved on significantly from only fighting fires—not that that is anything to diminish, but, you know, it is no longer just rescuing cats, either. It has a significant role in urban search and rescue, motor vehicle assistance, and community engagement—and education in our community, as well. The Fire Service, whether in rural towns or in our local suburbs, is, in fact, a key community organisation, and it should be thanked and acknowledged. It does an incredible amount of work for the people in our country. Across New Zealand, there is a mixture of professional and volunteer firemen and women, and our firefighters, wherever they are and whatever their role, need a system that works best for them and the communities they work in.

This bill will mandate those non - fire-related services that firefighters undertake, and it acknowledges that they do much more now than was their traditional role. The Government has also been heavily engaged with stakeholders to ensure they will be involved in working out how local services can best operate in their communities once the unification of the fire services takes place. These changes will also ensure the maintenance of volunteers as an important part of our Fire Service tradition. Our volunteers, especially in smaller towns, are a vital part of the fire service industry.

Earlier this evening, Scott Simpson and I were having a conversation about how I was so envious of a girlfriend who, during university, volunteered as a volunteer fireperson, fire—you know—

Scott Simpson: Firefighter.

MELISSA LEE: —firefighter—and it was probably the fact that she carried a pager. This is long before mobile phones came out—I am actually showing my age.

Scott Simpson: Pager?

MELISSA LEE: Pager, yes—one of those things that went off, went “beep beep”, and the Fire Service would actually ring her. She was so responsible. She would not drink when we went out on a Friday night, because she was waiting for that call, just in case it actually happened. I was so envious, I even tried out for the volunteer Fire Service. Back then, I was apparently a little too small and so uncoordinated that when I held the fire hose I actually fell over backwards and water went everywhere. So I was not allowed to join the volunteer Fire Service. But I digress.

I think this is a great bill, and I commend the work that the Government Administration Committee has produced. I think it has done a wonderful thing, and I salute the Fire Service once again. I commend this great bill to the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I begin with the obvious acknowledgments to the people of Christchurch tonight, to the families that are affected by the third night, I think it is, of fires on the Port Hills, to the men and women who have helped over those three nights to attempt to put out what is turning into a rather major fire, and to those communities that have been affected, areas very close to where I grew up around Westmorland and Tai Tapu, where my parents lived not so long ago. Our thoughts go to those communities as they go through these difficult times.

As others have said as well, there has been a helicopter pilot who has passed away during the efforts to quell the flames. To Steve Askin’s family go the collective thoughts of this House for the loss of a brother and a husband, especially for the efforts that he made during his time fighting that fire.

Can I also acknowledge the Government Administration Committee, which I used to be a member of, and the chair, Ruth Dyson, who, I think, led this process very well. It is a rather large piece of work, and I think the members on that select committee worked through a lot of technical issues to make sure that the bill could be as good as it could be. And I do acknowledge Ruth as the local member of Parliament for Port Hills, who is back in her electorate tonight tending to the issues that need to be addressed with the fire that is going on there.

There are two issues that I wanted to address in the second reading, and members who remember my first-reading speech so fondly will be happy that I am following these up. The Plimmerton Volunteer Fire Brigade, from my electorate, made a submission on this bill around a number of issues but primarily around two practical issues that it had some concerns about. It saw the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill as an opportunity to address those.

One of those was the ability for fire brigades to access water for training, not necessarily from hydrants but from rivers, streams, lakes, or ponds that they thought might be useful for them to train with. Under the old settings—which I guess are current settings—it was very difficult for them to get permission to allow them to do training around pumping water out of those water bodies so that their volunteer fire brigade members could get practical experience around some of the local areas of Porirua. My understanding is that the practical problem was that they had to get permission from the Wellington Regional Council just to set up a pump in one part of a stream, operate the pump so they knew how to work the pump, and then pump the water straight back into the stream. They had to get permission for that. That was onerous, and they thought—I think, rightly so—that this issue should have been dealt with in this bill.

To the credit of the Minister in charge, Peter Dunne, and to the Government Administration Committee, they followed up on the recommendation to this bill by the Plimmerton Volunteer Fire Brigade and other members of volunteer fire brigades and professional fire services in making sure that clause 45 stayed within the bill. That is around the power to use, “for any emergency and training purposes”, “all hydrants and control valves installed in any water mains and any water in the water mains for—(i) the purposes of performing or exercising FENZ’s functions, duties, or powers; or (ii) training for the purposes of performing or exercising FENZ’s functions, duties, or powers;”. In plain English, that means the fire brigades, like mine, around the country no longer have to go through the rigmarole of being able to access waterways to make sure that they can train in those areas. I think that is a good thing. It is a good thing to make sure that these things are followed through, and my local fire brigade can be happy with that.

There is still one other issue with the bill that they wanted to see through that has not been dealt with in the bill, and I am almost definitely likely to put in a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage of this bill. That is around when fire brigades are testing fire hydrants in our communities. To test every individual hydrant, they have to get a traffic management plan to make sure that they can do their job. They have to register with the local councils every time they check each individual hydrant. They are mandated within this bill to check that the hydrants work and to use them for training purposes. But every time they do that—to check or train—a traffic management plan has to be done. That has been onerous. It has been very taxing, especially on smaller volunteer fire brigades, because it has meant a lot of red tape that they have had to go through, a lot of planning that they think is unnecessary for the simple job of making sure that a fire hydrant in their area works.

