Wednesday, 3 May 2017

WEDNESDAY, 3 MAY 2017

WEDNESDAY, 3 MAY 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Samoa—Speaker of the Samoan Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am sure that members would wish to welcome the Hon Leaupepe Faafisi, Speaker of the Samoan Legislative Assembly, and his delegation, who are present in the gallery, and accord the Speaker a seat to the left of the Chair.

The Hon Leaupepe Faafisi, accompanied by the Deputy Speaker, the Hon Chester Borrows, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Points of Order

West Papua—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate that this House support freedom for journalists worldwide and call on Indonesia to cease its abuse of press freedom in West Papua.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? Is there any objection? There is no objection. Catherine Delahunty. [Interruption] Order! I did not—I will put the leave again. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection.

Business Committee Decisions—Right to Debate Motions

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Looking at the business of the day, at the Government orders of the day today, there are notices Nos 1 and 2, which refer to a motion without debate. The Business Committee has got one role in this Parliament, and that is to facilitate the business of Parliament. But when it proscribes debate and shuts down debate or a contest of ideas on the question of democracy and representation, that is entirely something else. We made it very clear at the Business Committee that we would not accept that, and we do not accept that motions Nos 1 and 2 should appear on the Order Paper with the prior notice that we would not be allowed to debate whether two electorates, for example, have representation in this Parliament remain until election day. We think that is wrong, and we want the right to debate it.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): Mr Speaker, as you know, the Business Committee considered this twice in detail, and I would suggest that the question of whether or not there be a by-election is one that is the subject of the vote itself, not necessarily the debate on the motion. In particular, the Business Committee deals with matters on a principle of near-unanimity. When more than 90 percent of the represented members are in agreement on something, I would suggest that is near-unanimity, and if it is not, then we get into the situation where we have an effective veto such as, say, the UN Security Council, and I am sure we do not want to get to that point.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the comments from the Minister and from Mr Peters. I refer members to Standing Order 79, “Business of the House”. It is the Business Committee’s role to determine the way this House operates. It made a decision on, from memory, 14 March, and it was done at the time that we set the time for valedictory speeches by two departing members of Parliament. It determined at that stage there would be no debate. It was further discussed at the Business Committee yesterday, and, by near-unanimity, the decision was made that those two motions would be put today without further debate. That is the resolution of the Business Committee.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Employment and Wages

1. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the progress of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The New Zealand economy continues to track in a positive direction, as judged by the latest household labour force survey. The data, released by Statistics New Zealand today, showed that in the first 3 months of this year the percentage of unemployed people fell to 4.9 percent. In real terms, that means there are now 29,000 more people in employment than there were at the end of December last year, taking the total employed to a new record in New Zealand of 2,539,000. In the March year, 137,000 jobs were created. The number of jobs being created has grown faster than growth in the working-age population now for the sixth quarter in a row.

Nuk Korako: How is this job growth helping the wider economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is encouraging that in the March quarter 12,000 more people moved into full-time work and 16,000 more into part-time work. Many of these jobs are in key sectors of the New Zealand economy. Last week, for example, I announced that the Government would allocate an extra $11 billion in capital over the next four Budgets, so it is heartening to see that the construction sector is a key area for job growth and has record highs. Likewise, with tourism, one of our biggest exporter earners, it is encouraging to see the number of jobs in the accommodation and food services sectors continuing to grow strongly.

Nuk Korako: What progress has been made with youth employment?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am pleased to report that the number of young people not in education, employment, or training fell to 12.8 percent. That means we have 4,000 more young people either participating in the economy or building up their skills. There is, of course, still more work to do in this regard, and that is why the Government will continue to push policies—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but there is a level of interjection that now makes it unreasonable. I cannot hear the answer. One particular member who is interjecting a lot has a question later in this question time; it would be unfortunate if he was not here to ask his own question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said, there is still more work to do in this regard, and that is why the Government is continuing to push policies that support robust economic growth, particularly in regional New Zealand, and create exciting opportunities for young people.

Nuk Korako: How do Kiwi workers benefit directly from New Zealand’s strong economic growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Not only do the Statistics New Zealand figures show that there are more jobs available, but we are also seeing steady wage growth as well. Wages grew by 2.1 percent over the year, taking the average annual wage to $58,935. That compares with inflation, which was running at a very similar percentage—2.2 percent as well, in fact—

Grant Robertson: Yeah, that would be below it, wouldn’t it, Steven?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —but like most reasonable—sorry?

Grant Robertson: That would be below the rate of inflation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, it is actually exactly the same, but thank you. Anyway, looking at the trend, after-tax wages look set to continue rising, as they have done for several years, even after adjusting for inflation.

Australia—Rights of New Zealanders Living in Australia

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Why, under his prime ministership, has the relationship with Australia reached the point where, according to him, Australia is making policies that are detrimental to New Zealanders living there “either without telling us or at short notice”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): I disagree with the premise of that question. The relationship with Australia is a very close one. Issues do arise from time to time, and this has happened over a number of years with different Governments. For instance, it remains a fact that the biggest reduction of New Zealanders’ rights in Australia occurred in 2001 in an agreement executed by the last Labour Government. We of course are talking to the Australians about the direction of our relationship, our core shared interests, and how these policies can be communicated in order to reduce uncertainty, but I can say that the most recent decision shows the benefits of having surpluses in New Zealand. Australia has deficits—that is why it is looking to cut entitlements.

Andrew Little: Moving 16 years on, has he ever discussed student fees with Malcolm Turnbull before this week’s announcement?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I would not necessarily expect to. The Australian Government, as I said, has significant deficits. It is trying to manage its way to surplus, and, as I understand it, New Zealanders in this case are caught up in policies that affect all Australian university students.

Andrew Little: When he specifically discussed the rights of New Zealanders in Australia with Malcolm Turnbull a week ago, did Mr Turnbull discuss the change in student fees with him at that time?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. At the time there was a discussion about the arrangements related to the extended time to become citizens, with confirmation from Prime Minister Turnbull that the Australian policy change does not affect the deal that he entered into last year with New Zealand. I want to record my thanks to the Prime Minister for that action.

Andrew Little: What representations has he personally made to Mr Turnbull on this issue this week?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s official position will be presented by the Hon Gerry Brownlee when he visits Australia tomorrow. I have had informal discussions with Mr Turnbull, simply about the nature of the issues.

Andrew Little: What has happened since John Key stopped being Prime Minister that means Australia no longer seems to notice that New Zealand is even here anymore?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Australian Prime Minister did come visiting, and their rugby teams may have noticed being run over pretty regularly in the Super Rugby. As the member will, I am sure, appreciate, the Australian Government has deficits. It has got its own political decisions and its own political dynamics. It is not at all surprising it does not consult us on every political decision that it makes—nor would we expect to consult it.

Andrew Little: Will he secure a reversal of Australia’s policy so that New Zealanders over there continue to pay domestic fees, as Australians do in New Zealand?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly would not want to raise expectations that a decision made by the Australian Government, in the context of its Budget with significant deficits, is going to suddenly be turned round for a small proportion of the university population in Australia. I would not want to mislead New Zealanders in Australia or in New Zealand that that is likely.

Andrew Little: When will he stick up for the rights of New Zealanders living in Australia, and make sure that our reciprocal arrangements with Australia are actually reciprocal?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We do advocate for the rights of New Zealanders in Australia. But the member will, I am sure, be aware that that does not give us veto rights over the decisions of another sovereign Government over what entitlements its citizens have or over determining who is a citizen of Australia. We do not get to decide that.

David Seymour: How long has Australia been an independent, self-governing country?

Mr SPEAKER: No, there is no prime ministerial responsibility for that question at all. [Interruption] No.

Pike River Mine Disaster—Evidence Availability to Families

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on Pike River mine; if so, how?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes; in the context in which they were made.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that there is a drift runner used to transport workers in the mine, located near a borehole by the slimline shaft, and that there is photographic evidence of this?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no reason to disbelieve the member, and I can advise him that if we proceed—as we proceed with the most recent project, which is to work with the families on unmanned entry using much-improved technology, compared with 6 years ago when that video or photo may have been taken—then we may be able to see in more detail and get more evidence of what went on not just with that vehicle but in the mine in respect of the explosion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is true, Prime Minister, then why, when he met with the Pike River families in January, did he refuse their request for an HD camera to be put down the boreholes near the slimline shaft, which has already happened before with the official contractor? Why did he refuse—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not recall that I did, but I do remember a pretty intensive discussion with the families. I do remember them recording their grief, their frustration, their concern for getting manned entry into the mine, and a subsequent agreement that we would have a project focused on unmanned entry because that is a safe way to try to meet some of their objectives, such as finding out whether there is further evidence related to the deaths of their loved ones or related to the cause of the disaster.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If a drilling contractor has obtained the photographic evidence of what is down through that shaft into that mine and the families have asked to also have that information from a later examination of a camera going down there, why did they refuse them in January when they asked specifically for that right?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not recall such a request or such a refusal. It is possible that the request was made; I cannot see any reason why it would have been refused. We do not have the photographic evidence. It will be held by the police or the company. In response to the request of the families, I understand that by the end of this week all the relevant video will be made available to them again, as it has been in the past.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that the drilling contractor, who has been paid almost $5,000 per month for two drill rigs to do nothing for 3 years now, is contractually bound to not make any comments or statements upon any matters arising out of his service to the Pike River mine and that his contract has a specific section gagging him from media comment, as is supplied in this document here?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not familiar with the terms, with either the contractor or who he is contracted with, or the nature of the contract itself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it all is as he says, why is there a specific, extensive confidentiality clause that prevents the drilling contractor from talking to the media about what he has seen and has evidence of?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a question the member would need to address to the people who wrote the contract and the reason for it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m asking you.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know about any aspect of that arrangement.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If Solid Energy is owned by the New Zealand taxpayer, and if he and his colleagues have nothing to hide and do not think it is a laughing matter that 29 people lost their lives, then why will he not release the drilling contractor from his contract and grant the Pike River families the right to see this information that was taken from within those boreholes?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: On the face of it, I cannot see any reason why all the relevant material cannot be seen by the families. In fact, that was the process of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy, where the families had legal representation through the length of the whole commission. The commission had full powers to obtain all and any evidence that it wanted. There is an Official Information Act process. As we have said, the families have used that, as I understand it, recently. The police are turning over all the video evidence, and video evidence was made available to the families at a much earlier stage as well.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Can the Prime Minister provide a reason why the Police have from day one done everything possible to keep evidence from the families, including videos and shots from inside the mine?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, as the member would know, we have no responsibility for the operational decisions of the Police. It would be wrong, actually, for me to even try to answer a question about its process. Secondly, he can ask the Police if he wants. Thirdly, from what I have seen, there is no evidence that Police has behaved improperly. Nor can I think of any reason why it would.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In respect of the Prime Minister’s last answer to that supplementary question, Speaker’s ruling 175/3 states that “There is no convention that Ministers are not answerable to the House for operational matters in the departments or agencies falling within their portfolio areas. Even though a Minister may not have legal control, the Minister assumes the political responsibility to the House to answer such questions. Legal responsibility and political responsibility are different things.”

Mr SPEAKER: And what is the member’s point?

Richard Prosser: The Prime Minister was declining to answer Mr O’Connor’s question on the grounds that it was an operational matter.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister did not decline to answer the question. The Prime Minister addressed the question, and certainly to my satisfaction.

Mining in Conservation Areas—West Coast, Solid Energy, and Government Policy

4. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Economic Development: Nā, ka uru atu ki roto i Te Mahere Mahi Ōhanga Tai Poutini West Coast, a Te Kāwanatanga, he whakatuwheranga ake o te whenua taiao mō te mahi maina?

[Will the Government’s Tai Poutini West Coast Economic Action Plan include opening up conservation land for mining?]

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: The proposed action plan is still under development by the region. The member, along with the rest of us, will see shortly what local businesses, local community leaders, and local people propose to boost regional economic growth and add jobs to the West Coast, but the member can be assured the Government will listen carefully to what the region proposes.

Metiria Turei: Did any potential buyers of Solid Energy’s assets approach the Government and ask for new mining opportunities in conservation land, or for rule changes to make it easier to open new mines; if so, who?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not aware of any such approaches—certainly of Ministers—in that regard. I am not sure that that is actually linked too closely to the regional growth plan anyway.

Metiria Turei: Can he confirm that the Government intended to sweeten the Solid Energy deal by offering new mining areas in conservation land to potential buyers, including Bathurst Resources, Talley’s, and Phoenix Coal?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot confirm that at all.

Metiria Turei: Did Government Ministers or officials tell potential buyers of Solid Energy’s assets that new coalmining opportunities might be made available to them on the Buller plateau or other conservation land if they bought Solid Energy’s assets?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is quite a long, long way from the primary question. To the best of my knowledge, for the member’s benefit, the answer is no, but if she had actually signalled that this was her line of questioning, then I would have had more of an opportunity to check more fully with colleagues.

Metiria Turei: Was he aware of or involved in placing any pressure on the Minister of Conservation or on Conservation officials to open up land for coalmining, contravening the purpose, which is to “advocate for the conservation of natural and historic resources”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, this is a million miles from the primary question in terms of what the member is asking. All I can say, though, is that the member will be aware, as are organisations like Forest & Bird and others that have been quoted in the media recently in regard to the issues that the member raises, that there has been a long ongoing discussion between Ministers and wider stakeholder groups in terms of which parts of the Denniston Plateau would be available for mining or not. I do not think that specifically relates to the Tai Poutini West Coast Economic Action Plan.

David Seymour: If the Government has not done any of those things, what is it doing to encourage the extractive industries?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the questions now—and that one particularly—have led a long, long way from economic development. That has nothing to do with economic development on the West Coast. I invite, now, a further question from Metiria Turei—[Interruption] Order! In calling the questions, we do need to focus back to the portfolio of economic development.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister remember in 2010 when 50,000 New Zealanders marched in the streets to stop mining on conservation land and in national parks, and can he assure all of those New Zealanders that the Government is not engaged in any backroom deal to revive the coalmining industry on conservation land?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there; the Minister can address either or both, if he wants.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again—just a clarification: was the member referring to mining in national parks? Is that her question?

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to clarify.

Metiria Turei: I can re-ask the question, if you would prefer?

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, just—

Metiria Turei: I said both on conservation land and in national parks in my question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: What I can tell the member is that in relation to the Tai Poutini West Coast Economic Action Plan, which is the premise of her primary question, I am pretty sure it does not actually have anything in it about mining on conservation land or at the national parks, but we will all have to wait and see until the actual plan is produced, and the member will have to wait along with the rest of us.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister advocate for more coalmining on conservation land?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not know that I can see inside his mind right at this point, but I can tell the member that in relation to the Tai Poutini West Coast Economic Action Plan, which is the subject of her question, I do not think the Minister is spending his time thinking about opening up conservation land for more mining.

Better Public Services—Target Update

5. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of State Services: What updates can she give about the Government’s commitment to Better Public Services?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of State Services): Today the Prime Minister announced a new set of 10 Better Public Services (BPS) targets, which sets clear expectations about what we expect the Public Service to achieve for New Zealanders. We first introduced BPS targets in 2012 to ensure the Public Service was focused on achieving tangible outcomes that would result in people being healthier, better educated, and more likely to be off benefit. Five years on, the targets have driven real improvements, so it is the perfect time to refresh them and set new targets.

Jonathan Young: What have the targets achieved so far?

Carmel Sepuloni: Everyone’s asking that.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is a very good question, and the member might like to listen up, because she is quite interested in this: the proportion of the population on a main benefit is the lowest it has been in a March quarter since 1997.

Carmel Sepuloni: Seventy-four thousand additional hardship grants.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, no, no—you wanted to hear it. One more time for the member, sorry: the proportion of the population on a main benefit is the lowest it has been in a March quarter since 1997.

Carmel Sepuloni: Where have they gone? Where are they?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: If the member is wondering where they are, that would be those for whom employment is up. Employment is up, and that has actually had a huge benefit. Between 93 and 94 percent of 8-month-olds are fully immunised. It is going very, very well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That in no way was a proper ministerial answer. It was long, it was indulgent, and it was false.

Mr SPEAKER: It was certainly a very long answer, but it was then responding throughout to very substantial interjections coming from a member on my left. Further supplementary question?

Jonathan Young: What are the new targets?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The refresh includes six brand-new targets, which focus on the issues that are most important to people, such as having healthy mums and babies, and increasing educational achievement. The new targets include having 90 percent of pregnant women register with a lead maternity carer in the first trimester—currently it is about 65 percent, so going to 90 percent will make a huge difference; reducing the number of hospitalisations for children with preventable conditions; improving the literacy and numeracy of children, focusing particularly on that higher achievement of students in year 8; and reducing serious crime. These are just a few.

Budget 2017—Tax Cuts

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Prime Minister Rt Hon Bill English that “tax cuts are on the table” for Budget 2017?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Of course. I always agree with the Prime Minister. I have found, over the last 8½ years, that both the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister enjoy it when their Ministers agree with them, and it is appropriate to do so. I am considering four priorities in preparing for Budget 2017: firstly, increasing public services for a growing country; secondly, building the infrastructure needed in a growing country; thirdly, reducing net debt as a percentage of GDP; and, fourthly, when the opportunity permits, looking to return some money to hard-working New Zealand families. Those are the four priorities. As for the specifics of Budget 2017, I can advise the member that he has only 22 days to wait.

Grant Robertson: Why did he say last week: “I wouldn’t be characterising anything we do primarily as tax cuts.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I understand the member’s new-found enthusiasm for these matters, but he will have to wait 22 days, and I will answer his question.

Grant Robertson: Would the threshold changes he was talking about last week mean that some people would pay less tax?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, the member is getting slightly ahead of himself. There are, literally, 3 weeks and 1 day to go until the Budget, and then I will have the opportunity to share with him the result of the Government’s deliberations.

Grant Robertson: Why was he prepared to share with the media last week that he was considering threshold changes; and will he now tell the House whether or not those threshold changes he talked to the media about last week would mean that some people would be paying less tax?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have been discussing the potential for threshold changes publicly for a long time, and that remains part of the discussion. In terms of what, if anything, would change as a result of those considered threshold changes, it would be a case of just having to wait and see until Budget 2017, which is on 25 May.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement made on The Nation, 2 weeks ago, with regard to cutting tax: “I would like to one day. Can I do it this time? I still don’t know. Maybe.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do think that is a reasonable summation of what I was thinking at the time.

Grant Robertson: Is the real reason that he has suddenly got so shy about talking about tax cuts not that he knows New Zealanders will reject a tax cut that might be worth a packet of cheese slices a week when families are living in cars and garages?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, we will have to see what happens on 25 May. I notice that a number of commentators have been supportive of the idea. In fact, I can quote one here, who said: “We’ll see what the Government does in the Budget, because they have indicated they might move thresholds. I think that’s fine, because that should happen periodically.” That was one A Little, on 27 April 2017.

Grant Robertson: Is the Minister telling the House that New Zealanders will get a meaningful tax cut in the Budget, of $20 to $30 a week, as promoted by former Prime Minister John Key, or is he now really shy about tax cuts because New Zealanders know money needs to be invested in social services that his Government has run down?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The really good news about having a strong economy is that the Government does have choices—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which you haven’t got, and everybody knows it now.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —well, the member may not have heard, actually. He might have been busy at lunchtime, but, actually, the employment figures have just come out for the March quarter, which show another 29,000 more Kiwis are in jobs, which is living proof of a strong economy. Actually, that does give the Government choices. In terms of what choices the Government takes, well, we will be able to announce those on 25 May. In terms of the member’s concern for social services, we share that concern. The Prime Minister announced today a $321 million investment in new social investment initiatives, including $68.8 million in ensuring young children get a better start in life. This Government is focused on achieving on a range of fronts for New Zealanders.

Budget 2017—Social Investment Package

7. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister responsible for Social Investment: What recent announcements has she made about social investment?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister responsible for Social Investment): Today I was delighted to join with the Prime Minister in announcing that Budget 2017 will include a $321 million social investment package, with 14 initiatives designed to help our most vulnerable to improve their circumstances. Social investment is about tackling our most challenging social issues and intervening early to help the most at-risk New Zealanders lead better lives, become more independent, and cost taxpayers less in the long run. The funded initiatives are also about supporting better cross-agency ways to target some ingrained social issues across those with complex needs, and the work of the newly established Social Investment Agency that I announced last month will help provide the resources and support to embed this approach.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the new agency help deliver the Government’s focus on social investment?

Hon AMY ADAMS: We are on the precipice of what could be the most remarkable transformation in how we deal with social services in New Zealand. We are pivoting the system around to help social sector agencies shift away from focusing just on their specific areas to better understanding their customers and being able to assess the impact of their interventions across an individual’s life. The new stand-alone Social Investment Agency will replace the existing social investment unit currently operating as part of the Ministry of Social Development, and will provide robust all-of-Government social investment advice. This includes applying rigorous and evidence-based investment practices to social services and developing innovative new commissioning approaches. It will also be tasked with building the social investment architecture for all-of-Government and NGO agencies to use to help frontline staff fine-tune services and make them better targeted.

Freshwater Management—Water Quality of Rivers

8. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement that the Government is determined to move 1,000 kilometres of waterways per year to a higher swimming standard?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes. The Government’s Clean Water package categorises river and lake water quality into five swimming grades from excellent to poor, based on four statistical tests of their E.coli data. The Clean Water package requires improvements across all those categories so that by 2040, 50 percent are excellent, 20 percent are good, and 20 percent are fair—totalling 90 percent. This will require 1,000 kilometres of river and lake margins be moved to a higher grading each year till 2040.

Catherine Delahunty: Will that 1,000 kilometres per year include the Selwyn Waikirikiri River, which was once a popular swimming spot but last summer was reduced to a puddle and therefore too small to be included in the waterways the Government is promising to make swimmable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government’s national targets—and this is the first time a Government has set any targets around national water quality—is focused on the 54,000 kilometres of waters that are more than 40 centimetres deep. We are also advising regional councils on those smaller water bodies to also improve those. In fact, we are proposing a very specific change to the national policy statement to require all water bodies to be improved for recreational water quality.

Catherine Delahunty: Will Lucas Creek Ōkahukura be included in the Government’s 1,000 kilometres per year, given that the Minister wrote it off as a river that “nobody has ever wanted or tried to swim in”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Lucas Creek is a creek. The policy is about improving lakes and rivers. I do acknowledge there are some smaller water bodies that are significant for communities and it is important that regional councils improve water quality in those as well. The analogy I would make to the member is that central government focuses on State highways; the local communities focus on local roads. In exactly the same way, the Government’s fresh water policy is focused on those larger rivers and lakes, but there is still a very important job for regional councils to improve water quality in smaller water bodies.

Catherine Delahunty: How determined can the Government really be, when the goal for swimmability applies to only 10 percent of rivers and lakes, and the principal scientist involved in the Clean Water package called its standard “less precautionary”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government’s Clean Water package around swimmability focuses on those water bodies that are more than 40 centimetres deep. It is true that there are hundreds of thousands of kilometres of smaller water bodies. Actually, 90 percent of them flow into those lakes and rivers, so the only way in which regional councils will be able to meet this Government’s ambitious targets for improving water quality is to improve it both in those lakes and rivers and in those smaller tributaries that feed into them.

NCEA—Suitability, Standards, and Māori and Pasifika Achievement

9. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that increased rates of NCEA attainment are leaving school leavers better prepared for further study, training, or employment?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): Yes, because under this Government there are more young people leaving with a qualification fit for a diverse economy and further study and training. However, we will continue to work hard to improve our system.

Chris Hipkins: How can she claim that they are better prepared for further study, training, or employment when 64 percent of year 13 students achieved NCEA level 3 last year but only 49 percent achieved university entrance—fewer than in 2008?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Because in 2014 we made university entrance harder, and the reason we did that is we could see that a group of students were struggling. But what I can confirm for the member is that we have seen increases in the number of young Māori and Pasifika students graduating with Bachelor’s degrees, and we have actually, even though we have made it harder, seen an increase in those young people getting university entrance.

Chris Hipkins: In that case, is she concerned that last year there was a 12 percent gap between the NCEA achievement at level 3 of European students, or Pākehā students, and yet for Māori and Pasifika students that gap was 23 percent and 30 percent respectively; if so, how are Māori and Pasifika school-leavers better prepared than they were in 2008, when the gap was between 3 and 6 percent?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Obviously, as I have said before, we will continue to work hard to improve our system. However, the reason we are very confident that we are strengthening Māori and Pasifika achievement is that on a range of levels they are doing better. They are doing better not only in terms of more young people staying in education longer, and we can see that in NCEA level 2. We have seen a 17 percent increase for Māori—those 18-year-olds leaving with NCEA level 2—and 17 percent for Pasifika students. As I said before, we have seen a 9 to 14 percent increase in those leaving with Bachelor’s degrees, for Māori students, and an increase from 7 to 10 percent for Pasifika students with Bachelor’s degrees.

Chris Hipkins: How are Māori and Pasifika students better off as a result of increased NCEA attainment when fewer of them are gaining university entrance relative to European or Pākehā students under the current National Government?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: There has always been a gap. Our point would be that—

Chris Hipkins: It’s getting bigger.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I do not agree with that. As we have said before, we have made university entrance harder. We did that on purpose, because it is not in the best interests of students if they are taking out student loans and then struggling to pass. If I actually look at the numbers that are in front of me, in 2011 the year 13 students with university entrance—and this is before we made it harder—was 30.6 percent New Zealand Māori, and it is now 31.4 percent. In 2011 the number of Pasifika students was 27.4 percent, and it is now 30.7 percent. But, again, we made it harder in 2014.

