Wednesday, 15 March 2017

WEDNESDAY, 15 MARCH 2017

WEDNESDAY, 15 MARCH 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Government Financial Position—External Debt, Services Sector, and GDP per Capita

1. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s external financial position?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Today Statistics New Zealand released the balance of payments and international investment position figures for the December 2016 quarter and the December year. They show that New Zealand’s annual current account deficit was down to 2.7 percent of GDP, well down on the 3.4 percent of GDP for the previous year to December. The deficit for the most recent quarter was also the smallest deficit since the March 2014 quarter, and it reflected, in part, increased income earned through New Zealanders investing abroad and also our export sector.

Alastair Scott: What is New Zealand’s net international liability position?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Today’s release shows that New Zealand’s net international liability position, at $156.5 billion, is 59.9 percent of GDP, the lowest it has been since records began in the series, in 2000. In addition, New Zealand’s overall net external debt was down to 55 percent of GDP, well down on the nearly 85 percent of GDP this Government inherited—so that is 55 percent today as against 85 percent in 2008. It is very good progress for New Zealand, it is a tribute to our exporters, and it is a tribute to the success of New Zealanders investing overseas.

Alastair Scott: How has the services sector contributed to New Zealand’s improvement?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The statistics show that New Zealand’s services surplus was $1.2 billion, up $174 million on the September 2016 quarter surplus, and is the highest ever. This is due to an increase in both the number of tourists and the amount they spend, but also the international education sector has contributed strongly, growing from $2.7 billion, 2 years ago, to $3.8 billion now. Other highlights across the export sector include fruit, which is up $1 billion over the last 2 years to $2.7 billion, and wine, which is up $260 million over 2 years to now $1.6 billion.

Alastair Scott: How does the services sector figure highlight how New Zealand’s trade composition has changed over recent years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The strong growth in the services sector, led by tourism and international education, highlights how the economy’s increasing diversification has cushioned the tough time experienced by the dairy industry recently. Despite a nearly $3.5 billion reduction in export returns from dairy as compared with 2 years ago, overall exports have increased from $67.5 billion dollars in 2014 to over $70 billion, with a range of industries contributing to this increase. There are, of course, risks ahead, particularly due to the increased protectionist sentiment around the world, and New Zealand will have to continue to work hard to maintain our progress.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If those figures contain the GDP growth in this country, would he tell us whether those figures contain the GDP per person growth in this country, or has that stagnant figure been left out for convenience?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions there. The Hon Steven Joyce can address one or both.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member is a day ahead of himself, because the GDP figures come out tomorrow, but we will talk about those then, no doubt. Actually, the last time, they were quite good. I think GDP per capita was over 1 percent, from memory, but I think the member should be very proud of these figures for his fellow New Zealanders, because I think that of all the 40 years he has had in politics we have never seen such a strong improvement in our—

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We really have to dissuade that member and his colleagues from indulging in vain personal attacks. It is likely to lead to disorder in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The member is better than that. It was hardly a significant attack, in that it was certainly a political question that was asked and a political answer was given.

Freshwater Management—Bottled Water Exports

2. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement in regard to water that “we need to be sure that any steps we take are fair to all users”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes, in the context of the calls for a moratorium on bottled water exports. These amount to one-millionth of total water use in New Zealand, and it would be unfair to treat them differently from other water users like irrigators, soft drink manufacturers, or breweries.

James Shaw: Is it fair that in places like Ashburton, millions of litres of water can be bottled and sold without paying for the water, whilst the locals who rely on local bore water cannot safely give it to their babies to drink?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is why this Government has advanced a programme of water reforms, including the setting of minimum flows in areas like Canterbury, where there are now significant red zones and where there is a ban on extraction. The difference is that the ban is on extraction for all users, and not simply identifying bottled water exporters, which use one-millionth of the amount of water of other users.

James Shaw: Is it fair that the company that bottles water at Otakiri pays only $2,003 a year to access water, from which it stands to make $255 million a year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note in the figures from Statistics New Zealand that the amount of exported water from New Zealand actually dropped by a million litres a year last year—or 10 percent—so some of the dreamy ideas about super-profits are incorrect. The second thing is the Government is simply saying that you need to treat different water users on the same basis, and whether it is a winery, whether it is dairy farm, or whether it is a factory, you should not have different rules simply based on some prejudice.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not clear to me that the Minister even addressed the question let alone answered it, given that he was talking about the way that water gets allocated. I was asking whether it was fair that the company at Otakiri pays only such a small amount to access that water.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member is making, but I listened very carefully to the answer. I acknowledge there was quite a lot of interjection coming, but in the latter half of the answer there was no doubt in my mind that the Minister addressed the question that was asked.

James Shaw: Given that water bottling, as he insists, may be such a small percentage of water use in this country compared with irrigation, how is it fair to allow a single irrigator to take a million litres of water a day, leaving Hawke’s Bay high and dry?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Irrigation and use by farms is by far the largest user of water, but it is also New Zealand’s most successful industry. I note the Minister of Finance noted the huge growth in wine exports, and that is because we have water. We have large amounts of exports income earned by our meat industry—in fact, 70 percent of New Zealand’s exports rely on water.

James Shaw: Is it fair that Te Matatini National Kapa Haka Festival had to buy water for its event from a local bottler because its own water was too risky to drink?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is an absolute issue for our local authorities to do better at managing their water supplies, and that is why on an issue like Havelock North, the member should focus on competent management of engineering services and not simply blame the dairy industry, as the member’s party has.

James Shaw: Is it fair for the Minister for the Environment to belittle the concerns of 16,000 signatories to an environmental petition calling for the protection of water, calling them “silly” and saying they merely had a “bee in their bonnet”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I make no apologies for our Government being a party that is going to base its data and its decisions on good information, rather than the Green Party, which wants to base its policies on things that are so disconnected from an actual world.

James Shaw: Given that the National Government has made such lofty goals as (1) barely affordable housing by 2020, (2) rivers that will not make you sick in 23 years’ time, (3) raising the superannuation age in 20 years’ time, and (4) being predator-free in 30 years’ time, is the Government planning to achieve anything before it is voted out this September?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The difference between our side of the House and his is that we are focused on a long-term future plan for New Zealand, and I would just invite the member to do a simple thing like support the Government’s resource management reforms, which will require farmers to fence their streams so that they can be cleaner and houses to be more affordable, rather than some of the stupid ideas like banning bottled water exports, which make such a small difference.

Hon David Parker: How much of New Zealand’s water is pristine mineral water—so pure it can be bottled and sold commercially without treatment—and why does he deliberately conflate that precious, scarce resource with the trillions of litres in polluted rivers or Auckland floods?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two questions there. The Hon Dr Nick Smith can address one or the other.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A little bit of basic hydrology for the member is that when you get a big rainstorm, some of that water goes into the aquifer, and it is filtered through nature and ends up as pristine water. So for the member to sort of pretend that a major wet event like there was in Auckland at the weekend does not contribute to New Zealand’s overall water base is ill-informed.

Housing, Auckland—Affordability and Teacher Supply

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that it’s “not true” that teachers can’t afford to buy a home in Auckland, given many reports of teachers leaving Auckland due to housing costs and of principals struggling to fill vacancies?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Acting Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which went on to say that “with the help from the HomeStart loans, and … in my own electorate of Hobsonville Point, [where] we are seeing [some] houses being built there at $460,000 … there are opportunities for teachers like her.” For many people it is a struggle to buy a house, and that is exactly why the Government has a comprehensive suite of measures to get more houses built. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The supplementary question, please, Mr Little.

Andrew Little: Given he thinks housing is affordable for teachers in Auckland, what does he say to Auckland teacher Melanie, who wrote to me recently to say: “When I go back to work full-time I’ll be lucky to afford rent, let alone to buy a house, and I am top of the pay scale.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think we accept that it can be a struggle for some families to purchase a home. It always has been, particularly saving for the deposit. That is one of the reasons that we brought in the HomeStart loan, and we have had more than 20,000 people pick that up so far.

Andrew Little: Given he thinks housing is affordable for teachers in Auckland, what does he say to Auckland teacher Carol, who also wrote to me recently, and said: “It’s sad to know I have no hope of ever owning a home. I don’t know why I bothered to get qualified.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I said, I do accept that it is a struggle for a lot of families—as it has been over the decades, actually, for some—to get into homeownership and to save a deposit and to then be able to afford that mortgage, but I do not agree that there is no hope. I think that with the supply that is going on, with the building consents that are being done, and with the level of building, we will see it getting better for people like her.

Andrew Little: Given he thinks housing is affordable for teachers in Auckland, what does he say to Auckland teacher Leondra, who wrote to me to say she is “paying over a third of my pay per week on rent. How will I ever be able to afford my own home?”

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I said, this Government’s comprehensive plan to have more houses built, particularly in Auckland, is making a difference and will make it easier for people like her.

Andrew Little: What does he say to Colin Dale, principal of Murrays Bay Intermediate School, who says: “I would say there definitely is a very serious teacher shortage. It’s not just about the numbers but about the affordability of being able to live in an area where it is so expensive to rent even a room.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have been informed that the latest figures show that there were 127 teacher vacancies in Auckland in December, which is around 1.5 percent of all teacher positions. Ten years ago there were over 300 vacancies, and in the last year just 2 percent of permanent teachers in Auckland left the region to work elsewhere, and the figure for the rest of New Zealand was also 2 percent.

Andrew Little: When teachers have had a 6 percent nominal pay increase since 2013, but Auckland house prices are up 72 percent and rents are up 22 percent, is life getting harder or easier for teachers due to National’s housing crisis?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would simply repeat that, actually, the figures do not stack up with the member’s assertion that everyone is leaving Auckland and that teachers are leaving because of house prices there. Actually, we are seeing just 2 percent of permanent teachers in Auckland leave the region to work elsewhere, and people have left Auckland to work in other parts of New Zealand for decades.

Andrew Little: Why are he and his deputy so out of touch that they insist buying a home in Auckland is affordable when teachers and principals are clearly saying that Auckland teachers are unable to afford to live as a result of their housing crisis?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I understand that my truthful answers are not fitting the member’s rhetoric that he would like to run today, and they are that we understand that it can be really hard for some families to save for a deposit for a house, and that things in Auckland—we have certainly seen house prices. But it is going to be the policies and the work of this Government that are going to see those opportunities there for teachers.

Environment, Minister—Statements about New Zealand First and Water-user Charges

4. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes, particularly my statement that a 10c a litre charge on water would bankrupt our farmers. They use 6 trillion litres a year in irrigation and stock water, so would be billed $600 billion a year under the 10c a litre policy that both he and Mr Nash from the Labour Party have promoted.

Richard Prosser: What documentary evidence does he have to support his statement: “Yes, I did see a proposal from the New Zealand First Party to charge all water users 10c per litre.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to quote the parliamentary Hansard of the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement on 17 February, where the member said: “If, for example, a 10c a litre charge were made, that would be a good policy.” [Interruption]

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am about to hear a point of order. I expect to hear it in silence.

Richard Prosser: My point of order is that the question related to the charge applying to all water-users. The Minister did not address that.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I heard that the Minister did. He then quoted from the Hansard. As to whether it fits the answer that the member was expecting and was a satisfactory answer, that is for members to determine. The Minister certainly addressed the question that was asked.

Richard Prosser: What documentary evidence does he have to support his statement in relation to “companies are extracting millions of litres of water for bottling and export” that New Zealand First demanded “a prohibition on export.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would refer to the member’s own speeches, where he has sought both charges on water on some occasions, and to other Opposition MPs, like Stuart Nash, who has promoted a 10c a litre charge. My comments are that they are impractical and would bankrupt our most important primary industries.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since the Minister has made reference to speeches that I have made, it is presumably a document on official record that the Minister is quoting from, and I would ask that he table it.

Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly not interested, if it is a Hansard document, in that being tabled, because Hansard is available to all members at any time. Does the Minister want to address what particular official document he may be quoting from?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am quoting the parliamentary Hansard of 17 February 2017, which I—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then that is not what I would confirm—[Interruption] Order! That is not what I have said is an official document that the member can then ask to be tabled. It is already available if the member wants to go and look it up.

Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill—Purpose

5. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made to improve New Zealand’s family violence legislation?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Today I introduced new legislation, the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, to overhaul the Domestic Violence Act. One of the most worrying and most difficult social issues facing New Zealand is our high rate of family violence. Part of this is the ingrained and insidious nature of the problem, but it is also in the fact that there is no easy or quick fix. The omnibus Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill is an important part of building a new way of dealing with family violence. It implements our Safer Sooner reforms, announced in September last year, which are aimed at breaking the pattern of family violence and reducing the harm and cost inflicted on those who suffer violence and on wider New Zealand society. I look forward to the support of this House to progress the bill and help to change our horrific record on family violence.

Sarah Dowie: How will these changes support a more integrated family violence system?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The bill underpins our move to an integrated system through specific changes to promote proactive and coordinated responses—including creating pathways to help families at risk of escalating violence before they end up at court; implementing new information-sharing provisions that allow people in the sector to see all relevant information when assessing risk; allowing codes of practice to be issued to help ensure services are coordinated and consistent; more effectively changing perpetrator behaviour by increasing access to risk- and needs-assessment, and referrals to appropriate services; and enhancing decision making by more accurately recording family violence offending in the criminal justice system, to enable decision makers to easily determine whether a perpetrator has a history of violence—and will provide better information about family violence volumes and trends.

Economic Programme—Tax Cuts and Government Priorities

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with yesterday’s Dominion Post editorial, “it would be absurd for National to hand out tax cuts while refusing to restore contributions to the Cullen fund”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): As it happens, no. Every Government has to make decisions about balancing the needs of investing in people today, versus tomorrow. For this Government, our focus is on hard-working Kiwi families today, as well as on what happens in the future. Therefore, our Budget, which is coming up, has four key priorities: delivering better public services for a growing country; building the infrastructure we all need to keep growing the economy; paying down debt as a percentage of GDP; and working towards reducing the tax burden on lower and middle income earners, to help them with raising their kids or saving for a home.

Grant Robertson: Why is he prioritising absurd tax cuts ahead of actually housing the 41,000 homeless New Zealanders living in cars and garages?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I invite the member to go out and tell every New Zealander, every hard-working Kiwi family, that giving them back a little more of their own money is absurd. I invite him to do that—to go and tell hard-working Kiwis who are trying to bring up their families and are saving for a home that they do not rate according to the Labour Party. He should do that all day—in fact, I recommend he gets on with it in the next question.

Grant Robertson: Why is he prioritising absurd tax cuts rather than helping the 530,000 hard-working Kiwis who said that they could not afford to go to the doctor last year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have some doubt about the member’s numbers, but nevertheless, again, it is important for a Government to focus on delivering public services, and we are doing that with big increases in investment in the health sector and the under-13s policy, which is allowing young Kiwis to go and see the doctor. We do all of those things, and we focus on doing that in a more effective way, with things like the Better Public Services programme. And then, when we get the room, we also trust Kiwis to have the opportunity to spend a little of their own money to bring up their own kids and to actually do the saving for the things that they want. That is what is really important to them.

Andrew Little: What are you doing about lifting incomes?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We are doing that too.

Grant Robertson: Why is he prioritising absurd tax cuts when there are 90,000, 15- to 24-year-olds not in education, not in employment, and not in training?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, we are investing huge amounts in that area. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago I was in Kaikohe—I am not sure whether the member has ever been there—where there was a graduation ceremony for the kids who have been “neets” for a long period of time. There is a Government investment to get those young people into work. Some of those kids have very challenging social issues. We have Project 1000 in Hawke’s Bay, we have the new Project Tamariki programme in Northland, and we have the Youth Guarantee—fees-free.

Hon Member : Why is it getting worse, then? Twenty thousand over the last year. Get it right.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, it is not getting worse. It is getting better—considerably better. We are also looking at ways of supporting Kiwi families in other ways. But, again, I invite the member to keep rubbishing Kiwi families.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister of Finance please save New Zealanders and himself from the indignity of more cartoons like this one in the Dominion Post today, stop the slow striptease on tax cuts, and actually prioritise investing in housing, health, and education?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Can I just say to the member, as much as he is hanging on to his copy of the cartoon, it is not a particularly good likeness.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister admit that his Government’s decision not to contribute to the Cullen fund has cost $22 billion already, or as Adrian Orr said yesterday: “So the fund at the moment is $34 billion. We estimate if the capital contributions had continued, and the investments had been as they had performed, the fund would be around $56 billion.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sure that Mr Orr would be the first to tell the member that, actually, past performance is not necessarily a guarantee of future performance in any investment. But, more importantly, I think the question the member would need to answer—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, I specifically referred to the period that Mr Orr was referring to, which is yesterday, not the future, and I am asking the Minister of Finance: are we down $22 billion as a consequence?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No, the question was a very long-winded question, and when the member continues to ask long-winded questions like that, he invites a very generalised answer from the Minister. If the member wants more specific answers to his questions, he has got to tighten them up in line with Standing Order 380.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am referring to a quote from a well-performing fund run by Mr Orr, and I think I am entitled to quote what he said. It is all in two sentences.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave the member the chance to use the quote. There is no reason why I should not allow that to happen, but in using such a long quote, and a substantial part to the question before the quote, it is a very long question, which gives far more licence to the Minister when he answers. Does the Minister wish to complete his answer?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I would like to. I think the point that is raised is that the question has to be asked: where would that $13.5 billion come from? We did not put that money into the Superannuation Fund because we had to pay for the Christchurch earthquake recovery and we had to support New Zealanders through the global financial crisis. So what the member needs to answer if he wants to ask that question is: would that be $13.5 billion in extra debt, or would he spend $13.5 billion less on New Zealanders, or would he tax New Zealanders $13.5 billion more? Those are his three choices; he cannot magic it up.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So when Adrian Orr says “So we’ve added around $16.5 billion over and above the cost of debt.”, is he wrong and the Minister right?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I cannot speak to Mr Orr’s particular quote, because I think it might have been mangled a little bit, but my point is, in that context, that it does not count against our net debt, Mr Peters. It is actually hypothecated to superannuation, so it is not part of our debt. If we borrow to put more money into the fund, that goes against our net debt. So I come back to my question: does the member recommend us borrowing $13.5 billion more—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We are getting to the stage now where the Minister is asking the member questions. It is question time for Ministers to answer questions.

Regional Tourism Infrastructure—Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund

7. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has she made about the Government providing more support for regional tourism infrastructure?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Tourism): Today we have announced that applications are now open for $5.5 million in extra funding for infrastructure projects, to help regional communities cope with tourism growth. Regions are reaping the benefits of our booming tourism industry, with all 16 regions seeing growth in tourism spending in the last year. But that has brought pressure on infrastructure, so that is why we set up the Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund last year. We received many worthy applications in round one, and, as such, we have opened new funding and a new round with this $5.5 million.

Nuk Korako: What kinds of projects will be funded?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In round one we received 40 applications, of which 26 were eligible, and we funded 14. They included things like new toilets at Lake Tekapō, parking at Taranaki’s Rotokare Scenic Reserve, toilets and rubbish collection in the Coromandel, and freedom camping facilities in Whakatāne. We will be looking at similar projects this time around.

Nuk Korako: Why is the Government stepping in to fund infrastructure projects?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Tourism is now a $14.5 billion export industry that employs over 188,000 people, and is incredibly important for our cities and our regions. Local facilities like this are normally funded by local government, but because of that boom the Government is prepared to step in and help fund some of these projects.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a Local Government New Zealand report from Lawrence Yule, a National Party candidate, saying that local government is down $1.4 billion in deficit spending.

Mr SPEAKER: I just want to be clear. It is an official document prepared by whom?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Local Government New Zealand, and Lawrence Yule, a much-beloved National Party candidate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it publicly available? I suspect it is. Yes, it is—the member nods his head—so I will not be putting the leave.

Work Visas—Settings and Labour Market Test

8. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement, “we’ve got immigration policy settings that make sure the right people come in and the wrong people don’t … I think we’ve got the policy settings just about bang on”?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Yes.

Ron Mark: If our policy settings are “just about bang on”, why has his Government approved over 90,000 work visas for unskilled foreign workers, which is an increase of 71 percent since 2011?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: At the risk of playing a game of “my statistics are better than his statistics”, the labour-market tested work visas that are of most importance to me are the ones described as essential skills work visas. In 2006-07, the last full year the Labour Government was supported by that member’s party, there were 14,612 first essential skills visas granted. Last year there were 8,329. The total number of visas granted that year under the essential skills policy in 2006-07 was 45,213. Last year it was 33,545. I think you will agree that that is a significant drop in the labour-market tested work visas.

Ron Mark: If his Government is “working for all New Zealanders”, why has his Government approved over 90,000 work visas for unskilled migrants, as opposed to helping over 90,000 youth not employed or in education or in training, who are unskilled?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I certainly reject the characterisation of those 90,000 work visas as unskilled. I should also note that last year a significant number of those—69,000 of them—were working holiday visas, subject to bilateral agreements we have with other countries. The key to that is that they are both working and holiday visas. They do two very important things: they spend the money they earn, and they provide a valuable source of labour in very high-demand areas like Queenstown and Wānaka. I think that that member should go down there and tell that community what he intends to do with working holiday visas, and see what the reaction is. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will just have the supplementary question.

Ron Mark: Thank you, Mr Speaker—so tempted. If it is a priority of his Government to “make sure that Kiwis are being trained and getting the jobs that are available”, then why has he turned his back on almost 140,000 Kiwis who are unemployed, in favour of 90,000 unskilled migrants?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refer back to that labour-market test of work visa data, which shows that the number of visas granted under this Government has dropped significantly. I would also say that no Government has done as much as this to make sure that Kiwis are at the front of the queue and in removing the barriers to work for many of those young people. We are continuing to work with employers to make sure that that is the case.

Ron Mark: Could I seek the leave of the House to table—and I do not think they have been released yet—PQ00761, which gives all the statistics, just in order to help the Minister understand his own immigration figures. Nothing has been published yet.

Mr SPEAKER: I just want an assurance that they have recently been received and that they have not been published.

Ron Mark: I do not believe they have been published yet.

Mr SPEAKER: The member should have found that out. What is the date of the answers being received?

Ron Mark: No, I cannot give that. I am told they will not be published until tomorrow.

Mr SPEAKER: On that basis, then, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table those particular answers, on the basis that they have not been published and that they will not be published until tomorrow. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.

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

Housing, Auckland—Housing Infrastructure Fund and Infrastructure Bonds

9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Infrastructure: Why does his Housing Infrastructure Fund offer more debt to councils when the biggest high-growth local authority, Auckland Council, is already close to its debt ceiling?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Infrastructure): The Government has put a billion dollars on the table through the Housing Infrastructure Fund to help fast-growing councils fund their water and transport infrastructure. Can I point out to the member that the transport part of that funding does not increase council debt, because it is a change in the funding assistance rate. The water infrastructure element does increase council debt. Although Auckland Council has indicated some concern around its debt constraints, its income each year is nearly $4 billion, which is up about half a billion dollars in just the last 2 years—in the last 2 years, a half-billion-dollar increase. That would normally provide the council quite a bit of headroom to provide its share of the infrastructure needed for growth. However, we are working with the council on further options that may mean some of its debt is not held on its balance sheet.

Phil Twyford: How can he claim his $1 billion line of credit is a credible policy when only one-third of it is earmarked for Auckland, which alone needs $20 billion to fund the infrastructure for essential housing developments?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I am not sure where the member gets his one-third earmarked for Auckland from, because it is based around the applications that are received from the fast-growth councils, and, actually, they will be assessed irrespective of which council they come from. Again, I think—and I speak as an Auckland ratepayer—it is important to point out that, actually, Auckland’s income has grown a lot in the last couple of years. It is $4 billion worth of turnover this year. Two years ago, it was around $3.5 billion. If the council had have held its cost structure—and I appreciate it is not Mr Goff’s lookout, because he has only just come into the job—to what it was 2 years ago, then it would be generating half a billion dollars’ worth of money that it could use against its debt today, based on 2 years ago.

Phil Twyford: Is he aware that only 10,000 new homes were consented in Auckland in the last year, adding to his growing deficit of 40,000 new homes needed, and will he now accept that Labour’s plan for infrastructure bonds, paid back by a targeted rate, will make infrastructure financing fairer, cheaper, and, most importantly, will open up the flow of finance that new housing developments desperately need?

Mr SPEAKER: There are, again, two supplementary questions. The Minister can address one or both.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In terms of the construction rate in Auckland, I know the member does not want to know this, but, actually, we are in the middle of a massive building boom in Auckland. In the suburb where I live, for example, there are literally a couple of thousand apartments being built around now, and, actually, the consent figures for the last year were around 10,000, and also there was a similar number the year before. By any standards, more houses are being built in Auckland now than at any time since about 2004. The member might want to ignore that, but, actually, most Aucklanders who know and see the subbies and the contractors around know that it is actually happening.

Phil Twyford: Why would he not pass on to homeowners the Government’s ability to borrow on the international bond market more cheaply than anyone else and spread that cost over the lifetime of the asset, instead of loading it all on to the price tag of a new home, which is what currently happens?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I am sorry, but the member is simply incorrect. That is not what currently happens. In fact, councils borrow money and push it out over 20 or 30 years precisely for the reasons that the member identifies so that it does not all fall on today’s homeowners. So he is just completely wrong. The other issue he has got with his bond model is that it depends very much on how it is structured in terms of whether the debt still ends up on the councils. There is a thing called international accounting standards, which means that if you have a debt, it ends up on your balance sheet. It ends upon your balance sheet. So we are actually working with Auckland Council and other councils on some opportunities around special purpose vehicles, but the member is wrong if he thinks that just allowing the council to borrow the Government’s money and pay it back would actually solve the issue.

Phil Twyford: Does he stand by Nick Smith’s dismissal of Labour’s infrastructure bonds plan as “creative accounting”, given that the idea is supported by the Productivity Commission, the Property Council, and Infrastructure New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member’s proposal around infrastructure bonds, as I said before, depends completely on who holds the debt. Somebody has to hold the debt, and the council has to dedicate a stream of income against that debt, and that is what we are working on—

Hon David Parker: No, it’s a targeted rate.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, it is still a stream of income. You can call it a targeted rate, but it is still some of the rates income of the council dedicated against that debt. We are looking at something called special purpose vehicles, which might help in this regard, but you cannot just pretend the debt goes on the council.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 10—

Hon Member: Come on, keep going.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, we are not keeping going.

Abortion—Law Reform

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

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Jan Logie: How can he stand by his statement that our 40-year-old abortion law has “stood the test of time” when it undermines women’s right to choose, often requires people to lie about the reasons they need an abortion, and was written before the invention of medical abortions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It has not been altered in 40 years and, as such, the Prime Minister stands by his statement.

Jan Logie: Is he comfortable that 90 percent of women who choose to seek an abortion are ineligible for medical abortions because of all the hoops they have to jump through?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I stand by the law as it currently is, and we have no plans to bring in legislation otherwise.

Jan Logie: Has he asked the Minister for Women about whether she thinks it is time we trusted women and their doctors to make the right decisions for them?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have spoken with the Minister for Women on issues around this. One thing that she has spoken about is how pleased she is about both the reduction in teen births to teenagers and, actually, abortions as well. For example, in 2007 there were 18,382 abortions and in 2015 there were 13,155. The other great news, though, more importantly, I think, is that we have got 57 percent fewer teen mums on welfare, and I think that they and their children will be doing much better.