They made a submission that as long as Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) set out some criteria and that the local bodies agree to it, that they would not have to undergo the onerous task of having a traffic management plan for each individual hydrant that they test. So just to give people at home an idea of that, we see hydrants probably every kilometre or 500 metres sometimes in some areas. For every one that they checked, they would have had to put in a detailed traffic management plan about where they were going to put cones out, how many people were going to be on that testing, what they were going to do, and how long they would be doing that testing for. You can imagine that with a small volunteer fire brigade with maybe eight, nine, or 10 regular active members that would be quite a hassle to do.

This piece of legislation still does not deal with that, so I think that in the Committee stage we should actually reconsider that submission from the Plimmerton Volunteer Fire Brigade because it will help them to not only do their job but if that is the main work of a fire brigade it is going to be pretty hard to attract new members. You are going to get caught in red tape most of the time and not be out doing what Melissa Lee was doing, which was having a go with the hoses, training to put out fires. I think that this House should reconsider that and make sure that we give those volunteer fire brigades the freedom and the ability to do the job that they volunteered for and not get caught up in the red tape in and around traffic management plans. I think that is a waste of time.

I think these people have already volunteered their time, and they will have technical ability and are already safety conscious enough to make sure that they are going to keep themselves safe when they are testing the fire hydrants, because when they actually have to use those fire hydrants, there is no traffic management plan—none whatsoever. They are going to have to use a bit of initiative and a bit of instinct when they are going to these incidents, and I think it is good to train as you would if you were in the actual situation. I will hope that the Supplementary Order Paper that will be coming in under my name—which will, basically, be a carbon copy of what was suggested by my local fire brigade—is taken up and that this House seriously considers it. I think it will save a hell of a lot of time for our local volunteer fire brigades.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak briefly on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. As other members have stated, the bill will repeal and replace two outdated Acts, the Fire Service Act 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977. Basically, the bill will modernise our Fire Service. It seeks to establish a single, unified fire service organisation for New Zealand.

If you look at the history of our Fire Service, you will clearly see the process of evolution. In 1854 the very first New Zealand volunteer fire brigade was formed in Auckland. It started with just buckets, and later on it upgraded to manual pumps. In 1856 a Wellington Provincial Council regulation required all citizens to have two buckets of water ready so that they could help in case of a fire.

Then, basically, the Fire Brigades Act of 1906 was the very first piece of New Zealand legislation specifically devoted to fire protection. But, ironically, in the following year, in 1907, the first Parliament Buildings in Wellington were destroyed by fire. Then, in February 1946, a massive scrub and forest fire swept through the towns of Taupō and Ātiamuri, and that prompted the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1947, which laid the basis for a modern rural firefighting system in New Zealand.

On 1 April 1976 the New Zealand Fire Service as we know it today was born, but a lot has changed since then. We need a fire and emergency service for the 21st century, and we need a structure and laws that reflect the work of our firefighters. This bill will enable us to better serve our firefighters and to also serve their services. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 14 February.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): When the House was last considering this bill, Jenny Salesa was speaking, and she has 1 minute remaining.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to complete my contribution on the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill. We should look at the current resources that New Zealand already desperately needs in the mental health services, and we should also look into the resources that will be needed in addition, just to implement this new proposed bill. We must ensure that mental health services and addiction services are adequately resourced. Our families’ health is at the core of the Kiwi Dream, but our hospitals are understaffed right now. Our doctors and our nurses are overworked. Our services have been cut. Our Kiwis are missing out on the latest medicines. Labour will invest in health. Labour will ensure that mental health and addiction services are adequately resourced. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to take a short call in the third reading of this somewhat truncated—or, in fact, elongated; it is exactly the opposite—debate on this Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill, because it has been debated now over several sittings of Parliament, which is not in any way to discount the importance of this piece of legislation. It seeks to modernise a principal Act that dates back to 1966. Essentially, what this Act does is it provides a framework and a structure for the State to intervene and compulsorily incarcerate a person for their own good. That is a step that the State takes in only very rare circumstances. In this situation, the bill seeks to ensure that people who are so ill—they are so deeply and dysfunctionally addicted to drugs and other medications, and all sorts of things, that they are not able to form their own ability to seek medical attention for their own protection.

So getting the balance right has been something that the Health Committee has grappled with during the course of its work and its endeavour. I am pleased to report to the House that the select committee did, I think, very good work in this area. I think that this piece of legislation finds the balance about right. It is a difficult area, it is a challenging area, and it is a charged area. But it is an area where we, as a Parliament and as a society, sometimes have to intervene for the benefit and the good of someone who is not able to act in their own best interests. I commend this bill to the House because the bill seeks to achieve exactly that.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to make a contribution. I want to touch on three main points in this particular piece of legislation. This bill sets out to support those people for whom substance and alcohol abuse is so problematic that it actually becomes life-threatening.

This piece of legislation traverses a whole lot of significant issues and significant areas with regard to people’s freedoms and rights. In that regard the select committee process was rather elongated because there were many issues that we had to traverse in order to ensure the proper safeguards were put in place. When you hold somebody against, I guess, their free will and require them to undertake treatment, you must make sure you have got adequate safeguards in place.