Chris Hipkins: Does she think the disparity between groups of students is being improved by the significant differences in subject choices being offered to students—for example, the fact that Māori, Pasifika, and low-decile students are more likely to be in non-academic subject areas?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I make a range of points here. The first point is that it is up to students, parents, and whānau what subjects they take; it is not the Government. The second point that I would make is that the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) qualification is made up of unit and achievement standards, and for every student there are basic numeracy and literacy requirements, so we have a lot more Māori and Pasifika students—as result of our Government’s investment and all of the hard work of teachers and principals—who are leaving with those basic requirements. If the member wants to make a range of judgments about some of those unit standards, he needs to understand that their qualification is made up of a range of components including numeracy and literacy, and I would challenge him to start naming those unit standards, and walking in and meeting some of those people who have those unit standards and telling them to their face that he thinks their qualification is inferior.

Chris Hipkins: Did her predecessor receive advice suggesting that the National Government’s change to the minimum literacy and numeracy requirements for NCEA was resulting in students having worse literacy and numeracy when they obtained NCEA, but that changing it would compromise the Government’s ability to reach its Better Public Services target of 85 percent of students receiving NCEA level 2?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: It is a bit difficult, because I have been in the role for 24 hours, to determine what advice the previous Minister received. But what I can tell the member is that I am very proud that our Prime Minister in terms of numeracy and literacy today announced that we are setting new Better Public Services targets, which will see us have a target of 80 percent of year 8 students having numeracy and literacy requirements. But also, it is backed up by a $40.7 million investment in areas like severe behavioural issues but also oral and language communication issues. So we are prepared to invest to lift and raise achievement and we are walking the talk as we are today.

Pacific Advisory Appointments—Integrity

10. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Is he confident with the integrity of all Pacific advisory appointments made by him or his predecessor?

Hon ALFRED NGARO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Yes.

Darroch Ball: What concerns have been brought to the Minister’s attention regarding possible alleged incidences of nepotism, cronyism, or mishandling of funds regarding Government-funded Pacific programmes or appointments?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: It is my expectation that any public money spent has internal checks and systems in place to monitor spending and accountability. The Ministry of Social Development has previously provided a statement on the complex nature of a number of different issues involved, and I support that response.

Darroch Ball: What is the mess regarding Government-appointed Pacific funding and representation that the Minister has been tasked with “cleaning up”?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: There has been no such delegation to clean up.

Poverty—Hardship Grants and Welfare Reforms

11. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: Is she concerned that the latest quarterly benefit figures showed that more Kiwi families are unable to put food on the table, pay for children’s schooling costs, and are relying on emergency accommodation support?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): No, because it is mischievous of the member to categorise things in this way. If you look at the long-term trend, hardship payments have gone from over 1.1 million in 2010-11 to fewer than 900,000 in 2015-16—the last full year of figures. I also think it is important to point out that this is the number of payments, not the number of individuals or families. The last quarterly benefit figures actually show that the number of people receiving a benefit is the lowest March quarter since 2008, and, as the Deputy Prime Minister has already said, the lowest as a proportion of the population since 1997, and today we see the unemployment rate drop below 5 percent and the number of employed people increase by 1.2 percent. I am very proud to be a member of a Government that is there to help and support people when they are in need but that also works with them to get them off a benefit and into work, so that they can live independent and successful lives.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does she consider it a success of the Government’s welfare system that emergency food grants have nearly tripled since 2012 and accommodation support spending has increased by $20 million in the last 6 months compared with the same 6-month period a year ago because of the housing crisis, which her Government refuses to acknowledge let alone address?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said, I am very proud to be part of a Government that makes sure that the assistance is there for people when they need it most, and, in fact, we have made access to those special needs grants available online, so that people do not even have to come into a Work and Income office to get access to them. We have made it simpler to do that. And I would like to point out to the member that this Government was the very first Government to actually invest in emergency housing to make sure that people in need of housing were able to access it, and we were the first Government in 43 years to increase the amount of money paid to people reliant on a benefit.

Carmel Sepuloni: Apart from providing access online, what is she going to do about the significant increase in the number of Kiwis who are struggling to put food on the table—nearly 40,000 food grants in 3 months alone?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, this Government has a very fine record of making help available to those who need it most. The most important thing we can do—and we are doing successfully—is help more and more people to live independent lives by helping them to get into sustainable employment. That is the first thing. But in addition to that, we are investing through the social investment in families from a very early stage, getting underneath the drivers of poverty and hardship, in order to make sure that there are long-term gains for families in need in our communities.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand by her statement “it is clear that this Government’s welfare reforms have had a significant impact in helping more people into work,” when less than half of sole parents and only 50 percent of job-seeker benefit recipients left the benefit because they obtained employment?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, as usual, I would question that member’s figures—

Carmel Sepuloni: They’re your figures.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, they are not my figures. The two figures that the member has quoted on off-benefit were, first of all, from a staff member who did a survey of a few people in town, and, secondly, from a piece of research that I commissioned that has established, pre - welfare reforms, what happened over 2 years to people leaving benefit. The second piece of research, post - welfare reforms, is still being undertaken.

Carmel Sepuloni: I seek leave to table the latest quarterly benefit figures that were released 2 weeks ago, which highlighted the exact figures that I was talking about.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No those figures—I have actually got them in front of me. They are publicly available to members.

Carmel Sepuloni: Will she accept that her Government’s social investment approach and Better Public Services target of reducing long-term welfare dependency is not only failing but is leaving an increasing number of Kiwi families worse off?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I find that question sort of unbelievable, given the household labour force survey results released today and the information we released last week that show that as a percentage of the population, we have more people employed in today’s world than we have had since 1997. By anyone’s calculation, that is an enormous success for New Zealanders, let alone for this Government. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Iain Lees-Galloway —[Interruption] Order! I ask Iain Lees-Galloway to cease his barracking across the House.

Better Public Services Targets—Reductions in Children Experiencing Physical Abuse

12. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for Children: What changes has the Government made to Better Public Services Result 4—to reduce the number of children experiencing physical abuse?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): Today the Government announced that it has set a more ambitious target to reduce the number of children experiencing physical and sexual abuse, by 20 percent by 2021. This goes beyond the current measure, set in 2012, which was to halt the 10-year projected rise in children experiencing physical abuse and to reduce those 2011 numbers by 5 percent. This is significant, as we are also broadening the target to include sexual as well as physical abuse and introducing two new supporting measures, which are, firstly, measuring the total number of children experiencing abuse of any type, including physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and neglect; and, secondly, measuring the percentage of children who have a repeat report of concern to the Ministry of Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki within 12 months.

Maureen Pugh: Why has the Government decided to reset the target for Better Public Services Result 4 ?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We are always looking to challenge ourselves and the public sector to provide better results and outcomes for New Zealanders. We have halted the 10-year projected rise in children experiencing physical abuse, and the trend in the numbers is declining. After an extensive analysis of care and protection, we are overhauling the system and giving it a wider focus than just responding to a crisis event in a child’s life, but we do want to ensure that even more children and young people grow up in a safe environment.

Maureen Pugh: What will the Government do to achieve this new, ambitious target?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Actions to reduce the number of children experiencing physical and sexual abuse will be at the centre of a major programme of work within the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, which has five core services of prevention, intensive intervention, care support, youth justice, and transition support. While the new ministry will lead and be ultimately responsible for achieving the target, to achieve this result will take an all-of-Government approach, with cooperation and support from the ministries of Health, Education, and Social Development, as well as Police and Corrections. There is no single way to achieve this target. Actions will be taken across a number of areas, including sexual violence, family violence, whanau violence, improving parenting skills, and addressing mental health and addiction issues.

General Debate

General Debate

JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. A past Labour Prime Minister once famously said that we should stop looking at the mischief and start looking at the cause. It was a very simple notion—the idea, long before social investment, that if we wanted to save money for taxpayers, we should invest early in order to save. It is an idea that pre-dates social investment, and it is one that is simply common sense.

In fact, I would argue that both sides of this House have always prescribed to this notion of investing to save, but Labour’s motivation, and the motivation of its leader, Andrew Little, and of past Labour Prime Ministers, has always gone much further than that. For us, it is not a question solely of taxpayers’ money being saved but of saving waste of a different kind—saving the wasted potential of a young person not being in employment, education, or training; the waste and loss of dignity that comes from poverty and the lack of decent wages that would enable you to put food on the table and provide for your own family on your own terms; and the waste of a child’s future from their contracting a preventable illness and being hospitalised as a result. That is what this Government has missed in its social investment approach.

That is what it has missed when it comes to its Better Public Services targets. It ignores the fact that changing a number does not mean that you are changing a life or giving someone back the dignity that they so richly deserve. It also runs the risk—and we have seen this with the Better Public Services targets—of allowing people to simply game the system in order to be able to give a rough tick that the job is done and the goal is being achieved.

I predict here and now that one of the areas we will be seeing gains in will be the targets around serious violent offending. Look, no one is going to argue. Of course we want to see a reduction in serious crime—of course. But if you look at the target the Government has set itself today, it is aiming to reduce serious violent offending by, roughly, 10 percent by 2021. We have no problem with that. It has set itself a baseline, it has looked crudely at a number, and it has used the number of 139,000, which it wants to aim for to get that serious offending down. That seems like a rather arbitrary number, but when you actually compare it with the existing level, which in June 2016 was the number of 129,000, this National Government’s ambitious target to reduce violent offending is higher than the rate that we had in June of 2016. I hardly call that a message of hope for New Zealanders, let alone a message of ambition.

Carmel Sepuloni: Hopeless.

JACINDA ARDERN: It is absolutely hopeless.

But it is also troubling to see that targets are gone. You will not hear the Government today speak of the fact that rheumatic fever has suddenly gone from the 2012 targets that it set for itself as part of its Better Public Services. Is it “Job done.”? Waitematā, Auckland, Bay of Plenty, MidCentral—all of those district health boards have higher levels of rheumatic fever per 100,000 people than when the Government set the baseline in 2012. All of them—Waitematā, Auckland, Bay of Plenty, MidCentral.

Labour predicted that would happen because this Government continues to look at the mischief and not the cause. It tried to swab away the problem. It tried to identify where kids had strep, gave them antibiotics, and sent the sick child back to a home that was making them sick. The only way you would have addressed rheumatic fever in the long term was to address poor-quality, substandard housing and, ultimately, address the housing crisis. That is what a show of leadership would have done. Not only did the Government not do that; it abandoned its attempt to do it, and it has shoved under the carpet the fact that its rheumatic fever target has gone.

It is about to do the same on preventable hospitalisations. I know a story of a family where the money coming in came via a father who had lost his job. He had a couple of kids living in that household. In the end, their budget was so tight the hot water went off. The kids contracted an infectious skin disease, and they could not get rid of it because the family could not do hot-water washes. If this Government was serious about giving those families their dignity back, it would address the mischief and the cause.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister): Obviously social investment is working, because now it is Labour’s idea. Ha! So now it is the Labour members who came up with social investment and they are able to look back on it and see it because, for them, it was obviously their idea, and so now they accept that social investment actually is working.

I found it quite ironic for the member to talk about a loss of dignity in a week when Labour tried to put its list-ranking list out, and all it has had is members who had to resign at the last minute—and may I recognise the work of Sue Moroney, who, quite frankly, has probably held the Government to account and stood up for the rights of women more than any other woman in the Labour Party in recent years. She has actually stood up and has done her thing and has run campaigns and has actually had members’ bills pulled out, and has done a strong job.

Labour does not have a single Waikato member on the Labour list in the top 30 or 35. So that is actually what Labour thinks about the Waikato region. I must say, I take my hat off to people like Tim Macindoe and David Bennett, and the Lindsay Tisches of this world—Barbara, I know, is sort of in there as well. It just says that, obviously, they are doing such a fantastic job that Labour is not even bothering to step in there and take them on. But we have people like Sue Moroney who, quite frankly, I think has been treated appallingly by the Labour Party. But that is all right.

I do have a little message for the Labour Party: quite frankly, if you cannot even run a list-ranking process, you cannot run a country. If you cannot even get your list out when you say you are going to, and not have members publicly out there having their 10c’ worth and having to then have their bit, then, quite frankly, I do not think that you are ready, and I do not think the country will think you are ready either.

So let us contrast that—I am quite happy to—with where this Government is at, what we are achieving, and what we are clearly—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’ll be a short speech, won’t it? This will be a short speech if it’s about achievements.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —focused on, Mr Peters. I am really, really happy to put our record up against a failed member’s any day of the week. So let us talk about some of those results. They do not like it—do they, Mrs Tolley—when we talk about the fact that we have the lowest number on welfare that we have had since 1997. No way. And where are they going? That might be that employment rates are up today. Ha, ha! It might be that more are employed and are absolutely doing better in this country because we have set targets, because we have worked hard, but, better than that, because New Zealanders have employed them. Those people have got off benefits on their own merits and on their own hard work. I congratulate them, and I really recognise that.

They also do not like another one in your portfolio, Mrs Tolley. They do not like the fact that there are 57 percent fewer teen mums on benefits at the moment, and we are seeing them actually get ahead. We have got an over 40 percent reduction in the actual number of births to teenagers, and we are seeing more of those young women who are actually having babies early remaining educated and getting ahead—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Actually, I thought that was a personal choice, not a Government’s choice.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —like they never ever have before. Yes, Mr Peters, we are proud of it, and we will stand by those kinds of records any—any—day of the week. Today the Prime Minister has announced new targets and new Better Public Services targets. Six of them are brand new, two of them are being extended, and for two of them we have got more work to do for us to achieve that, and we will stand by that as well. They are around things like reducing long-term welfare dependency and having healthy mums and babies.

I must say that when Minister Coleman first suggested that he wanted to see more pregnant women in that first trimester actually being with a lead maternity carer (LMC), I said to him: why on earth would we need to increase that? I would have thought that in this great country of ours we already had that. I was kind of astounded to hear that that is only at 65 percent. We can get that from 65 percent to 90 percent and it will make a big difference for them to be getting that kind of medical care earlier, establishing that relationship with that LMC, and being able to really get ahead there.

The Safekids and fewer hospitalisations for children for preventable conditions—we have purposefully done it like that. We want to see that crossover between housing, health, social welfare, justice—the whole nine yards, and into accidents as well. So we were purposefully quite clever in how we did that and how we pulled them together.

This is a Government that is clearly focused. This is a Government that has not got “third-term-itis” but is ready to work for New Zealand and New Zealanders by having the Public Service clearly focused on the stuff that matters to New Zealand.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It is 5 months out from the election and National members are already reaching for the Donald Trump book of the election, the playbook for the election. “The ABCs of Alternative Facts” is in the hot little hands of Steven Joyce. Like Trump, they have decided, against all evidence to the contrary, that the path to prosperity is fossil fuels. That is right, New Zealand: National wants to open up our conservation land to open-cast coal mining again—again.

It wants to open up the beautiful red tussock landscape of the Buller plateau to mining. This is the habitat of the great spotted kiwi, the fernbird, the West Coast gecko, and other rare New Zealand species. National wants to open up the remains of the Denniston Plateau, which has already been stripped and scarred by years of mining. And why does it ask for that? Why does it want that? Well, we are told that it is part of a carefully considered balance between economic and conservation needs. It is the old excuse: a balance. It is a balance where the conservation of our native environment loses every single time. This, even as tourism surges into the lead as our biggest export industry, an industry whose success is based on our clean, green image and “100% Pure” brand. In the face of this, to pretend that coal mining will bring us economic prosperity is to ignore reality. It is one of National’s alternative facts.

Globally the price of coal has plummeted with the rise of natural gas and, certainly, cheap renewable energy. Coal is the dirtiest, most climate-polluting fossil fuel there is. We know that the existing stocks of coal cannot be safely burnt without threatening the stability of our climate. There is literally no point in digging it up anymore. The world is shifting to clean energy. In the US, even the Kentucky Coal Museum has switched to solar power for the museum in order to save money. No one in their right mind is trying to revive the coal industry. No one in their right mind thinks it is worth digging up a kiwi habitat for virtually no economic benefit.

The challenge for Government is to support economic development that regenerates the environment rather than destroying it for short-term gain, which grows industries like tourism instead of threatening them. That is what a good Green Government would do. But unfortunately the National Government has no idea how to do that. Economic development under National is a policy of a scorched earth. We see this in the U-turn on the protection of our native forests, allowing chainsaws back into conservation land. We see this with the proposal to pump pristine glacial water direct from Mount Aspiring National Park on to ships waiting off the West Coast.

But National, in desperation for an election year headline, seems to have forgotten that New Zealanders do not buy into short-term profiteering at the expense of long-term environmental destruction. National seems to have forgotten the 50,000 New Zealanders who marched in Auckland the last time that National tried to mine our conservation land. National has forgotten that the New Zealand people will stand up for the environment. New Zealand people will stand up for the environment, and the Green Party will stand with those New Zealanders.

We will fight to protect conservation land, the land that we treasure, against this lazy, short-term thinking that the National Government suffers from. Coal mining is the past. The Green Party is the future. Thank you.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): It is an honour to take a call this afternoon in the general debate. I have often said in this House when I have taken calls that the measure by which any Government should be held to account is not the size of the cheque it can write. If that was the measure, you would judge Governments very differently. The measure that we hold ourselves to is: are we making a difference for New Zealanders? That is the only measure that this side of the House came to this Parliament to address. How much money you can throw around does not indicate whether you are helping the country. The services that you deliver and the outcomes you are getting are what matters.

That is why this Government, very early in our term, back in 2008, said: “Actually, we will hold ourselves to account. We are going to be very clear with New Zealand about what we think the Public Service can achieve, and we are going to set very clear standards—not strategies, not plans, not consultative documents, not shiny brochures, not pledge cards, but real, measurable targets—about the things that New Zealanders care about.” We have said to the country that this is what we are going to expect of ourselves, this is what we will expect of the Public Service, and this is what the country can measure us against in the time that we have been in Government. I want to take a moment to congratulate and reflect on the success of both of our education Ministers, both Anne Tolley and, more recently of course, Hekia Parata, whom I do want to pay tribute to in this House as one of the most diligent, hard-working, passionate, and successful education Ministers.

Did you know that as a result of the work we have done in education, we now have 7,000 students every year achieving NCEA who would not have previously achieved it? That is 7,000 young New Zealanders every year who now have a chance to get on and build a career based on self-reliance. We are not purveyors of long-term dependence and misery. We want to build futures, and giving 7,000 more New Zealanders an education every year is doing exactly that.

In the health space, there are 50,000 more elective surgeries every year under this Government. That is 50,000 Kiwis every year getting new hips, knees, and joints replaced thanks to the work of this Government, and all of this while we have turned around the books of the Government from an $18 billion deficit to, now, a $1.8 billion surplus. In terms of immunisations, if you look at the young people of New Zealand, we now have 93 percent of 8-month-old babies being fully immunised. What is really exciting is for a long time it was always kind of assumed that Māori and Pasifika rates would be far below the New Zealand European rates. No longer—actually, the rates of immunisation of Māori and Pacific babies are at the same levels that they are for Pākehā New Zealanders, at 93 percent. That is an all-time high in New Zealand.

We have put 1,125 more police staff into New Zealand towns, into rural New Zealand, into regional New Zealand, and across New Zealand. They are going to be rolling out over the next 4 years, so that 95 percent of us will live within 25 kilometres of a 24/7 police presence. You heard the Deputy Prime Minister today talk about the work we have been doing with the Ministry for Vulnerable Children and the Ministry of Social Development. We now have 57 percent fewer teenage mums on benefit. We are not saying that teenage mums cannot do a great job, but we know it is much easier for them if they can have those children later in life. To give them the chance to get their education and to go ahead is a significant achievement. We heard also that the percentage of New Zealanders as a proportion of our population now on benefit is, Ms Tolley, I understand the lowest since 1997. That is incredible work of this Government.

Now, having achieved so many of those targets, we have said: “OK, we are going to refresh them.”, because we want to do more. The targets we have now set out are once more saying that as a Government we will absolutely manage the books carefully. We will absolutely respect every single dollar we take out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders, and we will spend them as if they were our own, focused only on the difference we can make for New Zealanders, because changing lives is what it is about.

That is what this Government is focused on, and that is why today we have announced a $321 million package of investing earlier, investing better, to make even more difference in the lives of those New Zealanders who do have complex, hard-to-reach needs, who so often are not getting the sorts of outcomes we want for them. There are not many of them—it is a very small group—but we want them to succeed, and we are a Government that will spend money to make a difference. That is what social investment is about. That is what you are seeing in the social investment budget, and there is a lot more of it to come.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Those words, “social investment”, they sound so good, and social investment could be so good, but not so much under that Government. The problem with that Government is it is about reducing liabilities. In fact, it refers to people as potential liabilities. It is about short-term cost-saving rather than investing in people. There will be repercussions, including cost repercussions, down the track because of the short-term vision of that Government. Its social investment approach is a farce. We hear from the Minister regularly that benefit numbers are reducing. Well, actually, the job-seeker support numbers recently were up. And she cannot tell us that the majority of those people are going on to employment—that is the problem. All that the Government is focused on, with its Better Public Services target, is reducing long-term welfare dependency, rather than the outcomes for those actual families.

I want to refer to some of the Prime Minister’s pre-Budget comments today on social investment. Mr Bill English has said “We are supporting businesses and investment that will deliver more jobs and higher wages for New Zealand families.”, but the reality is that the cost of living is on the rise, and more and more people are struggling to make ends meet. That Minister for Social Development cannot say that is not the case, when we have seen an increase of 74,000 in the number of people accessing hardship grants, with most of those hardship grants being for food and educational costs. The Minister cannot say that the cost of living is not rising and that people are not struggling to make ends meet when we see a $20 million increase in the amount of money being accessed in terms of emergency accommodation. The Government has got a problem. Its social investment is not working.

Bill English said “We’ve cut [some] taxes …”, and now our public services, I just want to say, are really struggling with the rising demand. We see it in our own electorates. I just want to use one example. A family contacted me the other day. Their family member passed away. It took 15 hours to get a doctor to that house to make the assessment, and that body had to stay in that house for that whole time. What is that about? That is the strain that our health system is under, thanks to that Government’s failed social investment approach. We have Bill English today also saying “Over 50,000 fewer people are now on … benefit than in 2011.” But, as I said, we see through the quarterly benefit statistics that actually less than 50 percent of those people going off benefit are actually going into employment. So how better off are those families? They are not at all. That is not social investment.

We also heard from Mr Bill English that “One particular focus of the Government’s work on Social Investment is ensuring all New Zealand children have a good start to life.” Yet under this Government there are more children living in poverty. In fact, that Government still does not want to measure the problem properly, so how can we possibly actually address it? It talks about social investment, and yet we have a Prime Minister who talks about young people in a derogatory way, referring to the young people in this country as “pretty damned hopeless”. So how can we have an effective social investment approach when it is underpinned by attitudes like we have from the Prime Minister, who thinks that, rather than training up New Zealanders, rather than training our young people and supporting them into getting into sustainable and meaningful employment, we should actually make the immigration system more permissive to make up for the fact that he says many of our young people are “pretty damned hopeless”.

We still have 90,000 young people who are not in employment or education. How successful has the Government’s social investment approach been when we still have 90,000 young people who are not in employment or education? Despite some of the criticism, despite some of the valuable critique of what it is trying to do, that Government continues to ignore that advice. We had the Privacy Commissioner come out and criticise the data-sharing approach that that Government wants to take as part of its social investment approach, saying that it was not necessary, it was dangerous, and it would deter people from accessing support. I hear today that that Minister is going to ignore that advice and soldier on regardless. The Government does have “three-term-itis”. It is arrogant, and it needs to be voted out.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): It is a pleasure to stand in the House today, especially on a day on which the Prime Minister has announced a significant investment of $321 million into social investment in this year’s Budget. I have to say, it is a bit of a laugh to hear people trying to, on the one hand, claim that social investment was actually their idea and, on the other hand, show that they have absolutely no concept of what social investment is about. Social investment is about using good analysis for a long-term investment in people—done early in their lives—so that you can improve the lives of New Zealanders. That is what this Government is all about.

If you want to have an example of that, then have a look at the very good figures that are out today showing that more and more New Zealanders are actually taking part in the workplace. If you look at those who are reliant on a benefit long term in our communities—and there are far too many of them and they are leading very, very difficult lives—about three-quarters of those people actually went on to a benefit before the age of 20. That is why the social investment model shows that you just have to work. The highest priority is to work, to stop young people going on to a benefit.

When the welfare reforms were put into place by my colleague Paula Bennett, a young person going on to a benefit could expect to be on a benefit for up to 17 years. Through the hard work that we have been doing as a Government in social investment we have brought that liability back to 14 years. Yes, the liability is there for the taxpayer—that is an accounting term—but the greatest liability is for those young people, because without a life that is independent and where they can make choices and have the opportunity to succeed, their lives are wasted for themselves and for their community.

That is why we announced today that we are maintaining Better Public Services (BPS) result 1, which is to reduce that long-term welfare dependence. We are still focused on reducing the numbers, but we are more focused on reducing the long-term liability, because that represents the wasted lives of too many great New Zealanders with great potential, who just need a chance. We know, again from good data analysis, that a child who is born into a home that is long-term dependent on a benefit is much more likely to go on to depend on a benefit themselves.