Roading, Coromandel Electorate—State Highway 2

11. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to improve safety and travel times on State Highway 2 between Tauranga and Waihī?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Yesterday I welcomed news from the New Zealand Transport Agency that a bypass of the Katikati town centre will be included in the upgrade of State Highway 2 between Tauranga and Waihī. Recently there has been strong growth in traffic volumes through the town and growing concerns in the local community about the safety of the road. I am pleased that the views of the Katikati community have been taken on board. The new bypass will not only return the town to the local community but also improve road safety and increase economic growth in the region.

Scott Simpson: What other work is the Government doing to improve safety and travel times on State Highway 2 in the Coromandel electorate between Tauranga and Waihī?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The stretch of highway between Tauranga and Waihī is overrepresented in fatalities and serious injuries. That is why the Government is delivering a $520 million roading package in an ongoing effort to improve safety and travel time and to support economic growth in the region. There will be $85 million spent on a wide range of safety improvements along the road, which will reduce death and serious injury crashes. The package also includes the long-awaited, over $300 million Tauranga Northern Link, which will connect Tauranga with Ōmokoroa. All up, these projects are but a part of the Government’s multibillion-dollar investment in regional New Zealand.

Schools, Buildings—Funding

12. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she believe the Government has succeeded in her 2014 aim to “get ahead of demand” for new classrooms before serious capacity issues arise; if so, why did the Government fail to spend $54 million allocated for new schools and roll growth last year?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education): Yes, I do believe the Government is succeeding in getting ahead of demand. In Auckland, for example, we have signed off and funded 17,000 student places since 2014, which means that we are running thousands ahead of high-growth projections in the Auckland Plan. Secondly, the member does not understand the Budget process. The $54 million transfer was in the context of a $500 million appropriation over 3 years of Budgets. It is not unusual to have a 10 percent difference when you are managing a major capital programme. There are a range of reasons, some of which can be very positive in the timing of the draw-down. Sometimes it can be because of procurement savings, which is a good thing. Sometimes it can be because schools are asking for additional scope, which we give them at a later stage. It would be incorrect for the member to infer that the overall delivery date for these projects is delayed and that we are not investing in growth.

Chris Hipkins: Why is Balmoral School still waiting for its upgrade work, given she visited the school in 2015 to announce a $24 million upgrade, only to announce this week that it will now get $30 million because constant delays to the project have seen costs blow out by over $5 million?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: There are a range of reasons why Balmoral School has taken longer. It has chosen, at one level, to do additional things in terms of its design. The second issue has been growth—and there has been additional growth; that is why we have signed off the additional $5 million. The third issue is that there are weathertightness issues. But, as my letter this week said, we have given it an additional $5 million.

Chris Hipkins: Is it acceptable that while Balmoral School continues to wait for its major upgrade, it also continues to wait to use the temporary relocatable classrooms already sitting on its school field in the meantime, particularly given that the building consent for the relocatable classrooms was issued by the Auckland Council on 3 February and lapsed because nobody from the Ministry of Education bothered to pick it up?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I would have to look specifically at that issue of consent. I am aware that there was a public meeting the other night. There were a range of things raised, some of which—in fact, the member Jacinda Ardern attended—I think were incorrect that were said publicly. What I would say is that that school is getting $30 million, and part of the reason for the delay has been due to design and the community’s wish to take longer in terms of design.

Chris Hipkins: What are the significant changes to the design that Balmoral School has put forward, and how does it vary from the one it put forward in 2012, upon which the original funding of $24 million was appropriated?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions. The Minister can address one or the other.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: My understanding is that a large part has to do with the additional growth. If you look at what the roll has gone to, it has gone over 900 students, so the conversation that has been going on—

Chris Hipkins: No change to the design.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: In fact, I can give him the detail. I do not always memorise 2,500 schools’ property programmes, but what I can tell the member is that we signed off 32 new classrooms and have now signed off several additional refurbished classrooms, and that is because of growth.

Chris Hipkins: How many of the schools that have been allocated funding for upgrades, in a recent flurry of announcements, will be waiting several years for the work to even start, as Balmoral School has been waiting—or does she think that getting photo ops and press releases is more important than actually getting the work done?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: In regard to the second question, in terms of photo ops, yes, there are a lot of photo ops happening. That is because we have spent a third more—$1.5 billion more—fixing the last Labour Government’s legacy of rotting schools and not investing in growth.

Chris Hipkins: Do the figures on the Ministry of Education’s Education Counts website—the ones that Hekia Parata says are the only reliable figures—show that the Government has spent $3.549 billion in the last 6 years, compared with $3.467 billion in the 6 years prior to that; if so, how on earth does she justify her claim that it is spending so much more money?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: If you had listened to all the statements that I have made, they are over an 8-year period. We have spent $1.5 billion more than the last Government over that period.

Chris Hipkins: Was Christchurch Boys’ High School principal Nic Hill wrong when he said: “The everyday reality is most schools don’t have enough property. It’s not just the rebuild, it’s resourcing.”, and was North Shore Principals Association chair Craig Holt also wrong when he said: “It seems to be we chase our tail in terms of planning for roll growth.”?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Obviously, I do not agree with those statements generally, because overall property funding has increased by a third. But can I just mention Christchurch Boys’ High School, because the facts are that it is getting $33 million. The facts are, as well, that 50 percent of its students are out of zone.

General Debate

General Debate

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It is a great pleasure to speak at this particular point and ask the question that is on the lips of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders every day, and it is this: what is it about the housing crisis that this Government does not get?

Unlike the Minister of Finance, I get around a lot of New Zealand and a lot of places. Just in the last couple of weeks, hundreds of people turned out at Tauranga, and hundreds turned out at Whangarei—200 at Clyde last week alone. Everywhere I go, everyone I speak to, and everywhere I look, people are saying: “Why is it this Government does not get it about the housing crisis?”. Everyone is now affected by this Government’s neglect and negligence and dereliction when it comes to housing. It is not just about the out-of-control house prices in Auckland; it is also now about rents and rentals. It is not just rent in Auckland; it is rents right across the country, as people are finding. Hard-working New Zealanders are finding they cannot afford to pay their rent any more.

What a damning statistic—that we now find just 2 weeks ago that the average working family finds that what little pay increase it got last year was almost entirely eaten up in extra housing costs. So New Zealand families last year were, on average, better off by—would you believe it—$2 a week. Just $2 a week, and that is before inflation. That is before the rising cost of food and other costs that households have to meet. No wonder we have people living no longer just in cars and garages but now in caravans. And now it turns out that schools are so desperate they are going to teach kids in caravans. I do not know what it is about this Government and caravans, and jamming people into places where they cannot live and cannot learn.

You know, this Government boasts that it is the social investment Government, and it says: “We look at figures and we look at information and we have all the best data and we make a decision that answers the problem that we see.” Well, what is it about the information about housing that this mob does not get? What is it about the one in five working New Zealanders who is now paying more than 50 percent of their take-home pay in accommodation that does not compel the Government to want to do something serious and meaningful about housing? I ask what it is about that figure about household incomes simply not keeping pace with the real rising cost of living that does not force it around that Cabinet table to say: “You know what, Nick? You’ve got to do something else. You’ve got to do something better because what is happening now is not working.” What is it about 41,000 New Zealanders—at least—who do not even have a home they can call their own that does not make the Government want to do something different?

Well, Labour is going to come to the rescue. Labour has got the plan. Labour is here and we will build 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years, and we will build the workforce to go with it, and we will work with the landowners and the property developers, and whoever else we have to, with our Affordable Housing Authority, and we will build those homes. We will get stuck into the speculators—the people who live overseas but want to own a home here because New Zealand is a fantastic place to own a home even if you do not want to live in it. We are going to get stuck into them and we are going to do what many of our counterpart countries do around the world and say: “If you want to own a home here, you build a new home.”

And then we are going to go after those who get the tax break called negative gearing and we are going to say: “You ain’t having that tax break any more.” We are going to do something about that so that first-home buyers, those struggling and striving to do what every New Zealander who has grown up believing they could do—that if they do the right things, work hard and save hard, they can buy their own home. They are going to get a look-in, for once. They are going to get a look-in, because right now there is one party that is listening to New Zealanders right across the country. Whether it is Tauranga, Whangarei, Clive, the Botanical Gardens here in Wellington—everywhere I have gone there is one party that is listening to New Zealand, and it is the Labour Party.

New Zealanders are saying: “We want our dream back. We want our kids and our grandkids to have the opportunity that we had to own our own home, to have our own place, to put down our anchors, to have a place where we can raise our children with confidence, be part of strong communities, raise a strong family, and live in the great prosperous, bounteous country that we are.” That is the Kiwi Dream. It is the Labour dream, and we are putting it in place in September this year.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I heard the most amazing revelation on breakfast TV this morning with reports that the New Zealand city with the highest rate of growth in traffic congestion is Dunedin. Would you believe that—a 28 percent increase in peak travel time. Tempting though it might be for me to rush along to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance and ask for a roads of southern significance infrastructure—I have to reflect on the fact that, actually, the impact of that is that the travel time from home to my office has gone from 6 minutes to 8 minutes.

Hon Members: No!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I know, it is tough. It is really tough in paradise. But statistics can be used in many, many ways. If you want to paint a positive picture, you can; if you want to paint a negative picture you can.

The harbingers of doom and gloom and negativity have to be the Labour Party members. Here is an inconvenient truth about housing: the Auckland house prices are dropping. They have tapered off and they are now starting to drop. That happened in Christchurch 2 or 3 years ago when there was a supply crisis of a different reason that was solved by the building of houses, and there are more houses being built now in this country and in that city than at any other time in this country’s history. There are opportunities for New Zealanders to get into the housing market outside of those cities. The low interest rates, the KiwiSaver HomeStart grants, and the other issues that we have are certainly helping people into houses.

But I will give Mr Little credit for this. He is consistent on his housing message. Regardless of the reality, he continues to talk the housing message up, which is not really what he is doing on superannuation, because what he said a couple of years ago was: “If there is one thing that scares the bejesus out of me, it’s the looming cost of superannuation.” He backed that up with Mr Parker’s earlier comments that said: “I’m willing to deal with the age of eligibility for superannuation. This is not populist politics.” But the doozy for me is this: “Politics can’t be just about making decisions that anger the least number of people. It has to be about doing the right thing. Labour’s view that superannuation should be lifted is one we think needs to be phased in.” That was that new princess of the Labour Party, the anointed deputy leader, Jacinda Ardern. So it is OK to hold a message regardless of the facts on one level but also to flip and flop.

Well, here is what we did. We gave certainty to people in the toughest of times, through the global financial crisis, and then we signalled that it was time for a reset, long after Mr Peters has dispensed with his need for superannuation. It will be long after the people who are reliant on that and who do not have time to prepare for it. This is a Government that is prepared to change when the circumstances change and to make the bold decisions—decisions to increase where necessary and to invest where necessary, and we have already made some significant announcements in that regard such as 1,100 new police. It is not just a number but a place and an expectation about the way in which those fine staff will be deployed with expectations for reductions in crime in specific areas that concern the public.

There were great announcements on phase two of the Rural Broadband Initiative, and I know that is going down really, really well in places like Stuart Smith’s electorate and Todd Barclay’s electorate—

Hon Jacqui Dean: And mine.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —and Jacqui Dean’s Waitaki electorate, where they are so interested and invested in making sure that they can trade and communicate and avoid the tyranny of distance that has previously been the case in some areas. That is going to be another significant development in this election year.

I also want to draw attention to some of the things that are about to happen on 1 April. We are now 2 weeks away from what I think are very, very important issues for New Zealanders—that is the increase in the minimum wage again, several times the rate of inflation, to make sure that everybody gets the benefit of a growing economy, and significant levy reductions for ACC levy payers, both workers, employers, and motor vehicle users—

Tracey Martin: You people put them up and now you’re gonna take credit for lowering them.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: What? There is another reinvention. There is a statistic that I have not actually seen; not only are they being interpreted but they are now being invented. This is a Government that does not shy away from the hard decisions. It has energy. It is bold. It will take ideas into this year’s campaign, and I think that is a very good thing.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): What finger did that Minister lift? What hard decision did that Minister make when, in his own backyard, the Cadbury factory closes down and 360 jobs disappear from his community—not a whisper, not a mutter, not a finger lifted.

The only real surplus we see from that Government is a surplus of spin—an absolute surplus of spin. All it gives us is a surplus on a piece of paper. That is all it is worth—the paper it is written on. The surplus they keep referring to means nothing to real-world New Zealanders living week to week. New Zealanders across this country have watched for nearly a decade as that party has cut, as it has slashed, and as it has burned. Week by week, month by month, and year by year those National Party members have lost touch with real-world New Zealanders. They do not know what is going on in the real world.

That pursuit of a piece of paper surplus has meant, for example, that mental health issues have risen, suicides have risen across the board, and we still have the highest teen suicide rates in the entire world. All the while that that is happening, this Government, in the pursuit of a piece-of-paper surplus, has slashed the budget for mental health and suicide prevention. That is what a surplus means to that Government. People now see that this paper surplus has led to longer waiting lists at our hospitals, although, to be fair, you have to wait on a waiting list to get on the waiting list, because the numbers are so bad now.

Even the current promised increase in police numbers—and we have not heard anything about that lately—does not bring the level of police up to the level they were at when that Government took control and had power over the books for the Police. Even the promises do not bring us back to the start of when they took over. It is an absolute farce and it is wrong to suggest that they are doing something for our regions and people in their homes. Literally—literally—people are less safe in their homes, and drugs, especially P, have spread rampantly throughout this country.

I was informed only last week from the Police that gangs and their memberships are growing like weeds across New Zealand at historic numbers, and that comes back to our police numbers and the opportunities that those gangs now have. Across the country, station after station is closing down and the wait that people are forced to endure is getting longer. I have been told that in Northland, with the current staffing provision, even if a policeman or policewoman is dispatched immediately on a call, the wait can still be 40 minutes—40 minutes in a person’s time of crisis.

Contributions to the Cullen fund were stopped to achieve that paper surplus. The opportunity cost of that short-sighted decision has meant a loss of $22 billion to that retirement fund—$22 billion. For nearly 10 years the Government not only has done nothing about Government debt but has grown it exponentially. It now exceeds $100 billion. This National Government’s paper surplus has destroyed lives and families. It has been overshadowed by the largest debt this country has ever seen. Aucklanders are now spending 4 weeks in traffic every year. And that is because—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Four weeks in traffic every year, because this Government just lets in the equivalent of the population of Rotorua every year and does nothing and spends no money on infrastructure. Auckland, and, actually, the rest of the country, is choking up. It is absolutely choking up. This Government needs to stop talking about its paper surplus and acknowledge the real world and real families. Bill English needs to own the fact that his—his—term of cuts has led to, and will lead to, even greater poverty not only in our homes but in our businesses. Thank you very much.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Youth): It is great to be a part of a fiscally responsible, busy Government that is future focused. In the last few months alone, our Government has announced half a billion dollars, in terms of Police; we have announced a new superannuation policy; we are delivering hundreds of millions of dollars in new schools and new roll-growth classrooms; our education budget has gone up 35 percent since 2008—and you compare this with the Opposition. I think the phrase that I would give New Zealanders is: you have got one party of substance with significant initiatives delivering for New Zealand, compared with a superficial cosmetic facelift.

I want to talk about the deputy leadership of the Labour Party. We lost Annette King. I want to acknowledge Annette King. She has been a brilliant member of Parliament. She is someone who has huge respect across the House—and we got Jacinda Ardern. Now, I have been based in Auckland Central for 8 years. I struggle to name anything that Jacinda has done. What I can say is that a great example is when Kevin Hague and I developed an adoption law reform bill. We spent a year on that bill; we put it in the ballot. Jacinda Ardern did a one-line bill telling the Law Commission to write the law for her.

On her first day in the job as deputy leader, on one of the biggest issues confronting our generation, Generation X and Generation Y—on the issue of superannuation affordability—where was she? She had made a whole lot of statements previously about the importance of raising the age, and Jacinda Ardern was nowhere to be seen. She had cut and run on the biggest issue facing our generation, and that is another example of what is a whole lot of photo ops—yes, she will be across every billboard, but she absolutely failed our generation on her first day on the job.

This is a common pattern across the Government. From our perspective we are out there announcing hard policies—Future Focus, Predator Free 2050, superannuation—looking ahead. We are incredibly busy in our third term. Then you have this Opposition that not only had a very small number of policies before but now has Andrew Little, across the country, trying to erase that small number of policies that they had. We heard the other day that he is not going to raise taxes if he becomes Prime Minister. Memo to Andrew Little: you have to form a Government—on the current numbers, which have been the numbers for the last 8 years—with the Green Party. So does anyone out there in New Zealand really believe that the Labour Party will not be raising taxes? It used to have a capital gains tax. Where has the capital gains tax gone? It has gone.

This is a Labour Party that thinks the only way that it can get into Government is to totally get rid of all of its policies and to make sure that has got some nice fancy new billboards and some photo ops—compared with a Government that is prepared to make the hard decisions, that is investing in infrastructure, and that is investing more than a third more in schools. We are doing things in terms of our most vulnerable. We have got more significant investment than ever in terms of social investment. Anne Tolley is doing a great job in terms of some of our most at-risk and vulnerable children. We have got significant reform, as I said before, in law and order. We are going to have a whole lot more police on the streets. You have got ACC reductions happening—we took that out of a very difficult situation that we were handed.

Generally, you have got a situation in terms of the Government’s books where we were staring down a decade of deficit. Now we are in surplus. You have got significant investments happening across social housing, and you have got a Labour Party—the main Opposition—that thinks the way that it can win is to have no policy, to have a superficial facelift, and to have another person on the billboards. I do want to acknowledge that this election will be fought on some of the big issues for Generation X and Generation Y, and in my view it is this side of the House that is confronting those issues and that side that is failing.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I am rising to talk about the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. Recently, Consumer New Zealand and Horticulture New Zealand announced a poll of more than a thousand people. They found 71 percent of those polled wanted mandatory country-of-origin labelling, and only 9 percent were opposed to it—only 9 percent. In 2007 the Green Party had a 39,000-strong petition calling for mandatory country-of-origin labelling—right back then. In 2014 Russell McVeagh reported that a recent consumer survey found that 35 percent of New Zealanders then always or often considered a New Zealand - made product first, and more than 50 percent were prepared to pay a bit more for it. There is not even an issue of costing more for consumers if we go down the mandatory country-of-origin labelling path at this point. So we are after all parties in this House to support that member’s bill when it comes up next month.

Around the same time, in 2014, the seafood industry had a document Country of Origin Labelling and the New Zealand Seafood Industry. Again, most New Zealanders said they would support it: 53 percent wanted more on their labels, and 42 percent wanted more country-of-origin labelling and manufacturer information. As I say, here we are in 2017, and Consumer New Zealand and Horticulture New Zealand, which, I might add, represents 5,500 growers, find in a very reputable poll that seven out of 10 Kiwis want mandatory country-of-origin labelling. They say 65 percent of shoppers look for labelling information on fresh fruit, but less than a third always find it—just 32 percent always find that when they are looking for it—and even fewer, just 29 percent, find it on vegetables.

New Zealanders deserve to know where their food comes from, and they want to. They want to know. They want food they can trust. They want labels that they can trust. New Zealand Pork reports that almost 60 percent of the pork consumed in New Zealand at this point is imported pork, but do we see labels saying “Pork; product of Canada”, “Pork; product of Australia”, or “Pork; product of China”, or wherever? We do not. We are lucky if we see some that say “Product of New Zealand”, but consumers deserve and want to know where their food comes from. It seems to be increasing. Voluntary labelling, as is used in part by two of the main supermarket chains, is not good enough, and it is really not working. One example for me was just around the new year in a supermarket in Amberley, and it had capsicum—“Product of New Zealand/Australia/Holland”. Which country did it come from? That is voluntary labelling for you, and there are far more examples than that.

There are at least 1,000 food outlets in this country that do not have voluntary country-of-origin labelling. There are plenty of stores that do not have it. Australia has had it for years—it seems like for ever. It was in 2005 that New Zealand opted out of the Australia and New Zealand Food Authority food safety agreement in terms of this issue, country-of-origin labelling, and Australia has only strengthened it since then. It has come out with quite a new label at the moment that has at least the proportion in there. This bill is a very simple bill for single ingredients—fresh fruit and vegetables, fish, meat, grains, oils, that sort of thing. I am calling on all parties in this House to support the bill. Thank you.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Seniors): It is with great pleasure that I rise to talk about this Government’s proud track record and echo the sentiments so eloquently expressed by my friend and colleague the Hon Nikki Kaye, who has bounced back with a vengeance. She absolutely nailed it when she talked about the superficial cosmetic makeover, really, that the Opposition has done by changing its front bench and having a deputy leader who has achieved almost nothing that anyone can name. This is the quality of person who is replacing Annette King, who has served loyally and well, and that is the punishment that she gets for doing what she has done. To me, that appointment and the nonsensical “Angry Andrew” diatribe that began this debate characterises why it is that Labour is lost in the wilderness. It does not have a hope. It does not have policies. It does not have people who can enact them. It is a waste of space as an Opposition, and then it joins forces with the Greens. So we have a double-whammy of ineffectiveness.

Rather than dwell on the nonsense that we have been hearing and the lack of substance, I would like to talk in my call about the significant progress that this Government is making. At-risk children and family violence: the work that has been done in this area—and I commend my colleague the Hon Anne Tolley, who has worked extremely hard with Amy Adams to do what no Government has done before, and that is to bring together a very large group of Ministers, ministries, and officials to really look hard at the fabric and substance of what we can do to deliver in an area that has really become more and more of a problem. I know from my own seniors portfolio that the reported cases of elder abuse and then social isolation are really the thin end of the wedge; we really need to be able to address them, and we are doing that.

We are knowing and identifying that family and sexual violence affects children. It affects people of all ages and stages, including the elderly. It has devastating impacts on individuals, their families, and communities. Family violence, it is estimated, costs New Zealand more than $4 billion a year, and the total annual cost of sexual violence crime is estimated at about $1.8 billion. These are serious problems, for which we have policies, new ministries, and different ways of addressing. I think that the work that we have done will change the face of New Zealand, and make it a much safer place for all New Zealanders.

In superannuation, with the changes that have been signalled, I am very proud to be part of a Government that is supporting older New Zealanders, treating them with respect and understanding that they expect and are entitled to only too well—a level of support that we need to be able to give them and guarantee that we can give in perpetuity to our older New Zealanders. By gradually increasing the retirement age from 2037 from 65 to 67 years of age, we will much more fairly spread the costs and the benefits of superannuation between generations. It is something that we have heard and we have acknowledged. We are giving people the opportunity and the time to plan ahead and to adjust. This will of course not affect anyone born before 30 June 1972.

We have a very strong track record, as a Government, in the past 8 years, of supporting our superannuitants. The weekly payments have increased by 35 percent after tax, while inflation has increased by 14 percent. We are very much committed to the universal nature of New Zealand superannuation. We will keep it pegged to 66 percent of the average wage, which—under the great work that was done by our now Prime Minister and is being carried on by our Minister of Finance, Steven Joyce—is making this a strong economy, so that we are able to continue to deliver. And the average wage will rise, and with it, superannuation entitlements. As well as that, we are not means testing. We are ensuring that our senior New Zealanders are well looked after.

Some of the things that have been exciting me, as the Minister of Conservation, are around Predator Free 2050, which I would like to dwell on as a final part here. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister and I will go to Dunedin to sign a memorandum of understanding with that city, along with Wellington, along with Picton, and along with a lot of communities around New Zealand that are now embracing the vision that by 2050 we will be rid of the top three pests: rats, stoats, and possums. We are addressing other pests as well; the war on weeds is going very well. We are trying to ensure that kauri dieback is addressed, along with other real threats to our conservation and to the glorious landscape that, I think, as New Zealanders, we all identify with strongly and feel proud of. Predator Free 2050 is at the heart of it. It is a vision that is being embraced throughout the country, and I am proud that our leader, the new Prime Minister, has such faith in it as well, and that cities around New Zealand are embracing it. Thank you.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very delighted to rise and speak today after my colleague the Hon Maggie Barry, and what she has talked about is very significant for New Zealand’s future. It is always a good thing—it is a great thing, actually—when external reviewers can back up what you have been saying for some time. That means that people who are objective and who are outside of whatever system you operate in can verify through their external measures the validity of your statements.

Just toward the end of last year New Zealand was ranked first in the world in 2016 by the Legatum Institute’s global prosperity index. That means that this nation and this Government have been transforming our national income into social gains, effectively and efficiently, better than anyone else. That is what the external reviewers said. They covered 149 nations, totalling over more than 104 different measures. This is their quote—this is what they said. They said that New Zealand has been the best deliverer of prosperity in the world for the last decade, and so strong is its prosperity delivery that it ranks first in the prosperity index above 26 countries with greater wealth at their disposal. Twenty-six countries have more money per capita than this nation, yet we surpass them all in terms of prosperity of our citizens. That is because this Government is efficient, this Government is effective, and this Government has great policy settings that benefit the people of this nation.

We determined to have better public services for our people. We determined that the end user, in a sense, the general public, is going to receive the greatest benefit of what this Government is able to produce. The institute said that there are challenges in the world. We know that Donald Trump wants to make America great again. The truth is that American prosperity has stagnated over the last decade, and even countries that were less badly affected by the financial crisis, like Australia, have seen prosperity decline over the past decade.

That is why many New Zealanders are coming back from Australia, into New Zealand. They see that this is a country where they can get ahead, where they can find employment, and where they can find a future for themselves and their families. New Zealand’s vital signs of health are strong. We are rated first in the world for prosperity, first in the world for ease of doing business, first equal for anti-corruption, and second for quality of government, and we intend to make that a first.

We are on track to reduce Government debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020, when we can then resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. We were one of the first developed countries to get back into surplus after the global financial crisis with a $1.8 billion surplus posted last year. As the Hon Michael Woodhouse said, on 1 April we are seeing the minimum wage increase and we are seeing ACC levies decrease. That is more benefit. That is more money in the back pocket of hard-working New Zealanders. This Government is proud of that. We want to see the benefit come through to our people.

Prosperity is a state of being wealthy, of having a rich and a full life. Let me just bring some quotes that have come out in this last week that give us the reason why New Zealand is increasingly becoming a prosperous place. We have the provisional result of 85.2 percent of 18-year-olds achieving NCEA level 2 or equivalent in 2016, which is an overall lift in achievement of 11 percent since 2011. We are doing far better in our educational achievement than ever before. So that is congratulations to students, to teachers, and to parents on the hard work that they are doing.

But the standout achievements in Māori and Pasifika communities have to be noted. An estimated 74.7 percent of Māori achieved NCEA level 2 or equivalent—up from 57 percent. It is a 30 percent lift. In the Pasifika community it is a 22 percent lift. We know that higher educational achievements are very much part of the pathway of success for people as they come into employment and a lifelong career in the workforce. In my closing remarks I say that this Government is doing a great job for New Zealanders, and the world sees it.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): What a great couple of speeches we have heard—firstly from the Hon Maggie Barry and now from my colleague Jonathan Young, who have made contributions to this debate.

This time last week my electorate of the Coromandel was being drenched by one of the most severe rain weather events that the region has had to succumb to for many, many long years. This time last week there were houses that were in jeopardy, slips were occurring, roads were closed, and there was a lot of surface flooding around the region. Farmers were having to put up with moving stock. There was some very serious concern that the weather would continue over the weekend, and that the situation would get worse.

This time last week most of the emergency first responders—who are almost always, in my part of the world, volunteers—were out around the electorate, ensuring that people, property, and communities were safe during a very stressful weather event. I just want to acknowledge the contribution of all of those people who assisted last week—the civil defence people, the contractors, and the people from the New Zealand Defence Force, who were ready, willing, and able to assist, should we have needed them. I also acknowledge the very good work of the district councils, the regional council, and of course private citizens who went about their work of supporting each other—neighbours supporting neighbours, communities supporting communities—and showing the very best of what the Coromandel has to offer, even in adverse weather conditions.