I want to start with the area of capacity and resources. It became very clear early on in the discussion and the debate around this piece of legislation that we had a concern in the health system about being able to fully engage in this service because we did not have enough fully qualified people to be able to provide the appropriate treatment from the first day that this bill is enacted. Some work will be required to bring people up to speed. The area of substance and alcohol addiction is so complex. It involves people with co-morbidities, often mental health or other types of issues. The clinicians who are required to service this cohort of people—and we are not talking about a large group of people. It is somewhere in the region of, maybe, 200 or so a year. But the clinicians and the level of understanding required to treat that cohort of people is something that we are not fully able to facilitate currently in this country. So there will be some retraining required. On top of that, the resource, in terms of the facilities that we need to house and treat the people who will come under this legislation—we are not completely prepared for that to occur.

What this has highlighted during the process of this bill is that not only are we not fully resourced in this significant area but all the way down the line, where people could potentially receive treatment before they got to the level of being compulsorily required to undertake treatment, a lot of the preventative work also is not in place. So there is a chain reaction of need all the way down the area of alcohol and substance abuse that we should be addressing in this country.

The issue of taking somebody into care and then requiring them to undertake treatment was one that we spent quite some time dealing with. We decided to start, as a base, with the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. The requirements under the provisions of that particular piece of legislation were our baseboard, I guess. We looked at ensuring that when a person comes into the service, they are able to be monitored by an independent group of people, and we used the model of the district inspector, which is currently used under the mental health legislation. But also, provision was made to ensure that other independent monitoring was provided—that the patient, the consumer of this service, was also able to have some independent advice brought to the party and that their loved ones and their family members were also advised of the fact that the person was in treatment.

Often, when you are severely affected by substance abuse, your relationships with your family members become quite disturbed and disrupted and you are not always in touch with your family. But having your family know that you are in this treatment also offers a safeguard to you. You know that there is an independent person who is monitoring your care, from outside.

So compulsion was an aspect that we looked at. Compulsion—to be required to undertake treatment means that your ability, your capacity, to make decisions about your own treatment is compromised. We spent quite a bit of time discussing the period of time that was required for somebody to be in compulsory treatment. I think the length of time that we settled on, in the end, was somewhere in the region of 56 days. We spent quite a bit of time talking about ensuring that the period was not too long, because then it would become potentially a breach of someone’s human rights, and not too short, so that the treatment could be effective, and that at various points during that treatment period the patient has the ability to be tested to ascertain whether they are able to then provide consent for this treatment themselves.

It is quite a comprehensive bill. The Health Committee was a very interesting select committee to sit on. There were some huge issues around freedoms, which were discussed during the select committee process. We had several submitters who asked us to think very carefully about the area of compulsion, the area of consent—being able to ensure that there was independent support and advice to this cohort of consumers. I think that we on the select committee did a reasonably thorough job of addressing those key issues. I do not want to hold up the passage of the bill. I commend it to the House.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise as a newly ordained member of the Health Committee, in support of the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill at this, its third reading. Although I did not sit on the committee while this bill was being heard, I can certainly relate it to a series of bills that I heard at the Government Administration Committee with regard to harm-minimisation of gambling. As part of that process, we heard from submitters who had family members who were addicted or who were themselves addicted to gambling. They were not able to control themselves. They were addicted to gambling, with all that that entails. What we heard was the devastation that occurs to the sufferer, and not only in respect of their health and well-being and their finances, but in respect of their families—their families suffer as they watch the demise of a loved one who is addicted to gambling.

The submissions on that gambling bill, I believe, can be related to this bill. Substance abuse is equally as devastating. This is a bill that is long overdue. It looks to put in place mechanisms to protect people who are severely and seriously addicted to and abuse substances. It is a very good bill. As I said, it is well overdue. It has been debated very much in the select committee, and puts in place checks and balances to make a decision for that person who is incapacitated through substance abuse. We are looking to protect them from harm, to create an assessment as to the extent of the addiction, and then to put in place a treatment plan that empowers them to then make decisions as to their own treatment.

We heard in the previous speech that there was a lot of debate around the protections of patients’ freedoms versus their health, but I believe this bill has landed in a very good space. It is only proper that this bill is passed, as we look to protect those people who are suffering from severe substance abuse. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID BENNETT (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I move, That the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. The committee has recommended that the bill proceed with a number of amendments.

This is an overview of the bill: the purpose of the bill is to amend the Maritime Crimes Act 1999 to implement two maritime counter-terrorism conventions. The first is the Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the second is the Protocol of 2005 to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. The 2005 protocols were adopted to take account of the increasing risks to maritime navigation by acts of terrorism. The protocols amend the original 1988 Rome convention and Rome protocol to introduce new offences relating to the use of ships and fixed platforms. This bill is necessary to implement the 2005 protocols into New Zealand law and once enacted would enable New Zealand to ratify the protocols. These changes, which reflect international best practice, will provide law enforcement agencies with clear and effective tools to respond to contemporary threats to maritime security and will enable New Zealand to play its part in the international framework for countering maritime terrorism.

The bill adds new offences to the Act in line with the 2005 protocols. These are serious offences that relate to the commission of serious offences against ships or using ships; the illicit transportation of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear material, and equipment; the transportation of terrorist fugitives by ship; the commission of serious offences against fixed platforms or using fixed platforms; and death or injury that occurs when committing or attempting to commit an offence against the Act. The Attorney-General’s consent is required for any prosecution under the Act, providing a safeguard to ensure that only appropriate cases proceed to a prosecution. The bill also introduces a maritime boarding regime consistent with existing international law to facilitate enforcement in relation to offences under the Maritime Crimes Act.