That is why it is so exciting that since 2011 we have seen 60,000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent homes—60,000 children do not have to live in a home that is dependent on a benefit. That means that their lives are considerably influenced by the fact that their parents are working independently of the taxpayer and that they have many more opportunities in their lives. I want to pay tribute to the Work and Income staff members, who have worked so hard with individual people and their families to make sure that this happens. I also have responsibility for BPS result 4, but during a question in the House we covered the changes to that.

I want to take the last minute and a bit that I have to talk about the great people in my electorate who have responded to the urgent needs in Edgecumbe following the breaking of the dam and the floodwaters—in fact, the tsunami of floodwaters—that raced through the township of Edgecumbe. Fifteen-hundred people, mainly local but from all around New Zealand, came to help those people in Edgecumbe. They donned protective clothing, they put masks on, and they worked to strip houses of all their furniture—all their whiteware went out on to the footpaths. It stunk. It was hot—because the Bay of Plenty has a fantastic climate, it was hot. Sewage had mixed with all the silt and had washed through the houses.

It was really unpleasant work, but Ngāti Awa—I want to pay tribute to them because they led this army of volunteers. It makes me proud to live in a community of people who not only opened their homes to people who were evacuated but who then rolled up their sleeves and got to work in the community to clear out those homes, and they are continuing to support those people in Edgecumbe who have lost their homes. Thank you to all of them.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Leadership and impact in the 21st century—what does that look like? We have a US President acting like an “Apprentice” in his own country. We have Britain withdrawing from the European Union without, it appears, fully understanding the impact. We have a North Korean leader playing with his arsenal of missiles. We have conflicts in Syria, Sudan, and Iraq, to name but a few. The world needs stability. It needs understanding, it needs compassion, and, above all, it needs peace. What does leadership look like in Aotearoa New Zealand in 2017? We have a growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, resulting in increasing levels of poverty and homelessness. We have more and more Kiwis becoming renters in their own country. We have elderly Kiwis getting denied operations after waiting months and months on the waiting list. Aotearoa New Zealand needs stability, needs understanding, and, above all, needs compassion.

Today the Government announced its Better Public Services targets. In my years in the public service, setting the benchmark from the time you are in Government to the time you are voted out is really important. It is a way of measuring your success when you are on the treasury benches. I have been in this House, and I have heard Ministers on that side of the House say we cannot develop targets when showing that we are reducing child poverty. I have heard that. I have heard it said that it is too difficult, and that there are too many complexities around reducing the child poverty levels that this country is bearing.

So I say to the Government, across the benches there, that we need to have targets that comprehensively say they are reducing child poverty and poverty in the whānau. We must have targets that say we are going to build more homes to address the homelessness that we have got in this country, and the renters in our own country. We should have targets that say that we are going to invest in our district health boards so we can address the many who need the operations, be they old or young. Yet what we heard today is, again, tinkering on the sides from this Government. It continues to tinker and not address the hardships that many Kiwis in this country are dealing with.

I want to turn to the comments that the Minister made around the devastation in Edgecumbe. I too want to acknowledge Ngāti Awa, particularly the people of Ruaihona Marae in Te Teko. Like many of my colleagues here in the Labour Party, we visited Edgecumbe and got down with the volunteers. I want to say, Minister Flavell, that they are passionate about remaining in this space. Ngāti Awa are really clear that they want to remain in the relief part, because they have some ideas around housing. They have some ideas around better public services for the many displaced families of Edgecumbe. So I want to encourage the Minister to meet with those people in Ruaihona, the marae there, in Te Teko. I also want to join with the Minister’s comments about acknowledging the Ngāti Awa Volunteer Army, which was very instrumental.

I turn back to my opening point about leadership. There is no leadership under this Government. There has been no sense of reality, and no understanding—certainly no compassion—over the course of this year, and under the current Prime Minister, Bill English.

What I want to offer is Labour’s commitment to caring, under Andrew Little, to ensuring that we have a better, stable Government in New Zealand Aotearoa, and to ensuring that we have policies that meet the needs of, understand, and are compassionate to the many Kiwis who are suffering around this country. In September, the people will make that decision: which Government is going to produce the policies that show that there is a Government that cares? That is Labour, and that is what will happen in September this year.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): There is a saying in rugby that when Canterbury rugby does well, the All Blacks do well. So it is great to see the Crusaders at the top of the Super Rugby table, ahead of the Lions visit over the next couple of months. It bodes well for an All Blacks success.

I would just like to take a pause and thank the Hon Gerry Brownlee for all the work he has done in Canterbury. One of his last strokes of the pen was to instruct a scoping of a new rugby stadium for Canterbury. Cantabrians are stoic rugby supporters. If you were to look at the Super Rugby history, you would see we are the best rugby region in the world. It is quite right we should have an international rugby stadium that will be the jewel in the crown of the Christchurch rebuild. So I am looking forward to getting an international rugby stadium. We will stop losing All Blacks games to Wellington and Dunedin, so Cantabrians and South Islanders can go out, celebrate an All Blacks win in the heart of Christchurch City, and spend a lot of their hard-earned money in the local bars and restaurants, dancing the night away for an All Blacks victory.

The Hon Gerry Brownlee has provided great leadership in what has been very much a difficult time over the last few years, as earthquake recovery Minister and the former regenerating Greater Christchurch Minister, albeit with the support of his fellow Cabinet Ministers, the former Prime Minister John Key, and our Prime Minister now, Bill English. I must acknowledge the parties across the House that have stood behind and stood up for Greater Christchurch as it rebuilds.

In my electorate of Waimakariri we are going well. The Minister has recently signed off our future use red zone plan, where the red zones and parts of Kaiapoi will go on to be regeneration zones, which will be great assets for the whole of Waimakariri. I know that my colleague Richard Prosser is looking forward to those regeneration zones, which are going to improve the well-being of all those residents in Waimakariri.

It is not only the regeneration zones. We have got 12 schools opening new classrooms this year. We have got a new hospital. We have got Canterbury District Health Board opening up new after-hours health services, because we are the third - fastest-growing electorate in the country, and now the third-biggest district by population in the South Island—just recently took over from Invercargill. So Waimakariri is going gangbusters, and anyone who has driven round the “Waimak” recently will notice the $400 million investment into roading in the Waimakariri. Many of my residents are very frustrated with the congestion on the commute into Christchurch City. So this Government—the Government of infrastructure—is investing $400 million into Waimakariri. The Western Belfast Bypass will open at Christmas time, and the Christchurch Northern Corridor will open in 2 years’ time as well.

I just want to also speak about the pre-Budget 2017 announcement today of $321 million into social investment initiatives. Social investment, we know, is not all about just spending more money. We know that—look at the State of the Nation Report from 2008, Labour’s last year in Government. The Salvation Army said that for all Labour’s increased expenditure, it did not increase social progress by 1 percent. So we know it is not just about increasing funding; it is about a health economics term “allocative efficiency”. The average person on the street knows that it is the best bang for their buck, and it is about how you cut the pie up and spend it in a way that will get the most out of it. That is what social investment is about.

So I welcome the announcement of $321 million. Specifically, $61 million of that is going into helping young people with behavioural issues and supporting Family Start, which is a great service that goes into families with mental health issues, families with addiction issues, and families where there is domestic violence. That targeted funding will make a great difference in many young people’s lives in New Zealand. What we know is that when the economy does well, the whole of New Zealand does well. The well-being improves and our environment improves, and that is what this Government is delivering: a strong economy. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): If the Canterbury Crusaders played like that member, Matt Doocey, they would be in the third division. According to John Key, Bill English, and Nick Smith, Pike River is a death trap. Dr Smith’s claim of 100,000 cubic metres of methane is—if you will excuse the mixed metaphor—a smokescreen. They must think Kiwis are stupid. If there is no oxygen, there is no fire, as that smouldering robot demonstrated.

In the long history of mining and mine disasters in New Zealand, only two bodies have never been recovered since 1879, until Pike River—of which Justice Mahon would have said, prophetically, “I am forced, reluctantly, to say that I listened to an orchestrated litany of lies.” Tony Forster, New Zealand’s former Chief Inspector of Mines, had never seen the footage, and he said it evaporates all the mythology about the mine’s condition. Seeing people calmly working away destroys the lies of it being a death trap. We know that 1.6 kilometres is in good condition. That is no surprise—it is made from hard rock with a tensile strength of some 20,000 p.s.i. If the families’ experts are right on the mine’s condition, why would they be wrong on recovery plans or a template that has been successfully used all around the world?

None of this makes sense unless we are witnessing a serious cover-up. Just why would Mr English not allow the family to watch footage from a high-definition camera dropped down a pre-drilled pilot shaft, and then say in the House that he cannot recall them asking? Just today—this was a meeting in January. What is there to hide? The police have been back-pedalling on the footage, while the Prime Minister said the families had seen it. They claim they have not. The royal commission cannot recall seeing it either; nor can QC Hampton remember seeing it. The fact remains that the mine’s rescue staff were not, Mr English, 2 metres into the mine but hundreds of metres inside the mine.

The Government keeps changing its story by the hour. Dr Smith, a flannel-eared varsity skellum if ever I saw one, said this: “It’s always been public knowledge that men were working in the drift near the entrance.” How do you think the seal was built? Those activities go down 200 to 300 metres. I knew men had worked in the first 100 metres putting the robot down, but last year, in November, this is what Dr Smith said: “There is 100,000 cubic metres of methane in this mine. The levels are basically 98 percent. The expert advice is uncontested that there are heat sources in that mine capable of triggering an explosion if any oxygen were to get in the mine.” That is what he said—right? So we had men in there waiting for a disaster. Is that true, Mr Smith? He cannot have it both ways. This is an orchestrated you-know-what. This stinks, and it is not of methane.

Earlier this year, there were reports of a Driftrunner used to transport mine staff in the vicinity of the rockfall at the Pike River Mine, indicating that contractors at Pike River Mine and others knew that the Driftrunner was there but were unable to say so publicly because of gagging orders placed on them by Solid Energy. We looked into this, and in recent days received alarming new information that confirmed these reports. The information that has emerged should have the whole country and every journalist worth their salt asking questions of the Government.

Following questions by New Zealand First, it was confirmed to us that a drilling contractor at Pike River Mine has been paid nearly $5,000 each and every month for the last 3 years to have two drills sitting idly at Pike River Mine. That is the contractor we are after. Why? Why would the Government pay that amount of money for equipment not being used? Why also has the contractor got a contract with a specific clause gagging them from speaking to the media, and requiring them to tell Solid Energy’s media director if the media ever contacts them? Why has the Government refused the families’ request to see what has gone on down there? If the Government has got nothing to hide, if there is no cover-up here, then they would immediately have released the contractor from his gagging clause, allowed him to speak to the media, and allowed the families to have a camera put down the bore holes into the slimline shaft.

If the Government does not allow this to happen, then this is the conclusion: there is a rotten cover-up going on, and it will go on and on. But I tell you, from our experience, that sooner or later this Government is going to cave in on this matter. We know that there are people out there with the information, and sooner or later it is going to come out. The result is going to see a whole lot of these backbenchers gone in September.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): We heard about leadership and its impact from one of the members from Labour. I have a very interesting incident to share, and this incident will tell the whole story of the leadership competition that is going on between the leader and the deputy leader of the Labour Party. It was a Sunday—from my memory, it was 26 March 2017. As always, I was listening to an Indian radio station in my car, and Jacinda Ardern came on for an interview. I kept listening, the interview finished, I kept listening to the same radio station, and then, in just a few minutes—yes, in just a few minutes—none other than Andrew Little called, and said on air that he was trying to get through to that radio station for a very long time to be interviewed. It tells us who is calling the shots in the Labour Party. It was really interesting to see those dynamics play out on air when he said that. The deputy leader of the party was on air being interviewed, and the leader was dialling that number again and again—again and again—to get on air to get that interview.

On this side, I have to say that I am very proud to be part of this tremendously wonderful Government under the leadership of Bill English. This Government is so good because we understand the needs, desires, and aspirations of all New Zealanders. We also understand the complexities of these various aspirations. We know the aspirations of a student are very, very different from a home-stay mum, just like they are very different for a new migrant versus somebody who is born here; just like they are very different for someone who is walking into their first job versus somebody who is retired. My background is very different from my colleagues on this side, yes, but there is one thing common amongst us, and that is that we are very proud to be part of this tremendously wonderful National Government under the leadership of Bill English.

Look at our economy—our economy continues to grow and diversify. Children are staying in school for longer and attaining better qualifications. The Better Public Services target shows, whether it is early childhood education or 18-year-olds achieving NCEA level 2 or level 4, that we are making great progress. I want to acknowledge the former Minister of Education Hekia Parata for her work, and I also want to acknowledge our new Minister of Education, Nikki Kaye. Today the Prime Minister announced $321 million for social investment through Minister Amy Adams’ portfolio. So we are making great progress in some very difficult areas, and this is because of our approach towards public services. Just this morning we saw unemployment numbers—it is at 4.9 percent, which is down from 5.2 percent in the previous quarter. Again, this is very good news under this National Government. We are investing heavily in various sectors that matter to New Zealanders.

Just last week, on Thursday, I held a public meeting to introduce the new ministry for children, that is the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, and I was really happy to see that the audience endorsed the work that this National Government is doing to get better outcomes for children. I am also very happy to see that we have increased the minimum wage every year since coming into Government in 2008. Again, this year we increased the minimum wage by 50c from 1 April, and the starting wage is still 80 percent of the minimum adult wage, which is good news for low-income families. Again, we know the projection, because of the progress that we are seeing under this National Government for the annual average wage, is that it will be $66,000 by 2021. I am really proud of the progress that we are making under this National Government for various families and businesses.

I am also very happy to see that the New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Transport have gone ahead and announced a mass transit plan in Auckland, and Dominion Road, which goes through Mt Roskill, is the preferred route. These are the kinds of projects I want to see as a National list MP based in Mt Roskill, because these kinds of projects also create numerous local jobs, and there is a huge amount of residential construction activity going on as well, despite the opposition from the Labour Party. When people are happy, the Labour and Green members are not happy, but we can see that there is an extraordinary level of work that is going on under this National Government, and we will continue to be ambitious for New Zealand. Thank you.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. I want to start by speaking about Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. We started the debate on the Committee stage yesterday, and I want to talk about this document I am holding—430 pages of amendments that have been tabled by the Minister, without any consultation whatsoever and no scrutiny by the select committee. In my opinion it is constitutionally unprincipled to have that many changes to a bill in this House at that stage. It should be referred back to the select committee.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Meka Whaitiri for her work on this bill and for bringing to light a number of these issues throughout the country. I think the Māori Party members should be ashamed of themselves. They should be ashamed of themselves for going out amongst the people and telling one story and doing something else in this Whare. It is wrong.

I do not know how that party’s members can sit by a National-led Government that has brought in Better Public Services targets like trying to achieve a 20 percent reduction in the time to house priority clients on the social housing register. Going by that Government’s record, all it has to do is what it has done with water quality—change the way that it measures priority clients, and, boom, a 20 percent reduction. That is what it is going to do. I think that is wrong.

These Better Public Services targets need to be a lot more real for our people, to help those ones who are the 90,000 young people who are not in education, not in employment, and not in training. At the September election, the Māori electorates are not going to be decided by iwi leaders. They are not going to be decided how the Māori Party would have us believe—by high profile leaders in our community. No—they are going to be decided by the whānau of the 90,000 tamariki, rangatahi, who are not in training, not in employment, and not in education. They are going to be decided by our whānau who are living in overcrowded conditions, in garages, and sometimes three families to one house.

This election is going to be decided by whānau who cannot afford rental properties, let alone to buy a house. It is going to be decided by our whānau who are living in poor-quality housing. We need to do a lot better for these families, and on this side of the House we have got the leadership team to be able to do it, in Andrew Little and Jacinda Ardern. We have got the people and the policies to be able to implement and address the issues that are important to our whānau. That is what the whānau are looking for, and that is what we are going to deliver in the next Labour-led Government.

The Government has brought amendments to Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill into this House without any consultation that is good enough for such a substantial bill. This is fundamental to the Treaty of Waitangi, and I challenge the Māori Party to take those changes back to the people, so that the people can have their say. Like I said, it is the people who are going to decide the result of the next election. I will be talking directly to the constituency, like my colleagues in the Māori electorates. We have decided on a pathway to make sure that our people have a real choice. We are not going to be playing any games around lists or anything like that. What we are going to be doing is talking directly to our people in the language that they understand.

I do not believe any of the people on the other side of the House who are barracking have any idea what the Māori world view looks like for us. I look forward to 23 September, when the people will decide—change, or more of the same.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): This Government is delivering on its commitment to Better Public Services. It is one of National’s priorities. We are doing extremely well at reaching our targets with the support of our Public Service sector. I pay tribute to that sector. But we are not sitting on our laurels—no, we are not. We are setting six new targets that will continue to make a positive difference in people’s lives and ensure that our public services are even more productive and efficient.

These new targets are focused on the tough issues, but we are up for it: maternity care for women; reduced hospitalisations for under-12s; continuing to improve numeracy and literacy; crime reduction; housing; and to have 80 percent of the 20 most common transactions completed online.

We have set targets in areas that are challenging to Governments not just here in New Zealand, but all over the world—areas such as welfare dependency, crime, quality healthcare, and educational achievement. We know that more young people are getting educational qualifications to improve their employment prospects than ever before. I recently had the pleasure of congratulating Motueka High School. It has achieved an outstanding result by getting a 10 percentage point improvement in NCEA results with our priority students. I congratulate that school and I am grateful that this Government had the vision to support teachers and students to reach those priority students.

These new targets that have been set come with a performance measure, so that the ministries that are responsible for them will report against those targets. But none of them can be achieved by one agency working alone. We need these agencies to work together. I am in awe, as I work my way around West Coast - Tasman, of the NGO sector, which has found practical ways of working together and providing services, and, yes, sharing information. They are the heroes in my communities, and they are making a huge difference to families and individuals.

The targets that this Government has set are meant to be ambitious and they are meant to challenge our public services, and they are certainly meant to ensure that improving the lives of New Zealanders is at the core of everything we do. The latest report on Better Public Services targets, which was released last month, shows that although there is still plenty to do, these targets are making a real difference to Kiwi families. We know that, but self-praise is no recommendation.

International independent reviews done recently have a view about how we are doing. In November last year the Human Freedom Index was released. Of 159 countries, New Zealand ranked third. In March of this year the World Happiness Report was published by the United Nations. Of 155 countries surveyed, New Zealand ranked eighth. In November last year the Legatum Institute released its 2016 world prosperity index. Out of 149 countries that were surveyed, New Zealand ranked in first place—out of 149 countries.

One of the quotes that is credited to that report is that free markets, free people, and the world’s strongest society ensure that New Zealand takes the top spot in the prosperity index. It also goes on to note that we have been ranked first in the index for 6 of the past 10 years, and since 2012 this is credited to a concerted effort by policy makers. Those policy makers referred to by the Legatum Institute are the members of this capable, forward-thinking, and caring National-led Government. We will continue to improve the lives of Kiwis.

The six new targets that we have set are ambitious. We know they are challenging. We are backing people in New Zealand. We are backing our children and breaking the cycle of benefit dependency. We have faith in the people of this country to be independent of State support. I think we look forward to a bright future, under a National-led Government.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Member Vacancy

Helensville Electoral District—Rt Hon John Key

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That pursuant to section 131(b) of the Electoral Act 1993, a vacancy in the Helensville Electoral District having arisen and the House having been informed that a general election is to be held within 6 months of the occurrence of that vacancy, no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that Electoral District to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of John Phillip Key.

Motion agreed to.

New Lynn Electoral District—Hon David Cunliffe

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That pursuant to section 131(b) of the Electoral Act 1993, a vacancy in the New Lynn Electoral District having arisen and the House having been informed that a general election is to be held within 6 months of the occurrence of the vacancy, no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that Electoral District to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of David Richard Cunliffe.

Motion agreed to.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 2 May on the Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

Environment Sector (continued)

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): When we were last considering the bill we were debating the third sector, the environment sector. There are 7 hours and 7 minutes remaining in the debate. Jami-Lee Ross had the call and has 5 minutes remaining if he wishes. He has declined.

Reports noted.

External Sector

Hon Annette King: Mr Chairman.

Todd Muller: Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, I will take the member who called first, then. Annette King.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): As a new member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I was not able to be there for the annual review, but I have read with interest the report that came out of that committee.

But I want to begin by congratulating the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Gerry, I think, is well positioned to take this place. He is very pragmatic, he does have very good chairing ability, and I think one thing he is going to need in this portfolio is a good sense of humour—and Gerry has all those attributes. Actually, I think he will probably be a very good Minister of Foreign Affairs following on from Mr McCully, who had rather a rocky road in this area.

When I looked at the annual review, there were a number of things that stood out for me from the report. First of all, the Auditor-General recommended that there needed to be some improvements in the ministry’s management of its control environment, its financial systems, and a number of other areas. Although I cannot be explicit about that, I am sure the committee will be keeping a watchful eye for improvement next year when the officials appear before them.

But the thing that really stood out for me was the report on New Zealand’s time on the Security Council of the UN—our 2-year stint on the Security Council. As we all know, it took a lot of work going right back to the Rt Hon Helen Clark to prepare for our bid to get on the Security Council, which we achieved. One of the standout achievements, if you like, of our time on the council has to be UN Resolution 2334, which was adopted in the last minutes of our time on that council, on 23 December last year, when New Zealand was one of the movers of this resolution. It was voted on by all members except the US, which abstained, and it was the resolution to reaffirm the position of Governments of New Zealand, not just this Government but previous Governments over many years, that settlements established by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal—are illegal—and are a major obstacle to achieving a two-State solution.

That was a very significant move by New Zealand. It did not go without criticism from Israel. In fact, there was diplomatic retaliation at the time, and I have to say that I was pleased to see that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Brownlee, has said today that he is going to move swiftly to restore diplomatic relations with Israel, and he has already written to Prime Minister Netanyahu. But he also said at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that New Zealand is committed to speaking out against the settlement, and it does not matter what the views of the Prime Minister of Israel are—that is the position we have held and held strongly for a long time. But of course we want to improve diplomatic relations with Israel, which has been a long-time friend of New Zealand.

The second issue that was raised in the report is how well our representation did on the Security Council in terms of the developing small Island States. I suppose the way you can judge that is from what those small States said in their feedback, and they believed that our time on the Security Council was pretty successful, particularly in our ability to champion the small States at the Security Council. In fact, we managed to ensure that there was a session held on behalf of the small States where for the first time they got to speak at the Security Council, so that can be ticked off as an achievement from our time there.

But perhaps the most controversial thing that came out of the report is the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the Saudi Arabia food security partnership. It is quite obvious that the new head of foreign affairs, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, said that he accepts the Auditor-General’s criticisms that were made of the handling of a very sensitive issue—handling where it appears as if the officials themselves were provided advice as to how they could deflect questions from committee members at last year’s annual review. I do not believe that issue is dead.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Todd Muller, I do want to apologise. Amongst a number of things I am out of date on was the chair of that committee. I should have called him first. I apologise to him. I am informed not only that he is the chair but that he is doing a very good job.

TODD MULLER (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Actually, in many respects it is very appropriate that Annette went first. She is very much the mother of the committee—

Hon Annette King: What are you—the grandad?

TODD MULLER: No, no, I mean that in a very warm and kind way.

Hon Annette King: I’m sure.

TODD MULLER: I do. I do mean it. But, firstly, before I get into a substantial conversation on the review that we had, I really cannot stand here without acknowledging the extraordinary contribution of the former foreign affairs Minister Murray McCully, particularly his ability to take New Zealand’s values, interests, and intent with conviction and effect to the world stage. I think he has done that extraordinarily well. I was in Suva 3 weeks ago, attending on behalf of New Zealand a foreign affairs economics Ministers meeting—there were 15 there—and every one of the 15 came up to me personally and asked after Minister McCully. It was very clear to me that he has made an extremely deep personal connection with those particular Pacific Island nations and he is certainly going to be missed.

I raise that because it talks to some of the key themes that came through our foreign affairs, defence, and trade review. One was the deep capability that resides in that ministry, and the value that is put on people and relationships and on building enduring relationships across the world to progress New Zealand’s interests.

Annette King has, I think, touched on an area in respect of our Security Council participation that I also wanted to give highlight to. That relates to the small Island States and how effective we were in advocating for them on the world stage but backing up that rhetoric with real concrete actions in terms of providing a forum for the small, developing nation States to actually get a forum across the whole United Nations—the first time that this has ever happened.

But I think, more critically for me, as we listened to the feedback from Brook Barrington and his team, was it just did not stop there. There was an ongoing investment in those relationships and those countries to ensure that beyond that debate, the actions that were committed to at that time were reported back on regularly to make sure they felt connected with New Zealand’s efforts on the Security Council. I thought that was impressive, and it was very impressive to hear that from Brook and the team from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Obviously, in terms of defence, again an acknowledgment, I think, absolutely is due to the outgoing Minister of Defence and new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gerry Brownlee. You know, defence is one of those areas that, when you are looking at the priorities of Government spending, you can potentially argue—as many previous administrations have—that there are greater priorities than the defence of the Realm, and particularly the expensive assets required to make that more than just rhetoric. He has driven the Defence Capability Plan, and we heard that very explicitly through the review process—the $20 billion that has been set aside for defence, to be spent through to 2030.