I have been talking to the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon Nathan Guy, because I am very aware that there are a number of farms in the Coromandel that have suffered an impact that is beyond normal weather event impacts, and there is some serious work yet to be done. So I am hopeful that the Minister, who will be visiting some of the flood-affected areas today, will be in a position to get a first-hand view of what the situation is on the ground and apply himself to the situation that those people find themselves in.

This is a National Government that I am very proud to be a member of. It is doing terrific things for regional, rural, and provincial New Zealand. In my electorate of the Coromandel there are several terrific examples of how this is impacting in a positive, tangible, real, and meaningful way that brings positive change to people in my communities.

Just yesterday the Minister of Transport was able to confirm that the New Zealand Transport Agency has committed to a long-awaited, much-wanted, and much-needed bypass on State Highway 2, through the very beautiful and important township of Katikati. This is going to be part of a $520 million roading safety improvement package for my region. I see the member for the Bay of Plenty, my colleague Todd Muller, nodding. This roading improvement will go through my electorate, through Waihī, through Katikati, through the Bay of Plenty electorate, and into Tauranga. It will strengthen roading networks, make them safer, and make them better for the people who use those roads and who live in those communities. That is a very, very welcome decision by this Government, which is committed to rural and provincial New Zealand and ensuring that good outcomes are achieved for people in those communities.

Another excellent example of the commitment that this Government has to rural and provincial communities can be further demonstrated in my electorate by the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband to 13 Coromandel communities over the next several years. It will be starting in Thames, literally in a few weeks’ time. The roll-out of ultra-fast broadband will be crucial in changing the way people’s lives are lived in electorates like mine. So in communities like Pāuanui, Tairua, Whitianga, Thames, Ngātea, Te Aroha, and Katikati what it will mean is that once we have ultra-fast fibre connected to those sorts of townships there will be an opportunity for a resurgence of economic activity. Those towns that were, only a few months ago, being labelled by pessimistic, narrow-minded economists as “zombie towns” will actually prove to be successful in a way that those pessimistic people could never have imagined.

This is a Government that is doing great things for rural and provincial New Zealand. I am very proud and pleased to be part of a Government that has such a clear focus. This is a good Government, doing great work.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The last time that Labour was in Government we ran nine straight surpluses. Every single year that Labour was in Government, the Government was in surplus. We used those surpluses not only to invest in stronger, better public services, but also we started the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—known, of course, as the Cullen fund because it was Michael Cullen who started it—so that the Government could start saving for the future.

We also started KiwiSaver, with the incentives to get Kiwis into KiwiSaver so that they could start saving for their future themselves. And, of course, we got Government debt down to zero in net terms. That was one of the most important things that we could have done, because it was golden weather, economically. The global economy was doing well, and it was important that we did things to make sure that the Government and the country were in a good position to weather the storm when it came.

And when it came, the global financial crisis, it hit hard. But New Zealand fared well because the Clark Government, with Michael Cullen, had put New Zealand into a position where we could fare well. So even though the Government ran deficits, and even though the Government has racked up a level record of debt, it started from such a good position that now that the global economy has turned and the good times have come back again, it is in a position to actually make some choices, now that it is back into surplus.

Those choices are important. But what is this Government choosing to do? Is it choosing to save for the future by investing in the Cullen fund? No. Is it choosing to make sure that our health services are actually able to respond to the needs of ordinary Kiwis, so that people can afford to go to the GP, so that people can get their elective surgery in a timely manner, and so that we have mental health services that actually respond to the level of need that exists out in our communities? Is the Government doing that? No. Is it investing in our education system? Is it dealing with the ballooning class sizes? Is it dealing with the fact that parents are paying more in so-called “donations” than they have ever had to before? Is it dealing with the fact that our education system is stretched to breaking point? No, it is not doing that either.

What about housing? Is it dealing with the housing crisis? Can the Government members even bring themselves to say the words “housing crisis”? Do they accept that we have the lowest rate of homeownership in 60 years? Do they accept that the cost of renting is ballooning completely out of control, that we have families living in cars, that we have families living in garages, and that we have people sleeping under bridges? Are they prepared to invest in housing to deal with any of those issues? No, because this Government does not make choices that are in the interests of ordinary working people in New Zealand.

The only thing this Government wants to do, now that the surpluses have returned, is to cut taxes. The one-trick National Government pony knows how to do only one thing, and that is to cut taxes for the rich, because, let us be honest, it does not cut taxes for ordinary people. The last time it cut taxes—the income tax cuts—the majority of those went to the people at the very top. What did the Government do at the same time? Well, it increased GST, it hiked up ACC levies unnecessarily, it hiked up fuel tax, and it went ducking down the back of the sofa to tax the poor paper boys, to find every last cent it could to tax the poor so that it could give more money to its rich mates.

Those are the choices that the National Government makes. So now, when it has choices, when it has an opportunity to invest in health, in housing, in education, and to get the country saving for the future again—so that we will have universal superannuation when people who are my age get to retirement—is the Government making those long-term investment decisions? No. This is short-termism, and the Government is interested only in what it can do for its rich mates. Well, that is what people have come to expect from that Government. What people have come to expect from this side is the kind of leadership that Andrew Little offers: strong, stable, and dependable. He is focused on the issues that matter: health, housing, education, and investing in the future. That is what Labour stands for, and that is what Labour will do when we are in Government after 23 September.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I would like to bring things back a little bit more locally. It has been my pleasure this week to host an exhibition in Bowen House by Kaikōura artists Jane Riley, Wendy Smith, Susie Baker, and Karen James. It is called Kaikōura—Mountains to Sea. A lot of the artworks were actually inspired by the earthquake, and my personal favourite is the one with the supermoon rising over the warships, which was something to see. So I urge members to take some time out and go and have a look, because you will be really impressed.

I also want to talk a little bit about the small township of Waiau, which will not be known to many people. There are only 300 people living in Waiau, but there are 26 red-stickered homes in Waiau, so it is a significant proportion of the housing stock in that area. It is really where the epicentre of what has become known as the Kaikōura earthquake was—that is actually where the epicentre was, right under Waiau—and that has had a significant impact on that very small community. It is a great community, and those people are really trying to pick themselves up. But it is going to be a long winter in Central Canterbury, and inland from there, and it will be quite tough for some. So I just remind people about that going on there.

To move on to more positive things—or the reinstatement of State Highway 1—I would like to bring members up to date with what is happening there. There has been an awful lot of misinformation about what is going on. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and the North Canterbury Transport Infrastructure Recovery Alliance people are doing a fantastic job on the road. I admit their comms have not been that fantastic, but the job that is being done there is phenomenal.

I have to say, a couple of weeks ago I was there watching the sluicing on one of the major slips, which is 300 metres, or 1,000 feet, high. They had a series of helicopters sluicing up on that hill. The rocks coming down from there are phenomenal when you see them rolling down the hill, and the engineer told me that they have calculated that a 400-millimetre rock would take out a fully protected digger from that height, so it is incredibly dangerous. They have people sitting up on the top of the hill and they have people down on the beach—out the rocks, as far out as they can get them—when they are working below these slips, and if they see any movement on the side of the hill, then all the work stops. It is that sort of precaution. It is not health and safety gone mad, as some people would say; it is absolutely essential. If it was your family involved there, you would expect nothing less, and I think they have gone to extreme lengths.

I have heard people say that they are not working long hours. Well, I stayed in a Cheviot motel the other day, and the first alliance ute leaving to work on the site left at 5 o’clock in the morning. The first helicopter goes up at half past 6 in the morning to survey the site, to see what has changed overnight, and things do change overnight. A little bit of rain makes a tremendous difference. Rocks are hooked up in some scrub that is dying—there is a huge risk factor there.

Look, this is a disaster on that road, and we know that. We have got to look forward to what the opportunities are, and there are opportunities. I wrote some time ago about establishing the Coastal Pacific Trail, a cycle and walking trail going from Ship Cove all the way to Cathedral Square. That, I think, has really got a lot of potential for New Zealand. There is a group started in Marlborough that is working really hard on that, and I am urging the NZTA, when it reinstates parts of the road, to include a provision for a trail. As anyone who has driven along that road will know, it had a lot of really tight places where, despite cyclists being very brave, it was quite a dangerous situation—mixing cycles with trucks and cars. But that will be up and running by Christmas-time—in December—which will be a phenomenal achievement.

I am trying to urge the television channels to document it a little bit better than they are. This is a phenomenal civil engineering project, which is going to be completed by December, and we should be documenting it as it goes on. It is changing every week. There is phenomenal progress being made. I really tip my hat to those people.

All of the rail freight that was being transported by rail from Picton to Christchurch is now going by sea.

Hon Ruth Dyson: No, it’s not.

STUART SMITH: Yes, it is. In fact, the coastal shipping has picked up all of it. Truck counts at Waipara show quite clearly that the truck movements are only slightly up on what they were last year—a phenomenal effort by coastal shipping. I take this opportunity to say to Kaikōura, kia kaha. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin my contribution by acknowledging the member Stuart Smith and his constituents in the Kaikōura quakes. I wish he would stop copying Canterbury—first you had the quakes, and now you have had fires as well. It is a really hard time for you people, and you have got a lot of support from Canterbury. So I support the concluding comments that you made.

I also want to acknowledge other members of the house: Scott Simpson, Andrew Bayly, David Cunliffe, and Carmel Sepuloni, because they have been through terrible times in their electorates with floods. It is a hard thing, as a representative member of Parliament, to know what your constituents are going through, so I am sure that our thoughts are with those four as well.

We are heading into the election, and there is a bit of a tinge of nastiness that is creeping into the House. I just say that I actually do not think that New Zealand parliamentarians should bother going down that path. We should be better than that, and I am really disappointed with some of the contributions that I have heard today. We can debate on the basis of policy and facts, we can debate on different value sets and different beliefs, and as soon as we start sliding into the gutter, people turn off. I hope they turn off the people who use that approach to debating politics, and I hope their vote count is reduced on 23 September. We will face a very different choice in the leadership of our Government. We will have either a National-led Government or a Labour-led Government. We will have either a leader in Andrew Little, or a follower in Bill English. We will have very different policies and very different priorities pursued, depending on who wins the election and gets the privilege of leading the Government.

At the moment, National is teasing the public with vague promises—getting a little more concrete as we go along—of tax cuts. I have seen the tax cuts introduced by National in the past. I watched in 2009 when National cut the tax take for the highest-income New Zealanders—not the people who actually work really hard and do not get very much money, but the people who possibly work really hard and get a huge amount of money. They paid less tax as a result of National’s 2009 Budget. And National increased the rate of GST. Having had a firm promise from the then Prime Minister, John Key, that there would be no change in the rate of GST, it was increased. Who pays the price of an increase in GST? It is a regressive tax, so the lowest income earners pay a much higher price for an increase in GST. That is what National did, and that is what it is likely to do at the same time.

I remember that Budget for another thing: in that Budget, National cut the home support hours for older New Zealanders. Tax cuts for the wealthiest, an increase in GST, and a cut in home support for older people. How is that for priorities? They are not priorities that I share. They are not the values that I share. I do not think that is where we should be putting taxpayers’ money or our support.

National cannot be trusted to support low and middle income earners. Its track record is just appalling. It has totally short-sighted policies—short-term gain—and refuses to look out to the future and invest now in what we need for a better future for all New Zealanders. These are things like investing in our housing stock—quality affordable housing—so that New Zealanders who are our children’s and grandchildren’s age will be able to do as we did: work hard, save hard, and buy a house. That is off the agenda for a huge number of New Zealanders now. Even Gareth Morgan—who might have a few spare dollars—said he was not confident that his grandchildren will be able to afford to buy a house.

For 8 years—8 long years—under National we have had not one single contribution to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, the fund that was set up under a Labour-led Government so that we would have money put aside to help pay for superannuation in the future. What has National said? “Oh, we’ll just put the age up.” So the generation who have paid for their tertiary education, who have not been able to afford a house—half of whom did not get an increase in their wages last year—will now have to work 2 years longer before they are entitled to superannuation.

That is not a fair society. That is not a Government planning to make New Zealand more equitable—to give everybody an opportunity to contribute to their best. I want our priorities to be values based. I want a Prime Minister who is a strong leader. I am looking forward to a change in Government on 23 September.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): We do have a strong Prime Minister; his name is Bill English. I would like to concur with the previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, about keeping the tinge of nastiness out of the debate for the next 6 months. I think that is a really good idea, and I totally support that, Ms Dyson.

Look, our leader is a leader. He is not a follower; he is actually a visionary. I want to talk to the prior speaker, as well, Mr Lees-Galloway, about his comments about us National members having no investment in people. Well, our leader, Prime Minister Bill English, has a great programme of social investment going, and that is totally about investment with people. If you actually can imagine, this is taking the 5 to 7-year-olds, now, who are most at risk and wrapping the services around them. We can now do that because we have actually invested in getting the data process together, we have got technology on board, and we can identify those people—and Mrs Tolley will be able to add weight to this conversation.

It is identifying them, wrapping the services around them, and asking: is it health? Is it family violence? Is it social housing? Is it a learning disability? What is it that is wrong with these young people and what is it that we all need to do to support them and wrap around them so they do not become the next people in corrections and the next people who are being dealt with by our police? So if that is not social investment and investing in people, I do not know what is.

Also, we had Ms Dyson talking about this Government being short-sighted. We have actually just had conversations in the last 10 days about superannuation, and everyone is telling us it is too far out in the future. Everyone is telling us that we are shifting the rules on another generation. Well, we went through a generation where the age was 60—it went to 65. It just happens that, in 60 years, 12 years have been added to the age that people live to. So the age expectancy is getting higher and higher and higher. I know that. I have just had a grandmother turn 100 years old in the last 6 months. That was a fantastic occasion.

People are living longer and it is a matter of facing up to the realities. We have got to front up and face up to what is happening. We are also getting better diagnostics, we are getting better medicines, and we are getting better ways of giving people better quality of life as they live longer, so they will continue to live longer. At some point we have to bite the bullet and afford those things.

We are about looking into the future and we are about taking action. I have also heard a previous speaker, Scott Simpson, talking this afternoon about regional provincial New Zealand. In his electorate—we face a lot of the same issues, and one of them, which he talked about today, is ultra-fast broadband. I can see it: as we get the ultra-fast broadband rolling out—12 towns in that last announcement were in my electorate—people then see it as more of a choice to come and live in rural provincial New Zealand. Young people can pick up their phones and they can do exactly what they do in the city—they are connected up. It is really important that we do that so we can see some of our smaller towns becoming vibrant. What I am seeing in my electorate is my small provincial towns not turning into zombie towns. There is actually growth and there is life in those towns, and long may it continue.

The other thing that has been announced this year is around policing. It has been a struggle for some of our communities and some of our police. I was out in Te Awamutu with the then Minister of Police, the Hon Judith Collins, when our own Te Awamutu Police Station had been broken into. We were talking about policing numbers, and I am absolutely thrilled that the plan is to have 95 percent of New Zealanders no further than 25 kilometres from a police presence. I want to reiterate that that is a presence not a station. I think that is really important. Part two of that is that there is going to be a new phone number developed—we have got 111 now for emergencies. To try to get a hold of a small police station is quite difficult because the police officers are out and about. So there is new number being developed so that people can always ring the police and always get a response on the new number. I think that is a really commendable process, and it is something that is really important for our communities because they want to feel safer. Now they are getting connected and safer, the roads are improving, and there are so many big things happenings. It is my pleasure to be part of a strong National-led Government.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill

Electoral Amendment Bill

Third Readings

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These bills are the latest instalments in an ongoing endeavour to ensure New Zealand’s electoral system is up to date and fit for purpose. These reforms are important for the smooth delivery of the 2017 general election, ensuring it will run effectively and efficiently. As members will be aware, the bills primarily progress the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s Inquiry into the 2014 General Election. These regular reviews are conducted after every election, and help ensure our electoral laws are continually improved and reflect the changing needs and expectations of voters and parties. They also ensure that electoral laws are modern and up to date with changes in technology.

The Electoral Amendment Bill implements recommendations that require legislation and can be put in place in time for the 2017 general election. The Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill addresses the recommendation from the inquiry for the reform of parties’ opening and closing addresses. This will also be implemented in time for this year’s election. Because these bills deal with interrelated matters of electoral law, they have been made cognate so that they can be progressed quickly. This has helped ensure that these bills are in place with enough time for the Electoral Commission to prepare for the general election on 23 September this year. It is also important that all parties, candidates, voters, and advertisers know the rules well in advance of the election.

I would like to again take this opportunity to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its diligent consideration of the bills and its timely manner in reporting back. I would also like to again thank those members of the public who made submissions. I particularly want to thank the committee for its sound recommendation to add into the Electoral Amendment Bill a requirement for parties to file an audited return on how their Broadcasting Act allocation was spent, just as they do for their other election expenses. This is a prudent change that highlights the importance of considering these bills together.

Electoral reform should be based on consensus. These bills had broad support in the committee, and the changes recommended at the select committee stage were unanimous. Similarly, I am pleased that these bills have enjoyed wide support as they have passed through their House stages.

I would like to talk about some of the specific changes that the bills make. The Electoral Amendment Bill will simplify and clarify electoral law by changing outdated wording and making some forms more user friendly. Many electoral forms are complex and could discourage enrolment. Simplifying these forms will ensure that they are easy to use, while still collecting the necessary information.

I do want to note, however, that this change will not affect ballot papers. These will remain as prescribed, as recommended by the inquiry and the Electoral Commission. The bill will also improve electoral services—for example, by allowing the counting of advance votes to begin earlier. This will ensure that preliminary election results can be announced in a timely manner. The bill also allows greater use of technology by enabling the Electoral Commission to provide information to voters by email as well as post. Collectively, these changes will improve services to voters, candidates, and parties and improve the efficiency of elections.

As was highlighted in previous speeches, the bill makes a number of other amendments to electoral law, all of which are minor and technical in nature but are no less important for the smooth delivery of elections.

The Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill will modernise some election broadcasting rules to give political parties more flexibility. It removes the requirements for parties’ opening and closing addresses, and for Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand to provide free time for these. These were an outdated format, and it is important that resources made available for political parties to engage with the public at election time can be used as effectively and efficiently as possible. The bill allows parties to advertise more flexibly by enabling them to use their funding allocations under the Broadcasting Act for internet advertising. It is particularly important, in light of declining voter participation, that political parties can engage effectively with the public in the most relevant media.

As I mentioned earlier, another key change is the requirement that parties file a return of how they have used their allocation on television, the internet, or radio advertising. This change will ensure transparency, giving the public confidence that public funds are used appropriately and as intended. This change is made through the Electoral Amendment Bill, to align with existing returns requirements in the Electoral Act.

It is vital that we do not take the strength of our electoral system for granted. We are lucky to live in a nation where we take a multiparty approach to electoral reform, building on the lessons learnt after each election. As a result, our electoral system has a very high level of integrity. These two bills help ensure our law remains relevant for the upcoming election and in the future. I commend these bills to the House. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): I want to start by thanking the Associate Minister of Justice for his guidance in the last phase of this bill, and he is absolutely correct that what has been really important in our discussion around electoral laws generally has been to try to build as much consensus as we are able to do, because it benefits no one if people do not have confidence in our electoral laws and our accountability structures around our electoral system and so on.

There was a unanimous Justice and Electoral Committee report with recommendations based on the inquiry into the 2014 general election, but that is not to say there were not areas where we would have preferred to see greater progress. And I do want to talk about those lost opportunities, because we would still like to see these things picked up in the next round of reforms, because we think they are a blockage to people’s participation in our system.

If I were to talk about the first of those opportunities—we have a situation where we have a growing number of people who are not engaging with our electoral system, whether it is those who enrol but then do not vote or those who do not even choose to enrol. It is, though, however, incumbent on us that we try to remove as many barriers as possible, administratively and, some might say, even when it comes to accessing a ballot box itself. I do not believe we are doing that at the moment.

If I were to walk you through, for instance, Mr Assistant Speaker, the process, which I know you know all too well, for enrolling and voting, it becomes very obvious where some of our issues lie. For instance, of course you must be on the electoral roll before you can vote, and being on the electoral roll itself is compulsory. If, however, you do not get on the electoral roll roughly 4 weeks before an election, you will not be on the printed roll. That means if you go to enrol before election day and it is within that 4-week period and you fill in an enrolment form and send it off to the Electoral Commission, when you walk into a voting booth you will not be there on the printed roll in front of them. That means that you are likely to be told to fill in a special vote form. If you do not fill in that special vote form 100 percent accurately in comparison to the enrolment form you have filled in, your vote will not be counted. That is, however, if you manage to get that enrolment form in at least before voting day.

If you go into a ballot booth to vote and you are in the advance voting period, you can fill in an enrolment form while you are there, then fill in a special vote form while you are there, and then cast a vote. If when filling in those two forms you do not get them absolutely accurately correct in comparison to each other, your vote will not count. One simple thing we could have done, and it would have made sense, is that if you walk into a booth and it is advance voting and you are not on the roll, get people to fill in one form—a special vote form that acts as an enrolment form. There is no room for error in that. There is also no room for me to walk in and say: “Look, I’m not on the electoral roll, but I’m sure I filled in an enrolment form, so I won’t bother with that; I’ll just do a special vote.”

The reason we know that some of this is happening is that because at the last election, guess how many individuals walked into a ballot booth and filled in a form—they ticked, they voted, they took the time out of their day to go and vote, they made the effort, but there was something wrong, either with their special vote or their enrolment form, and they did not count. How many votes?

Jono Naylor: You’re going to tell us. Come on.

JACINDA ARDERN: You know I am going to tell you, Mr Naylor. Twenty-seven thousand votes.

Jono Naylor: How many?

JACINDA ARDERN: Twenty-seven thousand votes were discounted—people were disenfranchised—because there was some administrative issue with either their enrolment or some of the form-filling that led up to their vote. Surely it would be in our best interest to remove some of those issues.

So the first thing we tried to propose and we thought we had got the select committee to the right place on was to simply combine an enrolment form and a special vote form—simple. It is so simple. Why would we not agree to that?

The second point—it is now possible to walk into a booth and enrol and vote at the same time during an advance voting period, and you do not have to sign a form to give a valid reason about being out of town or working in order to do that. That is why roughly 30 percent of New Zealanders are voting early. It is great. We should encourage that. It is participation.

However, there is some confusion over the fact you can do that right up until the Friday before the election, but something magically changes with our system where it somehow becomes inappropriate on the day itself to fill in an enrolment for and a voting form at the same time. What that magical thing is that makes it inappropriate within that 12-hour period is not exactly clear.

I say that because we raised it in select committee. Why can you not enrol and vote at the same time on election day? Why not? Because that means that everyone who walked into a booth and was found not to be on the roll could simply fill in an enrolment form and have their say. Surely that should be our joint aspiration? We still, I do not think, have adequate reasons. There used to be arguments around the integrity of the roll. I think that has diminished over time. We have proven, with the advance voting we have done now, that it is possible to maintain the integrity of the roll. Our electoral fraud is minuscule in New Zealand—minuscule. In fact, the increases that we have seen, which are still minor, are thought to be down to the longer periods of advance voting that we have now and the confusion that does cause for some voters.

One final other additional thought was on the Māori electoral option. It is our view, and the view of our Māori caucus in particular, that we should have the ability for someone who is on the Māori roll that if they would like to change from either general to Māori or Māori to general, they should have that option once within a 3-year period, rather than the off-cycle that we have at the moment. At the moment we are looking at doing it in 2020. I think that is an unfortunate delay and we could have resolved it this time round.

But what about the things we do agree on—and there were plenty of those in the bill. We did want to give the Electoral Commission the ability to use new methods of providing information to electors in addition to post. It may surprise people that we are that prescriptive in our legislation, but we are. We also, for instance, are quite prescriptive around form-filling. So we agreed on giving the Electoral Commission the ability to go away and say “What is going to be best for voters in terms of making these things comprehensible and giving them that freedom?”.

Also we agreed on allowing the Electoral Commission, where an elector has informed it of a change of residence to a different electorate, to allow enrolment that will take effect after 1 calendar month from the moving date. I have had this happen to me. I was so eager when I moved that I filled in a new enrolment form, but I had not lived there for a month and so I got a letter back from the Electoral Commission saying “Sorry, we can’t enrol you. You haven’t been there for 4 weeks.” There was not the ability to then just simply acknowledge that and from the 1 month period make it kick in. So that would be quite dispiriting, I imagine, if you got one of those and did not follow through the process. Who knows whether someone would follow up.

There are other various things around allowing electoral officials to use online electronic roll look-up, allowing the Electoral Commission to look at advance voting counting—all things that do make good common sense and clarifying, in particular, section 199A of the Electoral Act, through new section 199A set out in clause 97 of the Electoral Amendment Bill, to cover material first published or actively republished, promoted, or distributed on election day for 2 preceding days on, for instance, social media. We had this issue where someone might have put something that usually would have required a promoter’s statement—clearly an electoral advertisement—and that actually might just stay in someone’s feed on the day itself, even though it was not posted outside the law. So we are clarifying what our intent is there to keep pace with the modern electoral environment.

On broadcasting it makes sense what we have done with opening and closing broadcasts. It makes sense to say an allocation needs to remain, but we need to give flexibility to political parties as to how they use that allocation. All of the parties agreed with that. The idea that people sit down for, you know, 30-minute spots to watch a long broadcast—

Denis O’Rourke: New Zealand First does not agree.

JACINDA ARDERN: —it is not consumable, it is not the way people consume media, it removes flexibility. Excuse me, I may not have spoken for every party. Certainly, Labour was of the view that we needed to move away from that form and allow multi-platform as well, not just screen for those broadcasts, because that is where our voting public is.

So, all in all, there are some missed opportunities with this bill. There is more we would have liked to see done. Ultimately, our goal should be to ensure that everyone takes up the opportunity to use their democratic voice through our electoral process. It should be incumbent on us to maintain transparent rules and regulations but to do as much as we can to encourage voter engagement. So although we agree with what we have got here today, we disagree with what has been removed and the lost opportunity.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I have to say that when I was first put on the Justice and Electoral Committee and found out that we would be doing the review of the election I never thought it could be so much fun. There are certainly a whole bunch of things that we managed to get conversations on along the way during the process of the review and, of course, being able to doing that review, report back to the House, and then see so many of the recommendations that came out of our review arrive in legislation is fairly satisfying.

I think, overall, what we were trying to do through this process was actually make it a better, more efficient service that we were providing. So, as Jacinda Ardern has just said, changing from having simply the 30-minute or 25-minute, or 10-minute broadcast, depending on what your party allocation was, at a time when—certainly there are some people who want to sit down on a Saturday night at 7.30 and watch those things, and I think Mr O’Rourke mentioned to us in the committee that he would be quite happy to do that. The rest of us thought that perhaps it was more appropriate in this modern age, when we are trying to engage younger voters and the like, to have multiple platforms on which that funding allocation could be used. So we have been wanting to modernise the system and make it more up to date and that was through the broadcasting part of these two bills.

There were also some other things that we needed to address within the structure of how things take place. On voting day, for example, to be able to count those early votes earlier in the day so that we can have earlier results on election night obviously makes a great level of sense. Our days of being worried about results slipping out during the party voting process are, I think, long gone. We have got confidence that people can start counting those votes early, and that is going to deliver a better result.