The committee received 150 submissions on the bill, with the majority centred on the offences relating to ships and terrorism. Many submitters were concerned that peaceful protesters could be prosecuted as terrorists under the bill. Although that was not possible under the bill as introduced, the committee was of the view that aspects of the bill could be clarified. The committee has recommended a number of changes to the bill, which I believe appropriately respond to submitters’ concerns while ensuring that the bill effectively implements the 2005 protocols it is intended to.

I would like to highlight the main amendments proposed, most of which are minor changes aimed at providing greater clarity. First, the committee has proposed an avoidance-of-doubt clause to make absolutely clear that peaceful acts of protest or industrial action would not be by themselves a sufficient basis for criminal liability under the Act. A similar provision is found in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. The bill implements the 2005 protocols and establishes serious offences relating to the use of ships or fixed platforms either to commit terrorist acts or to enable terrorist acts. It was not intended in any way to criminalise peaceful protest activity and could not have done so in practice. This new clause further reinforces this policy intent not to criminalise peaceful protest under the legislation.

Secondly, the use of the word “terrorism” has been omitted from the headings to the offences involving ships and fixed platforms in response to submitters’ concerns about the use and scope of the term. Although the bill has a terrorism context, the offences do not need to be stated to be terrorism offences.

Thirdly, a minor change is recommended to further clarify in each relevant offence in the bill that the threshold for criminality is serious injury or serious damage. This makes even clearer that the threshold for damage is high and that minor damage could not be captured.

Fourthly, a minor change is recommended to clarify in the offences relating to the use of a ship that the person must intentionally cause death, serious injury, or serious damage through the use of the ship. This makes clearer that unintentional conduct would not be captured by this offence.

Lastly, I would like to note that a further consequential amendment has been added to the bill, adding an amendment to schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to list the new offences in the bill as category 4 offences, consistent with the existing Maritime Crimes Act offences. This will mean that the usual mode of trial for prosecutions under this legislation will be before a jury in the High Court.

In conclusion, this bill and ratification of the 2005 protocols will strengthen New Zealand’s support for global counter-terrorism and non-proliferation efforts, and will ensure that New Zealand’s domestic maritime security framework is consistent with international best practice. I commend the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I begin by congratulating the Hon David Bennett on his appointment as Minister. Well done, David; congratulations.

The Labour Party supports the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill. As the Minister has fairly noted, New Zealand’s creation of these offences, which create new crimes in New Zealand’s law book in respect of acts against boats or ships at sea, and acts against fixed platforms, is a necessary precursor to New Zealand being able to bring into effect our obligations under the conventions that the Minister has listed. These are, namely: the Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, which is a 1988 convention, the Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, and then similar protocols in respect of platforms that are in the continental shelf area.

I think it is fair to say that the international community moved to tighten up this area of law after the increase in terrorism and piracy off the coast of Africa, and also, to a lesser extent, in the Asian region, where previously rare events became more common. The international community has banded together in order to try to prevent these illegal and dangerous acts.

The Minister explained at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which I was not on—I was not at that time on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but I have read the report from the select committee, and it records that it was made clear that protest activity at sea was not going to be caught by the provisions in this legislation. The reason there was nervousness that that might be the case was that in an earlier piece of legislation that had already passed through select committee, the National Government, by Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage, criminalised acts at sea. That was, from the point of view of protestors—including the likes of Greenpeace—something that it should not do by way of Supplementary Order Paper. They thought that was potentially an infringement of their civil liberty to protest, for example, against increased fossil fuel exploration offshore.

I think the Government would say, in respect of that particular legislation, that that was not the effect of it and that it was going to trigger a response from the New Zealand authorities only if there was something that posed an actual threat within the territorial limits, but I think Greenpeace and other critics were right that you should not actually do that sort of thing by Supplementary Order Paper. You should do that through a select committee process that gives people the ability to express their concerns and to ensure that the civil liberties of New Zealanders to protest about things that they feel strongly about—to do so civilly—are retained. I think it is that background that caused some of the concerns from some submitters in respect of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, and I think it is wise of the select committee to clarify in clause 7—to make it absolutely clear—that protest activity is not covered by this legislation.

Other amendments that were made were to exclude the use of the word “terrorism”. What to some people is “terrorism” is to other people “legitimate protest activity”, in the minds of some submitters. Again, I think that is probably an arguable proposition. I think the courts would sort out the difference between legitimate protest activity and terrorism, but the argument is avoided by just specifying the types of conduct—serious damage to people or property—that are prohibited. You do not actually have to use the word “terrorism” in order to get there, so it is clearer to describe that sort of conduct—serious injury or serious damage—rather than use the word “terrorism”.

The other changes that are made are well defined. There is a better definition of “serious injury or serious damage”. The threshold has been deliberately set high, so only the most serious offending would be captured. That is fair enough, because there are some quite serious enforcement powers that are being accorded, and you do not want them to be triggered at too low a threshold. Having said that, as the commentary from the select committee says, to a certain extent the detail of this legislation was governed by the terms of the international agreements, because the international agreements require New Zealand to bring into account the criminal provisions that are contained in this legislation. Those later protocols to the international conventions set out what this law had to cover. So, although there was some latitude on drafting, the essence of the offences being created was set by those protocols. The consolidated text to the original convention, including the protocols, is set out in Schedule 1 to the bill, which inserts new Schedules 1 and 2. That is helpful to members of the public who are trying to get their head round what this law actually means.