The couple of things that really impressed me, to go back to the theme that I would like to draw on this afternoon around capability, were the Defence Force was very clear that to actually execute a $20 billion capital project plan over the next 14 years, real capability and people and systems and process were going to be required. We heard that there is an investment of $27 million over 4 years, employing 25 new staff in 2016 and a further 30 in 2017, to ensure that this programme of significant capital investment is actually delivered. From my own personal experience, procurement is one thing, but delivering and operationalising it and actually getting it done on time and on budget requires top people applying themselves effectively every day, and that is the confidence we got from the Defence Force as it spoke to the investment going in to make sure that that happened.

I do—just to finish—want to make acknowledgment of Todd McClay, our Minister of Trade and a fellow neighbour MP. Again, we heard through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade update to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee of the extraordinary work that is going on to promote New Zealand’s interests. A number of our questions, as you would expect, related to our trade interests and how they were being impacted on post-Brexit and post the Trump administration. The Minister can be assured we got some very, very impressive responses from the team there at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Indeed, a number of the questions we raised have been subsequently answered with the extraordinary announcement over the last few weeks of our Trade Agenda 2030, which will see $91.3 million of new funding spent over 4 years in the Budget.

Again, just to conclude, why I think this is so critical is it reinforces the point that you need to back rhetoric with capability and people whom you back around the world to be able to take New Zealand’s interests to the world in an effective, competent manner. The message we got from our review is that we have that in spades, and New Zealand’s interests are being well enhanced. Thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I would very much like to pick up on what I take to be the recurrent theme in the intervention of the previous speaker, Todd Muller, because I agree with it very much—that is to say, the superb capability of the diplomats in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who serve New Zealand very well. It comes through to some extent in the report, and that is to be commended. I have to actually add, however, that that includes primus inter pares, Derek Leask and Nigel Fyfe, to whom the State Services Commissioner unreservedly apologised in December last year for being unfairly treated in the Rebstock report, which we recall very clearly. This Parliament can only hope that Dame Paula Rebstock, described by the State Services Commissioner as possessing “immense talent” that could still be used in the future, will not produce further reports that will be, in the judgment of the Ombudsman, “seriously flawed in multiple respects” and unfairly single out future outstanding New Zealanders who work in the best interests of the ministry and this country.

On to more positive things, and I agree with the Hon Annette King that there is a lot in the development of foreign policy in the last year or two that can be commended, particularly the New Zealand support for promoting Security Council Resolution 2334 on Israeli settlements. It is a complicated situation, but the complexities and the sensitivities there do not absolve Israel of the obligation to respect international law. I am aware of Israel’s legal argumentation, and I respect it. I disagree with it, but I respect it, and I think it should be encouraged to put it to independent, objective international judgment.

The other very positive feature, as Annette King did say, was the thematic debate that New Zealand undertook in July 2015, when it had the presidency, on the security of small Island States. I made a point of going up to that meeting, and I have to say it was one of the more impressive meetings out of many, many UN meetings that I have participated in or observed. It was an outstanding day of debate, with 77 leaders, heads of Government, and Foreign Ministers somewhat passionately—and that is unusual for the Security Council—addressing the situation. It was not just climate change. It was piracy, money-laundering, and, of course, sea-level rise but, above all, a plea to all countries coming through from those leaders—and not least to New Zealand in the chair—to undertake more ambitious efforts at emissions mitigation for the sake of avoiding future climate change that will pose not simply an existential threat to those States but, actually, will have them disappear, in some cases.

We do not have time to explore the merits of whether the Security Council should actually undertake more responsibility for climate change. The British and the Germans have sought to have the Security Council declare climate change to be a threat to international peace and security, and the council has stopped short in each case, to this day. It simply describes it as a risk multiplier—a multiplier of other risks—to peace and security, but it has not declared climate change to be such, and that is for the future. To be critical, New Zealand could have pushed that a little bit further in that debate, but, that aside, the debate was superb and it was a commendation to the Government.

Leadership on nuclear disarmament—we look at North Korea and the problem we have there. That was touched on there in the report: how to cooperate under the Trump administration. Just regard Israel’s nuclear weapon programme as not that dissimilar to the North Korean nuclear weapons programme, and let us get a balanced approach to nuclear disarmament. Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Trade): Can I thank colleagues for their praise and their words in support of officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and the Ministry of Defence. I think our diplomats do extremely well for New Zealand overseas. Indeed, over the last year or so, as the Minister of Trade, when I go to negotiations, we have a small team of very focused, very experienced people. Most other countries have delegations that are four, five, sometimes six times as large as the New Zealand delegation, but I think that for our relative size we not only hold our own, we continue to deliver on behalf of New Zealand. Our diplomats, our mandarins, are unseen and unheard—at least they were previously, but I continue to encourage them to be more outward looking, to engage more with New Zealanders, and to talk more about what they are doing. It is not something that sits comfortably within the field of diplomacy and foreign affairs, but I think that all New Zealanders will be richer for knowing the work that they are doing.

I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its report. I know from the MFAT officials who attended the hearing that they were pressed very hard. They were challenged in a number of areas. My view, having previously sat on that committee, is that it is Parliament’s and the committee’s job to test not only our ministries but, certainly, our Ministers, and so I think the committee’s report is extremely useful.

I want to just touch on a couple of trade negotiation areas, if I may, that have come out of the annual review, and just give a bit of additional information to the Committee. I would like to start with the PACER-Plus agreement. New Zealand has no stronger relationship with any group of countries than we do with the small and often vulnerable Pacific Island countries. Eight years ago a trade negotiation was started with these countries, and it was to make sure that the trade that we had in other agreements would be modern and up to date. Eight years later, I am very pleased to inform the Committee that we have just concluded that negotiation with 12 of the 14 Pacific Island countries.

But it is not actually a trade agreement; it is a development and trade agreement. The reason for that is that it is very important that we look to work with these Pacific Island countries to find ways to help them grow their capacity, to grow their economies, to be able to sell, to trade more with New Zealand and Australia and, indeed, the rest of the world. We are working through with some of our partner countries as to when we can release the document—they have different procedures than we do—but it is my intention to release it to this House and to the public before it is signed, as we have done with previous agreements. It is a high-quality agreement that I think we should stand behind, because it is as much about development as it is around trade.

The other thing that I think is very important and at the top of people’s minds at the moment is the European Union, the UK, and Brexit. Officials from foreign affairs, and I as Minister, have spent a lot of time over the last year or so in Europe, talking to those countries about why we need a free-trade agreement (FTA). In the report, the question was why we have not got one yet, while other countries have. It is an excellent question from the committee. Indeed, it is because nobody owes New Zealand a living. We are 4.5 million people a long way from anywhere in the rest of the world, and we have to go to find good reasons for others to want to do trade deals with us. There are only six countries in the World Trade Organization that do not have an FTA with the European Union, and we are one of those, but I am very pleased that we have finished the scoping exercise and, with the European Commissioner for Trade, I announced just a month or so ago that each side is now going to seek a mandate so that we can formally launch that negotiation.

Of course, the European Union will be occupied and preoccupied with Brexit and the UK. I am very pleased to say also that in a meeting I had with the UK trade secretary, Liam Fox, he confirmed for us earlier this year for the first time that New Zealand will be the first cab off the rank, along with Australia, for their new FTAs once Brexit is finished, once they are out. In the meantime, we have created a trade policy dialogue with them to continue that work and to deepen that relationship.

That is just a demonstration of the work that MFAT has done over many years, and why successive New Zealand Governments and Ministers have spent a lot of time in trade overseas. Nobody owes us a living. We have to be over there, reminding them of why we are important, making the case for better and fairer access for Kiwis to these markets, and finding every single advantage that we can. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has certainly done that for us in so far as the EU and the UK are concerned. It has not for PACER-Plus because PACER-Plus is not actually about fairness to us; it is about a fair deal for our friends in the Pacific. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak specifically around defence, the Ministry of Defence, and the Defence Force. I have got to say, in response to some of the very generous comments that have been made about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and how well it does, that some of us would argue that it has never done as well as it did under the leadership of the Rt Hon Winston Peters—since those days of a Labour-National coalition arrangement. Some would argue that, in actual fact, MFAT has gone back under the leadership of Mr McCully. We wait with our breaths held to see what happens under the leadership of Gerry Brownlee. The jury will stay out on that one.

It is interesting, looking at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee report on the annual review—and I will say, just for Minister McClay’s benefit, that we are talking about 2015-16, not yesterday or today. It is interesting, the things that were discussed. Defence House was questioned. I would point out to the Committee that in this briefing from Defence Force officials there was no mention made of the fact that the Defence Force building is going to have to come down, yet they knew. They knew. We subsequently revealed that information through press releases and in questions in this House, and we were proven correct.

The question that now remains is what is being kept from us by the Defence Force so that it does not embarrass whomever. But there are serious questions about the design and the configuration of the AMP Capital - owned building, and the cost that now has been borne by the Defence Force through virtue of the fact that it has had to be relocated and has lost however many man-hours, person-hours—we do not know—as a consequence of a building that was built, what, 7 or 11 years ago. It was supposedly going to withstand hell, because it was our Defence Force headquarters building. Subsequently, it has not performed as well as the Thistle Inn pub just down the road.

On Ministry of Defence funding, we in New Zealand First note that 2015 funding income—sorry, the Ministry of Defence, $14 million, expenditure $14 million. It came up with a surplus of $38,000. It sounds to me like very fine-tuned expenditure. Maybe we should have had a look to see how much it spent in the last 4 months of that fiscal year, to see whether it was wise spending to get down to only $38,000 in the kitty. It did not get to zero, so, you know, that is interesting. The Defence Force itself—the budget is $2.484 billion. There was a lot of trumpeting about the Defence Capability Plan and the injection of $20 billion.

I will come to that more later on, but New Zealand First still says that that is slightly less than 1 percent of GDP. We fundamentally disagree with Labour and National’s view of our responsibility for maintaining a defence force. We believe it should be 2 percent of GDP, end of story. It actually staggers the minds of National Party people who are joining New Zealand First that the National Government has walked away from that commitment. Do not laugh, Mr Bishop. Do not laugh, Mr Bishop. They will be in this House, looking straight at you, after the September election. Mark Patterson—it is looking like he is shaping up to be a wonderful candidate down in Clutha-Southland. The Defence Force, we say, is underfunded. Chris Bishop thinks that the Defence Force is well funded at less than 1 percent of GDP; we do not.

I want to have a look at the auditor’s report and what was stated in there. There are a couple of things that came out that were interesting. We noted that the defence white paper had been released, but what was the result of that? Well, the author of the defence white paper was Wayne Mapp. New Zealand First considers him to be the equivalent of National’s Captain Mainwaring. But now Wayne Mapp has become famous through statements in the media that are embarrassing the current Government, embarrassing the newly appointed—and hats off to Mark Mitchell for getting the job; well deserved. But now Wayne Mapp, who wrote this white paper, is an embarrassment to the Crown. The question is: when we criticise the white paper for its inadequacies, does it not now occur to this National Government that it should go back and rethink it? Because we think that it is inadequate. It is a continuance of the National-Labour dumb-dumber deal on defence.

What else have we got? The ministry is beginning a programme—no, the ministry’s strategic intentions document. It said it would be out in 2016-17. It is not. The Defence Estate Regeneration Programme plan was published in 2016, and yet now we have talk that the Defence Force cannot get 75 houses within 30 minutes of Whenuapai. Mr Chair—[Bell rung] This is a disaster.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Ron Mark—oh, sorry, you were not calling?

RON MARK: No.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Defence): Firstly, can I just say what a great honour it is to stand and take a call in the Committee today as the newly appointed Minister of Defence. Can I acknowledge the comments from the last speaker, Ron Mark. Can I say that I make a commitment, as I said to the Prime Minister when he called me, to work and do the best that I can to serve this House and our country in this role, and I recognise the fact that it is a great honour and a real privilege.

Can I acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I was very lucky that last year Gerry Brownlee took me to Taji, just outside of Baghdad, where our troops are deployed on a joint mission with the Australian troops—an Anzac mission, if you like—delivering training to the Iraqi security forces and, actually, some junior leader training up there as well. While I was on that trip I was lucky enough to attend with him some very high-level meetings with his counterparts, including the Iraqi Minister of Defence. I was very proud of the way he had the ability to be able to advance and state our position very clearly as a country whilst also, at the same time, it was obvious that he was able to develop very strong personal relationships, which are actually very important in terms of Government to Government relationships. So I can see clearly that he is going to be outstanding in his role as our New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs and the important work that he is going to have to do. In what we see globally there is a fair bit of instability at the moment, so that foreign engagement is actually very, very important.

Can I just restate as well that as a country we should be very proud of the fact that we have a very independent foreign policy, and we also have a very independent defence policy. That will continue.

Can I just make some comments about our Defence Force, maybe the international situation a little bit, and then I will talk about some of the procurements, because that has been brought up and focused on in this debate as well. Our Defence Force plays a unique and wide-ranging role. Few other militaries in the world cover such a broad range of tasks as the New Zealand Defence Force. Currently we have got people all around the world deployed who are training, who are UN observers and peacekeepers, who are engineers. We have got a wide range and a diverse range of skills and abilities that we use all around the world, and they are highly valued by our partners.

Its core role is being ready for combat. However, our Defence Force also assists with humanitarian responses, protecting our borders and ocean resources, conducting search and rescue, sustaining our scientists in Antarctica, responding to emergencies like earthquakes or floods, and responding to things like bomb disposal callouts. The most recent examples of this are the roles the Defence Force played in responding to the Kaikōura earthquake, the Edgecumbe floods, and the Port Hills fire. You do not often hear it spoken about, but it is always there supporting, providing that backup that is required on the ground for these types of environmental issues that we sometimes face.

Our top priority is investing prudently and appropriately in the defence and security of New Zealand and its citizens. The international environment continues to change. Although there is a degree of uncertainty on the global stage, this does not change the fact that we are a proud country with an independent defence policy. But as a maritime nation dependent on open trade routes—and I acknowledge the comments made by the Hon Todd McClay and the work that he and his officials are doing in terms of advancing a very ambitious trade policy—we are dependent on those trade routes. Our security and prosperity are closely linked to events occurring far from our shores, and it is a very true statement that when we look internationally, anything that is happening internationally eventually—if it has an adverse effect—will end up washing up on our shores. So it is very important that we are engaged in these issues.

New Zealand therefore needs a flexible, combat-ready Defence Force that is able to support national resilience at home while advancing New Zealand’s interests overseas. We have over 300 personnel in operations overseas, including deployments across the Middle East, such as our training mission, as I have spoken about, in Iraq. Thank you very much.

Hon JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I did not quite hear you call.

Hon JO GOODHEW: Sorry. I was thinking that I might have had competition, but in fact there is no competition at the moment.

I begin my contribution this afternoon by acknowledging that I am a fairly new member to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and I am finding myself quite surprised by the breadth of what the committee handles. Certainly in this examination for the annual review we covered a lot of bases. I am enjoying it and, suffice to say that at this time, as evidenced by some of the comments that we have heard today, my constituents are now more than ever asking me about New Zealand’s reaction to the international situation. So I begin by acknowledging the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s ascension to the foreign affairs ministerial portfolio. I am sure he will do very well, particularly given his work as the Minister of Defence.

But I also want to acknowledge cousin Murray McCully’s role as the previous Minister, and to say that whilst few of us would ever have seen Minister McCully with a happy smile on his face, I think he probably can now look back with some sense of satisfaction on what he achieved—particularly, as we have heard mentioned here, and as the committee discussed, during our time on the United Nations Security Council. It is something for New Zealand to be proud of, and he played a major role in that.

Today I want to spend a bit more time, though, on trade. I want to acknowledge our trade Minister, Todd McClay. I want to do that also because of the importance my constituents place on trade. The seat of Rangitata, of course, is a primary production seat—[Interruption] Oh, I am live and a whole lot louder now.

Alastair Scott: Start again!

Hon JO GOODHEW: It is OK. I am hoping that somewhere it is being recorded. I do want to say that what we heard about trade filled me with quite a lot of hope. So whilst we have had some success and some disappointment on trade negotiations, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being one of those, we caught up in the committee with what progress there was on the possibility of another trade agreement after the TPP—or lack of it. What we also talked about was non-tariff barriers. These are the barriers that are often legally—not always legally—put in place by countries where we already have a trade agreement. We asked Brook Barrington about those. What we were given was an understanding that there are now more people working in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on no-tariff barriers, and that also the Ministry for Primary Industries, as I already knew, has increased the number of people whom it has working in this area.

But I want to bring to this debate this afternoon its answer to a written question about some actual examples of non-tariff barriers, which, having been dealt to, were solved, and what that means for New Zealand. One of these was the World Trade Organization disputes settlement panel ruling in New Zealand’s favour—this is around 18 agricultural non-tariff barriers imposed by Indonesia. That is worth a stunning $500 million to $1 billion to New Zealand in beef exports, and that was a non-tariff barrier that took a lot of time and a lot of resource to solve before that disputes settlement panel. But it was well and truly worth it to New Zealand.

Another one: as we know, New Zealand’s wine industry is going gangbusters, and in fact we have increased the amount of wine that we are selling now—I think I did have the figure down here but I cannot see it just at the moment—but we got an assurance from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario that it would not introduce variable pricing or flexible mark-ups. That is sort of a bit gobbledegook to me, but the thing that really does resonate with me is the fact that that meant $60 million worth of additional revenue for New Zealand. So dealing with these non-tariff barriers is particularly important.

I just wanted to finish with one example on how proceeds of crime funding has been benefiting Customs. Customs got $2.78 million through a contestable process. There was $7 million up for grabs. Initiatives from Government agencies were considered, and we now have a Customs liaison officer in Hong Kong and a Customs employee in the International Targeting Centre in Washington. These are concrete examples of how that money is being spent in our customs environment. Thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I want to focus on the defence component to the annual review. Regularly during the review, the Defence White Paper 2016 was noted as being central to our strategic imperatives, and, indeed, the member opposite has raised the question of the white paper as well, so I would like to address some points around that.

The Defence White Paper 2016 is the Government’s regular consultation with the public around how they perceive New Zealand’s defence needs. The last white paper was in 2010, and clearly there is a need to stay relevant in a changing international environment. Back then, in 2010, Time magazine’s top 10 news stories included US/China tensions and the war in Afghanistan. Our defence paper at that time also noted these international issues.

Five years later in 2015, which was when we actually went out to consult on the paper, the top 10 news stories as reported by USA Today was led by the Paris terrorist attacks and then multiple stateside domestic shootings—that is, 5 years later, terrorism was moving further from offshore into our domestic environment, and our international defence needed to adjust as well. The paper was published in 2016, and it received 294 written submissions and 31 oral submissions from the public.

Several themes emerged, and I think these can be grouped into several areas. What the public told us was that their first concern for defence was looking after our own sovereignty and our exclusive economic zone—that was their first issue. The next area was collaborating with Australia and our Pacific neighbours. They saw that as being very important also. The third area of interest to New Zealanders was in maintaining our international responsibilities. So we got this clear guidance and the annual review noticed this, and I want to describe some of the actions that came from it.

The very first question that was asked in the paper was: what are the major threats or challenges to New Zealand’s security now and in the future? The greatest number of responses indicated terrorism as their main concern, followed a little bit later by climate change. Now in the past few months the Government has responded to this specifically—for example, by enacting the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, which specifically talks to terrorism on the sea.

Historically, attacks on a sovereign nation can occur by land, air, and sea. But we find that nowadays a fourth event is added—that is an attack by cyber. The defence white paper addresses this concern and specifically identifies the issue by saying that “… cyberspace, and the threat to New Zealand civilian and Defence Force networks from cyber attacks, is growing in importance.” So we recognise the issue. The annual review noted that this is where we are going to apply ourselves. But having identified the issue, what is the action? Well, the action stated that “In the face of an increasing cyberspace threat, the Defence Force will develop a new cyber support capability to improve the protection of its networks.” Finally, there is some urgency to doing all of this: “For the Defence Force to remain effective and deployable, it must be able to protect its computer networks against increasing cyber attacks. Defence will therefore begin work immediately to embed the appropriate organisational and personnel arrangements it needs to support the development of this new capability.”

The Government has also identified issues and stated areas that will support New Zealand’s strategic defence direction over the next few decades. These include—and they were commented to us—(1) by strengthening the third offshore patrol vessel, (2) increasing our air surveillance capacity, and (3) as I have mentioned, cyber security support. That is $20 billion over the next 15 years. Clearly then, the Government is protecting our local interests and our international reputation as we seek and support a stable, rules-based international environment. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Stuart Smith—sorry. I had forgotten the member’s first name. Stuart Smith.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): That is quite all right—I answer to most things. Ha! I have to confess that I am a very new member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, so I was not present during the hearings, but I have read the reports and I have found them to be very interesting reading. I would like to, first of all, relate back to the defence white paper. There is a lot of discussion in the white paper about hardware machinery and some IT upgrades and so on. But I think one of the key things to our defence force is the capability of the people themselves. I saw that first-hand in Kaikōura in response to the earthquake, and I have to say the sense of order that they brought to what was quite a chaotic situation was really very heartening. To see how well these people operate under pressure, I think, is the hallmark of a good armed force.

I would like to go back to the paper itself. The $20 billion that is in the capability plan that is identified within that white paper, I think, is something that we as a country must take very, very seriously. We do not have an unlimited ability to pay in these areas. If we do not make long-term plans, as has been the case with this white paper in an attempt to keep putting white papers out and having a structured manner going forward, we will end up making expensive mistakes, as have been made in the past when purchasing very expensive military items. Sometimes we end up with what can, in fact, turn out to be orphans, in terms of military hardware, which cost a lot of money to maintain and can run out of their economic life very quickly and put a country with a limited ability to pay in quite a bit of difficulty.

I want to talk about Dr Brook Barrington, who appeared before the committee—and there were a number of things covered there. I think the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) has a reputation of having the best of the best in the Public Service and, I think, quite rightly so. I know from my own experience, as an exporter in foreign markets, of seeing those people operating in the market, their capability and their service that they give to New Zealand exporters is second to none. We are a very small trading nation, so we have to do what we do extremely well. That requires a well-funded foreign affairs department. It requires good people in the market, and we have that with those people. I think that is really very, very key to our trading future.

Also in the role that I held with New Zealand Winegrowers, we dealt with free-trade agreements and preparing for that. I note in this paper that there was quite a bit of discussion about the proposed EU free-trade agreement, and I am sure that at the moment there will have been a lot of work going on in the background by MFAT people looking at what it is that is possible to be involved in a free-trade agreement—agricultural products is quite clearly pointed out in this paper. The political reality is, in the report at least, that the sensitivity around agricultural products as part of a free-trade agreement is very high. It is going to be quite difficult to deal with that, but the key is that MFAT has the right people actually going around the various industries at the moment and finding out what exactly happens there, what is possible, and what the barriers are to dealing with trade, because when it comes to the negotiations, if they are not well informed, they will undoubtedly lead to an agreement that would not be of very high quality and not of much use to us.

So I am very confident that we have the capability to do that, and I am sure there is a lot of work that has gone on already in behind the scenes. I applaud the PACER-Plus agreement, and that is referred to in this report as well. I think that the development part of that agreement is key, and I think that to actually stand beside our Pacific neighbours is, really, a very important thing. We are a small country; they are even smaller countries, and it is incumbent on us, I think, to deal with that.

I just want to quickly refer to a New Zealand First statement about National Party members—[Bell rung]—moving over there. I think it raises the IQ of both parties if National Party people leave and join New Zealand First.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I just warn the member now. When he is indulged with some extra time, he should not abuse that indulgence.

Reports noted.

Finance and Government Administration Sector

Hon RUTH DYSON (Chairperson of the Government Administration Committee): I am delighted, as chair of the Government Administration Committee, to follow the highly memorable member, Stuart Smith, who has just resumed his seat. I want to acknowledge other members of the committee. We have had a lot of turnover in personnel over recent times. We have just lost Brett Hudson, and today we had the pleasure of Todd Barclay sitting on our committee. So I know that a number of members will now want to be present at our next meeting—10 o’clock next Wednesday, room No. 5. See you there!

Some of the issues that we deal with that I want to touch on in my contribution are sport, broadcasting, and civil defence. We have got quite a wide brief in our committee, but those are the three that I just want to touch on, given that we have such a short time to contribute. But before I get into the detail of those, I want to talk about the increasing concern that I get, not just from my constituents but from people around the party, that New Zealand is feeling a bit rudderless at the moment. We lost John Key as the Prime Minister, and now we have got a new Prime Minister, but someone who is clearly not a leader.