There was, as Jacinda Ardern said, a significant debate about this idea of being able to enrol on election day. I can speak for myself at least in terms of my opposition to that particular point that was raised. I believe that if we actually want to encourage people to engage early within the democratic process, simply allowing them to turn up on Saturday and then go “Oh, I didn’t realise there was an election on. Oh, I had better just vote.”, with not having taken the steps in advance to enrol, to connect with the process, does not make a lot of sense to me. I think actually what we need to do if we want people to enrol is we should either scrap the electoral roll and just say that anyone can turn up on the day and enrol and vote at the same time, or actually have a process whereby people enrol and engage with the democratic process.

Yes, I guess there is time when you are looking for that to be scrutinised in the early voting process when you have those two steps to the process before you vote. I do not think it is appropriate to have just one form. What we want to do is encourage people to enrol, and if we simply do away with that by saying to them “You’ll never have to enrol. It doesn’t matter. Just show up anytime you like and just vote based on whatever else it is that you’re seeing out there.” I do not think it actually encourages people into their civic responsibility of actually enrolling prior to voting. So despite the fact that there were members on the committee who wanted to see that happening, we did not pass that and that is not part of this legislation.

That said, there are some things that needed to change. During the increased activity in the early polling situation that we find ourselves in now—and we are predicting that there may well be up to 30 percent at the next election who will vote in those prior couple of weeks before the polling day—what actually are the rules around campaigning? We had a very long discussion about what the difference is between the pre-election day voting period and election day, and what should be permissible and what should not. I think arriving at the situation that we did, which is that there can be no active campaigning within 10 metres of an early polling booth, sends a clear signal that, actually, we have got to make sure that people are not being coerced to vote one way or the other on their way into the pooling booth. There is still something quite sacred about people being able to do that without being harassed or harangued on their way in. So we arrived at a sensible solution. Clearly you cannot have just too wide an area or else there probably will be no signage up around town at all.

So a sensible review of the election took place. I thought it was great work by the Justice and Electoral Committee—good recommendations that have made their way into legislation by the previous Minister and now by Mark Mitchell carrying it through the last part. I think what we are going to have in 2017 is a better run election than we had in 2014 as a result of this legislation and I commend it to the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): That was an absolutely pathetic argument for not allowing voters to enrol on the day. I have a message for Jono Naylor: a lot of people show up at the polling booth on the day and find that they are not on the roll, and they are not aware that they are not on the roll. It is not that they are too apathetic or lazy to actually go along and vote, or that they just decide on a whim that they are going to show up to the polling booth; many of them arrive at the polling booth fully expecting that they are going to be able to exercise their democratic right but find that their name has dropped off the roll. Who are these people? Well, they are more likely to be the people who are transient, so are therefore less likely to be the people who are voting for the National Party—which, of course, suits it to have those votes discounted—but, actually, many of them were not aware that they were not on the roll.

Under the old system—the new system is much better—everybody had to re-enrol every election. A few elections back, we changed that so that people stayed on the electoral roll. But, of course, what happens is that if somebody moves house during that period of time and they do not update their enrolment details at the time they move house—some people might move house several times between elections—then they might not even be aware that they have been dropped off the roll because their confirmation is sent back to the Electoral Commission. To say that they are too apathetic to update their enrolment details is absolutely pathetic. It means that they are not having their right to vote respected because the Electoral Commission has decided to remove them from the roll, and they may not have even been aware of that.

There is no good reason not to allow people to enrol and vote on the day. They are allowed to enrol and vote as an early vote, so therefore how is it in any way different for someone to go to an early vote polling booth and say “I might not be on the roll. Can I fill in an enrolment form and cast my vote now?” versus someone who shows up on election day and says exactly the same thing? There is absolutely no justification for that, other than the fact that National would prefer to disenfranchise a group of voters who it knows are less likely to vote for it than to vote for some of the other political parties on the ballot paper. I think that is completely wrong.

I liked the idea put forward by the Electoral Commission, bearing in mind that the Electoral Commission is the independent body that we have to oversee elections. It put forward a suggestion that somebody who is completing a special vote declaration on the day should be treated as having enrolled on the day, and that their vote should be counted in that regard. I think that is a very sensible solution that means that everybody’s vote will be counted. So I am very disappointed that the National Government did not take up that opportunity.

I think there are some other areas around modernising electoral law that were missed. One of the ones that I have always been a little surprised by, certainly at the last election, is this issue of selfies in the polling booth. I have no problem with someone taking a selfie of themselves voting, or even indicating the way they are voting when they are doing an advance ballot. Actually, I do not have a problem with them doing it on the day either. If someone is allowed to put up on Facebook when they cast an early vote that they just voted for whichever party they voted for, why should they not be allowed to do that on election day as well?

If we want to encourage participation and turnout, there is no good reason, if we are living in the 21st century, to say to someone: “You can’t do a selfie in the polling booth.” There have to be a few constraints around that. Of course, I think they should be allowed to share their vote. They should not be allowed to infringe on the rights of somebody else who is voting, so they should not be taking photos of somebody else in the polling booth or the way somebody else is voting. But if they want to share the fact that they have been down to vote and they voted for a particular political party, this is the 21st century, and they should be allowed to do so. I know that not everybody, including some of the people who are on my own side, will agree with that, but I think it is time we got into the 21st century.

I want to talk about the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill, which is part of this package that we are debating at the moment. Again, it comes down to the fact that Parliament needs to drag itself into the 21st century and we need to make sure that our electoral system gets into the 21st century as well. When the rule around opening and closing broadcasts for election campaigns was introduced, there were two TV channels in New Zealand—only the two. If you were sitting at home watching TV and the opening and closing broadcasts were broadcast on both of those channels, as they were back in those days, you had no choice other than to watch them or turn off the TV. The reality now is that that is simply not the medium any more. People can be watching live streamed content on Netflix, they can be using MY SKY or any other type of device, they could be watching all sorts of other things, or they could be accessing content via social media.

The idea that we have these opening and closing broadcasts, which are expensive to produce because they are quite long-form and very few people watch them, and the idea that we should lock that into law and lock political parties into spending some of their broadcast allocation to do that simply does not make sense. It is not good for the broadcasters either. Let us be really frank about this. TVNZ had 25 percent fewer viewers in the timeslot that it set aside for the opening and closing broadcasts at the last election campaign than it would normally have had during that timeslot. From memory, Coronation Street was supplanted by the opening and closing broadcasts. So if even Coronation Street can get more viewers—

Sue Moroney: Rugby test.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —than the opening and closing broadcasts, that might say something about that. It was on at the same time as the rugby test. That might have been one of the reasons people were otherwise engaged.

The law also allows political parties to spend some of their broadcast allocation on internet advertising. Actually, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern between the two, in the sense that a lot of the way we access content now is through an online medium. If you take something like TVNZ Ondemand or TV3’s equivalent to that and someone missed their TV show at the regular appointed timeslot and decided to watch it on the on demand channel, under the old law, political parties would not have been able to insert their adverts into the on demand version that people were watching through live streaming. What is the difference? It is the same TV programme; it is just being watched at a different time using a different way of conveying it to the television set that somebody is watching it on, or the laptop or whatever technology they are watching it on. So there is no good reason to say that political parties should not be able to use that form of advertising.

We also need to consider the fact that there are other forms of content that people are accessing online. If we want informed citizens going to the polling booth, then being able to advertise in the other forms of online content is also important. It is important, too, because it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between them. If you are looking at the Stuff news website, for example, and you are watching a video clip on the Stuff news website, would that be deemed to be a TV programme or would it be some other form of content? I think through this bill we have actually removed the need to try to draw that distinction by simply saying that online advertising is an acceptable use for the broadcasting allocation that is being given to political parties.

I do not agree with the suggestion put forward by some in this debate that there should be no limits on broadcast advertising. I think one of the things that is good about New Zealand, having visited other countries, particularly having visited the United States during a presidential election campaign, is that it is fantastic that we do not have the plethora of attack advertisements that they have in those other places. I remember sitting in a hotel room in Wisconsin, which was one of the battleground states in the last presidential election, and literally every second advertisement was an advertisement attacking someone. It was not promoting in any way, shape, or form the candidate that they were trying to promote; they were just attack ads. That is the sort of territory I think we would get into if we removed all the restrictions and all the caps on broadcast advertising in New Zealand. I think it is fantastic that we do not have that level of smear campaigning in New Zealand that they have in the United States in particular. It is good to see that the current restrictions are being protected.

Overall, I think there are some good changes. I think this bill takes a few small steps towards bringing electoral law into the 21st century, but I think there is significant progress that still needs to be made if we want to engage everybody in the electoral process, and if we want to ensure that everybody’s democratic right to vote and to have their vote counted is respected. If we want to engage younger voters in the process—bear in mind that younger voters are the least likely to vote—I absolutely do not accept the argument put forward by many that it is because they are too apathetic or self-interested. In fact, I think the young voters whom I have spoken to are some of the least self-interested people when it comes to voting. I would like to ensure that they have their votes counted and that they are encouraged to participate in the process. It is disappointing that this bill, as it is currently put before the House, misses the opportunity to do a lot more in that regard.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I too stand today in support of the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill in its third reading. Thanks to the effective and solid work of the Justice and Electoral Committee the review of the 2014 elections enjoyed good support across all the parties, even though there was some debate about some of the content, and this is evident in the contributions being made in the House today.

Following a general election there is a review, and as a result of the review of the 2014 elections, we are now debating the changes that have been recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee. Currently, it is a requirement that political parties have their opening and closing addresses broadcast by TVNZ and Radio New Zealand and that those companies must make time available for those addresses. So in this bill we are recognising that that is now a very outdated requirement, because we now know that people get their information from an increasing range of outlets, and most of those are from the internet. Thanks to the sterling work of this Government getting ultra-fast broadband around the country, this is more accessible to people than ever before.

This committee’s review revealed that in 2014 there were actually less than 25 percent of people tuned into those broadcasts on TV than their normal viewer numbers. So, in actual fact, the viewers tuned out when those broadcasts were being made. So it does make sense that we open the door to other ways of parties communicating with their audience. As a result, the Government has allocated a funding increase of $750,000 to each of the parties so that that money can be allocated to the broadcasting choice of each individual party, whether that be print or whether it be radio, TV, or signage, but more especially through social media.

The Government has also recognised that because of the increase in advance voting—and the Electoral Commissioner, who spoke to the select committee, anticipated that up to 50 percent of votes could be cast in advance of polling day—the counting day should be moved from 2 p.m. to 9 a.m. on the day of the election. They are some sensible requirements and I have pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I did not have the privilege of serving on this committee to review these two bills, and I am speaking on behalf of our co-leader Metiria Turei on this matter when I say that the Green Party is entirely prepared to support both amendments—the Electoral Amendment Bill, which aims to rationalise and clarify the law and improve services to voters and assist with the smooth delivery of the elections, on the one hand, and the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill, which aims to increase flexibility in the use of funding allocations provided to political parties for the election programmes.

There have been some pretty interesting issues raised in the course of the drafting and submissions, and the committee’s deliberation and its report back. I tend to agree with our colleagues from Labour—Chris Hipkins, who tends to say that it really amounts to just a few small steps to improve the electoral law and bring it as close as we can into the 21st century, but that much remains to be done if we really are going to complete that job. I recall also the comment of the Hon David Parker that the essence of liberal democracy is an honest, accurate, and transparent electoral system. We can take some satisfaction in the fact that New Zealand is pretty well endowed in this, but we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. It is wise for us to revise this every 3 years after the election and to see how we can improve it.

There were some pretty interesting suggestions raised in the course of the debate in the previous readings: whether the IRD system should be used by way of identification for the purpose of voting, as happens in the Nordic countries; the question of whether it should be sufficient to simply enrol at the time of voting, turning up at the voting booth, as Jacinda Ardern suggested; the question of a children’s civics education programme to get them familiar with the idea, the essence, the intrinsic merit, and the processes of voting; the question of advance voting; the question of prisoners voting, and the slight absurdity of the situation of the law at the moment; the question of further improving access for voters with disabilities; making it easier for Māori to switch between the Māori roll and the general roll; issues pertaining to the display of campaign material; and having regard for and trying to answer to the increasing use of social media—digital technology—by younger people. I do agree that the issue is not one of intrinsic lack and apathy on the part of young people, but rather the fact that the mechanism by which they are invited to participate in politics and in the electoral system is changing, and we need to keep up with that.

On balance, the Green Party is entirely happy with where we are at the moment, in full recognition that more needs to be done, and we will need to pick up where we left off, after the coming election. The Green Party will be supporting the cognate bill. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Firstly, on the Electoral Amendment Bill, I note that only 12 out of the 28 recommendations made by the Justice and Electoral Committee have been progressed by the Government. That is not a very good record—12 out of 28 recommendations. So it is less than a 50 percent pass mark as far as I am concerned. It is a lot of work that is not being done. The bill, in addition, addresses only some of the issues, some of the statutory issues, and, really, the Government has given no indication about addressing some of the other things. One of those is that there simply were not enough polling places during the advance voting period. People were looking for them and could not find them. A lot more people would have voted if they had been able to find them. Secondly, some of the voting places used for advance voting were not the same voting places used on election day. So that caused confusion and that should not happen. So those are two things that cannot be in this bill, because they are not statutory. But the Government needs to give an indication about whether it is going to fix those things as well.

I just want to add about the Electoral Amendment Bill that I agree with the other speakers who have said that any qualified elector should be able to enrol on election day or indeed on any day during the 3-week voting period—any day. The reason for that is it can be done safely and securely, and it should be done, because it gives people more freedom to choose when and how they are going to enrol. So they ought to be able to turn up and enrol and vote at the same time. Why not? There is actually no good reason for that. So the legislation does not go far enough, but New Zealand First will vote in favour because as far as it goes it is OK.

I really want to spend most of my time on the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill, because claims that the broadcasting of the opening and closing addresses have become unpopular are grossly exaggerated. The truth is that TV ONE and Radio New Zealand have been lobbying for years so that they do not have to perform their public duty of broadcasting these opening and closing addresses free of charge. No doubt they could get a bigger audience if they were free to broadcast something else instead, but that is not the issue. The issue is that they are public broadcasters and they have a public duty to do this. Many people, in fact, still do watch those, especially people who are not much interested in the digital media. So that should still happen. If there is going to be funding for digital media, it should be done separately and not at the expense of these opening and closing addresses. We should not just be letting those broadcasters off the hook; we should be making them carry on and do their public duty.

What the bill does, effectively, is convert the assessed value of that free air time into cash funding for advertising on digital media, and, in addition to that, the Government has increased the total amount by $750,000 to a total of $3.6 million. So that is a lot of money, and it is important that it be fairly distributed. That brings me to the other reason why New Zealand First opposes this particular bill and that is that the Minister and the Government have chosen not to review and change the criteria for the allocation of those funds, and they should have done so. The Minister wrote to all of the parties asking whether they supported her proposals. New Zealand First said it would not do so unless those criteria were, in fact, reviewed and, hopefully, changed. There was no effort put into doing that at all, and, therefore, there is no consensus, as Mark Mitchell claimed—no consensus at all. New Zealand First is very definitely opposed to the proposal unless those criteria have been changed, because they are quite simply unfair to smaller parties. There is no problem, I guess, for the National Party and the Labour Party, but the criteria are unfair to the smaller parties, and I want to explain why that is.

The criteria are simply outdated. This is what they say. This is what the Electoral Commission is required to do by statute, in terms of those criteria. Section 75(2)(a) of the Broadcasting Act states that the commission must have regard to: “the number of persons who voted at the immediately preceding general election for that party and for candidates belonging to that political party;”—no problem with that; that is very proper criteria—“(b) the number of persons who voted at any by-election held since the immediately preceding general election”. We say that that is not relevant. General elections include, most importantly, a party vote and that does not happen at by-elections so how on earth could they actually be relevant to the allocation for funds at a general election? Paragraph (c) mentions the number of members of Parliament who were members of that political party immediately before the end of the last Parliament. We think that is the best and most solid criterion, and we would like to see that stay. Paragraph (d) states: “any relationships that exist between a political party and any other political party;”. I struggle to see the relevance of that, but perhaps somebody can explain why that should be relevant. Paragraph (e) states: “any other indications of public support for that political party such as the results of opinion polls”. For goodness’ sake—opinion polls!

Opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate before an election. Just look at the much lower poll results New Zealand First had at each and every one of the recent general elections—much lower than the result we actually got as a party. There are reasons for that. There are good and identifiable demographic reasons why that is the case. I am not going to go into that detail, but if you talk to the pollsters they will agree that there are issues there that will make those polls not accurate enough for the purposes of an allocation of $3.6 million of public funds. Finally, paragraph (f) is fine and it is: “the need to provide a fair opportunity for each registered political party … to convey its policies” and so on. We say that those criteria are inherently unfair to smaller parties and are complex and uncertain.

In 2014 the National Party was allocated $1,053,622. It got 59 seats, so that is, by proportion, $17,858 a seat. Labour was allocated $919,828. It got 32 seats—$28,744 per seat, by proportion. The Greens were allocated $401,380. It got 14 seats—$28,670 per seat, by proportion. New Zealand First got only $200,690, but got 11 seats, which equates to only $18,244 per seat. Even the tiny Māori Party got $100,344, but got only two seats, which equates to a very high $50,177, and the one-member ACT Party got an incredible $76,930 for one seat. So I put it to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to everybody else listening: how could that possibly be a fair allocation of that money? There is no possible way that there is any fairness or even any rationality to support the current criteria. They are thoroughly out of date. They need to be changed. The Minister just brushed over that, despite New Zealand First’s objections. There is no consensus. This bill should not be proceeding, for those reasons, and New Zealand First will therefore definitely vote against it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Just a brief call for me on these two cognate bills. I want to take issue, as I have done, actually, throughout the passage of this legislation—I want to take issue with what Mr O’Rourke said. I seem to find myself always speaking after him, and I have the pleasure to rebut Mr O’Rourke.

I want to talk about his suggestion that we need to amend the criteria by which broadcasting funds are allocated. I actually think there is an a priori question, which is why it is that the Government divvies up a pile of money to parties and says: “This is the cap, you can only spend up to a certain amount of money per party, and this is what you have got, and that is it.” There is actually a principled question about whether all that is a good idea: whether or not you should actually just let parties purchase their own advertising time with their own money and you should let them spend as much as they like. But leaving that aside, we have the system in place and the bill does not propose to make any amendments to that. So I guess the next question is, how do you divide up the money?

Denis O’Rourke: Fairly.

CHRIS BISHOP: Fairly, says Mr O’Rourke. I agree you do it fairly. That is actually the question though, is it not? The question is what is fairness? Because you need some mechanism. I mean, one argument is that you just divide up the money equally and you say: “Righty-o, New Zealand First gets $500,000, the National Party gets $500,000, the Greens do, ACT gets exactly the same.”—that would be one way of doing it. There is an argument that that is a fair way of doing it—that all political parties are entitled to exactly the same amount of money and they just go forward and spend it on whoever they like. There is an argument for that, but a lot of people would say that is not fair. It is not fair to give the National Party, which currently has 59 MPs, exactly the same amount of money as the ACT Party and United Future, which have only one MP respectively, or, indeed, the same as the New Zealand First Party, which has 12 or 13 MPs.

So fairness is, in many ways, in the eye of the beholder, and I actually reckon what we have right now is a pretty fair system. Denis O’Rourke said that we tend to take into account the votes at the last election. We do that; he does not have an issue with that. But he also said that by-elections are irrelevant—those were his exact words. By-elections are not relevant. Well, I think he should talk to his leader, because I reckon the leader of New Zealand First is going to be strongly of the view that by-election results, for example in Northland, are strongly relevant. I reckon he would actually disagree with the member on that.

Then Mr O’Rourke talked about how opinion polls are irrelevant—that they are no indication of support. Well, actually, the opinion polls before the last election were broadly correct. They were slightly under on New Zealand First; they were slightly over on other parties. But they were broadly correct. So I put it to the House that we have the balance about right. It is always tricky to work out how you are going to divide up things like this, but, actually, the balance is about right and therefore I reject Mr O’Rourke’s characterisation that this is not a fair system.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): I think I just made it. Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill. The Green Party supports this pretty pragmatic, albeit very small, change to our electoral arrangements in New Zealand. We have all seen the decline of the opening and closing broadcasts and the need for greater flexibility for the political parties to get their message out to the voters, wherever they are. As a politician and a student of history, I very much believe that we, as elective representatives, have to be where the people are. In the 1930s they were at home listening to the radio. In the 1970s they were watching television, and now, in the 21st century, they are increasingly online. So it makes sense and it is a pragmatic step that we can move away from some of these, I guess, legacy distribution means, like television, towards more modern means.

But let us get the facts straight. This is a tiny, tiny step in the right direction. The Government is ignoring and avoiding the big issue that is the crisis of electoral participation in New Zealand. We have a crisis when a million New Zealanders are not voting. If they were represented in this House, they would be the second-largest party—the Kiwis who chose not to or could not vote on election day. Although this legislation passing today comes out of the post-election inquiry, this was one of the only things to be picked up. We have seen review after review, academic study after academic study, pointing to where the problem is—30 years of declining electoral participation, a million Kiwis unable or not choosing to vote—but the Government is absolutely avoiding the critical things, the pragmatic, smart, effective things it could be doing so that all New Zealanders’ voices could be heard in this, the House of Representatives. At the moment we have an absolute tonne of Kiwis who are not represented in this, the House of Representatives.

We have heard in the debate a whole host of steps that have not been taken. We have seen a policy of omission from the Government—of avoiding the critical things it could be doing. We have heard simple things that should happen, such as allowing people who turn up on election day to be able to enrol at the ballot booth and be able to vote. Too many people I talk to around New Zealand and where I am standing on the East Coast are scared, actually, of what is going to happen if they turn up having not been enrolled, so they therefore avoid turning up entirely. That is a simple step that we could clean up in an afternoon.

We have heard about the need for civics education, and how poorly we are serving New Zealanders in terms of giving them information about their democracy and about their society. We do not want to see partisan political propaganda being taught to kids, but what we want to be seeing is them being educated on how their democracy works, how they can participate in their society. And let me say how disappointed I am in this House that we are no longer livestreaming select committees. Here is a chance for people anywhere in New Zealand with an internet connection to be able to actually see us politicians working together collaboratively around a select committee. It is disappointing that trial was discontinued.

We need to see better promotion of how and why people should vote. Every year the Electoral Commission trots out Lionel from Shortland Street in the guise of the Electoral Commission’s orange man. I cannot believe we are still using an advertising and marketing campaign more than a decade old. It is clear it is not resonating with young New Zealanders, as we see with the absolutely massive decline in the last 30 years.

Personally, I strongly believe we need to move to lower the voting age. Last week we saw the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, come strongly out in support. Even The Economist magazine has come out strongly in support of lowering the voting age. I support the idea that people can learn about their democratic responsibilities at school and then vote with their peers at school. All the data shows that if someone votes the first time, they are subsequently much more likely to vote in succeeding elections. I want to see people being able to vote with their peers at school, and then continuing to vote.

Lastly, we need to clean up our electoral system. The big issue the Government has avoided is removing the unfair, disenfranchising coat-tailing clause. What we see is a Government, through its pleasure, propping up two zombie parties, the ACT Party and United Future. These parties exist only at the Government’s pleasure. The Government sends the message very clearly, through cups of tea and other things, to vote for these parties, and why does it do it? It does it for an electoral advantage. It is trying to screw the scrum, and despite the absolute—

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

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I rise to make a small contribution in respect of this bill. I have to stand up, firstly, and address Mr Bishop—through you, Mr Assistant Speaker—because the only people in New Zealand who do not understand what the concept of fairness is are Tories. That guy got up and wanted the House to sort of explain to him—he did not quite understand what the notion of fairness was. He is not a bad bloke, but I have got to say it does not surprise me, given his political allegiance and given his political history, that after many years in the National Party, he does not understand what the concept of fairness is.

I say to him that he may well want to go out and seek advice from others. There are plenty of colleagues on this side of the House who could elucidate and provide a definition, but you do not need to get out the Oxford English Dictionary or pretend that it is sort of a Rotarians debate or that you are back at school in the debating club to work out what fairness is.

Fairness in respect of this bill—fairness in respect of this bill—would be to allow people to enrol to vote on election day, if you believe it is fair that you want to maximise the ability of the populace to participate in the democratic process. If you believe that you want those 27,000-plus people who voted at the last election but were disallowed from participating—not because they were fraudulent but simply because they had not enrolled—then there is a definition, Mr Bishop, of fairness. If, though, like the Government, which has never explained its position—it has never explained what the difference is between allowing people to enrol 24 hours prior to polling day, and allowing them to enrol right up to and including polling day, where, after they have enrolled and after they have voted, if they have done something nefarious or they have acted in a fraudulent way or they cannot prove their identity, which would be nigh impossible in New Zealand, you could then of course disallow their vote in the normal way. The National Party in Government has never explained why it will not allow this.

I think I may be right that, going back quite a few years—I think it may have been in the 1970s—for some particular reason, we had to enrol some days, a week, or I think, at some point, possibly a month before the election. Then a Government, of whichever party, got a bit smarter and said “OK, this is nuts. We actually want to encourage participation.”, and it grew and grew, to the day before. The question the National Government has never answered—and a member might take a call and do it today—is why it will not acquiesce and allow people to maximise their position to vote in the process.

Well, I think there is an answer to that, because there is a sector of society that the National members—perhaps those who, like Mr Bishop, do not understand the concept of fairness. It is that sort of quartile in the polls that, you know, he is trying to attract. Of course, those members want to attract only certain folk to the polls, to vote for them—to vote for them. And, yes, I concede, it is harder to get working folks out on polling day because, actually, most of them are working. It is harder to motivate some individuals. So I would have thought it was incumbent on every member of this House to make it as easy as possible for people to exercise their democratic right. Even if that means they might vote against my party, they should still have the right to do that, and we should not put any barrier in their way, as long as they act legitimately.

So I ask Mr Bishop, Mr Muller, or Mr Mark Mitchell, the “Three Amigos” up the back there, which is quite an interesting sight—a Minister and two backbenchers. I do not know whether the plot is on, whether the numbers are being done, or whether commiseration is being handed out to somebody, somewhere or other. We waited with bated breath to find that out. But I just say to Mr Bishop that the definition of fairness is giving people a fair go, and giving them every opportunity in this case to participate in the process. That is fair.

Whether you are the blue party, the red party, or whatever party, encouraging your opponents in terms of voters and your supporters, and anybody else, to get out there—I actually, personally, favour a compulsory vote, like the Australians have, because I think people should stump up. We look at the plaques around the wall here. Men and women died in order to give people the ability to vote in our democracy. Many folks around the world do not have that privilege, and I personally would favour a compulsory vote.

But the definition of fairness is to not put barriers in people’s way so that only a few—those who have the Range Rover, shall we say, and can drive themselves the polls—are motivated to vote. So I look forward, if there is a speech left, to having somebody in the National Government telling us and giving us the definition of what they believe fairness is, to help Mr Bishop out.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a short call on these two cognate bills. Well, there really is not anything more attractive than watching Clayton Cosgrove and listening to him wax lyrical about fairness—Clayton Cosgrove, of all people over on that side. And he got it wrong, because, actually, Chris Bishop’s comment related to fairness in respect of broadcasting allocations. Somehow he managed to take it down a different path, but we enjoyed it nonetheless. He is not a bad bugger himself.

I would like to talk just a little bit about this move away from the compulsion to have opening and closing addresses on television. I had an experience a long time ago—21 years ago, in fact; in 1996—up on the ninth floor, sitting around there with Prime Minister Jim Bolger. We were about to see the opening of the campaign in 1996. We had this fantastic video, and we watched it, and it was just extraordinary. He was looking statesmanlike. I think our campaign line was “First Tick National”, which has gone down in the annals of great political campaign lines. So we watched that, and then we followed Helen Clark looking particularly austere and determined, and all a bit negative. And of course, then there was Winston, with his wavy hair, and talking I think, from memory, about superannuation and immigration—21 years ago. I thought it was a very, very impressive series of political advertisements. I walked from that office and talked to friends of mine, and said: “Did you see it—did you see it?”. They looked at me blankly—they had not looked at it. This was 21 years ago, and I realised that, actually, no one really tunes in to those electoral ads.