Lastly, I would say in respect of where this applies that it is not just within New Zealand’s territorial sea. It is within the area that we have control of through the exclusive economic zone, and in some situations can apply even further afield. That is set out in the bill, and another speaker might want to detail that to the House.

Finally, before taking my seat, I would comment that in this ninth year of the National Government I am somewhat surprised that in the legislative programme we do not actually have legislation that is dealing with the perhaps more fundamental challenges to New Zealand, be it the housing crisis that we have or the terrible, related misallocation of capital that means the houses that we do have are increasingly owned by a smaller and smaller number of people, rather than being broadly owned within society. I would have preferred to have a debate here as to what it is we need to do to actually make New Zealand a better country by ensuring that we push in the direction of those sorts of egalitarian settings that we used to have. That said, I think this is good bill, and for that reason the Labour Party will be supporting it.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak to the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, the purpose of which is to align our legislation with the 2005 Rome convention—the Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee had 150 submissions, and the main concerns were, I think, in three areas. First of all, legitimate protest had by far and away the most submissions; there were 83. Secondly, a clarification of the phrase “serious injury or damage” received 80 submissions. Thirdly, clarification around threatening versus actual offending received 50 submissions. I would like to talk to each of these, one at a time.

At least half of the submitters were concerned that legitimate protest activity could be caught up in the clause that describes “compelling a government … to abstain from doing any act” as an offence. The committee clarified and resolved four responses to address this very legitimate concern. The first response to that is that the legislation has been vetted by the Attorney-General as being consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The second response to this concern is that one of the clauses retained was, indeed, “compelling a government … to abstain from doing any act”, and that needs to be consistent with the 2005 protocol, but there are other safety measures put in place to protect legitimate protest—specifically, the requirement for a serious offence to also be committed.

The bill describes three serious offences. The first is when a person discharges from a ship explosive, radioactive, biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons that cause the death of any person or serious injury. The second is when a person discharges from a ship oil, liquefied natural gas, or other hazardous or noxious substances that cause the death of a person or serious injury. The third type of harm is when a person uses a ship in a manner that causes death or serious injury or damage. I think that we can see the requirement for a concomitant serious offence—one that causes death or serious injury—significantly raises the bar above what we would consider a legitimate protest. Even so, there are two further protection measures.

The third measure I would describe is that clause 21 in the bill requires the Attorney-General’s consent to any prosecution under this bill. The final protection—and we had 79 submitters who recommended this—is, as the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs has mentioned, the avoidance-of-doubt clause. This is a clause similar to that in the Terrorism Suppression Act. Officials actually advised us that there were clear differences between the two—a very specific description of offences in this bill, compared with the Terrorism Suppression Act. However, it was considered possible to include an avoidance-of-doubt clause. This would not confuse the bill or compromise consistency with our international protocols. So the addition now reads to the effect that “the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring” that the person is carrying out an act or an offence. So I think the committee landed on a very good set of safety measures to reassure the public that legitimate protest is still preserved under this bill.

The second point that received a large number of submissions was around clarification of “serious injury or damage”. Eighty submitters had concerns around the openness of the wording “serious injury or damage” and were looking to use definitions in the Terrorism Suppression Act (TSA). The committee decided against this for several reasons. A prime reason was that the existing descriptions in article 2 of the 2005 Rome convention were already quite a high bar to reach as they describe serious injury. They include: serious bodily injury to people; extensive destruction resulting in major economic loss of a place of public use, a State or Government facility, an infrastructure facility, or public transportation system; or substantial damage to the environment—that is, air, soil, water, animals, or plants. Furthermore, trying to utilise the TSA definition would conflict with and compromise the articles that we are signing up to in the Rome convention.

The final point I will mention had the attention of 50 submitters and it was around the difference between threatening to undertake an act and actually committing an offence. A number of submitters were concerned that the penalty was the same for threatening to undertake an act as actually committing it. The committee, however, thought this was the correct positioning as it currently reads in the bill, and, furthermore, this position is required by international protocols and is consistent with the Terrorism Suppression Act.

So, in summary, on the issue of greatest concern—legitimate protest—the bar was already very high for this to be an offence, but the committee did add an avoidance-of-doubt clause to further clarify the intent. I think this is another good example of committee processes responding to good submissions and making changes for the better. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on this piece of legislation. It is an important piece of legislation because it is part of a suite of anti-terrorism legislation that joins other statutes on our book, and I think that we in this House always have to exercise caution when we are putting in place legislation that targets crimes of a political nature. As such, the terms have to be carefully defined and carefully drafted to avoid potentially criminalising forms of political activism, especially those that involve protest or non-violent direct action.

I think that this piece of legislation we have sitting in front of us in the House today has benefited very much from the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I would like to acknowledge that the speaker before me, Shane Reti, did make that point. We received over 150 submissions on this piece of legislation, many of them incredibly detailed. The submitters had worked through this bill with a great deal of care and diligence as to the seriousness of the legislation that we were putting in place. One hundred and forty-five of the submissions that we heard at the select committee did not support the legislation in the form it was in at the committee. The concerns were remarkably similar amongst the submitters, from grassroots activists through to the Law Society. Their concerns were around the issue of whether or not we would capture legitimate political protest or industrial action under a piece of legislation that was never intended to capture those activities, and I think that the work we have been able to do through the committee has improved that for the better.