It is a bit like—where is Bill English taking the country? I do not think he is up to dealing with the issues that we are confronting, and those issues are real and serious. I am not even sure that he cares about them, or that he understands them. Things like the fact that in the next generation of New Zealanders there will be a really high percentage who will not be able to afford to buy a home—I do not understand how that is acceptable—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am now going to interrupt my friend and colleague and ask her to come to the report of the committee.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to take up too much time in this debate, but this section covers finance and Government administration, and I can assure the Chair that in the discussion of Treasury and the Government accounts, which appears on page 11 of the consolidated document, this exact topic that my colleague was about to talk about—homeownership—was discussed in some detail.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): While I thank my other friend and colleague for his advice, and will not condemn him for arguing with the Chair, if the member who was speaking had referred to that, I might have been convinced that she was speaking to the report of her committee.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Speaking to the point of order, can I just ask for a point of clarification. So when we are doing this in a sector, but you are a member of a specific committee, is your ruling that we can discuss only—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, no. If the member can refer to the other committees’ specific points, that is fine, too.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I want to move on to the issue of sport, which the presiding officer may find of interest, and this is specifically before the Government Administration Committee. One of the concerns that has been raised during the appropriations debate in this round is the fact that the Labour members, and the Green Party members too, I think, had a clearly expressed view that the National Government’s sports policy and its investment have been far too focused on the elite and high-performing sports at the expense of participation in physical activity. We know that the Government has turned away from much in the health area. We know that it is no longer concerned about obesity. It is no longer concerned about many preventable conditions that are increasingly costing our health services money, but it has also done the same thing in the sports area. So the policy and the funding investment going to the high performance and elite—which, of course, we all love to celebrate—is at the expense of broader participation.

The other area of considerable concern is that of civil defence. We have seen responses in a number of our civil defence situations that caused our committee extreme concern. The most recent was the tsunami warnings related to the Kaikōura disaster. I want to pay a tribute to everyone who responded to the needs of people, not just in the Kaikōura quake but, obviously, in my home town of Christchurch through our series of quakes, as well. This is not a criticism of them in any way, in the same way as it is not a criticism of the civil defence structure and the response to the Port Hills fires, but it is very clear that our civil defence system needs a major shake-up. I am pleased that we have got a cross-party group working on that, and I hope that it comes up with some serious recommendations that are then able to be followed through on.

There is a lot that this country needs. There is a lot that is being ignored by the current Government. Mental health cries out for better support, as does the rest of the health system. We have seen abuse—abuse is not too strong a term—of some Government funding, tragically, through the recovery organisation in Christchurch. I hope the new Minister is able to step up to the mark with the new recovery organisations and ensure that that culture that was bred under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority structure is not replicated under the new recovery agencies. We have had total inaction on Government projects, particularly the anchor projects, in our city. We need a bit of leadership, and our city is looking to the new Minister for that.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to focus my comments today around the finance sector part of the finance and government administration Sector. I want to start by recalling a debate that happened in the committee when we were discussing this and the Minister and Treasury came to us and told us about New Zealand’s growth rates. They told us that we should be very proud because New Zealand was growing at a faster rate than many other countries that we looked at. It took only a couple of minutes for that to unravel when we looked at the numbers, which showed us that, in two core areas, New Zealand was falling behind. In labour productivity—in what we get for the hours of work that New Zealanders put in—what are the outcomes of that? New Zealanders are working longer hours than ever, but our productivity at the other end—our output at the other end—is not keeping up, to the extent that we now have the fourth-lowest labour productivity in the OECD.

The second statistic that emerged in that discussion in the committee was around what GDP means. What does that mean for us? The Government was very pleased to say: “Oh, we have got GDP up, you know, 3 percent. Growth is happening.” Actually, GDP per capita is 8 percent below the OECD average. Just adding more people into our country does not mean that we are sustainably growing—8 percent below the OECD average. So what we would have looked for and what we hoped for when officials and Ministers came to discuss the activities of their departments was some kind of plan or vision for lifting our per capita wealth, for making New Zealanders feel as though not only will they get wealthy from selling houses to each other but there might actually be jobs with higher wages. Today we got the example again—Steven Joyce stood up in the House, just as the Government has on growth figures, and crowed about the employment figures. Look at the wages figures that were announced today: 1.6 percent on average wage increase in the last quarter, and 2.2 percent inflation. Wages are not keeping up with the cost of living.

That is certainly the case when it comes to housing costs, another matter that was debated at length in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Housing costs last year, according to Statistics New Zealand’s household economic survey, wiped out wage increases for most New Zealanders. New Zealanders were a dollar a day better off on average—$1 a day better off on average—because housing costs have gone through the roof. Today, here in Wellington, we discovered that house prices went up by 20 percent in 1 year. That is unsustainable. It cannot carry on that way, and it will push people further and further away from owning their own home.

In this section, we were looking for a Government with a vision for sustainably growing the economy, for making sure that New Zealanders get a fair share in prosperity, and it is not there. What we have seen consistently from this Government is complacency and lack of leadership when it comes to making sure that everybody gets a fair go. We are about to get a Budget in which again the Government will say: “Look at that surplus.” Well, underneath that surplus is a series of deficits: a massive infrastructure deficit, lack of investment in housing and our rail services, lack of investment in rural and regional roads. All of that is adding up to Steven Joyce now being able to say: “I have got to put $11 billion in over 4 years.” Not even $11 billion over 4 years will make up for the deficit in infrastructure that has been built up by this Government.

Then there are the social deficits. It is the people in New Zealand who look at the economy growing and say “Where is my fair share?” who are constantly faced with more costs for housing—the 41,000 who are homeless, the young parents who are asked every single day for more donations so that their kids can be part of what used to be called our “free” education system. And then there is the health sector, where every organisation that works in the health sector is being squeezed and squeezed and asked to provide more with less. Those are the social deficits that sit underneath what this Government would like to claim is a great success in the economy. The economy is not an end in itself; it is about what it delivers for our people. It is time that we actually made that our priority, and when we look at what the Government has done over the last couple of years, it has not put people first. It is time to put people first in the economy and make the outcomes we deliver for everyday New Zealanders the most important thing.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): What a pleasure to be able to speak to, particularly, the financial side of the appropriations debate. It is great to see—when I think back to some of the challenges that this Government has had to deal with over the years, whether they have been natural disasters or the global financial crisis, I actually think the Government has done extremely well, and so have the people of New Zealand by working hard, by paying their taxes, and by, in most cases, being really good citizens of this country. We are very lucky in New Zealand to have such decent people.

I think one of the interesting things, when I have been looking at this going forward, for the appropriations, is to think about the fact that—I think we all remember what happened when we said as a Government that we were going to float 49 percent of some of the big State-owned enterprises (SOEs), particularly in the electricity sector. Of course, this is absolutely crucial to our economy, the electricity sector, as South Australia is finding out. What was going to happen? Well, there were marches on the streets, there was all sorts of talk from the Opposition—it was going to be the end of the world, we were selling out New Zealand. Well, actually, what has happened is, in some cases you might expect that we would have got a reduction of about half of the dividends from these SOEs.

I think it is important just to note that part of the reason we are actually in a much better position as a Government and as a country is that now, for instance, just as an example, Genesis is now paying us not half the dividends it used to pay us when we owned the entire number of shares—the 100 percent of the shares—but it is now actually paying us twice as much as it ever used to do. Actually, I think that is one of the great things out of this Government, and if I look at it, I think that, really, we have put a tremendous amount of taxpayer money and thought and effort into asking how we can make Government work better, how we can make Government-owned assets work better, and how we can do better for people.

If I look at the Inland Revenue Department area—and I just need to do this, because revenue does not get enough points for trying so hard, and, as I said to the Inland Revenue Department when I became its Minister: “It is all right, I just want to turn you into the most popular of all Government departments.” I am going to read to the Committee today a little skite note, an email received yesterday. This is your new reporting system. This is not my email; this is to the Inland Revenue Department: “I cannot believe how you keep improving this service.” Oh, is that not lovely? “This is the most simplest”—I think they meant most simple, but you know—“and effective way of reporting GST. Congratulations to those who implemented it.”

This is a genuine email from a genuine person, although the Inland Revenue Department did delete all of the details so I did not know exactly who it was, but it assured me it was none of its staff, and it was not me or anyone connected to me—that I am aware of. I actually think that is part of the Business Transformation project, that we have invested—last year we put $1 billion, essentially, into making the Inland Revenue Department work more simply and better for New Zealand taxpayers.

So GST came online, on this new system, on Waitangi weekend this year. Next year we will have in place, sometime during that year, a new system to allow businesses, small businesses that currently pay provisional and terminal tax—which I have to say, as a former business owner, is a complete bane of any small-business owner’s life. We are going to turn that around so that it can be paid on a monthly basis, just like a PAYE-type system. So every month, on the new accounting systems that so many of us have, we will be moving into, basically, a pay-as-you-go type system for small businesses.

This will take out one of the major reasons that many small businesses fail in their first 2 years, and, actually, this is about using technology in a smart way to help New Zealand. One of the big complaints I have had from big businesses is: “When can we have it too?”. Well, we are working on that. Let us get the small businesses done first. Let us move down that process. So this is what we are trying to do: make Government work better for New Zealanders. That is what we are after. Also, along the way, we are putting in a bit of effort around the multinationals and how they could also help add to the tax pool, and I am very pleased with the great support I have had around the House for that.

BARRY COATES (Green): I rise to address the Committee as a result of the reviews undertaken by the Government Administration Committee and, in particular, I want to focus on one of the reviews, which is of the State Services Commission. We do not, I think, often enough in this House, talk about the processes of Government themselves. One of the issues that we addressed in this departmental review was to raise questions of the State Services Commissioner about the independence of the Public Service. Now, this is important because of the unprecedented politicisation of our Public Service in recent years.

We asked the State Services Commissioner what provisions there are to ensure that there is maintained independence and integrity of the Public Service. We need to ensure that there is not undue political pressure, interference, and bullying by Ministers. On page 454 is the answer from the commissioner and, frankly, the answers were not reassuring. There is the aim that political neutrality should be the cornerstone of the Public Service, but we did not hear about what will actually make that happen. Just as one example, we saw the disgraceful vilification of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials just over a year ago, with reports of micro-management, bullying, and blaming of civil servants. That is just one example from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We hear of other examples as well.

The ethos of public service that we would like to ensure is part of the pride and the job satisfaction of every civil servant is being rapidly eroded. The report of the Controller and Auditor-General, in the reflections on audits this year, acknowledged this issue and said that there needed to be attention given to this. So as part of this agenda we have seen a huge rise in the number of political advisers. Their role is political spin. Their role is not neutrality.

We have seen political appointments across quangos; we have seen boards, councils, and committees of universities, of educational institutions, of institutions across our society, stacked full of political appointees. We are having the politicisation of a whole new level of quangos in our society, and they wield tremendous amounts of power, often without accountability mechanisms. We have seen Ministers deliberately withholding potentially embarrassing reports under the Official Information Act. We have seen secrecy in negotiations like trade agreements, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and even on an agreement like PACER-Plus, which is apparently in the interests of the Pacific Island countries. But it is all kept secret.

So what we are seeing is that the very principle of open government, which should be at the heart of the work of this House, is not being implemented. We have seen the abuse of political fund-raising and large political donations from recipients of visas issued under ministerial discretion. We need a proper code of conduct for MPs, and we need rules on lobbyists. So the State Services Commission says that the public needs to have trust and confidence and that the Public Service should remain politically neutral. I say, from my understanding, that the public has totally lost confidence with the neutrality of the Public Service. They have lost confidence with the integrity of our political system. I can undertake that the Green Party, if elected to Government, will restore honesty in Government—that is so vital. Thank you.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I just want to address a statement from the Minister who was in the chair, Judith Collins. She spoke about the electricity sector. It was not what I was going to get up to talk about, but I just want to point out that since the reforms, electricity prices in New Zealand have gone up 146 percent. I give her credit, in that she acknowledges the efficiency of big business. I will tell you what it has been really efficient at: it has been incredibly efficient at cost saving, and not passing a cent of that on to New Zealand households. How do I know this? It is because prices this winter have already gone up, or are pegged to go up, yet again. So what the Minister is actually proud of, and what she is extolling in this Committee this afternoon, is a tax by stealth. Yes, Government revenues have gone up because those dividends have gone up, because of the efficiency of big business to take money away from households, create those savings, and pass them on to, essentially, what will, in the main, be overseas investors.

What I wanted to talk about was the Reserve Bank. I want to congratulate it on acting independently—I speak specifically to loan-to-value ratios. I want to acknowledge it because it was running counter to the Government’s ineptitude and casual disregard of what is causing this country’s housing crisis. If it were not for the Reserve Bank’s actions—and we see this in the report from the committee earlier this year—we would be in dire straits right now. This country and its people are suffering from a market that is shutting them out. New Zealanders are not able to buy homes, and to add insult to injury, effectively, what that means is rental prices have gone through the roof. So if you cannot buy a home—which is almost impossible in Auckland, because, what is it, it is still over $1 million despite the quietening of the market, and that is only thanks to the Reserve Bank. It is so expensive to rent.

So here we are, struggling through the situation—a housing crisis is just one example—and what does the Government do? It continues with unsustainable immigration numbers, it blames councils, and it describes the scramble by private developers to build homes, next to none of which will be affordable, as a success of the Government. I think now the continued denial, coupled with the absurd spin, has angered the everyday people of New Zealand enough for them to at least question their historic loyalty to that tired and out-of-touch Government.

That Government’s disdain and disregard for people is perhaps best typified in one of the reports we received, and that was around the $1,000 kick-start package to do with KiwiSaver, managed by the IRD. At the time, New Zealand First got up and spoke to the detrimental effect that it would have on the uptake of people signing up to KiwiSaver. We were literally laughed at and abused by that side of the Chamber, yet not a month later—and this continues to be proven to be true—sign-up rates have decreased. And what do you know; it is actually the children who have been missing out, as parents are now opting to not sign their kids up to KiwiSaver, because they are not getting that kick-start package.

The National Government is shirking its responsibilities with regard to bank guarantees—another Vote issue brought up in select committee. Kiwi depositors are now missing out. Clearly, the National Government could not care less about ordinary New Zealanders and their savings. I say this because—and I quote Mr Mortlock, a banking expert, who says: “Depositors in New Zealand have no protection in a bank failure. [We are] the only advanced country in the world without any form of depositor protection.” That typifies the thinking of the National Government today.

And so it is that I say in closing that the National Government has lost leadership. It has lost the ability to shirk off the responsibilities and the decisions that it is not making. Those three or four examples that I have given the Committee this afternoon are just a small snippet from the appropriations debate that highlights that fact. Thank you.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call here, and to look at the report of the annual review of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. DPMC, or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has three functions: national security and intelligence coordination, the management and oversight of the civil defence emergency management, and, of course, what I will focus on, the monitoring of the Greater Christchurch regeneration programme, which now sits within DPMC after the disbandment of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) with the legislation that was passed last year. This was an important annual review for DPMC, because this is one of the first times that Parliament, through the select committee process, got to question the chief executive about how the new entities of Ōtākaro Ltd and Regenerate Christchurch were performing in relation to DPMC and the regeneration of Christchurch. The questions that were asked at the Government Administration Committee, which are covered off in the report, are wide ranging.

First of all, there are the lessons from the Canterbury earthquakes. This is something where I am eager that we do not sweep under the carpet some of the more difficult bits of what has been, first of all, our crisis period, and then our recovery, and now our regeneration, and not learn all the lessons that need to be learnt from this. This was covered off when the chief executive came to the select committee and questions were asked, as was the very vexing issue of the insurance industry. I wonder whether one of the Government members, when they take a call under this theme, may give us an update about the report that is mentioned in the select committee report, which was expected to be completed by 31 March 2017, which will include lessons about the insurance industry and how that performed, and whether or not that would include, of course, the Government insurers, both through the Earthquake Commission, and through, of course, the Crown-owned insurer Southern Response.

Of course, we know that the Earthquake Commission itself has thousands of unfinished claims, whether they be claims that have not been begun, or claims that are having to go back and be re-repaired. This is something that is stopping many thousands of Cantabrians from getting on with their lives, and this is something that certainly needs to be examined whenever we are thinking about how it is that our regeneration and our recovery is going in Canterbury.

Another area that was canvassed was the East Frame anchor project. The East Frame, of course, was one of 13 anchor projects that were CERA-led and have now transferred to Ōtākaro in various forms—none of which have been completed according to the original time lines, as were set out in the cost-share agreements. As they were reconfigured—they all have needed to be re-negotiated—what we have seen is the private sector going gangbusters in Canterbury and some really exciting developments growing in the CBD of Christchurch, but what we have now is the Government anchor projects being the kind of anchors that weigh things down. We can look at the empty lot where the East Frame has sat vacant for many years. We can look at the hole in the ground in Cathedral Square where we should have a convention centre. We can look around and see that, really, we need some impetus from the Government—so, being able to talk about that, and talk about what the expected time frames are when we could finally see some of the stimulus that we were promised from these anchor projects come to fruition.

Most concerningly, this was also a chance to question DPMC about the various serious allegations of conflicts of interest in the former CERA organisation. Further to those serious allegations of conflicts of interest, we now know, in addition to the original three—two of which have been referred to the Serious Fraud Office, given how serious they were—that there are at least a further three individuals within the CERA organisation who are being investigated by DPMC for conflicts of interest. This is a great concern to us. This is the kind of way in which we are not used to seeing Government operate in New Zealand, and it is not something that we in Labour are willing to tolerate. We call on the Government repeatedly to have a wide-ranging inquiry into this. Why it is that it thinks it can confine it to a shopping list of three names that have been supplied by the original three under suspicion is beyond me. We must learn the lessons of what has happened in Canterbury, and I think that the report that the select committee has produced there makes it clear that we need to see that leadership from the new Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration that will make sure it is a success.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the review of the Treasury part of this debate. I want to focus in particular on page 11, which is the alternatives to GDP discussion that James Shaw had in the committee and which is in the report with the Prime Minister. But I want to start with a bit of a story.

At the time that Tāne Māhuta, the great kauri tree in the Waipoua Forest, was just a sapling growing up North, on the other side of the planet, a great city was being sacked and a new noun was being added to our lexicon. In AD 455 Genseric, the king of the Vandals, along with his army, stood outside the gates of the city of Rome. At the time, the emperor and half the population fled the city in terror, and for 14 days the Vandals sacked the city. They destroyed and damaged buildings, including the great temple, they carted off loads of treasure, and for ever their name was immortalised with the act of vandalism. They are also famous across the Greek world, because what they would do to get the little bit of lead inside the Greek temples was dismantle the great marble blocks—just to get that little bit of lead. When we do not measure the real things, when we do not look at the big picture, when we measure only those short-term little inputs or costs, we miss out. This is why I want to talk about the risk of the vandals today.

That tribe became synonymous with vandals, but, 1,500 years on, the vandals are not at our gates anymore; in fact, they are in charge of our country. The vandals do not wear warpaint or carry swords anymore; they wear suits and they carry resource consents. These environmental vandals, who do not have an idea of the big picture or the important things that we should be measuring, are wrecking our waterways, are plundering our forests, and are throwing our “clean, green” brand on a bonfire of ideology. You can see it in the report when the Prime Minister says: “We’re thinking about it. We have been thinking about measuring broader things than just gross domestic product since 2011, but we’re not going to do it.”

Take what it means in the real world. When you look at our rivers and lakes, our kids are getting sick because they are just so dirty. Everyone knows what the problem is. The problem is that we have got the equivalent of 90 million people releasing their effluent into the environment and we are treating only 10 percent of it. We are counting only the economic benefits; we are not counting the economic costs. What we see instead of making our rivers and lakes swimmable—we are not focused on measuring and counting and fixing, or on making them swimmable—is, in fact, a changing of the definition to “just swimmable”. That is just like someone scratching your car and calling it art as an excuse.

You can see the same with our conservation estate. Rome was not sacked in a single day, and we are seeing the same thing with our conservation estate—death by a thousand cuts. When we do not measure the important things in life, we see what the Vandals did—taking it out. The Department of Conservation is the guardian of our national estate—$20 billion in economic benefit to New Zealand has been estimated because of our “clean, green” brand. But instead of protection or counting the important things, what we get are slogans—a War on Weeds, a Battle for our Birds—and targets that are so ridiculously far in the future that those who will actually be responsible when their call is due will be ancient history.

You can also see it in the vandalism of our climate when we do not measure the important things, because then you do things like promoting and subsidising oil drilling, promoting coal mining, and opening up the Maui’s dolphin sanctuary and the shores of Lake Te Anau to oil drilling. That is what happens. This is worse than fiddling while Rome burns in the midst of a climate crisis. In fact, it is just like pouring petrol on the fire. Now, the Prime Minister has had 9 years to address this—to count the impacts of our toxic rivers, the species going instinct, the conservation estate being degraded. But, instead, what we saw was a Prime Minister who stood before us and said: “I came, I saw, and I squandered.” How will historians look back at this generation and the actions and inactions contained in this report? We have all the advice, all the science, all the experts telling us what we could do, but instead of acting to protect our environment, the Government simply made it worse.

I talk about Rome because we do not have those gigantic, great temples, and we do not have cartloads of gold and treasure; but we have got something more important—our natural environment. And that is more valuable than any gold. Our forests and our rivers, they are our temples. The birdsong is our choir. As New Zealanders, these are the important things, and if we do not measure it, we are not protecting it. We can build, protect, and restore. The environment and the economy do not have to be in conflict or traded off just to get a quick buck, like those Vandals did, pulling out the iron from between the marble blocks. In this debate, I wanted to talk about the things we can do better. We can measure the important things in life.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to stand and speak on this, the finance and government administration Sector of this appropriations debate. First, I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Government Administration Committee, who so kindly noted that I am a former member of that committee. I have, in fact, switched across to the other committee in this sector or theme, which is the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

I would like to just begin by referencing a contribution by Mr Tabuteau a few minutes ago. I would note that he had a lot to say, and as with the economic development and infrastructure sector yesterday, I would just like to offer a suggestion: that he might like to actually try to sit on the committees whose reports he pontificates upon, so that he might be able to give a little more detail and factual basis to his comments.

For instance, one thing he raised was a decline in the number of sign-ups to KiwiSaver from children. Before the change came into place it had been shown that this is a group that would sign up to receive some free Government money and then not make any more contributions or deposits for many years. New Zealand First thinks that their no longer signing up to get some free money from the rest of the taxpayers and making no personal contributions for years is somehow a bad thing. In the spirit of good, sensible fiscal management, I would just encourage the constituents of Ōhāriu to pay very close attention to the ideas of New Zealand First and how they would squander taxpayer money, and to think very deeply about what it would mean for this country if New Zealand First were to form part of a Government after 23 September.

As to the rest of this contribution on this theme, I would like to draw upon elements of the report from the Government Administration Committee on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). We had a lot to ask the head of that department and others about the things that had been learnt from the Christchurch earthquake, what had worked well, and what had perhaps not worked as well as people would have liked with the Kaikōura earthquake last year—which not only deeply affected that part of the country but also had some effects here in Wellington.

One thing that was certainly reinforced to us is that the model of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) at the moment—which is that you have coordination at the centre, going out and devolving responsibility and action to the local areas—is the most effective way of dealing with those sorts of events, emergencies, and needs, because the people on the ground in those areas are in the best place to assess immediate need.

DPMC and MCDEM did acknowledge that there were still some areas that need further refinement. One of them that was noted was some inconsistency around tsunami alerts in the immediate aftermath of the Kaikōura quake. It is very pleasing to see that after the review—and it was highlighted in the review—the Government made it very clear that we will be investing in an early warning system and looking to take advantage of the broadcast capability across the cellular network to reach as many New Zealanders as possible to give them timely and appropriate information. That is a good example of actually taking something that did not work as well as we would have liked in the moment but that we could, in very short order, improve upon.

I would just like to talk about the effects in Wellington, and, in particular, the note that the State Services Commissioner, in that report, had to make to us. While Wellington was quite adversely affected by this quake, one of the things the State sector responded to a lot more effectively was rehousing employees and also getting systems operational again, particularly its IT systems. That is valuable not only for their internal activities but also for the ability for citizens to interact with those agencies, with the Government, particularly as more and more services are being delivered over online platforms. In fact, this Government announced today an even greater target for even more services to be delivered over online platforms into the future. So I am very, very pleased to be able to present and talk on those reports. Thank you very much.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration): As the new Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration, I would like to take this opportunity to give the Committee a bit of a progress update on what has been happening in Christchurch and Canterbury. Some of the key topics of the annual review of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet were around the regeneration of Christchurch and how it was progressing, and also about some of the lessons that we learnt in that process.

I will start by looking at the legislation. As the chief executive, Andrew Kibblewhite, noted, we are already using what we learnt in creating the Canterbury legislation. We are using that in response to new disasters. In particular, we were able to draw on its strengths for the two bills that we created to assist Kaikōura in their post-earthquake stages. We have managed the Kaikōura situation better because of what we learnt in Christchurch and Canterbury, and we do need to ensure, and I think everyone agrees, that we learn those lessons and we make sure that we can manage natural disasters in a better way in the future.

Actually, I was speaking to some of the leaders of Ngāi Tahu this morning, and they were saying that because of their experience in Christchurch, they were able to have a much better local response in Kaikōura. But they also said that there is more work to be done, particularly in futureproofing their marae on the West Coast as we learn more about the Alpine Fault. We also learnt that active outreach and good communication is absolutely essential in supporting people following a natural disaster. What we have learnt is that people must know what is going on in their communities, they must know what services are available, and they must know how to access them. What we also learnt in Canterbury is that we need to be able to communicate in multiple ways and often in multiple times. Communication has to be ongoing.

There were also learnings from Christchurch that we can apply in the insurance sector. The annual review notes that we need to ensure that our insurance organisations are more people-friendly and customer-focused. Certainly, the new collaborative model, which the Earthquake Commission and the insurance companies are working with in Kaikōura, is improving their customer service, is streamlining the process, and will make the outcomes of claims much faster.