So it is very, very good to see that finally we have adjusted the Broadcasting Act to reflect the reality, as so many of our speakers have said today, of New Zealand civil society, really, in terms of the way they engage with their media. Certainly, sitting in front of television at 7 o’clock at night, watching our professional PR promotions, certainly does not cut it any more. Building in the flexibility to be able to talk in our own language to New Zealanders, in the language of their lives, and in the medium that they are most comfortable with, is appropriate. These are indeed the sorts of changes that a sensible Government—with, by the sound of it, borderline reluctant support from an Opposition being dragged, kicking, into the 21st century—has finally got across the line. I think it is good. It is good direction, and I strongly support these bills. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Louisa Wall, I did not interrupt the member, but I just want to counsel him that one of the expressions he used I think is probably not to be encouraged.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to take a call on this third reading of the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill, as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which heard submissions on these two pieces of legislation. What I want to highlight is that, as a member of that select committee, we were able to receive the Electoral Commission’s 2014 report, and, in fact, our own select committee report highlighted two priorities, the first of which is that legislative reform must promote and encourage voter participation and, secondly, that we need to find more ways to meet the changing needs and expectations of voters and communities.

This legislation implements 12 of 28 recommendations in the select committee report. I know my colleague Denis O’Rourke has highlighted that it is not ideal, but the justification from the Government for not implementing more of those recommendations is that it had no time to implement those recommendations before the 2017 general election, but there was a commitment that it would enact legislation to ensure that the recommendations were applicable for the 2020 general election. I want to put that on the record, because colleagues on the select committee were very clear that if we had the time we would have implemented all 28 recommendations, but we were not able to do so.

I would like to take the opportunity to highlight a few aspects of this legislation, the first of which I find really interesting. I have been talking to my colleague Poto Williams about this. One of the changes in the legislation is going to ensure that there is transparency in submissions related to proposed electoral boundary changes. I find that incredibly fascinating, because what that means is that we will be treating submissions like we do submissions to this House, and they will go up on the website. People will be able to see who submitted a submission to the Electoral Commission about proposed boundary changes that they will implement after the 2018 census.

So it got me thinking about the relevance of the 2018 census, because what that does, amongst other things, is also anticipate how many general and Māori seats we will have. I also want to highlight that within that process, those particular seats are capped in the South Island at 16. So it does have relevance, because if our population is increasing by hundreds of thousands of people every year, I am going to be really interested in that process, to know whether those people have settled in the South Island or not, because the number of people who live in the South Island, divided by 16, becomes the size of our electorates. So I think it is an incredibly interesting thing to note. Also, since the introduction of MMP, where in 1996 we had 55 list MPs, in fact, in 2014, we had 50. So this particular change, which will ensure that people who make submissions to boundary changes—which is where my conversation is providing the context to that particular submission process—is, I find, incredibly important.

One of the recommendations that has not been taken up that fits into this particular discussion is that the Māori electoral option is run in conjunction with the census. So every 5 years, if you are a Māori, descendant of a Māori, or identify as Māori in Aotearoa you get to choose whether you go on the Māori roll or whether you go on the general roll. One of the recommendations from our select committee—in fact, to again go back to our priorities to increase voter participation—is to enable Māori to choose every election cycle. So, in fact, we would be able to choose every 3 years, between elections, whether we want to stay on the Māori roll, whether we want to go on the general roll, or, if we are a first-time enrolee, obviously which roll we want to go on. It would be relevant to the 2020 election. That is one of the commitments that the select committee and the Government agreed to, which is why I think it is important to highlight it.

There has been much made about the broadcasting of the party political broadcasts on the public platform, which traditionally has happened both on TV and on radio. I want to particularly highlight a submission from Tom Frewen, who thought that we all should think seriously about what we have done with that public broadcasting platform—essentially, we have translated that into an amount of money. That money is $3.605 million, and, rather than use that as a requirement for an opening and closing statement delivered on the public platform, which reinforces our public broadcasting service, what we have done is actually commodified that amount of money, which will be allocated to political parties at the next general election, and said to them that they can spend it as they choose.

I would like to highlight it because I think Tom Frewen had an incredibly valuable point, and that point was: what is the purpose and point of a public broadcaster and those party political broadcasts—opening and closing addresses—off a public platform? That purpose, actually, was to ensure that every home in New Zealand engaged in the political process and understood who the leaders of the political parties were, what their messages were, and why, actually, people should participate, which is at the heart of this entire reform. Whether that can happen through other modes—that is, Facebook or email or other platforms—is yet to be seen, because I think that will be interesting, in terms of the inquiry that will happen after this 2017 general election.

What I forgot to mention too is that we do have a serious issue in terms of voter turnout. In 2011 it was 69.57 percent. In 2014 it was 72.14 percent, and, obviously, our ultimate goal, I think, would be to get to 100 percent, but that is not realistic when we currently have an enrolment rate of 93 percent. The aspiration is 95 percent. I think anything over 80 percent today would be absolutely fantastic. So we do have to engage with particular cohorts, and I do want to highlight that I think the Children’s Commissioner’s current proposition of allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to enrol and vote—to enable 16-year-olds to participate—is really focused on the statistics around youth participation. There is approximately 68 percent of the 18 to 24-year-old cohort who are enrolled. There are about 450,000 people in that age group.

We have 150,000 young people who are not engaged in the political process. The Children’s Commissioner’s proposition would add another 150,000 young people, who would be able to enrol at school. So I think his proposition has merit, because the reality of the research that I have seen is that if we can get young people enrolled when they are eligible and if they vote from the first time that they can vote, they actually vote for life. But if they do not engage and vote when they are eligible, then some of them never vote at all.

So I think that the Children’s Commissioner’s proposition needs to be fully assessed and discussed, because at the last general election only 62 percent of the 68 percent who were enrolled actually voted. So 150,000 are not enrolled, and there is another 114,000 who did not vote. It is a serious erosion of our democratic process if our young people are choosing, for whatever reason, not to engage, not to vote. I think it is a big issue that this House should be incredibly concerned about.

The other issue that I would like to highlight really quickly is that we will be able to start counting votes from 9 a.m. on election day. These are all the early votes. In 2011, 14 percent voted early. In 2014, 34 percent voted early. The Electoral Commission is anticipating that in 2017, 50 percent of voters who are enrolled will vote early. So being able to start counting from 9 a.m. is actually going to produce faster results. I will not say better results, but faster results. Obviously, in terms of the integrity in the system, people who have chosen to participate want to know those results, as do the candidates, as soon as possible.

It has been very interesting being on this select committee. This is an area that I am incredibly passionate about. I too commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

Electoral Amendment Bill read a third time.

Bills

Intelligence and Security Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): With each of these parts, I will make some preliminary comments, and I will keep it short on Part 1 because it deals only with the preliminary provisions. There are some changes that are made in Part 1, and they relate to the interpretation and definition clauses. The most significant is that of the definition of national security. What appeared in clause 5 was the definition proposed by the independent reviewers, and as I said when I was speaking in the first reading of the bill, I would put that to the select committee and also an alternative proposal.

The definition as proposed by the independent reviewers was removed, on the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. We will come to it in due course, but it is replaced with a two-part test in clause 55A. That test requires the Minister and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants to be satisfied that the issue of a type 1 intelligence warrant will enable the carrying out of an activity that is necessary to contribute to the protection of national security and identifies and enables the assessment of, or protects against, one of the specified harms. There are a couple of other changes, but I think that really is the one that I need to bring to the attention of the Committee.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party has submitted Supplementary Order Paper 268, and the first of its proposed amendments pertains to clause 3. In clause 3(d) we would suggest that we insert after the word “safeguards” the phrase “in a manner consistent with the primary purpose stated in paragraph (a)”. The proposal reflects our belief that the democratic rights and freedoms of New Zealand society should be considered paramount, above national security agencies, which function to protect an open society, but they are not an inherent right for the Government to exercise in and of itself. So that is our first proposed amendment.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 3 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 45

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Intelligence and security agencies

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I will say something about Part 2, which provides for the continuation of the intelligence and security agencies and sets out their objectives, functions, and duties. The key change to Part 2 is in the redrafting of clause 15 for greater clarity, and the reorganisation and consolidation of the general and specific duties owned by the intelligence and security services.

So let us look briefly at clause 15, because the redrafting makes clearer when the GCSB is required to obtain an authorisation for information assurance and cyber-security activities carried out pursuant to clause 14(2). Certain other matters are spelled out for the avoidance of doubt. So, for example, clause 15(5)(b) makes it clear that the information about cyber threats can be shared with certain other agencies, including foreign partners, but a new requirement has been added in Part 2, for the Minister to be satisfied—and this is an important requirement—that sharing with foreign agencies is in accordance with New Zealand law, including human rights obligations recognised by New Zealand.

The second part that I want to talk about concerns the duties applicable to the intelligence and security agencies. These duties are contained in clauses 19A through to 23, and they have been reorganised and consolidated, including by reframing the principles that were in clause 12, as introduced, as duties.

So I turn to clause 19A. It replaces the previous clause 12, and the effect of this amendment is that what we have previously described as principles applying to the intelligence and security agencies but purporting not to impose any duties have now been, as you can see, replaced with specific obligations. They are the obligation to act in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights obligations recognised by New Zealand law, and the duty to act independently and impartially, with integrity and professionalism, and in a manner that facilitates effective oversight.

In addition, clause 20 sets out some specific duties on the directors-general. They are to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the activities of the agencies are limited to those that are relevant to the performance of their functions and are kept free from any influence not relevant to the performance of their functions. Very, very importantly, they are politically neutral. They have been consolidated, as I say, in that redrafted clause 20, which is a very important clause, indeed. It also includes a duty on a director-general to ensure that any cooperation with foreign jurisdictions and international organisations is done in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights obligations imposed by New Zealand law.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I will take a brief call in respect of Part 2 of the amendments to the Intelligence and Security Bill. I accept that the amendments that are shown in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper do not change the substance and that they are merely drafting improvements.

Can I just talk to clause 20 of the bill. This was amended at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and I want to speak in favour of the form that it has come back in from the select committee. The obligation for political neutrality—I think when I spoke in the first reading debate I confused in my contribution the GCSB with the SIS, and the Attorney kindly pointed that out before I dug myself too deep a hole.

The point that I was making was that Warren Tucker, when he was head of the NZSIS, allowed his office to be used in a way that was not politically neutral. In order to guard against that happening again, the purpose of clause 20, “Specific duties of Director-General of an intelligence and security agency”, which includes the SIS, has included: “The Director-General of [such] an … agency must take all reasonable steps to ensure”, and then at clause 20(a)(iii), that their activities are “politically neutral (for example, “the activities are not carried out for the purpose of promoting or harming the interests of any political party or candidate)”.

All you can do in respect of these—if you accept the proposition that you need these sorts of agencies, what is important in order to balance the interests of society, and those agencies going about their business, is a countervailing duty that they do not go too far and undermine the society that they are meant to be protecting, which is a point that Kennedy Graham made in his initial contributions.

I think that the addition of that clause 20(a)(iii) is good. In the end, the oversight of these agencies depends most not just on the calibre of the people that you appoint to those positions but also on the oversight of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS, I think we describe her as—it is currently Cheryl Gwyn. For those reasons, I think that is an appropriate addition, as it came back from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to turn the attention of the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, to clause 13, “Intelligence collection and analysis”. Specifically, I am interested in clause 13(1)(b)(iii), which allows for intelligence that has been collected, and the analysis of that intelligence, to be distributed to “any person or class of persons (whether in New Zealand or overseas) authorised by the Minister” to receive the intelligence and any analysis of that intelligence.

Admittedly, I am coming at this as a layperson—I was not on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—but I think, as a layperson, that looks awfully broad, and I wonder whether the Minister would be able to inform the Committee exactly what the criteria are that are used to determine who the person or class of persons ought to be who should be able to receive that intelligence. Actually, the reference to subclause (3) has been struck out. Subclause (3) says that, if I am reading this correctly—no, sorry, it has not been struck out; it has been changed. It has been changed, and it says: “Before authorising under subsection (1)(b)(iii), the provision of intelligence [and the analysis of that intelligence] to any person overseas or class of persons, the Minister must be satisfied that, in providing the intelligence [and analysis], the intelligence and security agency will be acting in accordance with New Zealand law”—ah, I would hope so—“and all human rights obligations recognised by New Zealand law.”

That gives some reassurance that the agencies must be acting lawfully and must be sure not to contravene people’s human rights, but what it does not clarify is exactly who we expect would be the recipients of that information, especially given that they could be within New Zealand or they could be overseas. I am utterly sure that it is legitimate, but for people who are coming at this from a perspective of not knowing this legislation inside and out, I think it would be useful to the House if the Minister was able to address that.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I am happy to oblige—this is in answer to Mr Lees-Galloway’s comments about clause 13(1)(iii). An example of persons within New Zealand may well be the customs or immigration authorities or police, or their counterparts overseas, provided that the Minister is satisfied that if information is provided to a foreign entity, someone will not be garrotted, for example, because you have to act in accordance with New Zealand’s human rights law.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I just speak to clause 14 and again take an opportunity to ask the Minister in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, a question, as I do not sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. It goes to a new subclause (1A) that has been inserted into clause 14, which reads “An intelligence and security agency may provide protective security services, advice, and assistance to any public authority or person or class of persons under subsection (1)”—we do not need to worry about that—“in co-operation with any other such public authority or person or class of persons.” My question is around oversight, because if the Minister is approving certain agencies or certain bodies for protective services to be supplied by them or for cooperation to be had with an intelligence agency, and then that agency is cooperating with other agencies or other persons, the net gets a bit wider. I guess my question is: what level of oversight is there from the Minister or within the realm of the intelligence agencies, just to see how far that might get?

I think there would be concern amongst the public—it is a little bit like your neighbour’s neighbour’s neighbour’s neighbour, because you are cooperating with so many agencies that are with the primary agency that is being cooperated with—as to how far this information could get. I am assuming it will not get too far, but my question to the Minister in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, is: what safeguards are there to ensure that the kinds of operations or the kind of information that may be shared under clause 14(1A)—which looks like it has been added by the select committee—might be safeguarded to make sure that that information and the operations might not be spread too far?

I think, given some of the scrutiny of intelligence agencies in the last 5 to 7 years, there would be a lot of public scrutiny as to whom exactly we are cooperating with, and I think that would probably be a valid question that people who may have submitted to the select committee might want to have answered. That is my first question to the Minister, as to what oversight there is there.

I might be getting slightly into trouble with the Chair, but there was also a piece of legislation last night where there was a form of words around secrecy, notwithstanding other enactments in the tax legislation. I asked the Minister in the chair at the time, the Hon Judith Collins, whether or not that was a dangerous set of words, and whether a precedent was being set. I am not saying that it is within this Part 2 here, but Part 2 in its totality does talk to a lot of the practicalities and operational issues that the intelligence agencies will be dealing with. And I guess if we are going to introduce other pieces of legislation where they can seem to opt out of secrecy arrangements and enactments that this House passes, then I would hate to see it becoming the norm for pieces of legislation. In that case, it was a relatively inane thing around student loans, but it has been the case in other cases of legislation where one piece of legislation has been used and been justified to be in a piece of legislation because it exists somewhere else.

So if I can get an answer from the Minister to that first question as to oversight around clause 14(1A) that would be helpful, because I think that would put a fair degree of people who are sceptical—and I think it would be fair to say there are quite a few—at ease.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call. Like many of my colleagues, I was not on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, so I too have some questions around a clause in Part 2 of this legislation, and, specifically—and following on from what my colleague Kris Faafoi, who just sat down, was talking around—it is around clause 16 and the cooperation with other public authorities to facilitate the functions that are contained in this legislation.

There were some amendments at the select committee stage around this, but it is this cooperation, and the lack of cooperation between the key agencies that are identified in clause 16—which are the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF)—that was identified as one of the key barriers to lifting the sector’s performance. And though the reviewers noted that it was not easily quantified, it was a common theme in both the reviewers’ reports and the officials’ consultation with Government agencies.

The most important relationships are those ones that are referred to in clause 16 of the legislation—that is, between the agencies and the Police and between the agencies and other entities such as the NZDF, Customs, and Immigration New Zealand. So we can see that there are various agencies that need to come into play in order to put this legislation into place, and, as with the questions that my colleague was asking, what we have in terms of clause 16(1)(a) is it is defining those agencies that may need to work together. Clause 16(1)(b) provides “advice and assistance to the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Defence Force for the purpose of facilitating the performance … of the functions, duties, or powers of those public authorities.” But it is in clause 16(2) where it says that “An intelligence and security agency may perform the function under subsection (1)(b)—(a) only to the extent that the advice and assistance are provided for the purpose of activities that the public authority may lawfully undertake;”.

It is, again, around the oversight of making sure that clause 16(2)(a) is adhered to. Who is it who is ensuring that that advice and assistance are provided for the purposes that are specified within this part of the legislation? Not only do we have to look at clause 16(2)(a) but clause 16(2)(b), which specifies that this has to be carried out “subject to and in accordance with any limitations, restrictions, and protections under which public authorities perform or exercise their functions, duties, and powers; and”—on to clause 16(2)(c)—“even though the advice and assistance might involve the exercise of powers or the sharing of capabilities that the intelligence and security agency is not, or could not be, authorised to exercise or share in the performance of its other functions.” This is an important part of the legislation that was identified in some of the early work around it, in terms of how it was.

I would like some more clarity from the Minister in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, around the mechanisms for ensuring that this is monitored correctly and that these forms of cooperation have been identified as something that does need to be put into place in order for the legislation to operate. I look forward to hearing just a little bit more clarity from the Minister. Thank you.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I am delighted to provide immediate assistance to the member for Wigram, and suggest she read clause 16(3), because an intelligence and security agency provides assistance to a public authority. If it is Police, for example, it will be subject to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA), and, of course, in relation to the intelligence agency providing the advice and assistance, that agency will be subject to the continuing oversight of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. So I think that that probably answers her question.

I come to Mr Faafoi’s—if I may say so—excellent question about the amendment to clause 14. I think, again, it is important to note that the intelligence and security—Oh, I am not saying the honourable member for Wigram’s question was not excellent; just that Mr Faafoi’s was particularly helpful. [Interruption] I thought that was an excellent recovery, actually. But I do say to Mr Faafoi that he should rest assured that at all times the intelligence and security agencies are subject to the ongoing supervision of the inspector-general, and there is the ministerial supervision as well. So I think, to that extent, that is perfectly acceptable. As I said, if there is any public authority in New Zealand, that public authority will also be subject to its own supervisory requirements. I use the example of the Police and the IPCA, so I think the checks and balances are there.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues in working through some of the questions, clause by clause, in Part 2 of this very important intelligence and security legislation. Mr Chairman, if you will permit me, I have a series of reasonably specific questions that I seek the feedback on of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, in due course, as suits the Minister.

First, is the language that is common to clauses 9 and 10 of the bill, setting up the functions of the SIS and the GCSB, which uses the phrase “specialises in”—in the former case, “human intelligence” and, in the latter case, “signals intelligence”, both of which relate to their former quite distinct roles. The phrase “specialises in” is, however, non-exclusive—that is, it does not forswear the possibility that the agency may be involved in activities other than, in the case of the SIS, human intelligence, and, in the case of the GCSB, signals intelligence.

I seek the Minister’s comment on whether any limitation is intended, or whether the word “specialises” merely conveys a weighting of activities, and, if that is the case, how the purview of the agencies is, in fact, bounded. When that is combined with clause 11, which follows, the objectives are set fairly widely: “(a) the protection of New Zealand’s national security; and (b) the international relations and well-being of New Zealand;”—which are very broad, and include—“(c) the economic well-being of New Zealand.” It has been common ground across the House that several of the functions, particularly warranting provisions, exempt economic well-being in the definition of national security, but here the definition in clause 11 is broad, which helps me with the inference that I laid out around clauses 9 and 10, that the word “specialise” is probably deliberately non-limiting in terms of those functions. So that is the first area of inquiry.

The second area of inquiry is clause 13, in relation to “Intelligence collection and analysis”. In clause 13(1)(b) the intelligence collected may be provided to one or more of the following: “(i) the Minister: (ii) the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet:”—and, here is the kicker—“(iii) any person or class of persons (whether in New Zealand or overseas) authorised by the Minister …” who is separately determined as the Minister responsible for the GCSB, or the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Services. So the Minister may authorise the provision of that information to any overseas person. Presumably, that would be contingent upon established security relationships.

But wearing the hat that I sometimes have the privilege to wear in the Regulations Review Committee, I say that, as the Minister knows, there is pushback from the legislature against Orders in Council using regulatory powers and only principles-based legislation. Here, of course, the Minister has an even wider ambit than an Order in Council, because it is a simple ministerial decision. So if the Minister could perhaps comment on what boundaries he sees around that action—whether there are other parts of the Act that limits the Minister’s discretion, because at first, plain reading, to myself, who spent only a short period of time on the committee, that ministerial power of passing on information is very broad.

This leads me to another matter, which I may not have time to deal with fully, but a matter of public concern in the past has been whether it has been possible for New Zealand intelligence agencies to collect intelligence on New Zealanders via an overseas partner agency that they may not have got a warrant for—I am not saying they could not get one, but they get information that has not been warranted domestically, perhaps by a partner country intelligence service. I understand that that has been proscribed in this Act, at least as far as New Zealand agencies seeking such information. I would ask the Minister to help us with two things: firstly, to confirm that that is proscribed and to direct us to the provision of the Act that so proscribes that; and, secondly, how that bears upon this clause, in clause 13(1)(b)(iii), where it appears to be an unfettered discretion by the Minister to provide New Zealand - collected information to any relevant person or persons whether in New Zealand or overseas, provided it is in accordance with subclause (3), which itself—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I do appreciate it, Mr Chairman. Thank you. Subclause (3), of course, is still relatively broad. It requires the Minister, first, to be satisfied that the agency will be acting in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights obligations, which is some relief, I admit, but the discretion as to the destination of that intelligence information is still very wide.

Since you permitted me the time, I might come to my fourth point, which is in clause 14, “Protective security services, advice, and assistance”. It is a function, in subclause (1), of an intelligence agency, which is either the SIS or the GCSB, “to provide protective security services, advice, and assistance to—(a) any public authority (whether in New Zealand or overseas); and (b) any person or class of persons … authorised by the Minister responsible …”.

Again, at first reading, that seems very broad. The Minister can authorise the New Zealand intelligence agencies, either of them, to provide protective security services to any person or persons or authorities either in New Zealand or overseas—potentially anyone in the world, really. That is a ministerial discretion. I would invite the Minister to comment on what he feels, not personally of course, binds or bounds a Minister in the exercise of that discretion, because—not that one has any reason to doubt the integrity of our agencies—it is the job of the legislature to understand the boundaries that the law provides.

If I flick the page over then to clause 15, my fifth question, since you have kindly allowed me the time, is around clause 15(1)(b). The language there is extremely broad: “doing everything that is necessary or desirable to protect the security and integrity”. That sounds like “by all means necessary”. Admittedly, this is to protect the integrity of the infrastructure, and that reminds me of the Act that this replaces, where that power was broad enough to include the warrantless intercept of New Zealand citizens, but the Prime Minister of the day gave an assurance, which was not incorporated in the law, that that interpretation would not be exercised. I find no legislated assurance in clause 15(1)(b) that ministerial oversight proscribes—or that the law proscribes—any form of action, in this clause at least, against New Zealand citizens. I would like the Minister’s assurance that, at least elsewhere in this Act, the apparently limitless power conferred by this subsection is bounded by other protections of New Zealanders’ privacy and legal rights.

As that is six questions, notwithstanding the fact that there are a few minutes still on the clock, I think that is more than enough, even for a Minister of his overwhelming intelligence, to retain in his head. So I look forward to a couple of other calls later. Thank you.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): It is good to have the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill. I want to address specifically clause 23, which is the obligation to consult the Leader of the Opposition. I might say that this is a carryover of a function that is currently carried out, a statutory function, which, I might say, the directors of the security and intelligence agencies already carry out, and, I might say—for the sake of completeness—in a very successful way. I have appreciated the advice that I have been able to have in my time as Leader of the Opposition. I raise the point because later in Part 6 I will be referring to another part of the oversight of the agencies, and that is the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I will be talking specifically about the make-up of that committee.

In the MMP environment, the Leader of the Opposition nevertheless continues to play an important role. It is representative of the Opposition and it is a useful touchstone for the Government of the day to be able to deal with issues such as this, where we should be striving for bipartisanship, or at least non-partisanship, and when it comes to issues of national security that ought to be the motivation, and indeed I think is, of pretty much all the members of Parliament.

The difficulty is that although it is, as a matter of public confidence, a good thing for the Leader of the Opposition to be briefed on the activities and functions of the relevant agencies, it is also right that members of other Opposition parties, at least of what I would describe as substantial Opposition parties, or parties in Opposition, should also have access to relevant information about the agencies as a matter of public confidence. If that is not to be by way of direct briefing by the agencies themselves—as happens now, and as foreshadowed by clause 23, when it takes effect—then the other way that that can happen is by adequate representation on the Intelligence and Security Committee.

So the purpose of my contribution is to draw to your attention the value of the provision in clause 23 for the briefing of the Leader of the Opposition. That is important—important for public confidence in the agencies and important for the agencies too, to remind themselves, if for nothing else, that they are to serve Parliament and the people of New Zealand as represented by all sides of Parliament. But I also draw to your attention that that alone will not be enough, in terms of keeping members of the Opposition, or at least parties in Opposition—particularly when we have a set-up like we do at the moment, with one large party in Opposition leading the Opposition and two significant parties in Opposition, specifically the Green Party and New Zealand First. There does need to be another means of at least keeping those parties informed and, to the extent that public confidence is achieved by keeping those parties informed, keeping them involved in an appropriate sort of way. Perhaps the Minister might like to reflect on how clause 23, when it takes effect—the assurance that it provides can be made real just through the briefing of the Leader of the Opposition, if we are not to ensure good and adequate and proportional representation on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I leave that point there.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I just want to refer to a couple of the contributions that have been made by my own colleagues. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, can correct me if I am wrong here, but the questions that have been asked in respect of clause 14 about protective security services, advice, and assistance that might be provided, for example, by the GCSB are not about intrusive powers of the State. Those intrusive powers of the State are dealt with in later parts of the legislation—covert activities in Part 3 and surveillance activities or warrants that you might get against parties are dealt with in Part 4. What this is is actually generally helpful advice that is being provided by arms of the State to those who need it.

The real example I will give is that the GCSB has a programme now that assists New Zealand companies to protect the integrity of their systems from cyber-attacks. This is a very real issue in New Zealand and around the world, and you only need to read what has been happening in respect of the interrogation of the Democratic Party’s electoral efforts by Russian operatives, which is alleged to have occurred in the United States, to know that these things, if not protected against, can actually undermine local democracy.

Another example that I like to use is that of course we use computer systems now to operate our infrastructure. An obvious example is that Transpower and the generation companies have computer systems that control when dams are opening for their water to come through and generate electricity and where electricity is directed around the grid. If those sorts of computer systems are breached by people who have got an improper purpose, they can wreak considerable havoc to our economy. Not all of the people who might want to do that are acting in the best interests of New Zealand, and I think it is important in a small country like this, in New Zealand, where we have repositories of expertise such as that which lies in the GCSB but not in the Police or other agencies, that on occasions they run programmes with the private sector to give of that expertise to the private sector in order to protect our infrastructure.