Sitting alongside this need for us as legislators to exercise absolute care in drafting, so that we did not delegitimise legitimate activity, were our international obligations under the Rome protocols, which previous speakers have outlined. The issue that we had to look at was how the bill aligned with other pieces of legislation that have been, reasonably recently, enacted in this House and are around the suppression and control of terrorism in this country. The suggestion that many submitters made—that we align the definition of “terrorism” with that in some of those other pieces of legislation—was not going to fit in this case. Although it seemed on face value like a very good suggestion from many of the submitters, when we looked at the detail of what we needed to do around this under the Rome protocol, it was not something that was going to be able to fit. What we were able to do—and I am sure this will be debated more fully when we come to the Committee stage of this bill—was actually remove some of the words that were problematic, and, instead of using just the word “terrorism”, be a bit more detailed around what is actually meant by it.

But, fundamentally, the biggest change that we were able to make as a committee—and what for submitters was absolutely a bottom line that had to happen in this legislation, and what for us in the Labour Party too was a bottom line that needed to be cleared up—was around the avoidance of doubt. We needed to make sure that we were not going to capture legitimate activity. There was a very clear line that needed to be drawn: we needed to make sure that legitimate protest action was still allowed. We needed to ensure that we could still have the flotillas of the 1980s, which many in this country are rightly proud of in terms of what our national identity is about—that that kind of activity was not going to be supressed by this legislation. That was something that many of the submitters who came to the select committee shared their experiences about: being part of the flotillas of the 1980s that protested and made sure we could become a nuclear-free New Zealand. I think that for me, as someone sitting there listening to people who had been involved in that, it was something we had to listen to very carefully.

Personally for me, having that avoidance of doubt was incredibly important, as was setting the threshold for what constituted an offence under this Act. That is because, as well as defining that threshold, powers are given under this piece of legislation in terms of seizure and the right to board a ship. Many powers are triggered, and we needed to decide exactly what the threshold was over which these powers should be triggered. When should we treat something as an act of terrorism? Is it when any damage is caused, or is there a different threshold? When is it that what is normally used in the statute book around damage, or the civil kind of law that we would normally apply—when would that stop and the provisions of a much more pronounced regime come into effect?

These were really interesting questions for the select committee to consider. I would actually like to thank the members of the select committee from right across the House, who did take the time to think through what were quite difficult concepts so that we could come through with some solutions to those questions, so that we could ensure that we put in place a piece of legislation that did not capture things that were never intended to be captured under this legislation.

I think that when we come to the Committee stage, we need to look at some of the consequential amendments that come through too. It is a very technical piece of legislation around definitions, but embedded in it is a fundamental piece of our national identity that is something we and legislators in this House always have to hold true to: our citizens in our country have the right to protest. Citizens in our country have rights to protest in industrial action disputes, and we should not be legislating away those rights when we put in place anti-terrorism legislation.

I am happy to take a call to say that Labour is satisfied that we have managed to make enough changes at the select committee so that we are not going to do those very fundamental things that we would never want our anti-terrorism legislation to do, and at the same time we have managed to put in place protections against legitimate terrorist threats. That is something that everyone in this House also wants to do, and we need to ensure that that is there and that we are fulfilling our obligations under international treaties. I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

Hon JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I thank the previous speaker, Megan Woods, for the details she was able to give on this Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, upon reflection on its time in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I do not have the privilege of having spent time in the select committee on this, so I am going to, of necessity, keep at the higher level of what this select committee process has managed to achieve.

This bill is about strengthening New Zealand’s ability to deter and react decisively to terrorism. What I have noted from reading about what occurred at the select committee is that because this is, regrettably—well, not regrettably. It is good that it is pretty new territory for New Zealand to have to come to terms with this. We are meeting our obligations under a number of international treaties in bringing this legislation before the House, but I have noted that the select committee and other members present in the House tonight, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have talked about the changes that the select committee made, and that, to me, had a real feel of New Zealand evolving. So a bill is presented to the select committee and the select committee does exactly what its purpose is, which is to evolve that bill into something that meets the needs of New Zealand right now.

This, I am told, is about the four pillars of the UN counter-terrorism strategy, and it is in the interests of all countries to play their part. New Zealand cannot think that we are a world apart from the rest of the world and that we do not have to deal with this, because, most definitely, we are subject to the need to play our role in strengthening the fight against terrorism and making sure that we make the same observances of potential terrorism and put in place the sorts of measures that will actually address it and play a global role. You know, we are pretty good as a global citizen, New Zealand. We were an inaugural member of the UN Security Council, and, as everyone in this House will know, we have recently served a term on the Security Council—I believe with distinction, as well.

We are 4.5 million people separated by a lot of salt water from other parts of the world, but, in fact, we only have to look not too far from us to see terrorism in action and know that there is potential for it to affect us or for us to become a pawn in the game of terrorism, which means that this particular legislation is so important. That is what we call our global responsibilities, and New Zealand does not shirk those.