I would also just like to take a moment to comment on the Ōtākaro Ltd annual review. Ōtākaro Ltd is the organisation that is responsible for the Crown land holdings and the Crown anchor projects in Christchurch, and it is using that work to support the regeneration of the city and the handover of the assets to local control and governance in the long term. One of the issues that we talked about was East Frame. East Frame is a fantastic Christchurch City anchor project. It is about creating a vibrant, people-friendly community in the centre of our city. It will be building 900 homes, and we expect over 2,000 people to live in that area. The whole project will be staged over an 8- to 10-year period. It has already begun, they have started work on the first super-lot, and those 20 homes will be completed by mid-2018, which is actually a little bit ahead of schedule in terms of the contract. Then the next stage of 200 homes on top of that will be completed by mid-2019. That will give the whole city centre a real shot in the arm.

I think it is important we give Ōtākaro Ltd credit for getting the planning of this big project right, but also I would like to acknowledge Fletcher Living, which has committed to making all these homes accessible, which will mean lots of people will be able to use them in the future, regardless of their age or stage of life. We will also be staggering the construction of these homes so that it fits in with demand. As the new Minister, I have been able to eyeball both Ōtākaro Ltd and Fletcher Living, and both the CEOs have given me an absolute assurance that it will be finished on time and on budget, so I am looking forward to that.

Ōtākaro Ltd has also been working with the city council, and it will be working towards creating the assets that we can hand over in the long term. This is about a process of regeneration, a process of the Crown handing over to local governance, and it is good for Christchurch. Kia ora.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I am very pleased to speak in this debate because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the Public Service and how public service is now targeted and is highly prioritised by this Government to improve its interaction with small business and enterprise. In fact, Result 9 of the Better Public Services targets is to do with small business and provides New Zealand business with a one-stop shop for all Government services and support. It is a large target—a reduction in effort for small business in New Zealand in doing business with the Government by 25 percent. It is an aspirational target but it is one that, as the small business Minister, I am committed to working towards.

Result 9: Better for Business takes the form of collaboration with a number of Government agencies quite effectively. I have seen it in action, and I will mention it briefly in a moment. But the agencies that are in the Better Public Services Result 9 partnership are the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, ACC, Callaghan Innovation, IRD, Ministry for Primary Industries, the Customs Service, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, the New Zealand Transport Agency, Statistics New Zealand, and WorkSafe New Zealand.

Those ministries are all collaborating with each other, with a view of doing better business with small business in New Zealand, which arguably is the most important sector of the New Zealand economy. Of course, I would say that as small business Minister, but you will find small businesses ranging from a single person who has a wonderful idea and wishes to take it up, and then finds themselves needing to interact with the Government because they do need to pay PAYE and provisional tax, and they do have Inland Revenue Department obligations and WorkSafe obligations. We do want those very small start-up businesses, which are one person who has developed a wonderful product and wishes to sell it and make a living—we want to make it easier for those people, as much as for the local car dealership or the local restaurant that has five or six or more employees, to do business with the Government.

A lot of that Government interaction now is being moved on to an online platform, and, if we had time, we could traverse some of the online web pages that the Government is providing. There is now a wealth of information and interactive functions on websites that do support making doing business with the Government more possible. I want to highlight, for example, business.govt.nz, which is the website that small businesses can go to, to have a look at a number of the functions that they have to undertake when they are interacting with the Government. For example, there is an employment agreement builder on business.govt.nz and a number of small businesses have used that tool to do an employment agreement. That is a functionality that is really working for New Zealand.

I want to make a bit of a plug for the small-business roadshows. My predecessor undertook 24 small-business roadshows, which brought representatives of Inland Revenue Department, WorkSafe, Work and Income, and a number of Government agencies to many towns all around New Zealand. I am continuing with that programme this year. The usefulness of that for small business is that they can come along to a forum at somewhere like Cromwell, and the Government literally comes to them. I plan to do 10 to 15 this year, as time permits, but overwhelmingly the feedback from those small-business roadshows is that it is so good to know that the Government is focused on doing a better job of supporting small business in New Zealand, and, equally, those ministries get excellent feedback from small business about their needs. If the Government is going to do a good job for small business, then it not only has to say: “OK, you can now go on to the IRD website and if you register, you can calculate your GST obligations, and then you can pay your GST without logging out again.”—not only is that functionality important to tell people, but we have to listen to small business in New Zealand. It is a very important part of our economy.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Tiamana, kia ora tātou. In speaking in this appropriations debate I want to refer to the Government administration component, in particular—the Government Administration Committee is, of course, the committee that I sit on as deputy chair. This Government is undertaking a significant range of improvements to the services that are offered to New Zealand citizens, particularly in the digital transactions space. For the first time in our history, the majority—more than 50 percent—of the 10 most commonly performed transactions between citizens and the Government are now delivered in a digital format. This is incredibly useful in terms of efficiency, cost savings, making it easier, and the sheer convenience for the members of the public who want to renew a passport, for instance, or register the birth of their new child—these sorts of things.

But also I think it offers interesting opportunities for some of our citizens who are more vulnerable and have traditionally been less engaged. So, for instance, those with disabilities now can access online a service where a form can be presented to them in an accessible manner and they can have the information read out to them. This is wonderful for engaging members of our deaf and hearing-impaired community, for members of the blind population, and for others who have traditionally had difficulty getting to a Government office to undertake a manual, paper-based transaction. So I think this is a very positive measure. In fact, Kiwis are rightfully demanding access to these services online and, as a result of some of the convenience and the innovations that are being offered, there has been an increase in the uptake and compliance with some of the requirements—the bureaucratic requirements—that we impose upon our citizens.

To give an example, passport services are now almost entirely available online. Rather than going down to the pharmacy to have a photo taken and printed out on a polaroid, to post in, one can actually now take one’s passport photo on a smartphone and append it to an application. This has seen a real boost in the number of passport applications that are being delivered online. We are informed, and the departmental—well, certainly the select committee’s report on the Department of Internal Affairs appropriations is worth looking at because it reflects on the fact that nearly 23,000 passport applications were processed online in the month of September 2016. And, of course, people do not need to be reminded that their passport is now valid for 10 years—a very good cost saving and certainly a time saving that has been provided to New Zealand citizens, thanks to the foresightedness of this Government, this National-led Government, and, with other Government services, I think there have been real improvements made.

Another issue that the Department of Internal Affairs appropriations covers is the SmartStart programme. This is an integration of different digital services to effectively provide a one-stop shop for parents who are wanting to go through the paperwork side of having a new addition to the family—a new baby. This is where the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Health, the Inland Revenue Department, and even external agencies like Plunket and New Zealand midwives cooperate and work together so that as a new parent you do not have to go through the rigmarole and difficulty of actually finding out who it is you need to talk to about all these different processes.

This is everything from registering the name to make sure that your new baby is able to access the wonderful top-quality healthcare that is provided in our public health system, thanks in large part to the sterling work of the Minister of Health, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, but also the other things that you need to do—getting an IRD number so that your new addition to your family is set up for their first savings account, and these sorts of things. This has all been made much, much easier, all put together in a one-stop shop, and I think this is very much the way of the future. This is something that this Government is focusing on—making sure that our citizens, the people of our great country, have access to Government services in a very convenient way.

There are some other important issues in this area of appropriations, such as the reform of the New Zealand Fire Service into Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and I think these have been very well covered in this debate.

Reports noted.

Health Sector

SIMON O’CONNOR (Chairperson of the Health Committee): I will take a happy 5 minutes on this. The health sector is in excellent shape. It has been acknowledged by my colleague who has just resumed his seat, actually, Paul Foster-Bell, as he segued from Government administration into health and the strong leadership that has been shown by the Minister of Health in, importantly, leading an entire sector of people. In fact, even in recent days the whole TerraNova Homes and Care settlement is just an indication of that good work continuing. But I think it is important, obviously, as we are talking here today, that it is about the year that has gone past, and, as I say, it is in a very good shape. Can I acknowledge the other members of the committee who sat through the various hearings—I found that a very constructive process—and particularly those groups who came in and presented to us, for their openness.

Look, the health sector is huge, it is substantial; we are talking 20 district health boards (DHBs) and a whole array of ancillary organisations—everything from the likes of Pharmac to the Blood Service, and it was a very good chance to sample some of those organisations, if you will. Again, each has little niggles and challenges and some have some that are similar. In fact, I do not know how other members found it, but we actually brought four DHBs in at one point, the smaller ones, to talk to us. We did something quite unusual in the select committee, which was to bring them all up together and have a discussion with the chairs and chief executives. It was a really good way to get a bit of a sense of the synergy between them, how they are cooperating, some of the similar challenges, and, really importantly, how they have been empowered to manage those challenges, from how they are managing their finances and reducing the deficits to how they are making sure they are targeting the particular needs of their community.

I think that is quite important because from time to time we hear challenges, be they financial, in surgery, with children, smoking cessation, or in mental health. What was really important, coming through in these hearings, was actually that the DHBs are very aware of that. They are very aware of the funding they have, and in many cases they have sought extra funding and that has been provided—Canterbury is a perfectly good example of that and of how they in turn are able to respond. Look, we know that a record-breaking $16.1 billion is spent in health in New Zealand. That is a substantial increase, and it was very interesting to hear how those DHBs in particular have worked to spend that money.

We heard about the growing success of the bowel screening programme, starting up, actually, in the Minister of Health’s area in the Waitematā DHB and moving around the country. I know, both from the hearings that we had but also, importantly, I suppose, from my anecdotal engagement with various groups in the country, that that has been very well received.

We had a number of groups talk around the growing success around our online portal. A lot of New Zealanders will know that you can access your health records online now, and, as a small pitch, I encourage those who cannot, particularly when they are seeing their GPs, to have a talk to their GP at the end of the consultation and encourage them to do that.

We have heard of the success around immunisation. Rather scandalously—granted, it goes back many years now, to about 2007—only 67 percent of our young people were immunised. Actually, the great work that has been led by the Minister, the ministry, and right through to the DHBs and those on the frontline is now seeing about 95 percent of our young people having their immunisations. If I might just make one quick comment, in respect of the anti-vaccination, anti-immunisation materials that have been put out in public—a certain disappointment might be the diplomatic way to put it, and for those who are listening, basically do not believe a bar of it. There has been far too much pseudo-science out there around these things and it is basically palaver, for want of another polite word.

We have also seen and heard about the importance around the extra spend into Pharmac—an extra $125 million, I believe, was found last year to support the work of Pharmac. You have heard me saying in the House before that the whole developing pharmacological area is quite fascinating, but it is also going to make a huge, huge difference. Two of the highlights that were noted to us were, obviously, the funding of pembrolizumab—most people will know that as Keytruda, for melanoma cancers. Importantly, that has been extended further now. I think they are looking into the area of lung cancer. And—really successfully, too—funding for the hepatitis C drugs is quite a remarkable opportunity there.

So, look, 5 minutes does not quite provide enough time to go through the enormity that is the health sector, but it is in incredibly good shape, and I am confident that other members on either side of the Chamber or the Minister of Health himself will be highlighting these strongly and importantly. Oh, and I should just add—seeing as I have got 5 seconds left—the whole smoking cessation project was well articulated and is going well throughout the country.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): A voice from the past. Can I just say that I have missed my weekly joust with the Minister of Health, and I fear that without them he is getting rather slack, so I thought that it was time that I came back to tell him what I thought of the health system. I have decided there is so much you could talk about, including the missing $1.7 billion out of the health budget by not meeting all the cost pressures, wage pressures, and population growth. There are many things I could talk about, but I want to concentrate, Minister, on the Ministry of Health.

Part of our annual review—and I fear that the Minister and this Parliament are being let down by the current Ministry of Health and the advice that it is providing, and I believe that this year it was one of the weakest performances that I have seen at a select committee in many years from the Ministry of Health. I want to concentrate on four issues, Minister. I am sure you have read the report from the Health Committee—and I would like to commend Simon O’Connor, the member who has just sat down, for his excellent chairing of our committee—but these were the four issues that I wanted to raise.

The Ministry of Health’s Ministry on the Move project—the Minister was misled by his own chief executive in terms of what money was going to be required, and I think that that was a very big oversight by a director-general in charge of one of the biggest ministries. The Minister was not kept informed that the ministry did not have the money that it said it had for its Ministry on the Move project, and there is much more, I believe, to come out in terms of the cost of the Wellington premises. It was very hard to get information about the lease, how long it will be, etc. We then found out at the committee that it is costing the ministry $250,000 more a year than the original estimate on the lease of this building, and now it is going to try to get some extra money in by having other agencies come in, including a health hub and maybe even a McDonald’s—who knows? It needs to have extra money to pay for it. It was poorly organised and poorly managed, and I think the Minister has every right to be very disappointed.

The second area I want to talk about is in terms of the bowel-screening programme. The bowel-screening programme, and the roll-out of it, was first announced in 2007 and then we waited and we had a pilot and we waited and we waited. Credit goes to this Minister. He is rolling out the bowel-screening programme. But, Minister, one thing you ought to be very worried about was the answer we received from the ministry about whether there would be funding for district health boards (DHBs) to do the follow-up services once they have screened the patients. What we heard from the DHBs was that they are expected to cover the increase for treatment out of their baselines.

If we are running a proper screening programme, I do not believe a Government can just say to cash-strapped DHBs “You find it to do the treatment.”, because we will have people on the never-never for treatment if there is not enough money to do it. Minister, that has to be addressed. For a successful roll-out, there needs to be not only the screening and the identification of people who need treatment but funding to help in the treatment itself.

The third issue I wanted to raise is in mental health, and mental health has emerged as the issue for 2017. I believe that it will be the issue for this election because there is huge concern around New Zealand at what is happening in mental health. I believe, Minister, that your ministry has got its head stuck in the sand. It is not listening to what is being said out there in the community about the huge need for mental health services.

Services for emergency mental health—people are turning up at emergency departments having been brought into those departments by the New Zealand Police, and they are unable to provide the services because their acute wards are already full. There desperately needs to be a review of mental health services. What is happening? Do not be afraid, Minister, to say “I want to get to the bottom of what’s happening in mental health.” It is far too important to listen to the soothing words we got from the ministry.

The final thing I wanted to raise, Minister, is funding for primary health care. There is, no doubt, a campaign this year by primary health providers to fill the hole that has emerged, they believe, in the funding they should receive to provide primary health care.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Well, I would just like to thank Mrs King, the previous speaker, for her contribution. She did an excellent job, actually, as the Labour Opposition spokesperson for health, and I think she has been cruelly treated by a very ungrateful Labour Party, which has made the mistake of getting rid of its best performer. She is now joined by Sue Moroney and, basically, all its Māori caucus as very able people who are not appreciated by their party. I must say that question time is no longer the same, but I hope she is giving some tutelage to her previous understudy, the member for Dunedin North, who is now the Labour Opposition spokesperson on health, because he could really benefit from listening to Mrs King for her wise experience, because it is quite noticeable that Labour is quite exposed in that area now. It cannot get a question on health any day of the week, apart from about question No. 12 on a Thursday, and health really has slipped down the agenda for Labour as its political management has crumbled, as we saw earlier this week.

Be that as it may, we are talking about the 2015-16 financial year, and I do have to take issue with some of the points that Mrs King has raised. Look, you know, it is not really like her to be bullying public servants in the manner we have just heard. I know those remarks are out of character, because we have excellent public servants in the Ministry of Health.

In respect of the Ministry on the Move programme: yes, things could have been done better. There was an issue around financial governance. There are new people there now. The issue has been addressed. We are very lucky to have Chai Chuah there despite Mrs King’s ongoing campaign against him. We are very lucky to have him there as Director-General of Health, and he has given very good and clear advice.

You have got to look at the big picture in these things, and the big picture is that, actually, health spending has increased to record levels under this Government. I must correct Mrs King when she says this fiction about $1.7 billion of cuts. She knows it is not true, and I know that when—

Hon Annette King: Yes, it is true—absolutely true.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I see her smiling when she is saying that, because, actually, we all know that when you increase health funding from $12 billion to $16 billion, that is a $4 billion increase. It is pretty hard to argue against that. Mrs King increased the funding a lot, but, of course, she delivered fewer surgeries, and that is one thing that, you know, I hate to have to bring up again, but it is true.

Look, this Government, as in all things, is really focused on the results that count, and you cannot argue with those. I mean, we have got 6,800—6,800—extra doctors and nurses in the system. That is incredible. We are doing record numbers of first specialist appointments—an extra 150,000 first specialist appointments per year. We have record numbers of elective surgeries. People come up to me in the street and say—and my local district health board (DHB), Waitematā, on the North Shore of Auckland, was a cot case before—that things have never been better. We are building the infrastructure around hospitals, and we are providing the services. No one is having to go to Australia for care any more. It has been quite remarkable how that system has turned around in nearly 9 years of a National Government. The worst thing that could happen now would be to hand the system back for financial mismanagement by the people with the terrible track record from 1999 to 2008, because we have got the system in a really good place.

You go to these hospitals and these DHBs, and the staff are enthused. They do a great job—our doctors, our nurses, the allied health workers. They know this is a Government that backs them. They are thrilled, actually, with the successful $2 billion pay-equity deal that we delivered last week for some of the hardest-working and lowest-paid people in New Zealand. They know we are a Government that backs health workers because those people are doing the most important work in New Zealand.

Bowel screening—well, look, that is a fantastic programme. We are going to be screening 700,000 New Zealanders every 2 years. We are going to be detecting 700 cancers per year that otherwise would not have been found. That is going to make a huge difference to the health of New Zealanders. I know Mr Chair is probably going to tell me my time is up in a second, so I think—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia ora, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in the appropriations debate. I want to talk about a couple of issues with regard to the Canterbury District Health Board, namely, mental health, children with special needs, and elective surgeries.

Immediately after the Kaikōura earthquakes, there was a request put in by the district health board (DHB) for some support, particularly into the area of mental health. The district health board asked specifically for $12.8 million. What it was hoping to provide with that funding was support into the areas of Kaikōura, Hurunui, and Nelson-Marlborough—specifically, 30 additional community support workers, councillors, and clinical staff, and 12 months of free GP visits and medication for residents of Kaikōura. What the Government actually gave it was $3.7 million for Kaikōura, and the Government actually funded eight additional health staff and 6 months of GP visits. But what also occurred within that $3.7 million was a $2 million debt write-off for the new health centre. So in effect, the Kaikōura area actually got only $1.7 million in additional support for mental health, post-earthquake.

That comes on the back of what we in Canterbury know to be the real, long-term, sustained effects of a natural disaster on a community, which is why the district health board took the unprecedented step of requesting $12.8 million. It was a response that my colleague Hon Annette King labelled as miserly. We know that in Canterbury post-disaster it is important to get some resources and some support up front, but actually what is also important is the long-term, sustained support for people who experience trauma. It is not just the trauma of the main event; it is all the aftershocks, it is dealing with houses that have been damaged, and then it is dealing with trying to rebuild businesses, trying to find work, and trying to rebuild homes and communities.

Within Canterbury we know that there has been some pressure on our community with regard to its mental health and its mental well-being. The Government, under duress, actually provided some extra support to our community, but we know that even now, 6 years on, the number of people experiencing distress, even at this late stage after the events, is increasing—but not only that; the acuity of this is increasing as well. Also a result of this is not only children who experienced huge concerns around their behaviour but also children who are impacted by disability, living in our community, who are not well supported by this Government. Every week I am finding families coming to me saying that their children with severe autism are not well supported by mental health services because of the pressure that is placed upon these services because of the increased stress experienced by the rest of our community.

Just in my last minute I want to say that at the same time, our community is ageing. We are one of the oldest communities in terms of our ageing population. This is also putting pressure on our health system, without the relief that has been requested from our Ministry of Health. We are finding that our DHB is under pressure to provide services that are not being well supported by this Government. We would really look to substantial and significant increases to support the increasing pressures that we are feeling, not only with regard to mental health but also elective surgeries and for those children who are experiencing some real issues with regard to their special needs.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Before the dinner break, the Minister of Health, in his speech, mentioned that more money was being spent than ever before, and so, obviously, there had been an increase in funding from 8 years ago, under the previous Government. Of course there has, in nominal terms, been an increase in funding, but that does not take into account the fact that the population has grown significantly, particularly in the last few years. There has been inflation, we have an ageing population, and in some areas, like mental health, the Minister himself has already acknowledged that we are feeling increased demand. We are experiencing increased demand for mental services, as are many other countries around the world. When we take into account all of these different factors, the reality is that after 8 years under the National Government, our health system is underfunded by about $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion.

I have found, in the 7 to 8 months that I have had the health spokesperson portfolio and have been out there talking to people who work in the sector, that it is a universal opinion—whether they are nurses, doctors, or specialists—that they are all experiencing understaffing at times and burnout, particularly in certain sectors. There is only so long we can ask people to do more with less before our health services really start to suffer as a consequence.

I am sure the Minister himself knows this, but the reality is that this National Government is far more concerned with political management and spin, so those members will get out here and they will say: “We are doing better than ever before. The health system is doing great. We are doing more with less.” They will continue to say that, even though the reality on the ground is that people working in the sector and people trying to access services in the sector are not being well served by this approach.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the mental health system, where it is very, very clear that we have a system that has been stretched nearly to breaking point. We require not only increased funding—and increased funding is really important to deliver those services—but we probably need a nationwide inquiry to ensure that we are able to meet the increasing demand for mental health support in the most effective way possible.

During the annual review, we heard that there was a reduction of the number of acute adult in-patient beds for mental health patients. That means that even at a time of increased demand and increased population growth, there are fewer beds available to people who are in an acute state of distress. We know also that those wards, generally, are being understaffed, so the mental health nurses are having to work additional shifts. They are tired, they are stressed out, and they are not able to deliver the services that people in acute distress need. We have also heard stories of unwell patients being discharged from mental health units so that more unwell people can get a bed. That is the reality now.

The key performance indicators in mental health and addiction services show that at district health boards around the country, very few are achieving their targets in terms of support, both pre- and post - in-patient care. There is no question that this is why we have not made any progress on our shockingly high suicide rate. Our youth suicide rate is something that we should be ashamed of, and we simply need to address it.

My grandmother used to say to me—she was from Ireland—“Julie Anne, you haven’t got anything if you haven’t got your health.” I would say that most New Zealanders would know this to be true. It is worth investing in those preventative services that are going to ensure that our people are able to recover or, in fact, do not even get to the point where they need to be admitted to hospital. If we take the approach that we are going to prioritise tax cuts, particularly for the wealthy, and we are not going to increase the funding for the health sector, even though we have increased population growth and increased demands on health services, then we are going to start to lose that great public health system that New Zealanders value so much.

The Green Party would make health a priority. It is not just the hospitals; it is actually the social determinants of health. It is housing, it is transport, it is the way our cities work, it is education, and it is poverty. Addressing all of these things is how we improve the health of our society. Improving the health of our society, we are achieving everything it is that we want out of life. Kia ora.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take this call on the healthcare sector. The Minister of Health, Jonathan Coleman, like he did previous to the dinner break, likes to get up and tell us all—inside this Chamber and also out in the public—that our healthcare system is well supported and that it is heading in the right direction. Well, we are not hearing that out there in the streets of New Zealand and right around the country. We are having people come into our offices who are actually giving us the situation that they are in or are forced to be in, and it is a situation we should not have happening within our healthcare system.

The issue with the funding, I think, over the last 4 weeks, and maybe, perhaps, even longer—the people whom I have interacted with, even nurses, have been saying to me that they are grossly underfunded, that they are finding that they are having to work longer hours with fewer resources. This puts patients’ lives at risk. Just yesterday at the New Zealand Nurses Organisation meeting we were asked, as panel members, whether we would be happy to have our father lying in a bed and not being able to be washed because of the services that the nurses cannot actually get to in their working day. That is the harsh reality for our nursing sector in this country: nurses cannot and do not have enough resources in order to look after the patients. The concern absolutely is that the risk to patients is quite high.

I have heard earlier tonight the Minister say that he is really happy that the Government has been able to increase the nursing numbers throughout New Zealand in the last financial year. I immediately thought about this issue: in the Southern District Health Board we are actually looking at a proposed restructure where we are going to see 23 jobs gone—23 jobs in a health system that is already buckling under the pressure. Doctors are actually even saying now that there are fewer doctors per capita down here in New Zealand. In fact, the GP per capita has actually received a 12 percent decrease, and that is a real concern. What we are also hearing is that Kiwis—New Zealanders—are trying to find a GP and they cannot find one because there are phenomenal waiting lists just to see a GP.

So when I hear a statement saying that our healthcare system is in a good position and that it is heading in the right direction, I would like to suggest that our healthcare system is in a right royal mess—in a mess. It is because we are finding that people are actually waiting longer. Regardless of the fact that the Minister is saying that surgery numbers have gone up, they are waiting longer to receive their treatment. Again, in Southland, at the district health board (DHB), we saw 30 patients recently actually suffer and lose their eyesight, because of the waiting lists for the ophthalmology cases. That has been an absolute concern.

Through the process of the review the committee heard about the state of the youth mental health care services around the country. What they are saying is that the waiting time, or the time for youth—people under the age of 19—to get non-urgent mental health care services is somewhere between the provision of 4 to 8 weeks. That is too long. That is too long for people to wait to get non-urgent mental health care.