So that is actually what clause 14(2) is actually doing. It is allowing the GCSB to provide: “(a) services and advice relating to developing and implementing protective security arrangements, including arrangements for— … (ii) information security (for example, information assurance and cybersecurity activities);”. These are actually real activities that the GCSB currently undertakes and should be able to undertake in the future, and therefore I think that, properly read, clause 14 is not about intrusive powers of these agencies; it is about powers of assistance. If I have got that wrong, I am sure the Minister in the chair will tell me.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I would like to start with new clause 19A, “General duties applying when intelligence and security agency performing functions”, in its entirety. It says: “When performing its functions, an intelligence and security agency must act—(a) in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights obligations recognised by New Zealand law; and (b) in the performance of its operational functions, independently and impartially; and (c) with integrity and professionalism; and (d) in a manner that facilitates effective democratic oversight.”

If I look at those clauses and then flick back to clause 15(3), I am just a little confused in that it says “An activity described in subsection (1)(a) may be carried out by the Government Communications Security Bureau—(a) without an authorisation if that activity is—(i) a lawful activity;” or (ii) the activity would otherwise be an unlawful activity but is a lawful activity because it is carried out with the lawful consent of public authority, person, or class of persons. When we go back to clause 19A, when it says that when performing its functions, it must be in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights obligations recognised by New Zealand law, the question is: how can something be conducted without an authorisation if the activity would otherwise be an unlawful activity?

I am not sure what that is saying, and then it is saying “but is a lawful activity because it is carried out with the lawful consent”. So is it saying an unlawful activity can be made lawful if it is carried out with the lawful consent of a person or authority? Then the next question is this: does that mean something can be given retrospective lawful consent, and, if that was the case, would it actually be lawful consent if an activity was carried out but it retrospectively had to be given lawful consent?

Clause 15(3)(b) states that an activity described may be carried out by the GCSB “with an authorisation if that activity is—(i) not otherwise a lawful activity; and (ii) not undertaken with the consent of the public authority, person, or class of persons.” I could be reading this wrong, but it sounds like something can be done by the GCSB that is not a lawful activity and not carried out with the consent of the public authority, and yet clause 19A(a) says that “When performing its functions, an intelligence and security agency must act—(a) in accordance with New Zealand law;” It just seems to me to be contradictory, and I am confused by that in the first instance.

The second question I would like to ask is around clause 16(4)(c). The director-general of an intelligence and security agency and an employee of an intelligence and security agency are immune from criminal liability for any act done under this section in good faith in providing advice and assistance to the New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Defence Force if—and I go down to paragraph (c)—“the act could have been lawfully carried out by the New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Defence Force, as the case may be.” The question is: if it could have been carried out by the New Zealand Police or Defence Force, what would be some reasons why it was not carried out by them? Why would they risk criminal liability if it could have been carried out by the New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Defence Force in the first place?

So those are just two questions that I have. Like other colleagues of mine, I have not been involved in the process of determining this at all, but those are just a couple of questions that have sort of leapt out at me. I am sure they could well be cleared up quite easily, but for now I find them quite confusing.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I would like to point to clause 20, which talks to “Specific duties of Director-General of an intelligence and security agency”. I think in Part 2—and, I guess, in the total of this bill—this is an important clause, because it goes to the integrity of the service and to making sure that there is an onus on the director-general of one of our intelligence agencies to make sure that our intelligence agencies perform and that they are without undue influence. Clause 20 goes on to say: “The Director-General of an intelligence and security agency must take all reasonable steps to ensure that—(a) the activities of the agency are—(i) limited to those that are relevant to the performance of its functions;”—I think that is fair enough—“(ii) kept free from any influence or consideration that is not relevant to the performance of its functions.” Clause 20(a)(iii) states, I think importantly, that the agencies must be “politically neutral (for example, the activities are not carried out for the purpose of promoting or harming the interests of any political party or candidate);”.

I think that is a very important clause within this piece of legislation. I do not want to dwell on it, but Mr Parker did allude to it earlier where there was, I guess—I am trying to be diplomatic—a disagreement between the former Leader of the Opposition and now Auckland mayor, the Hon Phil Goff, and, I think it was, at the time, the Director-General of the Security Intelligence Service, Warren Tucker, over whether or not a briefing had been or had not been delivered to the Leader of the Opposition at the time. The issue at the time was the release of an Official Information Act request as to whether Mr Goff had in fact been—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Come back to the bill.

KRIS FAAFOI: —unfairly treated and, potentially, non - politically neutral.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Kia ora mai tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa. Members, the Committee is resumed. Before the dinner break we were debating Part 2 of the Intelligence and Security Bill. Kris Faafoi has the call and has 3 minutes remaining. I call the Hon Chris Finlayson.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Come out, come out, wherever you are, Mr Faafoi. But what I will do—

Iain Lees-Galloway: I will listen on his behalf.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Thank you very much. Look, there are a number of points that were raised just before the dinner break. Mr Faafoi was emphasising a very important point in clause 20, “Specific duties of Director-General of an intelligence and security agency”, and, in particular, the importance of maintaining political neutrality. I know that has been the subject of quite a lot of debate in recent years, and all the points, with respect, are fairly made. We just need to make sure at all times that these agencies that have huge, intrusive powers do their job properly and are scrupulous about maintaining political neutrality. In so far as he was emphasising that point, I do not think anyone would take issue with that.

Mr Parker raised a number of helpful points, and I will just quickly run through what he said. In respect of clause 14, he had a very helpful summary of exactly what that clause is actually aimed at: the provision of security services, advice, and assistance by the two intelligence agencies. But I would simply say that clause 14 has to be read in conjunction with clause 15(4), because there will be circumstances that require a warrant, even when safeguarding services are being provided.

Can I come to Mr Cunliffe’s questions. The member for New Lynn raised a couple of issues about clause 9 and focused on the word “specialises”, and then, similarly, on clause 10 and the word “specialises”. Look, the point that I need to emphasise is that the SIS was carved out of the Police in 1946 and became the human intelligence agency. For many years no one was prepared to acknowledge the existence of the signals intelligence agency—the GCSB. Then, in 1977, it was Robert Muldoon who said: “Well, yes, the signals intelligence agency exists.”, and then it was under Helen Clark’s Government that it received its first piece of legislation, in 2003.

I guess the word “specialises” in both clauses 9 and 10 recognises existing capability, and, throughout, the Government has been adamant that there is no intention to merge the agencies, although there may be circumstances, for example, in relation to financial management or human resources, or matters such as that, where they may share some services. But there is no intention to merge. In other words, the SIS focuses on human intelligence and the GCSB focuses on signals intelligence. But sometimes it could be said that the boundary is becoming blurred. A lot of human intelligence work can happen online—reference to Facebook, for example, and that sort of stuff. That said, the powers in the warranting regime—and we will come to that in due course—are designed to reflect these specialist capabilities, with the SIS having, if you like, real-world powers and the GCSB powers being framed in terms of information, infrastructure, and cyber-activities.

Mr Cunliffe also had a question on clause 13. The constraints in the bill for clause 13(1)(b)(iii) exist in the purpose provision of the bill. It is very important to bear in mind at all times the purpose provision of the bill in Part 1, which deals with preliminary provisions, but the purpose comes back to protecting New Zealand as a free, open, and democratic society. I will not go through the clause now, but it ties it back to New Zealand’s interests. So the purpose is New Zealand - centric. It is focused on the protection of New Zealand interests, and it is also subject to clause 13(3), which requires the Minister to be satisfied that provision of intelligence is subject to New Zealand law and human rights recognised under New Zealand law.

He also raised a question about limits on clause 14. I think I have probably covered the point, but I just emphasise that, ultimately, anything done under clauses 14 and 15 must be either lawful or—as I said in response to what Mr Parker said—done under a warrant. Then he raised a question about clause 15(1)(b), and focused on those words “everything that is necessary or desirable” and thought that was rather loose. Clause 15 makes it very clear that anything unlawful has to be warranted, and I refer the honourable member to subclause (4). It is a point I have raised on a number of occasions now, but it is good that I am able to emphasise that point.

Mr Davis raised a question about clause 16, and particularly he asked for the circumstances where assistance could be provided in terms of subclause (4), and the kind of assistance I am talking about is the provision of assistance to the New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Defence Force. The answer to that is that this is where both the GCSB and the SIS have powers that other agencies do not have, and, in a way, it is to stop the necessity for the Police or the Defence Force having to replicate, at a very high cost, the specialist capabilities of the intelligence and security agencies.

Finally, I refer to what the Leader of the Opposition was saying in relation to clause 23. I agree with him that it is incredibly important in our kind of system, not only for political neutrality reasons but also for the good governance of the country, that the Leader of the Opposition be consulted on a regular basis by the intelligence and security agencies. I hear what he says about other parties in the Parliament. I am simply going to say that when we get to Part 6 and we have a discussion about the Cabinet committee on intelligence and security, I can deal with some of the points that Mr Little raised at that stage. So I think that picks up all the various points that were raised by members before the dinner break.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I would like to thank the honourable Minister for his leadership on the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill. The security and safety of Aotearoa New Zealand and, indeed, all of our people is crucial, and this is a very important bill. In my brief contribution, I would like to discuss clause 11, which is about the objectives of intelligence and security agencies as they contribute in this legislation.

Clause 11 states: “The principal objectives of the intelligence and security agencies are to contribute to—(a) the protection of New Zealand’s national security;”. In this legislation, as I understand it—I was not fortunate enough to be a member of the subcommittee when folks came to present to it—the term “national security” was not previously defined. I know that it is now defined, but what I would like to ask the Minister is whether he, as Minister, is satisfied with the definition that is now given to national security in this particular bill.

Also, when we go to clause 11(c) it says that one of the principal objectives of this legislation is for the “the economic well-being of New Zealand;”. My question to the Minister is this: is “well-being” defined in this legislation? That is the first question. The second question is with regard to paragraph (c): “the economic well-being of New Zealand.” Is it clearly defined in this legislation? I am not clear in my reading of this bill whether it is indeed defined.

The other question I would like to pose to the Minister—this was covered by the Law Society, and it was agreed to by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—is about the fact that the term “principal” is still included in clause 11. Using the term “principal” before “objectives” creates uncertainty, because it implies that the GCSB and the SIS may have other unstated secondary objectives that might not be clearly stated in this legislation. So I would like to ask the Minister why the term “principal” in front of “objectives” is still currently used. Clause 11 is indeed a very important clause because it establishes the boundaries within which the Government, the CCSB, and the SIS may exercise the functions and powers that are given to them under this bill. So it is indeed crucial to ensure clarity around meanings and around whether or not the word “principal” should indeed still be in front of “objectives”.

I would like now to move to clauses 13 through to 15. In these clauses, it talks about “public authority”. Clause 13(2)(a), clause 14(1)(a), and clause 15(1) provide that the functions of the GCSB and the SIS will include the provision of assistance to “any public authority (whether in New Zealand or overseas);”. So my question to the Minister—and this is, again, an issue that both the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the New Zealand Law Society agree on—is that “public authority” should be defined. It is not clear that there is actually a definition for “public authority” in this legislation. It should be a term defined, because we should ensure transparency of the legislation as well as the ability of agencies to be able to assist and advise as under this bill. It should be clarified and defined.

I would like now to move to clause 16, and I would like to thank the Minister because he has, in his previous contribution, already answered some of the questions I was going to ask about clause 16. Thank you very much.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I just want to pick up on one point the previous speaker, Jenny Salesa, had raised and put a slightly different slant on it, and, with respect, request the Minister to respond to one specific issue in clause 11. As I think became clear in the course of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee’s discussions, the issue of national security, I think, was handled with considerable insight, and we in the Green Party are quite reassured on the delineation of the nine harms identified in relation to national security. That said, we do have views on the manner in which that impinges on the bill as a whole, and we made that clear, especially in the second reading debate.

But the point I wanted to raise is in terms of one specific concept and that is in clause 11(b) “well-being” itself, because the previous speaker picked up on “economic well-being”. But as I think I pointed out in my second reading speech, I think we now have a bit of an idea about the concept of national security. I think we know traditionally what “international relations” means, and I think we know traditionally what “economic well-being” means. I do suggest—and I did suggest in the second reading, and I would like to put it to the Minister—that the concept of “well-being” in itself is just a tad too broad and amorphous when there are criminal penalties in a bill. I would invite the Minister to give—certainly it is not in the interpretation clause—his succinct interpretation to the Committee of what “well-being of New Zealand” means.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I would be very happy to do that immediately—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Hon Christopher Finlayson.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Mr Chair, I apologise for forgetting about the salutation. But no, it is a very fair question. Under the previous legislation, there could have been issues about whether or not an anti - Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) campaigner could have been arguing or contending against the economic well-being of the country by opposing the TPP. In fact, the wording of the existing legislation is very vague in that regard. But when you look at the term “economic well-being of New Zealand”—and we will come to it when we deal with the warranting regime and the much better definition of “national security”—I think the honourable member will find that will not be possible.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to continue the interesting conversation—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Take another call. You have got three left.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Can I just comment on what the previous member said, because I think she raised a number of very important points about clause 11 and that word “principal”. What does that mean? Are there some hidden deep - State subsidiary objectives that are not to be spelt out in the legislation?

I thought that was a very good question, with respect. I think that what we are dealing with here are the objectives that capture the key work of the intelligence and security agents. The collection of foreign intelligence, for example, enables New Zealand to understand key international developments that may present a risk or an opportunity to this country. It also enables work in support of other countries, to help, for example, to reinforce international law, detecting illegal fishing in the Southern Ocean—matters such as that. Action taken in pursuit of these objectives also enables the Government to make decisions in the national interest across a broad range of foreign-policy objectives. But I would emphasise to her that there is no hidden meaning behind the word “principal”—that these are the principal objectives but there are some kinds of unstated objectives that somehow need to be brought out into the open.

Can I also simply say to her—she raised a question, I think, about what a “public authority” is—that it is actually defined in the interpretation clause. It is an additional definition that has been included by the select committee. I will not go through it now, but it is set out for her there.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I apologise to the Minister if I did not make myself very clear. I will try to make it much more succinct. I am referring to clause 11(b) not clause 11(c). I am not referring to “economic well-being”; I am referring to clause 11(b)—the concept of “well-being of New Zealand”—which is far broader. I also made the point in the second reading that it is a bit conceptually confusing when “economic well-being” is a subset, presumably, of well-being, and it is identified separately—but that is a secondary thing. The principal question in my mind is what is anything approaching a clear definition of the concept of “well-being of New Zealand” when there are criminal penalties in this legislation?

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): While the Minister is pondering that very interesting intervention by Dr Graham, that was not the first point I was going to make, but I will make it now as the first point so that it carries on.

I can recall in the 1990s arriving along to a select committee as a student politician to make exactly the same point that Dr Graham has just made—but, in this case, about economic well-being—and to try to understand exactly what that meant, because that terminology has now been in the Act for some time. I appreciate the comment that the Minister made about the fact that the way it was drafted previously could easily have said that those of us who stood out on the steps of Parliament and said that we did not like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or aspects thereof could easily have been seen to be within this. And, in fact, I suspect that in the past this is precisely the justification some intelligence agencies have used for their monitoring and surveillance of people. So I think that certainly was the case, and it will be interesting, as the Minister says, as we go through, to pick up the difference there in terms of how the legislation is written now in terms of the warrants later on.

I do just want to pick up the point that Kennedy Graham raises, which is that I wonder about clause 11(b), because if the clause is to be coherent, the well-being of New Zealand and the international relations of New Zealand must have something to do with each other, because clause 11(a) is New Zealand’s national security, which, in the broadest sense of the word “well-being”, means how New Zealand performs. So this is something to do with the way in which New Zealand’s international relations work—our relations with other countries. That is the only way that this clause would make any logical sense to me. The Minister is doing some nodding, which could be related to virtually anything, but it could be related to what I am saying.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Ha, ha!

GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha, ha! So at some point we might have him back on his feet to tell us whether the “well-being” is related. That will only half help Dr Graham, because that still does not tell us exactly what it is. Although it might now locate it alongside our international relations, what exactly the “well-being of New Zealand” is is fairly amorphous to me, so I look forward to the Minister’s help on that.

The point I wanted to raise is actually a relatively minor one, but I was not here for the early part of the debate on Part 2, so apologies if this has been covered. I am looking at clause 23, which is “Director-General of an intelligence and security agency to consult Leader of the Opposition”, and although I am absolutely satisfied that this clause will stand and go through, I do think it is important to put on the record two things about this. One is the importance of it. The importance of the fact that if we are going to have the kind of cross-party—bipartisan in this particular instance here—approach to security and intelligence matters, we do need communication to be clear and important.

I do not want to rake over the Warren Tucker - Phil Goff incident again, because it got a bit of an airing in the second reading, but this is, of course, the very situation that led to that dispute, and I think that although in a piece of legislation we would not go to the level of detail of talking about how those meetings take place, it is important to put on the record that they do need to be ones that safeguard the integrity of both the director-general and the Leader of the Opposition. We in the Opposition certainly took to having two people present for those meetings in order to ensure that there was a witness. I was one of those people when I was the deputy leader for a period of time, and, again, I would not necessarily say that that has to be in the legislation, but I think it is an important thing to put on record. Similarly, the director of an agency may well choose to do that also.

The second point I wanted to make about this is that I do think that in the future this is what a proper oversight body would actually also be able to have some access to—these briefings. I know it gets harder the more people who become involved, but I do think that if we are going to increase the confidence of New Zealanders in these agencies, a slightly broader mandate for the director-general to be talking to the oversight body about the kinds of things that they are involved in, without all of the detail, is important, because having been in those briefings, it is up to the director-general what they tell the Leader of the Opposition. It has been designed, I think, to give a flavour of the work, as opposed to actually going through specific incidents or specific cases. I think that, over time, this could be clarified more in practice, and, as I say, it does not necessarily need to be in the legislation.

So, to summarise my point on this, this is an important clause. It should be here, but in practice it has a number of fishhooks that need to be worked on and, in my view, could actually be expanded in the future to the wider oversight body. I look forward to hearing about Mr Finlayson’s well-being.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I just wanted to comment briefly on clause 23. I, first of all, want to just talk about the meaning of “consultation”, because it is often used in legislation and it is often not used very clearly in legislation, and this is one of those occasions. We do not really know what we are talking about when we talk about, in terms of clause 23, “consultation” between the director-general of an intelligence and security agency and the Leader of the Opposition.

Consultation, generally, can be for one of three purposes: (1) it could be consultation for information, which is just passing information from one person to another and nothing more; (2) it could be consultation for participation, which implies that there would be an expectation of feedback and some discussion; or (3) it could be consultation for collaboration, which takes a step further, meaning that the expectation of the consultation would be some attempt at reaching consensus or even joint decision-making. It could even go that far.

So just to put word “consultation” in legislation actually does not take you very far. It leaves it open as to what that really means, and that is the problem that we are having with this clause here tonight. So I am not very concerned about it—I might say—but if others are concerned about it, then it would be dealt with effectively by describing what the purpose of the consultation was.

The second point I wanted to make about clause 23 is that it refers only to the Leader of the Opposition and not to any other Opposition party. So I wonder as a result of that whether the Leader of the Opposition would then be expected to take a further consultative step by talking to the leaders of other Opposition parties, whether that is intended or not or whether the intention is that it just be the Leader of the Opposition and he has no expectation or authority—that is probably a better word—to reveal that information to anybody else, even within his own party, let alone the leaders of other parties.

So what actually is the intention here? Is it that the Opposition as a whole would be involved in this or is it just one person? It is not clear to me and, again, I am not very concerned about the whole issue, but if others are, then that is another point that could probably be covered off, not just by way of explanation by the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, but by amending the clause itself. That is some food for thought, Minister.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I just have one further and, I think, final comment on my previous point about clause 11(b), and I am picking up from Grant Robinson’s intervention, which I thought was very useful. Obviously, it in the same subclause: “the international relations and well-being of New Zealand;”. He inferred that the two are somehow interrelated. That may be, but it is not clear in the legislation and it is not a necessary inference. So we have to conclude, I think, that the concept “well-being of New Zealand” stands on its own—separate and discrete. I still think that it is problematic if it is left undefined. National security is, as I say, there in clause 55A and we do traditionally understand what we mean by “international relations”.

To meet Mr Robertson’s point, you could say “the positive international relations of New Zealand”, but if you just say “well-being of New Zealand”, it is wide open to abuse or maximum and broad interpretation. I will give you just one quick example. A country that relies on and embraces the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, for example, would presumably interpret the well-being of that country to include the possession and potential use of nuclear weapons. New Zealand, on the other hand, has legislation that disbands, disavows, the possession of nuclear weapons for itself. So presumably, therefore, necessarily, the well-being of New Zealand rests on a repudiation of nuclear deterrence. Those are diametrically opposed concepts. So you could have, in intelligence legislation in two countries—if it were “Five Eyes”—partners engaging in espionage on two different people who are saying entirely different things on the grounds that it is meeting their legislation. I know we are just talking about New Zealand, but I think it reinforces and highlights the problematic nature of a broad concept that is undefined, when there are criminal penalties in the same bill.

On reflection, we did not put it into a Supplementary Order Paper. The same problem does not pertain to national security, because clause 55A(2)(d) talks about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. So the concept of national security is constrained and defined; “well-being” is not, anywhere in the bill. So we may want to, before we conclude the passage of the bill through the Committee, just reflect further on whether clause 11(b) might be better served if there were an appropriate adjective in front of “international relations”, and if the undefined concept of “well-being” were omitted. Thanks.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity. Clearly, what we are trying to do here is modernise our intelligence and security legislation, which needs to be commended. Just on Part 2, just prior to our dinner break my colleague Kris Faafoi raised an issue. I cannot pretend that it is the same issue that I am about to talk to, but it was in relation to clause 20 in Part 2, “Specific duties of Director-General of an intelligence and security agency”, where we lay out that their duties are taking “reasonable steps to ensure that—(a) the activities of the agency are—(i) limited to those that are relevant to the performance of its functions; and (ii) kept free from any influence or consideration that is not relevant to the performance of its function; and (iii)”—which really comes to, perhaps, my question for clarity for Minister Finlayson—“politically neutral (for example, the activities are not carried out for the purposes of promoting or harming the interests of any political party or candidate);”.

I guess the question that I would like to ask is whether that is limited to New Zealand political parties and New Zealand candidates, or whether it is much broader. Clearly, we could meet that particular threshold, but it may have wider implications. Can I ask that we turn to clause 13, in terms of being politically neutral, which I think is a very, very high standard and should be supported. When I read clause 13 in Part 2, we talk about intelligence collection and analysis and we talk about the function of the intelligence and security agencies, which “collect and analyse intelligence in accordance with the Government’s priorities;”. I guess my question, and I would welcome the Minister’s explanation, is how we ensure that in assessing the Government’s priorities—and it says in clause 13(1)(b) that once that intelligence is gathered and analysed it is provided to the Minister, the Chief Executive of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and other persons—we uphold clause 20(a)(iii) in terms of maintaining our political neutrality. I am just making sure that we have got those checks and balances to ensure there is no over-interference from Government priorities, as per clause 13(1)(a) and the clause that I am seeking some clarification on, which is clause 20.

That is really just a short contribution. I am keen to hear from the Minister in relation to clarifying that. Thank you.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): My apologies if this point has already been covered, but I am referring specifically to clause 13(1)—this is about the intelligence collection and analysis—which reads: “It is a function of an intelligence and security agency to—(a) collect and analyse intelligence in accordance with the [New Zealand] Government’s priorities;”. My question is how those priorities are determined. Are they set priorities? Have they been determined somehow? Or are they determined regularly and reviewed regularly? Because it says “in accordance with the [New Zealand] Government’s priorities;”, my assumption is that the Government—i.e., Cabinet—would determine what those priorities would be.

Another question is whether the Leader of the Opposition, under clause 23, I think it is, gets consulted about these priorities, and whether the Leader of the Opposition actually has any input into them. Because they are the Government’s priorities, the question is whether it would need to collect and analyse intelligence in order to determine its priorities in the first place, before it then went on to collect and analyse intelligence in accordance with the priorities. So do they need to actually get data and intelligence to determine the priorities before they get data and intelligence to set those priorities, as per clause 13(1)(a)? The questions are how those priorities are determined, what data and analysis needs to be gained and collected so that you can actually make a determination of what the Government’s priorities are, and then, when you know what those priorities are, whether the Government then has to collect and analyse intelligence in accordance with those priorities. For me it is just, again, a little bit confusing.

I also have a question around clause 17, “Co-operation with other entities to respond to imminent threat”. It would be interesting to know what the definition there of “threat” is. I will just read clause 17(1): “It is a function of the intelligence and security agencies to co-operate with, and provide advice and assistance to, a person, class of persons, or public authority (whether in New Zealand or overseas) that is responding to an imminent threat to the life or safety of”—and, then, this is paragraph (b)—“any New Zealand citizen who is overseas;”. The question there is a threat by whom, and, to hark back to another of my pet issues, whether this includes New Zealand citizens overseas who are at threat of being detained without having committed a crime, such as in Australia.

In fact, I am dealing with a situation now with a 23-year-old podiatry student from Melbourne, who has been detained without committing a crime. She has not been informed of why she has been detained. Is this an example of a sort of threat to a New Zealand citizen? Of course, we know that some of the threats and dangers to people in detention centres are threats of self-harm, threats of assaults, and issues around mental health issues. How far will we go to protect New Zealand citizens overseas? Is a threat of detention without committing a crime one of the threats? Are we talking about threats to New Zealand citizens by overseas jurisdictions—Governments—or are we talking about threats of being assassinated, or something like that, by some terrorist organisation? I seek clarification of those two issues: setting priorities, and the threats to New Zealand citizens overseas. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

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.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 106

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 14.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Covert activities of intelligence and security agencies

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I will just say one or two things about this part, which provides for the creation, use, and maintenance of individual assumed identities and legal entities that are used for cover purposes in order to protect the secrecy of the intelligence and security agencies’ work and activities. There were some changes—as one can see—in the course of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee’s consideration, but I really want to focus on the third subpart.

Part 3 comprises three subparts; the first enables the acquisition, use, and maintenance of assumed identities by employees of the security and intelligence agencies. The changes that have been made in the course of the select committee’s deliberations are not major there. Then the second subpart deals with corporate identities. In many respects, actually, it mirrors the first subpart, except that it provides for the creation—including the conferral—of a particular legal status, the maintenance, and the use of legal entities through which an intelligence and security agency may conduct transactions in order to keep its activities secret.

The final subpart—which I really think is the one that, maybe, members will want to focus on—is Subpart 3, and that has been added following the work of the select committee. It creates a requirement for the agencies to maintain registers of assumed identities and legal entities that have been created and maintained under Subparts 1 and 2—and I particularly refer honourable members to clause 45A(3). That register is able to be accessed at any time by the Minister responsible for the particular agency and by the inspector-general. Obviously, the maintenance of a register is an extremely important concomitant, if you like, of the need for accountability.