The world is facing all sorts of threats. One of the biggest challenges is that a lot of them are not visible. We have to protect ourselves before we see them coming, and some of them are not even in the imagination of the likes of our agencies. So this bill is putting in place our obligations to international treaties and, at the same time, trying to play our role in the world. It is a very important bill that I have enjoyed getting to know a little better both here in the House tonight and by reading more about the deliberations of the select committee. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party’s concerns about the original draft of this bill have been addressed in the course of the submissions and its redrafting. We had supported the 2005 protocols that underpin the bill, as they are consistent with the Greens’ principle of non-violence. But we were concerned about the potential for the new law to designate legitimate protest groups, perhaps, as terrorists. Our concern was that legitimate maritime protest activity with a motive of trying to influence the Government might be unintentionally caught under this bill. But the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, therefore, has recommended, in response to submissions and our own concerns, to make it clear that the bill does not intend this and that an avoidance-of-doubt clause will be inserted, specifying that a peaceful act of protest or industrial action would not by itself be a sufficient basis for criminal liability under the Maritime Crimes Act.

Some submitters were concerned, also, that the scope of terrorism offences in the bill, as introduced, could be seen as too broad. So the committee considered developing a narrow definition of the term “terrorism”. In fact, it became clear that the bill does not define the term, and nor is the term used in any of the offences identified in the bill. The term “terrorism” is used elsewhere in the bill, so in order to address the concerns of the submitters, the committee recommends deleting the term “terrorism” from the bill completely. The bill would, therefore, simply identify the offences as defined, but not relate them explicitly, or in this legislation, to the concept of terrorism.

We were, therefore, satisfied with what turned out to be, in our view, a very constructive process of submissions and consideration and deliberation of this bill. On the basis of the recommendations of the committee, the Green Party can support the bill, provided the House agrees with the committee’s views.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): As we all know, New Zealand is surrounded by vast oceans, which—to quote Shakespeare—“serves it in the office of a wall”, and yet even those vast oceans would not be enough in this day and age to prevent acts of marine terrorism. So we in New Zealand First are glad to see this bill finally coming back to the House for consideration, because this is a very important matter that does need quite urgent attention. New Zealand needs robust laws to deal with it, while at the same time making sure that we do not compromise the valuable right to protest that people may wish to exercise in the marine environment for one reason or another. We think that the bill actually succeeds in that balance, both providing a robust legal system to prevent or reduce acts of marine terrorism and promoting, and in fact preserving, the right to protest that I spoke of.

I see that the bill actually implements the two 2005 marine counter-terrorism treaties, the Protocol of 2005 to the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the similar Protocol of 2005 to the Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. Having read through the bill in some detail, we in New Zealand First approve of the new offences to implement the offences created by those protocols. They have been a long time coming, but I suppose it is better late than never.

They relate to the use of ships or fixed platforms for terrorist acts and include—and I will list the ones that I think are the most important—the carriage of any radioactive material or biological or chemical material that could be used or could enable threats of use. Those are covered in some detail, which we are pleased about. The carriage of nuclear waste in circumstances in which there is a danger or threat might be, in fact, quite relevant to New Zealand, and that is covered.

Likewise, the carriage of a nuclear weapon in a manner that is likely to cause death or cause serious injury, or for the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act—that would also be covered. That is actually quite consistent with New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stance, and, apart from that, it is a very sensible piece of legislation, and it is a wonder that we did not already have provisions for prosecutions of that in New Zealand.

I am also pleased to see the one that deals with the illicit trafficking by ship of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related material—a bit unlikely in and around New Zealand, I guess, but still a good provision to have. Another important one for New Zealand is the transportation of fugitives by ship, where the person assisting knows that the person being transported has committed an offence in relation to terrorism. That is one that could actually be quite relevant for us, and it is good to see that covered, as well.

Another important provision in the bill is the one that clarifies the law as far as the maritime boarding regime is concerned so that maritime officers will know what they are entitled to do and what they are not. We have seen some examples of that doubt when one of our ships—some time ago now—was involved in a chase in the oceans around Antarctica of a foreign vessel that had been, I think, acting illegally, and a chase ensued. I think there was some discussion in the news media and amongst others about what the rights of our officers on board our ship might be if a boarding was to be undertaken, so it is good to see that covered as well. In the same way, the extraterritorial jurisdiction is clarified as well, to make sure that New Zealand does claim and has jurisdiction over New Zealand ships in the maritime environment, where that is relevant under the Act.

I am also glad to see, however, that the Attorney-General is required to consent if there is going to be a prosecution. I think that that is very important. On the one hand, New Zealand First does not see how the bill could potentially cover the actions of protesters, such as an environmental group, unless they were to go so far as to create a threat of the kind covered in the bill. That seems, to me, highly unlikely, so if they stick to protests they should not have a problem, because they would not seek to be “compelling a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act”. However, it is important that the Attorney-General be required to consent to a prosecution in those circumstances, because there may need to be a judgment made about how far a protest can go before it would infringe the bill.

I am also very pleased to see the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee’s addition of new section 3B in clause 7, which I think I have time to quote. It says this: “To avoid doubt, the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that the person—(a) is carrying out an act for a purpose, or with an intention, specified in any offence in this Act; or (b) intends to cause an outcome specified in any offence in this Act.” I think that does clarify the matter quite well.

I am a little bit amused by the committee’s avoidance of the word “terrorism”. I think that that is a little bit strange, since it did not change anything at all. However, it is a minor matter, and it would not stop New Zealand First from approving of the bill. I also have no issues with the committee’s changes concerning the term “serious injury or serious damage”, and the term “intentionally”. I think that it has done a pretty good job.