I want to also bring up the concern that, due to the fact that our healthcare system is underfunded, due to the fact that our mental health care system is in a crisis, we are now finding that schools are having to pick up the slack from the DHBs because they have not got the right numbers of specialists to help with mental health care patients. I am quite concerned—and New Zealand First is concerned—that the state of the mental health care system is now spilling out into our schools where our young ones are actually having issues with trying to have access to mental health care.

What we are also concerned about is—if the healthcare system is in such a great position, as the Minister states—we are finding that more and more community services are being leaned on through mental health care services, because people cannot actually get access to their mental health team units in their DHBs. I think that if we look at the overall state of the healthcare system here in New Zealand, and if we look at the fact that if, as claimed, our healthcare system was funded adequately and it was funded correctly for our population base and our population growth, then we would not have the many hundreds of New Zealanders currently suffering right now in their homes because they cannot get access to healthcare services in this country. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): The public health system in New Zealand is one of the cornerstones of the civilised and decent society that we live in. It is something that we on this side of the Chamber feel particularly proud of. It was the Social Security Act in 1938, under the first Labour Government, that largely established our free public healthcare system in this country. Despite some of the Minister’s comments earlier on, it was the fifth Labour Government that largely established the structure in our health system that we currently have, after the devastation of market-led reforms in the 1990s. This Government has, to its credit, had the good sense to keep that structure largely in place: democratically elected district health boards, primary health organisations, and that broader structure that the fifth Labour Government brought in. But what is evident to so many of us in our work as members of Parliament and also through reading the reports that we are considering this evening is that it is a system that is under considerable strain because of the under-resourcing that has become endemic under this Government—the slow bleed of desperately needed resources.

As I read through the reports, I was reminded of a constituent of mine whom I met just a couple of months ago—a woman in her late 70s who, until recently, was spritely and happy and active in her community. She was desperately in need of a hip replacement, and she was told in November of last year that she was amongst the most urgent of patients on the books of Auckland City Hospital and to come back in March and it would be sorted out. Well, that constituent of mine came back in March only to be told that it would be at least another 6 months before she would get another appointment to proceed with that desperately needed operation. So that constituent of mine is not just a statistic; she is a person whose life has been utterly brought down from the active, engaged kind of life that she used to lead in our community, simply because, at critical points in our public health system, the resources that our people need are not there under this Government.

I know that Minister Coleman, when he got up to speak, made light of the $1.7 billion funding shortfall that we in this House draw to his attention. The fact is that over 8—nearly 9—years of Government, we have population growth and we have inflation. Those things have simply not been kept up with, in terms of the funding in our health system.

The other aspect that was very evident to me, in reading through the reports of the committee, is the desperate need in our mental health system. On page 502 of the collated reports, the Minister was quoted as saying that young people should be waiting only 3 weeks for a youth mental health appointment, yet it is reported in here that we know of cases where some young people have had to wait for as long as 8 months. The records that are kept by the district health boards measure whether people are seen within 8 weeks, and even at that measure, which is over and above what the Minister says should be happening, we know that not everyone is being seen even within that period.

On page 500, it says the number of acute mental health beds over the 2015-16 year is down from 602 to 589 across our country. When every single member of this House knows that the need is rising—given the year that is under consideration—we are providing fewer services for people who need acute mental health beds. In Canterbury, there are 62 beds that the Canterbury District Health Board provides, and it says that, on average, in 2015-16 it needed 85 beds—on average, every day, it has that shortfall for people in desperate need of mental health care.

I say, and we on this side of Chamber say, that we are letting down those people, and it does not have to be that way. We know that next month there are probably going to be tax cuts announced in the House by the Government. We have got people in Canterbury and across our country who cannot get an acute mental health bed. We say that those are the wrong priorities, and this party, when in Government, will have the right priorities for those people in real need in our communities.

On page 494, it says most district health boards are saying they are not meeting their own mental health and addiction targets. We have heard a lot today from the Government about targets. It is all very well to set targets—the Government stands here most days in question time and boasts about the targets it is setting—but targets on their own do not change people’s lives. Targets on their own do not help people. Having the right services and the right funding in place, and the right priorities, is what helps people. These reports show that, in respect of health, the Government simply is not meeting those needs.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Well, actually, I thought that last speaker, Michael Wood, was quite good. I think he is a great improvement on the current health spokesperson—not quite as good as Mrs King, whom they are missing desperately, but that was not a bad speech.

There were some real problems with it, though—some real problems with it. What I can tell him is that, actually, we have fully funded for population growth and inflation over the last 9 years, and I can show the member the facts. And if he looks back through Hansard, we have talked about that quite a lot in the House in the last few years. So to say that we have not is just incorrect. It is also incorrect to say that $1.7 billion has been cut from the health budget.

But, look, if you look at the other speeches we have had just before, the only thing I learnt from Julie Anne Genter’s speech is that she is actually the Green Party health spokesperson.

Paul Foster-Bell: Really?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yeah, I was not aware of that—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: No, she’s the finance spokesperson.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, she said she was the health spokesperson. I do not think we have had a question from her. But, anyway, that was a useful piece of information.

The other thing is Ria Bond. She also made a number of quite outlandish statements. She was saying that Kiwis cannot find a GP. Well, what I can tell her is that if she would just like to ring up my office with the details of those people—in fact, go and see Sarah Dowie, the excellent MP for Invercargill. We will find those people a GP, because district health boards have to give GP services to the populations they serve.

And it is disappointing when you listen to the member for Mt Roskill and the person from Invercargill. They are raising these cases—I do not know if they are real cases or not; they probably are because they would not be misleading the Committee. But if there really are problems we can help with, you know, come and tell us about the lady with the hip replacement problem, because I would be quite happy to make sure that she gets the services that she needs. But it is, of course, always very important to check the facts of the case.

Just before I came down I was watching the news, and on it tonight there was an item about the American late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel, who told the story of his newborn son, who needed heart surgery just within the last month. He was making a plea for healthcare that is free at the point of delivery to be made available to all citizens in the country in which he lives. And when you look at that story and you stand back and look at the big picture of the excellent healthcare system we have in New Zealand, we are actually extremely lucky, whoever is running the system. I get a bit disappointed when members lose sight of the reality of healthcare in New Zealand, because we have an excellent system, it is accessible to all New Zealanders—

Carmel Sepuloni: We just have higher expectations on this side of the Chamber, maybe.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —it is free at the point of delivery. This member should just listen, because this is actually an important point.

Labour’s health spokesperson wrote in the Critic magazine in Dunedin yesterday that access to high quality healthcare should be beyond politics and, actually, largely it is. Everyone in this House wants to see more access to more services for more New Zealanders, and I am very proud that that is what this Government has delivered. We are delivering more operations. There are more appointments, there are more doctors and nurses in the system, and there is more money to fund it all.

We have got a growing population—no question about that—and there is increasing demand, and mental health has been mentioned. Well, I can tell you that 8 years ago we were treating 96,000 people a year; last year we treated 164,000. That is a huge uptick in demand. What are the drivers of that? Well, you know, it is pretty complex. I mean, it is societal pressures, it is the age we are living in in terms of exposure to social media, and, you know, the contradiction around greater awareness is that more people are seeking services. So we have got more demand and we are seeing more people, but there is always more we can do.

But it does disappoint me a bit when members talk about fewer beds, because I do not think there would be any member in this Committee who would want to go back to the days of institutionalisation, when we were locking up patients and not quite throwing away the key, but people were spending years and years in these institutions.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Like Ashley Peacock—like Ashley Peacock. You wouldn’t help him.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: And look, it would be completely disingenuous for people to claim that they want to go back to those days, because the members over here who are squawking away—that member there, she believes in the recovery model. She knows that the best place for patients to be treated, as long as it is safe, is in the community.

So look, in our health system there is always more we can do, but there is a lot to celebrate, and I would love to have those members’ support.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I rise to take a call in the appropriations debate in regard to health. Yesterday I joined the debate with New Zealand First, with the Labour Party, and with the Green Party, but, sadly, there was no one there from National to represent the voice of the teachers union in debate yesterday afternoon.

Pita Paraone: That’s your partner. They’re your partners.

MARAMA FOX: That might be so. Thank you to the member. I want to make these points. One of the things that is, sadly, underfunded—and I think the Minister in the chair, Jonathan Coleman, will agree with this—is the area of mental health.

On New Year’s Eve this year I literally had four women messaging me on Facebook, from around the country, who could not get services. They have been barred from the emergency department (ED) of hospitals in this country, despite the fact that they could not trust themselves to get through the night and not take their lives. With one of them I managed to get somebody to go and see them, because they lived in Hawke’s Bay and we knew some people working in suicide prevention. The other lived just down the road from me, and with the two others I managed to get somebody to talk to them on Facebook.

Minister, we need to ensure that there is a complete review of the mental health services that are provided. Why does somebody take a mental health patient to the ED, when it is determined that they are fine and that they can go home, because every night they go home they are actually proving to themselves that they can get through the night? But they have taken the opportunity to go to the ED services, and they are being turned away. I literally spent 10 hours with a woman. I took her to the ED, and worked with the Crisis Assessment & Treatment Team, which turned her away. I then tucked her into bed that night, making sure before I left that she was going to be OK, thinking “I’m the last person who may get to see this person.”

If that is the state of our healthcare for women and people who are suffering from mental health issues who may be suicidal—if I am the one who has to go in there and fix it, then it is not working. It is not working. When we have the highest rates of youth suicide in this world for Māori, it is not working, and we need to do something about it.

In the very first Budget in 2015 we managed to get a little bit of putea—$2 million—to try to affect changes for rangatahi Māori, who are at the top of the world in the statistics of young people who take their lives. That is wrong;, that is not right, and we need to do something about it.

We are attempting to do something about it. We are attempting to ensure that there is funding out there to work with the grassroots programmes that are out there, working in our communities, with the specific issue of LTGBQI—did I get that right?

Paul Foster-Bell: LGBT.

MARAMA FOX: L—oh my gosh, plus. All right. So the letters are confusing me—far too many acronyms. But with this specific issue—because they felt their needs were not being tended to in the entire conversation about suicide prevention. So rangatahi Māori, kaupapa Māori models of practice—we managed to get a tiny bit of putea, but it is not enough. We are leading the statistics, and it is not good enough. A complete review of the mental health situation in this country is needed.

Those women who sat on Facebook that night, telling me that they were going to take their lives, were over the issues that made them depressed in the first place. They were now dealing with the issues of their medication, with not being able to get help, with going to the local GP and being turned away, and with being told that they are drug seeking. But when you take someone’s medication—you cut it off right there and then, and you do not support them to address their underlying issues about why they are there in the first place, that is not helping. And when a 9-year-old—a 9-year-old—chooses to take their life instead of living their reality, then we as a country are failing them.

This health system needs to take note, and we need to get it right. We are willing to work with this Government, and we are willing to work with whichever Government might be in place following 23 September, to ensure that our young people have faith in themselves and a resilience, that they understand emotional intelligence, that they understand emotional literacy, and that they become emotionally resilient. We need to do something about the mental health legislation, and we need to do something through Vote Health.

BARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the Committee report progress presently and move to consider Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.

Progress to be reported presently.

Bills

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 2 May.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Peeni Henare has the call. He has 4 minutes and 55 seconds remaining.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Excellent—thank you very much. I thought I had about 4 minutes and 59 seconds. Kia ora anō tātau katoa kua hāpai nei i tō tātau kaupapa ki roto i tō tātau Whare i te rā nei.

[Acknowledgments to us once again who have supported this matter of ours here in our House today.]

I think, given the long period of time since I was last on my feet on this particular matter, I might just canvass briefly, if I may, some of the discussions and points had last night, in particular in my contribution. We are looking at Part 1 here, and I mentioned last night the interpretation of the term “ahi kā” in relation to Part 1, clause 8—“Descent relationships determined by tikanga Māori”. In clause 8(1)(b) it says there: “an association with land in accordance with tikanga Māori.” I raise the fact that many of the Māori land shareholders live outside of the actual land holding itself. They live in Tāmaki-makau-rau. They live in Australia. If you are going to use the basis of tikanga Māori, then it is a well-known one within Māoridom: the term “ahi kā”. Ahi kā is a very straightforward one. It is about making sure that the home fires are tended to—the home fires are burning. If, for example, a shareholder lives in Australia, one could argue over a length of time that they no longer have ahi kā. They no longer have ahi kā. It would be easy to suggest that, through association, they would have ahi kā, but the reality of the types of shareholdings that we are talking about is that actually, no, it is pertaining only to their shares. That was one point I made yesterday, and I wanted to just reiterate that in my contribution now.

The other one was even further in, to the “Evidence of applicable tikanga Māori” under Part 1, clause 9. It says there: “In any proceedings under Parts 1 to 9, any questions as to the tikanga Māori that applies in a particular situation must be determined on the basis of evidence.” A bit later on in the bill, or in this particular Supplementary Order Paper, we will look at some of the appointments that can be made for administrators and other roles that have been given power through this particular bill to oversee the administration of Māori land. I will delve into a little bit of the pitfalls of some of those.

But I want to point out the “Evidence of applicable tikanga Māori”. I mentioned last night about the relevance of tikanga Māori, and, more importantly, the failure of legislation to truly and adequately determine what tikanga Māori is. It is easy to suggest: “Well, it’s such and such.” It is funny—I remember a discussion with one of my colleagues. We discussed the term “wairua”, and that person said: “Oh yes, ‘spirit.’ ” And I said: “Well, no, actually. ‘Wairua’ isn’t just ‘spirit’. Wairua means so much more.” Tikanga is the same argument. Tikanga is the same argument. It is not just simply about “koha” meaning “giving something”. Actually, koha means more than that. So it is these kinds of vagaries that make me think—and I have always said this in this House in my short time here—that tikanga Māori must stay out of legislation. It must stay out of the hands of legislators. It must stay out of the hands of judges.

Later on we will see about the appointments of particular administrators of Māori land, and I made reference in a previous contribution on another bill in this House about the fact that this Government appointed my father, Ērima Henare, and my great-uncle Kevin Prime to resolve a dispute in Te Arawa. Anybody who knows Māori history—New Zealand history—will tell you that sending a Ngāpuhi into Te Arawa is the worst thing to do. It is like sending a Ngāpuhi into Ngati Porou. You just do not do it. You just do not do it. And they were given an extremely hard task, under the vague explanation of tikanga Māori, that this dispute would be resolved. So I have some serious questions about tikanga Māori, in particular in relation to the principles of Parts 1 to 9.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora tātau katoa o Te Whare, ka mihi rānō rā ki a tātau katoa kua whakawhāiti mai i tēnei pō.

[Thank you, Mr Chair. My acknowledgments to all of us of the House, right back to when all of us here this evening were involved.]

I ran out of space last night to respond to some of the issues that were raised by the member who just took his seat, Peeni Henare, so I thought I would just come back and just bring us back to some of those issues before they get lost in the discussion. Members questioned the support for the reform and asked about the research as to whether the changes were actually needed. The reform has arisen out of a dialogue between Māori and the Crown over a long period of time. During this period, a range of research and reviews has taken place, and has always, constantly, identified the issues the reforms are seeking to address. That is why we are actually here.

Concerns were raised about the reform process, and that Māori land owners had not been given adequate time or been a part of the consultation process and did not necessarily fully understand the reforms. Let us just put it on the record. There have been more than 171 consultation hui, with more than 3,000 Māori land owners, trustees, and whānau attending the hui that were set up to discuss the reforms. Three drafts of the bill were released for consultation, and many people took part, obviously, in the opportunity to comment on the workability of the proposals. For instance, the first exposure draft of the bill led to about 109 provisions being amended and the removal of 28 provisions.

During the select committee process 152 written submissions and 47 oral submissions were made to the Māori Affairs Committee. The select committee recommended a number of appropriate changes, actually, all of which—all of which—I have adopted and were taken into consideration at the second reading of this bill. Critics have said I have not listened and have made too many changes. On the other side of the coin, I made the changes on what I actually heard and what I saw in submissions.

Referring to the purpose statement, Kelvin Davis last night questioned why the current Act had to be changed. Although the current Act was significant, there are thousands of owners who remain disconnected from their land, and fragmentation is getting worse, not better. So while some trusts are doing quite well, there are many that are actually struggling, and the current Act does little to support those little, unmanaged blocks. The current Act does not contain a disputes resolution mechanism, and requires the Māori Land Court to spend, from my perspective, way too much time on administration instead of focusing on the judicial issues. This bill addresses each of these issues, and by doing so this must benefit Māori land owners.

Pita Paraone asked why we need to adopt a whole new bill, stating that it would have been better to simply amend the current Act. Over the last 150 years almost 200 different laws and amendments have been passed affecting Māori land. The current Act has inherited a huge patchwork of complex rules, many of which were designed, sure, for the time, but are now way outdated. The review panel recommended full legislative change on the basis that this will provide the most fit for purpose and durable approach. Several members spoke about the principle that owners of Māori land have the right to decide how their land is used.

Concerns were raised about small groups of owners dictating to the majority, and how absent owners can participate in the decision-making process. Decisions about what happens to the land can be made only by a threshold majority of all owners, not by a small group. The participating owners’ model applies only to decisions about what happens on the land, such as appointing a governance model. This is an important part of the policy of the bill that should avoid small groups, basically, taking over or capturing the process. By modernising the decision making, the bill ensures everyone has the opportunity to participate, including those who live away from their rohe. For instance, owners will be able to attend meetings in person via a proxy or via telephone or internet-based technology. My hope is that they will be able to cast their votes using postal or email voting forms, or through electronic voting systems.

During the debate members raised concerns about the terminology that has been introduced. The language in the bill reflects, as I said last night, a deliberate change of focus, and it has been carefully chosen. We got specialist advice on the choice and the use of the words and expressions in the technical context. This was especially so in relation to the term that was highlighted by Meka Whaitiri last night, kaitiaki. Several options were considered around this notion of kaitiaki, but the advice that we got was that kaitiaki was the most appropriate term for this role. Meka Whaitiri raised the concern under clause 7(7) around kaiwhakamarumaru, that they are considered as owners of parcels or interests that they are managing. The current Act equivalent actually vests ownership in the trustee. Under the bill the interest does not vest in the kaiwhakamarumaru, but, to make sure the owner, who is in this case a minor or possibly has a disability, is protected, third parties must deal with the kaiwhakamarumaru in the same way they would have to deal with an owner. So I hope that helps the member in respect of that.

Ms Whaitiri also asked about the determination that has been addressed by Mr Henare about how we determine tikanga. It is determined against evidence. People have asked the question about whose evidence will apply. Tikanga Māori is not a matter of law; it is a matter of fact, and Māori land owners will be supported to resolve those issues amongst themselves in a way they believe is appropriate according to their tikanga. They will be helped to resolve disputes over the content of tikanga Māori, but the new dispute resolution service is about giving them a hand if they wish. As a last resort, the parties will be able to go to court to resolve some of those disputes, but the real hope is that we stay within our own tikanga to address tikanga issues. The person giving evidence in that case would state their experience with the relevant tikanga so that it is really clear they understand the relevant tikanga when it comes to that.

Just to wrap up, then, about those issues raised last night, Ms Whaitiri raised the issue about the SILNA beneficiaries. Just to respond to the member, this clause makes sure that Māori owners, at commencement, are treated as being associated with the land in accordance with tikanga, but, because of the unique way that SILNA successors are defined in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, it was necessary to explicitly exclude them in this provision. I hope that provides some background to the issue that the member raised last night. So that wraps up pretty much most of those issues that were dealt with last night. I look forward to the ongoing debate.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to make a contribution on Part 1 of this very important bill. I would like to acknowledge Minister Te Ururoa Flavell for his contribution, but I guess what I took from that contribution is just how out of depth this Minister is in terms of ushering in this Frankenstein piece of legislation—way out of his depth—because this bill is a train wreck. It is a train wreck that has been—

Marama Fox: Part 1.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Absolutely, and I am getting to Part 1, but it is a train wreck. The Minister talked about the research that underpinned it. Well, that research was so flawed it was laughable. The research said that by overhauling the Māori land legislation, that would create an $8 billion boon for the New Zealand economy—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

RINO TIRIKATENE: —and the Māori economy—$8 billion. And then—hello—2 years later, after a couple of working groups and a few huis, they had to tone it down a bit. They had to tone it down a bit and say “Oh, it’s only $3.5 billion.”, and even then they were not sure. Highly qualified conclusions by these highly paid so-called consultants at all these flash accountancy firms.

The problem with this bill is that it has morphed into a Frankenstein bill, because it has been passed on from Minister Finlayson and Minister Sharples to Minister Flavell. Goodness knows, we have had working groups and huis and consultation, and—how many? Sixteen exposure drafts—16 drafts.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Really?

RINO TIRIKATENE: Absolutely. And we are not at the end of it yet, because there was a 370-page bill and then, 2 weeks ago, lo and behold, the Minister dumped another 400-page Supplementary Order Paper. But wait, there is more—then he dumped about another four Supplementary Order Papers, amending the earlier Supplementary Order Paper.

So the Minister is way out of his depth. He has created a monstrous piece of legislation, and that is why—I am getting to Part 1—this is a monstrous, taniwha piece of legislation.

If we go to Part 1, I will just give you an example.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is not normal for a Minister to vacate the chair, stay in the Chamber, and put a pretender in there. That is what has happened for the last minute and a half, and whilst he was doing that—sadly, you were talking to your staff, so it was not quite your fault, but the person to your right knows full well that that is wrong. We are not living in some medieval society where you behave as you please, I say for the benefit of the Blackstone sitting in the chair now—yes, the Blackstone of the antipodean world.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I think the point of order is—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You get my point, don’t you?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes—and I am on my feet—and we have moved from a point of order into a little bit of stand-up. The rule, of course, is that a member cannot move his position in the House to better barrack, or barrack better, so I understand the problem has now disappeared. We will carry on.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence at being called the Blackstone of the Antipodes. As the right honourable member knows full well, because he has addressed me in this way before, I am the Lord Denning of the Antipodes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, I take offence at the member thinking that the right honourable member was referring to him. I took it as a compliment, because I thought he was referring to me.

RINO TIRIKATENE: So here we have this monstrous, taniwha, Frankenstein piece of legislation that has been created.

Referring to Part 1, when we talk about unlocking economic potential, the only economic boon that will occur from this piece of legislation is with the lawyers, and one just needs to look at Part 1—one just needs to look at Part 1. It is just—honestly, talking about principles—

Hon Ruth Dyson: It makes you speechless.

RINO TIRIKATENE: —the purpose and principles—it does make one speechless. Seriously, we are wiping aside 30 years of jurisprudence case law that has been established under a very sound piece of the legislation, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, which took 20 years—20 years—of consultation and hui to put in place. We are wiping that aside with this monstrous monstrosity of a bill. We are wiping all of that aside with totally new definitions—totally new definitions.

By way of example, the references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—well, we have had 30 years’ jurisprudence about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Why could that not be put in? Instead, we are going to performing powers and duties that recognise the Treaty of Waitangi. The principles, the purpose—it is an absolute mess, but it is great for lawyers. It is absolutely great for lawyers, because there are many people with Māori land interests now who will be scratching their heads and trying to make sense of this monstrous piece of a bill, and it need not be that way.

The problem with this bill—it need not have been this way—has been, right from the get-go, in the definition of the problem. You see, what can be achieved could have been a range of amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. There was no need for the Minister to think “OK, we are going to wipe this 1993 Act aside, and we are going to create this whole new Act that will unlock an $8 billion boon.”. So that was fatally flawed, right from the get-go. With what we have here, I feel for the officials, because they have been tirelessly working on this monstrosity—Frankenstein—of a bill, and it is just getting uglier and uglier, and now we have come to the point—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I gave the member a second call hoping he would move to new material.

RINO TIRIKATENE: OK. But, by way of another example, if we look at the relationship between the English version and the Māori version, when it comes to principles and purpose, it says that the Māori definitions will prevail, but there are so many vagaries and uncertainties around which version takes precedent if they are treated equally, or whether one is superior even if there are no points of conflict between the two. It is just poor drafting, which is creating a whole lot of uncertainty.

That is why iwi Māori are so fed up and concerned with what has been happening with the creation of this bill. They can see that it need not go this far—it need not go this far. Sure, we want to improve engagement with owners, and sure, we want to improve governance and make it a bit easier to get things done on Māori land, but you do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Another example is the use of these new terms. We have got a whole host of customary Māori terms, defined Māori terms, and totally new terms that I have never heard of before, and all of them have been thrown into this mishmash in the interpretation within Part 1—and it is going to take years. It is going to take years of court cases and court actions going to the High Court to actually establish what it all means, and I think that is doing our whānau and doing the motu an injustice. It is doing them an injustice because, yes, we wanted to improve on our governance, our structures, and our engagement with owners, but we do not need to totally wipe aside 30-plus years of really important case law on that.

The final point that I would like to make is that this bill is not—sure, we want to empower the owners. But the real issue with Māori land—which is why it was totally flawed—is that over 100,000 blocks of Māori land are under 1 hectare. You know, we are talking about—you cannot prescribe by putting in place a law that says magic will happen when you are dealing with less than 1 hectare of a mud-pool or a hillside, or a marginal piece of land on the coast. We need to be realistic. Sure, there have been issues with Māori land being underutilised, but the fact of the matter is a lot of that has to do with a lack of access to capital. The fact that the raw land itself is marginal and the fact that it is not a bankable proposition, whatever the owner’s wawata or dreams may be, means they cannot actually see them to fruition. So those issues will still remain. The legislation can be put in place, but those issues will not change. You are not going to change a mud-pool and turn it into a geothermal powerhouse.