Grant Robertson: Cancomitant?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Concomitant—I am sorry, I did not realise my pronunciation was so poor. So I think that is where the discussion is. These are powers that, as one can see, for example, in Subpart 1, any intelligence and security agency will require, both in relation to the individual and in relation to corporate identities—Subpart 2. But the all-important control of the register is able to be accessed by the Minister or the inspector-general at any time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call Grant Robertson.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, good choice—good choice.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Yes, well there was no other choice, in fact—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Regardless.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —but thank you, Mrs Dyson. So Part 3, as the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, has said—I guess for ordinary people thinking about intelligence agencies, this is what they think about: the excitement of an assumed identity and taking on the identity of somebody else. I invite members in the Chamber—

Kelvin Davis: It’s the Maxwell Smart club.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —that is right—and those watching along at home to perhaps play a little game that I was taught, possibly when I worked for a large foreign ministry, which is that if you want to create your own spy identity, what you should do is take your middle name and the street where you grew up, or where you lived for the longest when you were growing up. So your middle name is your first name and your last—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Francis Robertson, thank you very much.

GRANT ROBERTSON: There we go, so here is “Francis Robertson”. I myself am “Murray Pretoria”—ha, ha—which I think makes me sound like a South African spy, but that is me. So I invite other members of the Committee to have a think about where they are at in terms of their identity, should they require their own identity under Part 3, Subpart 1. I will perhaps think, for a second call, of what a corporate assumed identity might be based on. I will have a think about that, but on behalf of “Murray Pretoria”, I stand to make this speech under Subpart 1.

Actually, in all seriousness, the part that I wanted to focus on here is actually the one that the Minister has highlighted, around Part 3, Subpart 3. Firstly, I want to say that this is a very positive development, because in all parts of this bill, striking the balance between enabling the agencies to do the job that we, as New Zealanders, need them to do, but having the checks and balances in place to protect New Zealanders’ privacy and also to protect the integrity of the service, is vital. The best way to do that is to have some form of transparency, and that is what Subpart 3, “Register of assumed identities and legal entities created or maintained” creates.

I think it is a very thorough piece of work in this part, because it provides that on each request and on each direction that is given in terms of taking on an identity, it is required for that to be entered into the register, and, indeed, the point at which it is cancelled as well is also part of it. This is excellent work, I think, from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—to put this in here—and as the Minister noted himself, in Subpart 3, clause 45A(3), what is essential is that there is at least somebody who can access that register. On this clause, it is the Minister responsible for the agency and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

In a previous life I would have had some concern about the fact that it was only the inspector-general. I think we have not always been so brilliantly well-served by people in that role, but we are now, and the inspector-general’s office has had significantly more resources put into it; it is now able to play a role. I would hope that the inspector-general would be taking a relatively proactive view of the register, and making sure that the register is being accessed on a regular basis to ensure that the agencies are meeting their obligations under Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 of this part.

I think, for the most part, I am comfortable with what is in here. The definition section does, obviously, indicate what an authorised person is. That was changed by the committee, and I do not know that there is any significance in that change, but the Minister may choose to let us know if there is. Obviously, not only to facilitate the register, there were the additions within Subpart 1 around the record being publicly available if an agency, in the ordinary course of activities, makes that record available for public inspection or searching. I do wonder whether the Minister might want to tell us under what circumstances that would occur. What are the boundaries around whether an agency would make it public? I think, you know, as I say, the more transparency the better in these situations, but it would be good to understand exactly the balance that is attempting to be struck there. Just before I run out of time, the clause where that is mentioned is 25(2). So if the Minister could give us a bit of help with that, that would be appreciated.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): In the debate on this part, I am looking most forward to the contribution from the ACT Party, because the ACT Party has got more experience in assumed identities than any other party in this House. I well remember David Garrett, having railed against name suppression and discharges without conviction, was exposed for his hypocrisy for having had both—actually, with assistance from Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, which is not a tag that most people would attach to his views. But David Garrett assumed the identity of dead babies.

When he was eventually found out, he said he was modelling his behaviour on The Day of the Jackal. Interestingly, the real person who lies behind The Day of the Jackal is in court again, I think, at the moment—in Paris, is he not, for his involvement in murders back in the 1970s. Anyway, David Garrett was one of the people who took the ACT Party from a number of members down to one; it is largely a political irrelevancy that survives as some sort of vestige—a bit like a tail that you no longer need—that the National Government relies upon for one vote. I am looking forward to hearing from David Seymour.

Iain Lees-Galloway: If that’s his real name.

Hon DAVID PARKER: If that is his real name, David Seymour—that is right. I have the privilege of standing against him in the general election this year, in the Epsom electorate, so I am hoping that he is going to take a call here. If he does not, I think I might have to raise it on the hustings.

Can I mention a more serious matter. This is another area in this part of the bill where the Government, because it has been willing to listen to the select committee and to engage with the Opposition, has got to a good outcome. The rule made around the requirement to keep a register of assumed identities, which is available for scrutiny by the inspector-general and the Minister—but particularly by the inspector-general—is a very good outcome.

Can I say, Minister, that one of the reasons why I am so pleased that the House has got agreement largely across the House on this legislation is actually the protection of public confidence in democracy. I think that in New Zealand we really ought to be taking a bow on this, compared with what is happening in other countries where the polemic of debate in democracies has become so extreme that everyone is taking extreme whacks at each other—whether it is the Republicans against the Democrats, or Trump against the media, or what is happening in Australia, where their debates are becoming very polarised. It is actually undermining public confidence in the very institutions that protect democracy.

I think we can be thankful that through the more measured approach that we take in this Parliament with the major parties, and other parties supporting them as well, and also a slightly less polarised media debate than we have from some of the awful websites that are spreading fake news and the like in America, we are actually managing to maintain public confidence in our democratic institutions.

As someone who believes very strongly in the importance of democracy, because it is so much better than autocracy or theocracy or other forms of totalitarianism, I really believe that we are doing a service to our people. We are trying to find the appropriate balance between the powers of the State and the protections of the rights of the privacy of citizens against excessive State intrusion. Through this bill, which, as I have said previously, I think is certainly better than our current laws—and I suspect it is probably amongst the best oversight legislation of spy agencies in the world—we are actually showing that our democracy can work to protect the interests of the people, and therefore we maintain greater confidence in democracy. People are more likely to vote. They are more likely to participate in civil society. They are less likely to throw things at each other. They are more likely to respect laws. They are more likely to respect the property rights of others, and they are more likely to try to reach out to each other, across the centre, in order to reach the compromises that we need to in society, in order to run a prosperous and fair society.

With that, I think that is all I need to say on this Part 3 of the bill. It has the Labour Party’s support. I agree that the changes made to clause 45 are appropriate.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I am glad that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee took so much trouble over Part 3 and all of its subparts, because it is the part of the bill that New Zealanders would probably be most interested in. It conjures up—

Grant Robertson: What’s your spy name, Denis?

DENIS O’ROURKE: My favourite movie was The Third Man. I do not know whether you remember it, but it is a very good classic movie.

Tim Macindoe: You’re showing your age.

DENIS O’ROURKE: Yes, it does show my age. This part of the bill really conjures up all of those images that you see in that movie—the trench coat, the wide-brimmed hat, the dangling cigarette, and the muttered conversations in shady places. It is very much like the way the National caucus works, actually. For those reasons it is the part of the bill that New Zealanders would be most interested in.

The thing that would offend people the most would be to find that somebody with an assumed identity had intruded in some way into their lives. Nobody would like that. It is humiliating. It is a very underhanded way of obtaining information. So for all of those reasons it is very important that the terms and conditions under which that is allowed and the particular provisions in the authorisations are very important. That is why I agree with what Mr Robertson said about the register, which is a very, very good way of counterbalancing the intrusion that an assumed identity can have into people’s lives.

If there is a register it means that we get the oversight by the inspector-general, and that is specifically in the bill. In that way we can be sure that not only is there a robust regime for an authorisation, so it is not just done as a matter of practice, but it has to be properly justified and authorised. But there is a system for oversight as well.

Although it is rather fun to talk about this on the one hand, it is very serious. I did want to add my commendation as well for the work of the select committee, which did take it seriously and has made a very good job of making sure we have got robust authorisations and a good system of oversight, as a check and balance against the sort of humiliation that results from situations where assumed identities are used.

I am also very happy with this part of the bill. All the subparts of it, whether it is individuals or corporates assuming identities, are all very well covered. New Zealand First is very pleased and happy with this part of the bill.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Although there has been some mirth around the images of spies in trench coats and dark hats and the escapades of some of our colleagues with assumed identities, obviously the use of assumed identities by our intelligence and security agencies is necessary. But if you look at some of the submissions made at the select committee, it is also the aspect of their work that does create probably the most nervousness—not the most nervousness, but a great degree of nervousness—particularly amongst civil society organisations.

I note that the Council of Trade Unions expressed its concern about the expansion of the powers of the intelligence and security agencies in respect of the creation of false identities. I suppose that comes from a bit of history of people using false identities to infiltrate legitimate political organisations, such as the Council of Trade Unions. I see another submitter, the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand—actually on this side of the Chamber, those of us who were not on the committee are trying to figure it out. We are assuming that it is an environmental or conservation group, although it may be another organisation using an assumed identity—it is hard to tell!

Those environmental organisations, political organisations—I think back to the anti-apartheid movement where security intelligence officers, using assumed identities, did infiltrate those organisations. It is understandable that there is a hangover from those days, of concern about the way in which those assumed identities are used. That is why it is pleasing to see that the recommendation that was made to establish a register, which the Minister is able to have access to, is one check on the use of people with assumed identities.

I do have one question for the Minister or for members who were on the committee who might be able to clarify this for me. It is in relation to the definition of employee. I note that the definition of employee in Part 3, Subpart 1, is different from the definition of employee in other parts of this legislation. In particular, I note that an employee means any person who is or will be an employee of an intelligence and security agency. I assume that means that a person who is not currently an employee of an intelligence and security agency can be approved to have an assumed identity.

I am not quite sure why it is necessary for someone who is not currently employed as a security and intelligence operative to be able to have an assumed identity. There may be some operational purpose to this, but I would have thought that in the event that an operation was being planned, the normal protocol would be to employ someone and then go through the process of approving them to have an assumed identity. Again, as I said the last time I made a contribution, I am approaching this as a layperson—somebody who does not have any particular expertise in this area and who was not on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—but it would be helpful if the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, was able to explain to the Committee why that pre-emptive ability to create an assumed identity, and to approve someone to use an assumed identity when they are not yet an employee, is allowed for in the legislation.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): The previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, raised a very good point about the term “will be an employee”, and I should simply say that sometimes the actual cover is created and it may be used over a number of years, so when the cover is created, a person, for example, may not be an employee, but may be for the operation some years later. So that is why we have the belt and braces “is, or will be”, because at the relevant time of creation of the cover, the person may not be an employee. So it is simply to cover off that exigency. Can I simply say there is a broader question that I omitted to mention, but we will come to it in Part 7, and that is in relation to assumed identities.

One other matter that I should have referred honourable members to is in clause 165(b), simply to say that ministerial policy statements are able to be issued, quite apart from warrants, and so on. Part 7 deals with—

Hon Ruth Dyson: I’m sorry. What clause did you say?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am sorry—clause 165. It deals with ministerial policy statements. Just to emphasise that, quite apart from what is in the statute, a ministerial policy statement can be issued dealing with the detail of “acquiring, using, and maintaining an assumed identity”, or “creating and maintaining a legal identity”—that is clause 165(c). So, in due course, the responsible Minister will be producing policy statements that will provide for the detail of the matter.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): If I am to use my spy name, using the Grant Robertson formula, I would be Glen Leonard.

Grant Robertson: That’s original.

KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, that is original. This part, of course, deals with what everyone thinks of when we talk about spies: the whole undercover agent, undercover cop - type scenario. It reminds me of one of my favourite TV shows as I was growing up, with good old Maxwell Smart as Agent 86. I remember the time he was a bit distressed by the fact that his girlfriend, Agent 99, was paying too much attention to Agent 43, and she pacified him by saying: “Don’t worry, 86, you’re worth two 43s”.

Hon Members: Ugh!

KELVIN DAVIS: I did not write it. When we look at undercover agents, undercover spies, whatever you want to call them, their purpose would be to do things such as—I assume—infiltrate gangs, drug syndicates, and other organised crime. I think it is clause 34 where—sorry, just to go back, those people who would have to infiltrate organised crime or gangs or drug syndicates may, in the course of their duties, actually have to commit crimes themselves. Just to, say, fit into a gang, they may have to partake of drugs or—who knows what they may have to do.

Clause 34 is about the immunity of authorised persons. I think that is the correct wording: “Immunity of authorised persons”. It says: “An authorised person is protected from civil and criminal liability, however it may arise, for any act that the authorised person does, or omits to do, in good faith and with reasonable care—(a) in the course of acquiring, using, or maintaining an assumed identity in accordance with an authorisation given under section 26;”. I am just wondering: is that total immunity? How far could an undercover person actually go in order to do whatever they have to do under an assumed identity?

I have also heard stories about people who have, say, spent a lot of time undercover in gangs and in drug syndicates, and actually become immersed in that lifestyle. They actually have a lot of harm and psychological issues because of that lifestyle, over a number of years. I guess this is not a question or anything; it is really just a plea that anybody who does go undercover, in-depth, for a lengthy amount of time in those organisations—what sort of help and support do they actually get when they have to come out of undercover? We have heard of people suffering mental health issues, addiction to drugs, and, basically, being ignored by the agencies that once employed them. So, really, this is just a plea that those people who put their lives in jeopardy, who put their lives on the line when they go undercover and when they actually become immersed in whatever culture they are trying to break—that at some stage, when they come out of that, they have the support that they need to step back from that lifestyle, to step back from whatever, and, basically, get the counselling and the support to get over the experiences that they have had.

That is just a small contribution in terms of the immunity of those authorised persons and concern for their care.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I am grateful to Mr Davis for raising those points, and I was listening; I was just trying to work out what my assumed name would be according to the Pretoria formulation. It would be Francis Lohia , so I do not think that would work at all well. But, anyway, back to serious stuff.

The honourable member Mr Davis raised the issue of the immunity under clause 34. Can I emphasise that that immunity goes to someone who is “protected from civil and criminal liability” for any act that is done “in the course of acquiring, using, or maintaining an assumed identity”. But I want to emphasise to the member that any particular act by a person, be it under an assumed identity or not, has to be the subject of a warrant. So there are two parts to it, and what we are focusing on in clause 34 is the immunity that comes when someone is in the course of acquiring—what is it—using, or maintaining an assumed identity.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I just want that to be clarified. So immunity in the course of acquiring but then using the assumed identity; surely, Minister, that would mean that in the course of using that identity, going about undercover—“How far does it go?” is the question. I would just like that point clarified, sorry.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Can I just use this example. This relates to, as I said, a person “in the course of acquiring, using, or maintaining …”. The activity that that person may undertake under an assumed identity—breaking and entering, or whatever—would still have to be the subject of a warrant. Does that clarify the matter?

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Authorisations

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I did not think anyone would allow this part to go through on a nod, because it is a very important part and it is at the heart of the legislation. It is only fair for members of the Committee if I say a few words, and then I expect that there will be quite a lot of discussion.

The first point relates to the authorising Minister. I recall Mr Little raising, in his first reading speech, the appropriateness of the relevant Minister for warranting purposes being the Attorney-General—which is what the reviewers had proposed—or whether it should be the Ministers in charge of the agencies. That got me thinking. I think it got the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee thinking, and the conclusion of the select committee, as a result of hearing those kinds of arguments, and, also, having heard from the inspector-general, was that the Attorney-General should not be the person who does the authorising, but it should be the Commissioner of Security Warrants and the Minister in charge of the agency. Having reflected on it, I totally agree with the select committee and think I was wrong to have moved on the reviewers’ recommendation.

One of the reasons I say that is that it is the Minister responsible for the agency who issues the ministerial policy statements, so I would have thought it was very important for that Minister also to be involved in, if you like, the everyday activity of a Minister responsible for the agency—namely, dealing with warrants. In any event, the Attorney-General should be remote from a lot of the warranting stuff. The Attorney-General’s concern is to stand back and make sure the business of Government is conducted in accordance with the rule of law, and should not really be at the coal-face on this sort of matter. So I am very happy to accept that recommendation and think it is absolutely correct.

Can I say something about Part 4—which I have already been talking about. It contains the authorisation regime and it provides lawful authority—the very thing that the Committee has been talking about off and on throughout the afternoon and the evening—for the carrying out of otherwise unlawful activities, and it confers on the agencies the power to give effect to authorisations granted under this part.

There are a number of changes to Part 4 that the select committee has made, and we accept all of them. I think these have provided for the opportunity to reorganise Part 4 to make it much clearer what the nature is of the powers conferred on the agencies and the circumstances in which they apply. It is interesting to note that the committee went through all classes of warrants, and some unnecessary powers have been removed or limited.

Let me give the Committee an example of where the select committee, I think, has done really good work. The bill, as introduced, provided for purpose-based warrants, and this would have enabled the issue of a warrant, without any need to specify the persons, in respect of whom, or the places at which activities would be carried out. The committee has recommended the removal of purpose-based warrants, on the basis that class-based warrants are available under the intelligence warrant regime, and will meet the operational needs of the agencies while still requiring greater specificity than purpose-based warrants would have. I agree with that, and I think that that is going to encourage much better oversight—and more effective oversight—of activities.

The second point I want to make concerns the enhanced protections in the warranting system—for example, in clauses 53 and 57. In clause 53 there is this requirement of due particularity in warrant applications. So an application for an intelligence warrant has to be in writing, obviously, amongst other things, and must “set out detail of the activity proposed to be carried out under the warrant;” and “set out the grounds on which the application is made (including the reasons why the legal requirements” have been met. That is an example of the specificity that is required in the warranting system. Secondly, I refer members to clause 57, dealing with the “Additional criteria for issue of intelligence warrant”. A new criterion has been added to the matters that the Minister and, in the case of a type 1 warrant, the Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants must be satisfied of before issuing a warrant—clause 57(d)(ii): “all reasonably practicable steps will be taken to minimise the impact of the proposed activity on [any] members of the public;”.

I then refer honourable members to clause 67, in which the protections for privilege now cover—you can see the underlined phrase—privileged information as well as privileged communications, and provide protection for settlement negotiations and mediations, as recognised in the Evidence Act 2006.

Can I just then refer to the rewording of certain key provisions in the warranting regime, so as to better reflect the purpose and the nature of the activity being authorised. The removal of the training and testing warrants from the intelligence warrant regime—in, I think, Subpart 1 of Part 4—has enabled some wording changes to key provisions so that the language used better reflects the nature and the purpose of proposed activities.

Type 1 warrants now authorise otherwise unlawful activity “for the purpose of collecting information about, or to do any other thing directly in relation to—(a) any person who is—(i) a New Zealand citizen; or (ii) a permanent resident …”. As we know, type 2 warrants authorise the carrying out of otherwise unlawful activity for the purpose of collecting information or to do any other thing in circumstances where a type 1 warrant is not required. The language that I have just quoted of doing “any other thing directly in relation to,—” is intended primarily to cover GCSB cyber-protection activities where the person is not collecting information about the New Zealand person, but doing so is the inevitable result.

The third point I want to make concerns the creation of stand-alone regimes for each different category of warrant. Training and testing activities were provided for in the bill at introduction as a purpose for which an intelligence warrant could be obtained. This led to difficulties in framing and drafting some of the warranting provisions in order to accommodate these purposes. A number of submitters were also concerned about the scope of these new types of training and testing warrants. Accordingly, training and testing activities are now separately dealt with in a stand-alone regime in Subpart 3A of Part 4, and they are the warrants that are called “practice warrants”.

As part of the separation of practice warrants from the intelligence warrants regime, the safeguards from the intelligence warrants regime have been replicated, but it is important to note that some additional ones have been added. All practice warrants are subject to the triple-lock, regardless of the nationality of those who may be affected by the activities, and there is mandatory reporting on the conduct of the activities under a practice warrant—reporting both to the Minister and to the inspector-general.

There are just a couple of other points I want to make about the further limiting of practice and removal warrants. It is important to note that the activities able to be exercised under a practice warrant have been constrained on the recommendation of the select committee. Human intelligence activities and the NZSIS’ power of entry are not available under a practice warrant.

Removal warrants have also been limited in their application. At introduction, the bill would have enabled the GCSB to obtain a removal warrant and give effect to it. This would have conferred a power of entry on the GCSB to retrieve devices. In contrast, the situation with intelligence warrants where the GCSB has an obligation to work with the SIS to access powers of entry, the select committee recommended removal warrants be limited to the SIS only. Where the GCSB requires removal of a device from private premises or property, the SIS will apply for a removal warrant and will carry out that removal on behalf of the GCSB.

There are a couple of terminology changes. The term “information” has been substituted for “intelligence” in a number of places in Part 4 and, as I said, I think Part 4 is now better organised. Can I simply refer, finally, to the—Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Um—

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I anticipated the bell.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes. We will let the Minister run, no matter the normal two-call rule.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: OK, thank you, Mr Chair. The only other point I was going to make related to the proposal about—this is in clause 47—raising the threshold for serious crime in type 1 warrants from any offence punishable by 2 or more years’ imprisonment to any offence punishable by 3 or more years. That change applies only in the context of type 1 warrants, not to serious crime in the context of incidentally obtained information. Mr Parker suggested that to me a few days ago. I have gone away and thought about it and am happy to go along with that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Part 4 of this bill, to me, is actually the most important part of this bill. This is the part that confers but constrains the power of spy agencies to get warrants that affect New Zealanders and others. This is probably the most controversial part of the bill, and I want to talk a little about it.

There are some changes that have been made to the version that went to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which I will come to. But before I do that, there are, essentially, two types of categories of warrants that can be obtained against New Zealanders, both of which are constrained. The first is when New Zealanders are acting as the agent of a foreign power. This is found in clause 55B and applies when there are matters that are affecting international relations or the economic well-being of New Zealand. That is not enough. The person against whom a warrant is being sought has to be either acting or purporting to act on behalf of a foreign person, a foreign organisation, or a designated terrorist entity. That is not particularly new language. There are equivalents to that in the current legislation in relation to the agencies, and it will only apply when a New Zealander is acting as an agent of a foreign power.

We should be aware that a foreign organisation can include a foreign corporate. So if there was a multinational acting in New Zealand, there is the potential for that to apply here. It would be a foreign organisation in terms of this bill and if a New Zealander was working for that organisation and it was something that was a matter relating to international relations and the well-being of New Zealand or the economic well-being of New Zealand, then it could apply for a warrant against a New Zealander.

The more important, if I could say it that way, part of the powers against a New Zealander lies in clause 55A. This has as a precondition that the matter has to be necessary to contribute to the protection of national security and fall within a series of alternatives, like terrorism or espionage. I want to explain the evolution of that at select committee. The original form of the way in which this was cast in the bill that went to the select committee was as recommended by the Cullen-Reddy report, but officials had identified that that might not be the best approach even at the time it was referred to the select committee, and had said to submitters and others to perhaps consider another approach.

At select committee we learnt that the problem with the approach, which attempted to define national security, was that there were things that were covered, and you could get warrants for them, that ought not to have been covered and things that the agencies needed warrants for were not covered and they could not get warrants for them. So it served neither to protect the public appropriately nor to empower the agencies appropriately. So the advice from officials, which the select committee tested very thoroughly, including by talking to the Privacy Commissioner, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and various other submitters, was to move to a new definition, which in some ways is modelled on the approach that is taken in other jurisdictions.

For example, the United Kingdom does not try to define national security and get themselves into that sort of straitjacket. It takes an approach where the term “national security” is left undefined, which is what we have now gone for in this rendition of the bill, as it has come back from the select committee. But we have the additional protection that in order for you to get a type 1 warrant against New Zealanders, it not only has to contribute to the protection of national security, it has to enable the assessment or protection against the harms that are set out in clause 55A(2). I am going to run through those, because they are all very high-level thresholds.

The first is terrorism or violent extremism. I accept that if there is a threat to New Zealand involving terrorism or violent extremism it is appropriate that our GCSB and SIS agencies have the power to get a warrant against a New Zealander, if it relates to national security and it relates to terrorism or violent extremism.

The second alternative is if it relates to espionage or other foreign intelligence activity that is directed at New Zealand interests, that is carried out by a person who is a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident, and that occurs in New Zealand. Again, that is quite a high-level test, because it has got to be a matter of national security and espionage or other foreign intelligence activity of the type that I have just covered.

The third example is national security and sabotage within the meaning of section 79 of the Crimes Act. So if someone was going to plant an explosive device to blow up a dam or cause some disturbance, I think that is serious enough for our agencies, if it is a matter of national security, to have some powers to get a warrant—similarly, for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Then the last one is anything that may relate to a serious crime, and I am going to come back to the definition of what is serious enough to really be a serious crime. It has to be a matter of national security and a serious crime that originates outside New Zealand or is influenced from outside New Zealand. So in that case, if it involves some international drug syndicate or people-smugglers or something like that, or it involves the movement of money, goods, or people—actually, I probably should have mentioned people-smugglers in the second alternative—or if it has the potential to damage New Zealand’s international relations or economic well-being, then it can fit within that area.

The concept of economic well-being being used in respect of a warrant against a New Zealander has to be prescribed. This was one of the points that was made very clearly by Cullen and Reddy. Otherwise, if you have a wide definition of economic well-being, anything would go, because you could virtually say that anything relates to economic well-being. But for that to apply here, it has, firstly, got to be a matter of national security and, secondly, it has got to be a serious crime, as well as having the potential to damage New Zealand’s international relations or economic well-being. I think that is fair enough, so long as the threshold in respect of serious crime is high enough.

The threshold in the bill, as it came to select committee, and, indeed, as it left select committee, is a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years, which I do not think is actually a proper definition of serious crime. I note that the definition in the search and surveillance legislation that came through this House actually has as a threshold 5 years. I would have preferred a 5-year definition. The Prime Minister and the officials came to us and said “Well, there are these series of crimes, including crimes that could have an international dimension, that ought to be caught that have less than 5 years of maximum imprisonment, but should none the less be caught.”, and the Prime Minister then offered a compromise of 3 years, which the Labour Party is willing to accept because it is better than 2 years. We would have preferred 5 years. We cannot get the 5 years because the Government is not willing to agree to it. It is a matter of important detail but, none the less, it is not going to mean that we vote against the whole of the bill, and so we are willing to accept a compromise of 3 years.

For that reason, the Prime Minister has put forward in Supplementary Order Paper 269 an amendment to the definition of “serious crime” to change the provision—and the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, will tell me if I have got this wrong, whether it is the Prime Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper or another one. I think it is the Prime Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper—that is the agreement we had—and it will change it from 2 years to 3 years. On that basis, I think that we get the limited circumstance in which these things can be used against a New Zealander’s right.

How is this an improvement on the status quo? We know from debates in respect of the GCSB that right at the end, on the final reading of that bill, the then Prime Minister was reluctantly—I have to say—forced to accept that, under the GCSB legislation that was passed as an interim measure following the Dotcom fiasco, there was the ability to spy on New Zealanders in a rather unconstrained way. The Prime Minister said “Don’t worry about that; I won’t operationalise it.”

That was better than nothing, but you are actually better to have these things appropriately prescribed by legislation rather than left to the will of a Minister as to whether they will inappropriately use the powers that have been granted by Parliament. We know that is not the right way to do it. We should have these rights constrained, and I think that with these amendments, as recommended by the select committee, we get to that point and, accordingly, I am in favour of Part 4 of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It is my intention to call Dr Kennedy Graham, but, before I do, I do want to inform him, so that he is not under a misapprehension and so that the Committee is not, that when we come to the vote on his Supplementary Order Paper 268—if, in fact, the Committee has agreed, as is my expectation, to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 269—his amendment to clause 47 will at that point be out of order. Therefore, it is my intention to split his two amendments to this part—not to put the amendment to clause 47, but to put the amendment to clause 92. I am, of course, anticipating what the Committee might do, but I thought it was better to warn the member now rather than have a fuss later on.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chairman, very much for that explanation. Of course we respect that and operate on the same presumption. But just by way of passing preface, with respect to what the Hon David Parker was saying—and he gave a very lucid explanation of the reasoning process by which the Committee seems to be coming to that view—and with respect to the Minister for his very able treatment of this whole issue, not least the bill itself, none the less we in the Green Party felt obliged in not having participated in the intimacy of first past the post. We felt obliged to put forward what we had always embraced, which was a view that 5 years was the natural limit, but we will just accept whatever fate hands to us. So thank you again.