This is a necessary bill, even though it has been brought forward far too late, but it is a good bill, and New Zealand First will be very pleased to vote in favour.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): It is a pleasure to speak on this particular bill. The way in which the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee went about its duties in considering this bill has already been canvassed many times in the speeches. I have to say that in the 6 years that I have been here, I have found the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to be the committee that seems to work the best—both sides of the committee. It is the most collegial of the committees that I have been on to date, and I think this bill demonstrates how well the committee has been working.

We received about 150 submissions on the bill. It is fair to say, also, that the vast bulk of what we received submissions on, and what we worked on, and the product of that work, can be found on pages 6 and 7 of the bill. Many of those who submitted were concerned about the use of the word “terrorism” in the bill, and they were concerned about the possibility, in their view, of potentially being found guilty of an offence against the Maritime Crimes Act if they were protesting legitimately. I did chuckle a little bit about the fact that many of the submitters that we had before us on this bill who were concerned about protest action had also submitted only a few months previously on the Trans-Pacific Partnership legislation—also in opposition—but they legitimately had some points to raise.

As other members have pointed out, we did make some changes to the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, particularly the avoidance-of-doubt clause, which goes in there in clause 3B, so that when an individual is protesting for legitimate reasons, is not causing any damage, and is not leading to any situations where they are causing an offence under this bill—we wanted to specifically outline that that protest action is something that would not be an offence under this bill.

We also modified some of the wording around offences relating to ships. There was a concern that if somebody were to get themselves into a situation where they caused damage to a ship, that damage, without the word “serious” before it, could lead them to a situation where they would be found guilty of an offence that carries a maximum imprisonment term of 14 years. That 14-year imprisonment term certainly indicates that we should be ensuring that it is serious damage and serious injury, which are the crimes that we want to have prosecuted, if people are to engage in them. So we inserted the word “serious” before the word “damage” to clarify that it is serious damage that is being targeted here.

That is, essentially, what the committee did most of its work on. The bill implements some changes to the Maritime Crimes Act to bring us in line with conventions and protocols that we signed up to approximately a decade ago. Possibly, we have could have done this earlier, but we are doing it now. The bill makes some sensible changes. The select committee considered it well. I think we reached a point with those concerned that we may be unfairly targeting them through some wording in a bill that may not have been completely right. We have found a halfway house that satisfies them, and also ensures that we comply with the protocols and the conventions. I think we have reached a good point.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Greens are supporting the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill. My colleague Dr Kennedy Graham has outlined that our initial concerns have been subdued. From what I hear, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has worked very hard to ensure that we have balanced the freedoms involved in passing such legislation. I probably want to focus on the submissions. I think it has been stated that there were over 150 submissions, I think 140—the majority—of which were concerned about getting the balance of these freedoms right.

This Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill is to enable us to be on course with international counter-terrorism treaties. We wanted to ensure, I am proud to say, that as New Zealanders we balance the freedoms of safety and security—and the freedom of life, of course—with the freedom of association, the freedom of movement, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of dissent, conscience, and thought. Balancing these freedoms is important, particularly in light of a populist global narrative that seeks to shut down legitimate global movement. As we see the rise of that shutdown of legitimate global movement, I am quite proud of what I am hearing from the select committee in ensuring that we are not knee-jerking to that populist response. So, go us!

I want to thank the New Zealand community for the submissions and for making sure that it is keeping this House on its toes to balance those freedoms. As has been said earlier, one person’s terrorism or even protest can be a whole iwi’s act of kaitiakitanga. If we are recalling the whānau members of the East Coast, who were peacefully protesting in an action of upholding their sovereign guardian responsibilities to protect their food cupboard and their taonga tupuna tuku iho moana [treasure in regards to the sea that was handed down] from the risks of deep-sea oil drilling, and to protect our climate, we need to make sure that we understand who gets the power to define what terrorism is, who gets the power to define what legal is, who gets the power to define even what protest is, and who gets to uphold what actions of kaitiaki are. I want to thank the submitters for understanding that and for making sure that we uphold that.

This is a bill that we support, because at the core of Green Party kaupapa is our commitment to peace, particularly our commitment to peace through justice. In closing, what I want to focus on is: yes, this seems like a sensible bill that the select committee has worked on to ensure that we have got the balance of freedoms right. But the Green Party is very clear that the real counter-terrorism strategies are not so much in punitive legislation; they are actually through the narrative and the ongoing discussion to reach peace through justice, through the fair distribution of power, through the devolution of unelected corporate powers holding influence over governments, through the fair distribution of resources, through the just management of our living systems, and through the validation of sovereign independence for those nations and communities that have been oppressed and in the return of their control of their assets, their water, and their lands. That is the real counter-terrorism strategy.

I am here tonight on the second reading to acknowledge the many submitters who understand that and who are keeping us to account. We will support this in the meantime, but what will really keep us safe is the ongoing discussion of justice. Kia ora.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House is only a minute away from coming to its normal conclusion. I move that the House be suspended—I think that is the right word—for the evening.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will resume her seat. She is not a Minister and she cannot move that motion.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I want to respond to the question, perhaps rhetorical, posed by the member who has resumed her seat, Marama Davidson. This House has the kāwanatanga to define what is terrorism and what is legal. We are doing so in this bill, and it is a good bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is the member finished? Right. The debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. It is time for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.