I just move to clause 92, which is covered in our Supplementary Order Paper 268. It pertains to the appointment of three persons as Commissioners of Intelligence Warrants in subclause (1) and the appointment of one Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants as the Chief Commissioner in subclause (2). We would simply replace the words “Prime Minister” with the words “Intelligence and Security Committee”. The reason for that proposal is intended to provide further transparency and oversight of the key positions in the new framework, particularly the Commissioners of Intelligence Warrants.

I will not elaborate on the point. I think colleagues will understand where we are coming from on this. It does pertain to the whole composition of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which will become subject to debate a bit further down the track, so I will not presume that debate; I will just put forward the proposed amendment. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I have got just one question around Part 4 for the Minister in the chair, and that goes to clause 47, “Interpretation”. It is page 50, for the Minister’s benefit, and it has a definition of “private premises”, which “means a private residence, a marae, or any other premises to which members of the public do not frequently have access”. My question to the Minister is as to why there is specificity about a marae. There are three categories there: a private residence, which could mean a number of things; a marae, which can mean only one thing; and “any other premises to which members of the public do not frequently have access”, which means pretty much everything else. I think my Māori caucus members will have some questions about this—as to why there is this specificity about marae.

I had a think about this when I first had a read, and maybe the definition offers some protection to a marae, but from what I am reading, it does not. It singles it out specifically as a place that is different from a private residence and any other premises to which members of the public do not frequently have access. I think some of my Māori caucus members may actually dispute whether or not a marae is, in fact, private premises, because of the kaupapa of a marae. As to why a place of worship may not be included within the definition of “private premises”—or sports clubs or any other organisation that may have a well-known base or centre or physical building—why has that place not been specified under “private premises”?

I bring that up—and I think other colleagues might be better qualified and will probably take a call—in the context of what happened around the Urewera raids, and the damage that they had on the communities and the relationship between the police and those communities, which were centred on Māori communities. I cannot find a reason as to why there is a generic definition of “private residence” and “premises to which members of the public do not have frequently have access”, and a marae, of all things, is singled out. I think there would be quite a lot of people in our Māori communities, and those who are in and around communities where the marae is a centre of that community, who will want to know why they have been singled out. I have asked my colleague David Parker, who is on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, as to why that is the case; he does not know. I think it is a fair enough question, as to why marae are singled out.

It is a sensitive issue because marae are sacred. They carry a lot of mana in the community in terms of what happens there and the people who are in and around them. If we are singling them out as private premises and if that interpretation of private premises gives them a different status from other buildings or other centres in the community, I think those communities deserve to know why. I am open to it being for a protection reason, and I have tried—and maybe I have not got there yet—to find whether or not it gives them a special status that protects them a little more, but I cannot seem to find that. I think, given the context of what has happened in the past—and even without that context—I say to the Minister that it seems very odd to me as to why “private premises” can mean a private residence, other premises to which members of the public do not frequently have access, and a marae. I think that is a fair enough question for the public to get an answer to.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I follow on from what my colleague Kris Faafoi has mentioned. First of all, a marae, in my opinion, is not a private premises. It is, in fact, very public. It is a place where Māori have funerals, birthdays, church services, weddings—basically, they are open throughout the whole—

Meka Whaitiri: Campaign launches.

KELVIN DAVIS: —yes, campaign launches. They are open basically throughout the day and accessible 24/7, in general. So I disagree (a) that they are private premises but also (b) that they are premises to which members of the public do not usually or frequently have access. I mean, a marae can be used every day of the week, and if we are having tangis one after another—which is, sadly, often the case—then maraes are open all the time. Quite possibly every weekend there is something going on at a marae. As Kris Faafoi has said, just around why a marae has been singled out, it is almost implying that Māori are more dangerous than other members of the public. I do not know why churches have not been included in there, or community halls, or the Freemason halls, or the croquet clubs, or the bowls clubs, or any other sports clubs—bridge clubs.

I am slightly annoyed that it is there. I do not know whether it has to be there. But certainly, probably all New Zealanders need to understand that marae are public places and anybody can hire a marae, regardless of their ethnicity. You go there on the basis of knowing that a marae has certain values and kaupapa and tikanga—“rules” is basically the word—to obey, but they are public premises, not private premises. They are there for all members of the community. They are open frequently. To me, it is something that does not necessarily need to be there and it does conjure thoughts of the Urewera raids. The surveillance is going on there up there in the bush, I believe, although I do not know the full details around the whole circumstances. Given the fact that it does not really need to be there, I would hate for Māori to stand up and say: “This is a racist piece of legislation.”, when the reality is that we do need this, and that is why the Labour Party supports the legislation.

Just one other thing—and I guess this is what happens when you are not part of a select committee and you come into the House and pick it up and just go through it part by part. I understand now what the Minister was referring to in terms of warrants when I was asking about something in Part 3. This explains it really carefully and really clearly. I have to say that my concerns about Part 3 have been appeased by reading Part 4. I guess I need to start reading Part 5 so I do not ask irrelevant questions this time around.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to look at some of the definitions in the interpretation clause in Part 4, which actually attracted quite a lot of comment from submitters. I would like to start with the definition of “private communication” because this did attract some discussion from submitters.

The definition of “private communication—(a) means a communication … made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication;”—a private conversation that is made between two or more people, and there is no expectation that that comment is public. An example would be a couple of staff in an MP’s electorate office who are having a private conversation, maybe about matters in their workplace, and should the member of Parliament covertly record those staff members, that would certainly be the recording of a private communication, which, unless you were an employee of the Security Intelligence Service and had a warrant to do so, would be illegal.

That is a private communication, as opposed to what is defined under paragraph (b), which states: “does not include a communication of that kind occurring in circumstances in which any party to the communication ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person”, such as if you are at a public meeting with journalists and members of the public. For instance, when I decided to record the Deputy Prime Minister, now the Prime Minister, when he said that a lot of young New Zealanders were pretty damn hopeless and they were all on drugs, that was not a private communication as defined in the interpretation clause of this legislation. Therefore, I did not need a warrant to record that, because it was quite clear that the then Deputy Prime Minister was in a forum in which those comments—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to ask the member to come back to the bill. There is quite a lot in the bill, and I think it would be quite good if the member talked about what was in the bill rather than other things that are not.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I use those two examples just to point out the difference between a private communication and a non-private communication and the circumstances where a warrant is required and where a warrant is not required.

There was a lot of comment made about the definition of “private communication”. In fact, some submitters said it was flawed. Some submitters even said that we need not have a definition of “private communication”, because, in the view of some submitters, all communication should require a warrant in order to be recorded. It just would not work to require all forms of communication to require a warrant. I think it is quite legitimate to expect a person who is making statements or is communicating in a public forum to expect that to be recorded.

Some submitters suggested that the Canadian definition would be clearer. However, I believe that the committee came to the view that the definition of “private communication” included in Part 4 of the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill was actually the same definition of “private communication” that is used in other legislation, and it is helpful to the public and to all of us to have consistency in the definition of “private communication” when it comes to the question of who is able to record private communications and what warrants or other authorisation one might need in order to be able to record private communications.

There were other comments made about other matters defined in the legislation. InternetNZ asked that there be an explicit reference to metadata and that metadata be separated from other forms of communication. Again, I think the committee came to the conclusion, quite rightly, that a lot can be gleaned from metadata. We can actually discover a lot about a person’s activities.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to raise again the issue of the definition of “serious crime” and why we have various attempts to define it and change it. Quite frankly, New Zealand First is quite happy with the bill as it is, with the 2-year term of imprisonment applying, and now we see, for no apparent reason, that the Government is supporting 3 years. I did not hear from the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, any real argument about why that should be—and another party is promoting 5 years. The reason I am saying this is that I do not see how it assists the operation of the bill, simply by trying to raise the threshold in terms of the period of imprisonment, which, presumably, is a way of defining how serious a crime has to be. It is a pretty rough and ready way of doing it. I would prefer to err on the side of a lower period of imprisonment, which is the 2-year period, for the purposes of the definition in clause 47.

I also want to point out that when we see this term actually used in the bill, the most important place it is used is in clause 55A, which is probably the most important clause of the bill anyway. You see that clause 55A(2)(e) says that “anything that may be relevant to serious crime and that—(i) originates from outside New Zealand or is influenced from outside New Zealand; or (ii) involves the movement of money, goods, or people—(A) within a country outside New Zealand; or (B) from a country outside New Zealand to New Zealand or to any other country; or (iii) has potential to damage New Zealand’s international relations or economic well-being:”. The term of imprisonment is not there in isolation by itself; it is used in a context like that, and that is the most important context that it is in. For me, that is perfectly satisfactory.

There is nothing to be gained, in my view, by increasing the length of the term of imprisonment as a pretty rough way of trying to indicate how serious a crime must be. I have not heard from any party in relation to the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) they have put in, or from the Minister, about why there should be any change from 2 years. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that, because, as it stands at the moment, I am inclined to vote for the bill as it is and not for the SOPs that change that period.

I also wanted to comment on something else in relation to clause 47, and that is the absence, really—actually, it is clause 55A I meant to refer to—of a comprehensive definition of “national security”. I am happy with that. I am happy with that because if you look at that clause, clause 55A, you will see, for example, in clause 55A(1)(a), relating to type 1 intelligence warrants, that there is a necessity test for the contribution to the protection of national security and that the warrant “(ii) identifies, enables the assessment of, or protects against any of the harms specified in subsection (2);”—and David Parker read those out. In that context, there is actually no point whatever in trying to attempt any definition of “national security”.

I disagree with my friend Kennedy Graham, who talked a lot about clause 11, which is only the object clause, and nothing turns on that whatsoever. In terms of legal liabilities, it is these clauses that are relevant, not the object clause—nothing turns on that at all. In fact, you could leave that clause out and it would not make an iota of difference to the bill. But I am happy that it is there because I do like to see purpose clauses in bills. Beyond that, it is not really a very important part of the bill—clause 55A is. Again, those terms are used there—and terms like “economic well-being” are used there—but they are in a context, and that is the point I am making.

The point I am making is that you have to read the whole piece of legislation. You cannot just pick on a few words and say: “What does ‘economic well-being’ mean?”. If you look at this part, especially—because this is the really important part of the bill, and especially clause 55A—if you look at it as a whole, you will see what the context is, and there is no need to attempt elegant definitions of terms. There is just no need for it, because the terms and conditions upon which a type 1 warrant would be issued are clearly spelt out. Anyone can understand what is required under that clause for the issue of a warrant for type 1 intelligence against New Zealand citizens.

I will finish with this: I just want to hear why the Minister thinks it is so important to change from 2 years to 3 years, as the Government is proposing now in relation to the definition in clause 47. I would like him to think about what I have said—that there is no advantage in doing that; that the balance of advantage, in my view, is in keeping the years of imprisonment reasonably low. Down to 2 years, for me, is satisfactory. I do not see any point in considering anything else and I have not heard any good argument for doing so, unless the Minister has got one, which I am willing to listen to.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): That was a very fair question by Mr O’Rourke. I suppose, at the end of the day, I interrogated the various categories of offence. There is a degree of arbitrariness about it—2, years, 3 years. Five years seemed to me to be too high, but I was willing to move from 2 years to 3 years on the basis of the other considerations in the clause the honourable member has been referring to, and was satisfied that not too much change would occur as a result. But that is the reason I have given, whether it is an adequate reason, whether it is an arbitrary reason, or whether I am just too keen to compromise, the member can make his own judgments.

Can I come to the very interesting point raised by Mr Faafoi about “private premises means a private residence, a marae, or any other premises to which members of the public do not frequently have access”. Mr Davis also raised a couple of points on it and I found out where the term “private premises” is actually referred to in this part and that is in the definition of “visual surveillance”, in clause 47, which states: “visual surveillance means the observation of private activity in private premises,”. The definition is largely drawn on the definition of “private premises” in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, which is very, very similar. “Private premises” in that Act is defined as meaning “a private dwellinghouse, a marae, and any other premises that are not within the definition of non-private premises”.

The rationale behind putting “a marae” in there is to make sure if a surveillance warrant was sought under the Search and Surveillance Act in relation to a marae, you just could not go and plant a bug. If you were, say, the police or some other enforcement authority, you would need to get a warrant, and that is carried over here. So, actually, it is designed to protect a marae rather than diminish the protections for it. I heard what the honourable member said about a marae. I guess one is saying, yes, at times it is open to the public, as are most churches, for example, whether or not people want to avail themselves of that opportunity. But marae are also used for sleepovers, for private activities, and matters such as that, and it was felt that the protections that are ordinarily provided to dwellinghouses should also be made available to marae. I think that is the rationale underpinning the definition in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, and a similar sort of rationale is considered appropriate here given the intrusive nature of what the SIS can do, and if any activity is to involve a marae a warrant would be required.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): And I thank the Minister in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, for his explanation of that. Just to follow through so that on this side of the Chamber we get absolutely clear about what is being protected here, I have done the same search that the Minister and his officials have done to find out where “private premises” actually occurs in the bill, and as the Minister says, it occurs under the definition of “visual surveillance”. If you follow that through—and it might have been helpful had that clause said what the next clause says, which is that a “visual surveillance device has the meaning given to it by section 3(1) of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.” If it had actually said that about the definition of “visual surveillance”, that might have been a little helpful.

But if you follow that through—and I have not exhaustively searched this bit—when you get into the powers of the SIS acting under an intelligence warrant—clause 65, which is also in Part 4 of the bill—we then run through, effectively, all of the things that the security agency can do. It can enter places and vehicles; it can install, use, or maintain various devices; it can access things; it can take photographs; it can open vehicles—this is the bit, incidentally, that slightly makes my blood run cold when it comes to the activities of the agencies, because this is where the rubber hits the road about the intrusive nature of the powers that we are granting here.

We have talked previously in earlier parts about the need for balance, because we do need powers like this, but this is where it really is laid out, in clause 65. One of those things, if we just take the example of 65(1)(b), is to “install, use, maintain, or remove—(i) a visual surveillance device …”. So that would apply in private premises, such as a marae. Although I can see the point the Minister is making, it is an enabling provision as well. It specifies a type of private premises where a type of surveillance will take place and then, in turn, how that surveillance would be undertaken. So I think I understand what the Minister was saying but I also think it works the other way, which is what causes the problem here—not so much that it is possible that a marae would be a place in which visual surveillance would be undertaken but that it is singled out as being so.

So I think that it is a slightly different issue than the one that the Minister is raising. I get what he is saying, but when you go back to “private premise” under the definition here, I really do not understand why it cannot just say: “Private premise means a private residence or any other premise to which members of the public do not frequently have access.” Just say that. That way there would not actually be the uncomfortable concern that I can completely understand that Kris Faafoi and Kelvin Davis have both raised—that, particularly in the shadow of the Urewera raids, this would be specifically mentioned.

I am never a great fan actually, as it happens, of phrases like “any other premises to which members of the public do not frequently have access”. I mean, that is the Eastern Suburbs Cricket Club and various other places such as that. A marae may sit as being both a public and a private place, but I would be extremely surprised if it is necessary to mention it. I do not think anyone on this side of the Chamber is accusing the Government of a particularly ill intent here; I just think that in the spirit of trying to build public confidence in these institutions, putting a word like “marae” into the middle of that sentence just starts to rekindle some of the very things that this legislation has sought—and mostly very successfully sought—to resolve in the New Zealand public’s mind.

As I say, I could be misinterpreting it, but I think when I read through it, it is in fact an enabling clause as well as, potentially, trying to make it consistent with the Search and Surveillance Act, and I do wonder whether officials might consider, in the time that we have available on Part 4 of this bill, whether or not just the deletion of the words “a marae” would actually have any effect whatsoever. I suspect it would not. I suspect other than it now being slightly inconsistent with the Search and Surveillance Act, actually, it would not prescribe the powers of the security and intelligence service and may actually help build some trust and faith in the institutions.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I wish to just raise a couple of issues in Part 4, and invite the Minister’s comment on them, looking first at clauses 55A and 55B. Clause 55A(1) describes the conditions under which a type 1 intelligence warrant may be issued to the director-general of an agency, if the authorising Minister and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants are satisfied that it is necessary to contribute to national security, protect national assets, etc. The Minister in the chair may wish to comment on the decision made by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—especially as the Minister is the Attorney-General—to switch the ministerial requirement from that of the Attorney-General to that of the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service.

It may be that the same physical person might at some point hold both offices, but it is a definite shift of emphasis away from the judicial oversight role of the Attorney-General to the more operational oversight role of the Minister. The commentary to the bill makes the point that it is appropriate and useful for the Minister to be intimately acquainted with the workings of the organisations, and that the issuing of warrants is a core part of that. But, equally, the strengthening of judicial oversight, with which the Attorney-General might supplement the commissioner, would, I imagine, have been a finely balanced decision for the committee at the time. As the Minister in the chair is the Attorney-General, I would invite his reflection on that issue.

Secondly, as we move into clause 59, where we raise that issue about which Minister is responsible—interestingly, in clause 60A(1), on page 59, it says that “An intelligence warrant must specify a period not exceeding 12 months during which it is valid.”, and in clause 60A(2) that “The expiry of an intelligence warrant does not prevent a further application for an intelligence warrant in relation to the same activity.” A point there is that there is an extended period of time during which operations may continue pursuant to one activity, and that the renewal facility on the same issue means that it could be an even more extended period of time. I think it underlines to Labour members the seriousness of the warrant-issuing powers.

That brings us to, I think, a related issue. It is one that has been well traversed in the headline debates on the bill. As my colleague Grant Robertson said earlier, it is one of those things where the rubber meets the road. This bill, for the first time, codifies the issuing of warrantless surveillance and warrantless intercepts on New Zealand citizens. That is a serious Rubicon to be crossed, and it is a serious thing for this House, on a bipartisan basis, to approve. Members on this side have thought very carefully about whether to support the authorising legislation for that. It behoves me, I think, to underline that the balance is a fine one and that the protections set out in clauses 69 through 73 and on are extremely important to members of the Labour Opposition—that is, that the definition of an “urgent” or a “very urgent” warrant is tight; that the warrant will be revoked if not explicitly upheld within 48 hours in the context of an urgent warrant, or 24 hours in the context of a very urgent warrant; that all warrants must be notified and kept on a register; that the inspector-general must be notified immediately that such an urgent warrant is deemed to be issued; and that any material acquired through such a process must be immediately destroyed and/or returned in the event of revocation.

An on-balance judgment has been made, on a bipartisan basis, that in the circumstances which we face, this is an appropriate balance. But I would be remiss if I did not underline that for members on this side of the House, that is a very fine balance to have reached, and that we will be monitoring and will be interested to see how this evolves in the annual reporting of the inspector-general and the agencies. So I would invite the Minister to comment on the nature of those protections and on the switch from the Attorney-General to the departmental Minister.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I just want to briefly deal with a couple of matters. The first is that the issue of whether it should be the Attorney-General or the Minister was raised, I believe, in Mr Little’s first reading speech, when the bill had its first reading in the House, and then it went off to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security raised a number of concerns about whether it should be the Attorney-General or whether it should be the Minister. I reflected on what Mr Little had said and on the submission of the inspector-general, and reached the conclusion that I thought they were right: that it should be the Minister who is involved in the day-to-day activities. As the member David Cunliffe correctly observes, the Attorney-General almost stands back and is concerned to see that the business of Government is conducted in accordance with the rule of law, which is an oversight function as a law officer, and the ability of an Attorney-General to do that is better preserved if he or she is not involved in the particular application. That is the rationale.

I hear what the member David Cunliffe said about that fine balance and the need for reporting, and, frankly, agree with him, so I do not think I have got too much more to add there. Simply to put the matter beyond doubt, because I think I have answered it, but maybe not very well, I go to clause 65, which sets out the powers of the SIS acting under an intelligence warrant, be it type 1 or type 2, and clause 66, “Powers of Government Security Communications Bureau under intelligence warrant”. Mr Robertson has referred honourable members to clause 65(1)(b), which is the installation of a visual surveillance device by the SIS. The parallel provision for the GCSB is 66(1)(b). Then one goes back to the definition of what a “visual surveillance device” is. As Mr Robertson said, that is picked up in the definition in clause 47, and “visual surveillance” is defined as meaning “observation of private activity in private premises”.

Then one goes to the definition of “private premises”. I can assure honourable members that, although I have no direct knowledge of why the word “marae” was included in the Search and Surveillance Act, it would have been, I surmise, to protect marae, so that if there were to be intrusive activity on a marae, it would not be regarded as a public place and a warrant under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 would be required. The same principle applies here, whether it be for a type 1 or a type 2 warrant. Yes, a marae is a place where people can go in a public way for a number of the activities that Mr Davis correctly outlined, but it is not a place, necessarily, where people frequently go. The protections of the private premises or the private residence should be accorded to a marae, so that if someone wanted to take steps in relation to a marae, there would be a higher standard. That is the rationale behind it. Yes, it may seem, on the face of it, rather strange to include it, but that is the rationale behind it, and, I would say, a very good reason why it should be like that.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I have been really interested in the debate so far this evening on these amendments to the Intelligence and Security Bill. I want to speak particularly to the definition of “serious crime”. It has been referred to by a previous speaker, Denis O’Rourke, but I have a new question that I want to ask Minister Finlayson. Before I do, can I just say to the Minister that I really commend the way that he has engaged, and not just this afternoon and this evening. He is a competent Minister. He is respectful of people, he engages, and he does it with a modesty that is really admirable! That was my joke, Minister, that end bit. The first three parts were not a joke, though. I think that the competence and the engagement and the respect were not a joke, and I think they are really appreciated.

They are particularly important in a bill like this. It is quite a fundamental part of democracy, actually, where you have to balance what we are giving—through this authorisations regime, which is Part 4, which we are debating currently, we are giving the intelligence and security agencies powers, and part of the responsibility of that has to be to balance the protection of privacy and other rights of New Zealanders. Getting that balance right, I think, is best achieved if the positions that the Minister has adopted are undertaken, so that the debate is done in an open way, where questions are properly answered and people’s views are considered.

I also wanted to just ask the Minister, because I was not able to get a call on the earlier part, whether he thought that Francis Messines was a good “aka”.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Lohia.

Hon RUTH DYSON: No—you can answer me when you take your next call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, no, no. You are allowed to.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I know, I know, but he obviously has not got that one. Unusually, he has missed the point of my comment.

Denis O’Rourke raised the issue about what the deal with “serious crime” was. Why would 3 years be any better than 2? Why was 5 years proposed? Why did we not just stick to 2? I think that is the question that I do not believe, in the same way that Denis O’Rourke mentioned, has been properly answered. The reference I heard from David Parker was that he thought that “serious crime” would link better with an imprisonment of 5 years, rather than 2 years. He thought 2 years would cover too much, and the Minister came back with a compromise of 3 years.

David Parker mentioned that the advice that they had received was that there would be offences that should be considered as serious crime that would be missed out if the length of imprisonment in the definition was 5 years. What I would like to ask the Minister—his officials will have to tell him, if they would not mind, because he is being distracted. I want to know the sorts of crimes that would not be covered and that the Minister thinks should be covered if the “serious crime” definition was set as “in relation to New Zealand, any offence punishable by 5 or more years’ imprisonment”. What are the sorts of crimes that are going to be missed out on? It does feel to me that 2 years may well cover a whole lot of things that we would not consider serious crime and that we do not want to have covered.

In relation to the other point that Denis O’Rourke made, which goes to 55A(2)(e), and, again, I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on this, I am not sure whether the “serious crime” that is referred to in that is in addition to the “serious crime” definition, because that is quite specific, talking about “in relation to New Zealand, any offence punishable by 2 or more years’ imprisonment”, whereas the 55A(2)(e) is quite specific about originating from outside New Zealand, or determined by another country. So I am not clear in my own mind about the relationship between those two parts and the consequential implications for the definition of serious crime. So, Minister, the question I asked is: what crimes would be missed if it was taken out to 5 years that, in the Minister’s view, should be included in the definition of serious crime? I think it is an important point, and if we can get that resolved then I think we will all leave the building tonight in a much happier state.

I think we have made a valuable contribution to security and intelligence services in New Zealand. After the general debate I was not feeling so cheerful about the behaviour of our Parliament, but I think after the debate this evening we can be pretty proud of the work we have done.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes. I think we have had over an hour’s debate on this, and the Chairs have been deliberately encouraging of Ministers to answer questions reasonably when the questions are asked reasonably. We have had that, and I think it would be discouraging for the Government of that sort of procedure if, in fact, we took it for longer than it would have otherwise been taken for. So I will accept the closure motion.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

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.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to clause 47 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 94

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 26

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): As I explained earlier, as a result of that vote, I have ruled out the amendment to clause 47 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in Dr Kennedy Graham’s name.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 92 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 45

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Accessing information held by other agencies

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I will make a couple of comments about Part 5, because the select committee has, helpfully, done a lot of work on what now appears as Subpart 4, which deals with obtaining the business records of telecommunication network operators and financial service providers.

What is the point of Part 5? Part 5 deals with the access that security and intelligence agencies need for the purpose of carrying out their functions. Much of their work depends on the access to information held by other Government agencies and the private sector. What we now have in Part 5 is four subparts. The first reflects the existing ability of the intelligence and security agencies to request information from other public and private sector agencies and individuals, and the ability of those people and agencies to disclose information to the intelligence and security agencies. I simply note, in passing, while we are dealing with Subpart 1, clause 101A, which sets out the register of certificates. Following on from the commentary I had on another part, an hour or so ago, when dealing with a different type of register, the register may be accessed at any time by the Minister responsible for the agency or by the inspector-general.

The second subpart provides for direct access by the intelligence and security agencies to databases holding certain specified Government information. The third subpart provides—and this is very important—for the case by case access to restricted information, pursuant to a warrant-like application process. So that is a case by case disclosure. The main change here is set out in clause 111(ba)—information relating to adoptions. The addition of adoption information to the restricted information scheme is very important. It was previously included in the direct access scheme but it has been moved to the restricted information list because of, obviously, the sensitivity of information being held about adoptions being more akin to the other categories of information.

The final subpart, which we will want to spend a little bit of time on—because I think the committee, with respect, has got it entirely right—is the scheme for providing for compulsory disclosure of certain business record information held by telecommunications network operators and financial service providers to the intelligence agencies. The term “business record” is defined in clause 118B.

I think I will leave it there, because members may want to tease out the rationale for Subpart 4 and ask me some questions later on.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am taking my first call on this bill, in the Committee stage. Can I, first of all, acknowledge the willingness of the Minister in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, to engage in real debate in the Committee stage of this bill. It is a rare thing.

Hon Ruth Dyson: A demonstration of competence.

CLARE CURRAN: Well, a demonstration of competence, but it actually feels as though Parliament is doing its proper job by actually having a real discussion about the rationale, given that not all of us can sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and hear the submissions and the debate that goes on. We actually do get the opportunity in the Committee of the whole House, in these rare moments, to have a real discussion, so I really welcome that.

Can I refer my comments to clauses 101, 102, 105, 108, and, if I have time, touch on 118, Subpart 4, which the Minister just referred to as he sat down. First of all, I say that the protections for privacy in this—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair and report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Intelligence and Security Bill, no progress on the Māori Purposes Bill, and no progress on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.