There have been so many successes that have occurred under the 1993 Act that it was not really that bad. Sure, it might have needed some tweaks, but, fundamentally, this bill has just morphed way out of control. It is unnecessary. The definitions and the new terms that have been inserted are going to create litigation for years, and I think Minister Flavell just demonstrated how out of his depth he is. That is a real shame, because, unfortunately, this train wreck has gotten way out of control and he cannot control it. But we are doing our best to, hopefully, bring it back into focus. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I thought I would help the honourable member Rino Tirikatene by referring to clause 3, because he seemed to have a problem with which version was to prevail. I would have thought it was tolerably clear that the Māori version prevailed, as is said in the explanatory note to clause 3(5). English is only an explanation; the only formal version is the Māori version.

The second issue that was raised earlier by another speaker was this term “tikanga Māori”. I agree that avoiding a statutory codification of this phrase is absolutely fundamental. Tikanga Māori is not a matter of law; it is a matter of fact. I think it was the Chief Justice who said in the well-known Takamore case, which went to the Supreme Court some time ago, that what constitutes tikanga Māori in any particular situation is a question of fact, and a court asked to identify its content by evidence is not engaged in a process of interpretation or law creation. This aligns with the Māori Land Court’s approach to matters of tikanga Māori under the current Act, as I understand it.

When one strips away the Roget’s Thesaurus approach to argumentation that we have had from the member for Te Tai Tonga tonight—it has been described in various colourful terms—I think what it boils down to, if I understand the essence of his argument, is that, yes, changes were required to the 1993 Act, but they should have been done by way of an amendment to the 1993 Act rather than through a complete rewrite. Look, I can understand that there will be circumstances where an amendment is appropriate, but sometimes—and this is particularly the case with the 1993 Act—the substructure of the Act has been fundamentally weakened by so many amendments. From time to time you have got to go back to base one and start again.

There are many pieces of legislation that this House has dealt with over the years where exactly that principle has been applied. I remember it very well with the Limitation Act 1950. It was so far past its use-by date that a complete rewrite was required, and just a couple of weeks ago we did exactly the same thing with the intelligence legislation. So to mount an argument that it can all be done by amendment is, in my respectful submission, totally wrong. This Act has been amended, as the Minister for Māori Development said, on many, many occasions, and the time comes when you go back to first principles, you take a fresh look at it, and you rewrite the legislation. It is hardly a ground for opposition to the passage of this very important bill.

So I hope that we have more than formulaic and presentational arguments about this legislation. Let us get down to the detail and debate the detail, but suggesting that it could have been done by amendment is quite simply wrong.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Look, listening to the responses of the Ministers who have been in the chair, perhaps I should direct my comments to those who are sitting at home watching this debate. Nā reira, koutou e noho tonu ki te wa kāinga, anei ngā kōrero mā koutou nā te mea, mōhio ana au kei a koutou nahe e whakarongo ki ngā kōrero i puta mai i tēnei taha.

[So those of you who still live back home, here are comments especially for you, because I know you are the only ones who listened to the sentiments that came out of this side.]

Firstly, I would like to just quote the Minister in the chair in regard to tikanga. He said that tikanga is a matter of fact. If we take that to its full conclusion, then the concerns of people around the country, having witnessed the claims from the New Zealand Māori Council for the coastline of New Zealand, claims made under tikanga Māori—perhaps those claims will be successful for the simple reason that using tikanga is a matter of fact. That is the issue that I know that I have concerns with, in terms of legislating tikanga Māori. That is something that ought to be seriously considered before this bill proceeds to its next stage.

I can recall in 2005, when the Ngāti Awa settlement bill was passed into law, that part of that bill made reference to the establishment of an iwi group here in Wellington to represent those members of that tribe who lived here in Wellington. In fact, the bill actually established a subtribe. I do not think that that was correct, and New Zealand First—particularly its Māori members, and there were seven of us—opposed the passing of that bill at that time. We did not think that it was right for this House to legislate and to create things like new hapū or new iwi groups. I think that what we are discussing here—and the member from Te Tai Tonga articulated very well, I thought, his concerns and, certainly, our concerns in regard to that part of Part 1.

The other issue is that the Minister for Māori Development made reference to the fact that this bill came out as the result of a review panel—it was the work of a review panel. But what he failed to say was that the review panel did not do what it was originally asked to do, and it came back with a different response. So this bill is actually a result of that decision by the review panel at the time. That was confirmed during the submission process by the submission from the Māori Women’s Welfare League. Its spokesperson is a trained lawyer, and she made the point, quite strongly, that the review panel reported on something that was not asked for.

The other thing I would like to talk about is the meaning of “owner”. We are now talking about owners; previously, we talked about beneficiaries. I do not know what happened to beneficiaries, but we are now owners, and as all Māori will tell you, they are not owners; they are merely guardians for their time on Earth. When they pass on—

Marama Fox: Is that tikanga?

PITA PARAONE: Of course it is. But the bill does not make reference to that. It calls them owners, so I do not know what happened to the issue of beneficiaries.

The other thing was the fragmentation of shares. That is a concern that non-Māori have; for Māori, that is not a concern. Whether you call them owners or beneficiaries, that is a fact. The issue of fragmentation is not a matter or tikanga; it is just a matter of ensuring that those people who whakapapa to the original beneficiaries maintain those interests on behalf of the next generation. I am not quite sure whether this bill articulates that fact.

The other issue I wanted to make reference to—and the member for Tāmaki Makaurau certainly touched on it—was clause 9: “Evidence of applicable tikanga Māori”. Here, again, when there is a conflict between hapū or iwi—the fact that they have to go to the High Court if they do not agree, then that in itself will pose some impediment on the affordability for those people involved. I would suggest that we ought to look at this again.

The other issue was the question of Māori reserves. Clause 5 says “(a) any land vested in the Māori Trustee as, or for the purposes of, a Māori reserve; and (b) any land that is subject to the Maori Reserved Land Act 1955.” Can I say that, for many hapū, they have lands set aside that they would refer to as reserves but certainly are not covered by these two references made here in the bill. Again, that comes under the issue of tikanga Māori. It may be quite a sacred place for the hapū, but it certainly is not covered by any legislation. I suppose, under tikanga Māori, we can argue for that.

Other than that, I still believe, and New Zealand First certainly believes, that in spite of the number of consultation hui that the Minister has alluded to, I still make the same comment that I did last night: that of all those hui, not one of them actually resolved to support the bill. I think that that is the main point. If there was one, then I will stand corrected. But compare that with the number of hui that the Minister has referred to. That certainly does not indicate full-scale support for the bill. Kia ora.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I think it has been a fantastic debate tonight, listening to the contribution from the members of the Opposition and from the Ministers who have occupied the chair. Let us just go to a couple of points that many of the members have raised. Mr Paraone said that if there was one hui that endorsed the bill, then he would stand corrected—well, I can tell you now that in Wairarapa, at the land hui that was held there, they endorsed the bill through a vote of the people and the landowners who were there, who listened, and who asked their questions. From the answers that were provided to them, the member will be happy to know that they endorse Te Ture Whenua as heading in the right direction, and they endorsed the bill. So there you stand corrected, thank you very much.

The bill established a sub-tribe. Let us just talk about that. I would like to put it to the chair that, in fact, Te Wharepōuri established a sub-tribe here for Te Ātiawa in the Whanga-nui-a-Tara, at Pito-one, when our tupuna Nuku-pewapewa chased him out of Wairarapa and sent him back here on his way down with the other tribes who came from up north. They established the sub-tribe here, not the law; the law recognised that they had a sub-tribe here, and I think that point needs to be made.

Sixteen exposure drafts—let us go to the 16 exposure drafts. Sixteen exposure drafts means that the Minister listened to the people. Sixteen exposure drafts means that every single submission that was given to the Minister was responded to—every single one. He worked with those people who put their submissions across and ensured that they were listened to, that their points were taken on board, and that their recommendations were adopted. I am going to agree that we have the hugest Supplementary Order Paper that we have seen in this House for this term—that is for sure—but we have the hugest bill.

This bill is important, and Part 1 talks about tikanga. I do not understand why we are afraid to start to implement tikanga Māori into law. I get it, because I have been in a ministry where every time you get a new Māori person coming along and we want to discuss what the tikanga of the pōwhiri might be—if you are from Te Arawa, it is going to look like this; if you are from Ngati Porou, it is going to be a little bit different; if you are from Kāi Tahu, and so on, and so on. Then whoever comes new into that ministry will establish what the tikanga looks like, and that is why this is important.

If we look at the purpose of Part 1, it says that it “is to recognise and provide for the mana and tino rangatiratanga that since time immemorial Māori have exercised and continue to exercise over their lands, resources, and taonga in accordance with tikanga Māori …”. So it is not up to, as the member Peeni Henare pointed out, Ngāpuhi to tell Te Arawa what to do. But I am pretty sure that in the case of Ngāpuhi, your father would have gone there and said: “Well, what do you think, Te Arawa? What do you think?”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What does Hone say?

MARAMA FOX: I have talked with Hone, and what he has said—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, no. He’s not happy at all.

MARAMA FOX: Well, if you do not want to listen, then I will carry on. Here it says “to exercise over their lands, resources, and taonga in accordance with tikanga Māori and consistent with the guarantees given to Māori in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, …”. What the Minister has done is ensure the place of Te Tiriti is recognised in the law of this country. It does not determine exactly what tikanga means, because each area will have a different tikanga, and that is why it is up to us to determine. That is not something we should be afraid of; that is something we should damn right be proud of. Finally—finally—we have come to this place, this Parliament, and tikanga Māori is being recognised in this law as a value-add to this nation. I applaud the Minister for doing so.

Let us have a look at the formal version, which is the Māori version. The formal version is the Māori version. Hello—again, giving precedence to the Māori language in Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, which establishes that tikanga Māori will be determined by that rohe, that hapū, and that tribe. That is progress, not regress. That is not a retrograde step, as some parties in this Chamber would have us continue to live under the colonised law of Pākehā law.

Finally, Mr Chair—oh, no one has rung the bell, so I will carry on.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Actually, having heard that contribution by Marama Fox, I just had to get up and speak, because there are a couple of things that we need to take from the comments that were just made. Sixteen exposure drafts indicates to me that it is very difficult to co-design a piece of legislation. In fact, it took a very long time, because the Minister for Māori Development heard so much feedback and dissatisfaction from owners that he realised that this is not a good way to do legislation. It is fundamentally a very difficult way to address some of the core issues at the heart of what makes Māori tick, which is the Māori land tenure system. Books have been written about it. Academics more qualified than me have written to a degree that tells us that if you are going to change Māori land law tenure to be very careful about how you do it. So 16 exposure drafts, I think, very much highlighted that in the first instance.

But I want to come back to the bill, and specifically Part 1 and the intent. When we consider how the new land framework will work for Māori, we should ask the questions that have been debated in the House. First is the issue of tikanga. Very erudite speeches have been made, but can I say this: if we apply tikanga to the way in which Māori feel about land, my colleague Pita Paraone is absolutely right—the reference to ownership becomes a non-reference within that context. In fact, what you would have seen in New Zealand is a land tenure system much like the Pacific, where you would have long leaseholding types of arrangements that enable the utilisation of land, which ensures the retention of land to whakapapa owners—owners who have a whakapapa interest in land—yet you are still able to utilise it for a period of time. That is not the case in New Zealand, because things happened here. We understand that. So I think some of this is a little bit ethereal—some of the debates around the legislation truly giving back the rangatiratanga to Māori owners.

Let me come back to the issue of tikanga. I accept that tikanga should be an opportunity, within hapū groups, certainly to try to resolve some very difficult issues. But let us go to the reality. That is not often the case. If you have, I guess even within a hapū, some very different versions of how tikanga applies, who in the end adjudicates? That is what we are just raising here, within the context of the bill. If a hapū cannot settle on an outcome, it does go back to the court. So let us just call a spade a spade, and recognise that although tikanga, to the best intents and purposes, is inserted in the bill, it actually may not deliver the outcome that is sought and still the court remains the place where a remedy is achieved.

Secondly, on the issue of tikanga—especially when we think about the ways in which people connect to their whenua and want to exercise a right and an interest—I am all for actually modernising the participation of owners. Coming back to Part 1, one of the things that it indicates is that there is the provision for other people, who may not whakapapa to the land, who can act on behalf of the interests of owners, to exercise that interest.

Let us just come back to kaiwhakamarumaru. We did talk about this in the Māori Affairs Committee. It was an opportunity if, for example, children are not of an age to make those decisions for a kaiwhakamarumaru to be appointed. Who appoints? It is the court. Does that person necessarily have to have a whakapapa interest in land—possibly not, probably not, maybe not. How, then, do they make a good judgment on behalf of children in an instance where these children or young people cannot make that determination themselves? Well, common sense will prevail. I get that. Common sense will prevail, and they will exercise their own judgment. But that is nothing to do with tikanga. That is just common sense and being pragmatic. So let us not disguise the Māori words within this kind of shroud of belief that, therefore, tikanga will apply. It is not like that.

One of the other key challenges I think to give real effect to the bill, which we have questioned the Minister for Māori Development on and certainly continue to question him on, is that when this legislation takes effect we have got a period of time until the major support agency, the Māori Land Service, is up and running in a way that can support the owners whom this legislation—

BARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Calling while I am making a decision is likely to disadvantage the member, whoever it is. We have been going on this for well over an hour and a half now. It is a long bill with lots of other parts, so I think those can be dealt with later on.

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

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 58; 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 279 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

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

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

By leave, the Chairperson Hon Trevor Mallard corrected the votes. Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell was agreed to on the voices. On the question that Part 1 as amended be agreed to, the Ayes were 62, Noes 57.

Part 2 Whenua Māori/Māori land, whenua tāpui, and kawenata tiaki whenua

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that Part 2 stand part. This is debate on clauses 12 to 44C and on schedule 2.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora anō tātou katoa. As raised last night by the member Miss Whaitiri—she asked that I set out the premise of this particular part, so I will endeavour to do so and help her and her colleagues along—in particular, Mr Rino Tirikatene.

This part of the bill covers the status of Māori land and provides for the new concept of whenua tāpui. Currently, there are two categories of Māori land: Māori customary land and Māori freehold land. The bill continues to provide for these categories, however, since the focus of the bill is Māori land, the status of general land and general land owned by Māori is not provided for in this particular bill.

Māori customary land is a statutory recognition of land held by our people—by Māori—in accordance with tikanga Māori. The Māori Land Court will continue to have jurisdiction to determine whether land is Māori customary land. The bill, however, changes the court’s role in relation to other matters associated with Māori customary land. In particular, the court will no longer be able to create individual ownership interests.

Māori customary land will be held in collective ownership. If the court changes its status to Māori freehold land, the land will remain in collective ownership. This change is important. By protecting Māori customary land from disposal, the relevant provisions reinforce the principle that Māori land endures as a taonga tuku iho by virtue of whakapapa. Consistent with providing for tino rangatiratanga, the bill recognises that the mana to decide what happens with their land sits with the owners themselves. However, the bill also supports the principle of retention by strengthening protections to prevent the loss of Māori freehold land.

Parts 3 and 4 of the bill regulate owner decision-making processes and dealings with Māori land, respectively.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I draw the member back to Part 2.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I am; I am just getting there. The combined effort of these parts provides a strong protective mechanism. For example, none of the critical thresholds for sale, gift, exchange, or long-term lease of Māori freehold land have been reduced in any way under this bill. The thresholds for sale remain at least 75 percent of the shareholding in the land, but, unlike the current Act, the bill enables owners to raise those thresholds up to 100 percent if they wish.

The bill also continues to protect the right of those with a tikanga-based association with the land to have first right to acquire it on a sale, and strengthens the process to protect that right under the current Act. The bill prevents Māori freehold land from being gifted to anyone who does not have a tikanga-based association with the land. The Māori Land Court will continue to have a role to ensure that these protection measures are complied with.

The whenua tāpui regime replaces, but is very similar to, the current regime of Māori reservations. Under the bill’s transitional provisions, all existing Māori reservations will be referred to as whenua tāpui. The two-step process under the current Act—requiring a Māori Land Court recommendation and a gazetted decision by the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri—will now be replaced by a single-step process of a Māori Land Court order, or, for Crown land, a gazetted decision by a Minister.

The bill establishes administering bodies for whenua tāpui. This aligns with reserves under the Reserves Act. It provides for a recognisable legal entity for whenua tāpui and removes the current inconsistencies where, for example, the Māori Land Court appoints trustees for some Māori reservations but not others. The purpose for which whenua tāpui may be established is the same as that set out in the current Act for establishing Māori reservations, although the language has been modernised. For example, the term “village site” has been replaced by “papakāinga housing site”.

The bill provides a pathway for marae and urupā to be owned collectively by the people they were set up for, if that is the owners’ wish. It also provides that land reserved as whenua tāpui cannot be disposed of.

Kawenata tiaki whenua provides a simple and straightforward mechanism for governance bodies and their owners to protect places that are culturally or historically important, or have special significance from a tikanga Māori perspective. Without this mechanism, they would have to go through a costly process of cancelling existing governance arrangements, seeking Māori Land Court agreements to establish a whenua tāpui over the special places, and then re-establish a governance arrangement over the rest of the land. Not only is this a simpler process but it aligns with the recognition of tino rangatiratanga. This is because governance bodies on behalf of their owners will be able to establish kawenata tiaki whenua themselves, without needing permission or approval from other outsider agencies or the court.

That gives a good overview about what is in Part 2 of this bill. I will leave it for the Committee to debate.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Can I thank the Minister for Māori Development for giving that explanation on Part 2 of this bill. I do have a few questions and I guess it is probably just to centre myself in Part 2 and I appreciate the Minister’s comments around it. There are three subparts—so we are talking about “Whenua Māori/Māori land”, “Whenua tāpui”, and “Kawenata tiaki whenua”. The Minister explained “Whenua Māori/Māori land’ ”. This subpart does define Māori customary land, disposal rules, who determines what Māori customary land is, who determines the collective owners of Māori customary lands, appointments of a kaiwhakahaere, and change of status of Māori customary land to Māori freehold land. It also defines Māori freehold land, disposal rules, how land becomes Māori freehold land, and how land ceases to become Māori freehold land. Then, of course, it goes into Subpart 2, “Whenua tāpui”—definitions of the types of whenua tāpui, the application process to become a whenua tāpui on Māori customary land or Māori freehold land or private land, and the role of the Minister for new whenua tāpui on Crown land.

So why is this particular part important to Māori land owners? Under Subpart 1, “Whenua Māori/Māori land”, I guess, like the content of this bill—and we are talking about Part 2—it is ensuring that the content is meeting what was laid out in Part 1, and we are ensuring that we are meeting those principles that many in this Committee have debated. But in terms of Subpart 1, “Whenua Māori/Māori land”, I guess, for me, I need assurances that the provisions contained in this part do not lead intentionally or unintentionally to Māori land alienation or to owners being removed from participating in making decisions on their land. So that is why this part, for me, is really important.

If I refer the Minister to subclause (2) of clause 13, “Māori customary land cannot be disposed of”, but it does not prevent the reservation of Māori customary land and cancellation. I will just give the Minister time to look at it, and I can then also get my notes so that I do not go off skew there.

So when we talk in clause 13 about “… Māori customary land cannot be—(a) disposed of;”, I just note it is interesting that subclause (2)—so subclause (1) talks about defining “… Māori customary land cannot be—(a) disposed of; or (b) vested or acquired under an Act …”, and that is very clear. But then we go to subclause (2), where we say “However,”, and so I guess when you have got absolute clauses and then you have “However,”, that seems to draw my attention. This says: “However, this section does not prevent—(a) any change in the class of collective owners who, in accordance with tikanga Māori, hold a parcel of Māori customary land, as long as the change is made in accordance with tikanga Māori: (b) the reservation of Māori customary land as a whenua tāpui, the cancellation of the reservation, any vesting related to the reservation or cancellation, or the grant of any lease under subpart 2:”. So if I then go to Subpart 2 and then I will draw the Committee’s attention to a reference in Subpart 2, “Whenua tāpui”, we find the statement in there, in clause 13(1), that talks about “… Māori customary land cannot be—(a) disposed of;”, and then it goes into, I guess, the exceptions.

The question that I have for the Minister is about ensuring that when we have that “However,” point made up in subclause (2) of clause 13, it does not interfere with the objective in subclause (1) of clause 13. I hope that makes sense. That is a question, anyway, to the Minister that the state of interest in Māori customary land cannot be disposed of, and the second section goes “However,”. So I just wanted some assurances from the Minister that subclause (1) of clause 13—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to interrupt the member for a second. I will give her back the call, but I am going to seek the leave of the House to amend the votes that were taken. There was some confusion as to whether we were voting on the amendment or on the motion, and what I am going to seek the leave for is for the Ayes, without a division, to agree to the amendments—so the Committee was unanimous about the amendments—but on the question that Part 1 be agreed to, the Ayes are 52 and the Noes are 57. Is there any objection to that process? There is none. That is it.

MEKA WHAITIRI: We have all recognised that this is a complex bill, so the first question was around clause 13. It was about ensuring subclause (2) does not prevent the achievement of what subclause (1) is stating.

Then I go to clause 14, “Court may determine whether land is Māori customary land”. Again, it lays out the role in terms of the court in clause 14. Then we go to clause 14(2)(b), and this is where I just wanted clarification from the Minister—“on application by—(i) any person with an interest in the matter;” of Māori customary land. So does that mean anybody? Then we talk about “(ii) the Register-General; or (iii) the Minister.”, and I guess I just wanted some assurances about when we are putting up applications for the court to determine whether a piece of land is customary land.

The question I have is when we have any person with any interest, I guess I wanted some assurances, and if the Minister had any examples to actually show what are these instances—it could be a simple explanation. It could be, you know, the land gifted from the Crown and, therefore, they want to make an application, but then my question in my head is that if that was the scenario—and possibly a scenario where the Crown is gifting land to a body of people and, therefore, we have got to put an application to the Māori Land Court—then why would we not just give it to the landowners’ entity, as an example? So I just wanted to make sure that I understood what clause 14 was.

If I go to clause 15, “Court may determine class of collective owners of Māori customary land”, again, as I go down to subclause (2)(b)(ii), I am highlighting—

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: What was the section again?

MEKA WHAITIRI: So section 15, subsection (2)(b)—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Clause.

MEKA WHAITIRI: Oh, clause 15(2)(b)(ii), where we have got “the Minister.” there. It says, in clause 15(2), “The court may make the determination—(a) on its own initiative in any proceedings;”, so we would understand why a court would make those determinations. Then paragraph (b) goes into “on application by— … Māori [persons] or group or class of Māori [persons]”, so that, to me, makes sense. Then we have got “or (ii) the Minister.”, so I would like to hear from the Minister why he would be involved in putting an application to the Māori Land Court to determine whether a piece of land was Māori customary land. So that is clause 15.

Then I go on to subclause (6) of clause 15, where we are talking about appointing “a kaiwhakahaere for the land in accordance with section 17, if there is not one already.” I go to clause 17, “Kaiwhakahaere appointed for Māori customary land”, and I draw the Minister’s attention to clause 17(2)(d), where we talk about anything else for which a kaiwhakahaere might be appointed under another Act. I guess the question I have for the Minister is whether he can give an example where that may occur. [Interruption] Carry on? OK. So that is clause 16, in terms of the appointment of a kaiwhakahaere, and I will just reference the Minister’s attention to clause 17, where we talk about the kaiwhakahaere being appointed under another Act—if he could give an example of that Act.

Going on to clause 18, “Trespass or injury to Māori customary land”, again, in subclause (2)(b)(ii), we talk about “the Māori Trustee, if there is no kaiwhakahaere appointed for the land and there is no evidence that the Māori Trustee is unauthorised to act.” I guess I wanted to get a clarification from the Minister that when we talk about “there is no evidence that the Māori Trustee is unauthorised to act.”, what does that particular provision mean?

I have got quite a few questions on the clauses in this part, but I think I have given the Minister enough questions around the first clauses in Part 2, Subpart 1—talking about “Whenua Māori/Māori land”, about Māori customary land, about the appointment of kaiwhakahaere, and about who actually can put up the applications to the court, and we talked about other people with interests, including the registrar-general and the Minister. I am just asking for some clarification from the Minister on those occasions, so that we understand the ability that we are debating under this Subpart 1 of Part 2 is fully understood. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just now going to place absolutely on the record, for the avoidance of all doubt, that Part 1 as amended stood part, on a vote of 62 to 57—just to make sure that there is no disagreement with that. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 311 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

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

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Ownership interests in Māori freehold land

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that Part 3, which is debate on clauses 45 to 95 and schedule 2, stand part.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Part 3 of the bill addresses ownership interests, provides for a collective ownership model, provides a framework to support owner decision-making, provides for whānau trusts, and replaces the kaitiaki trust in the current Act with the kaiwhakamarumaru model mentioned earlier in the debate. The existing regime for Māori land has resulted in huge fragmentation of ownership, so that today there are approximately 2.7 million ownership interests in Māori freehold land. To put this into context, 5 percent of New Zealand’s land area has approximately 2.7 million ownership interests, while the other 95 percent has approximately just 1.7 million ownership interests. The number of owners for each parcel ranges from one through to more than 14,600, with an average of just over 98 owners per parcel, so this represents a unique set of challenges and has contributed to significant disconnection of current generations from our land.

Part 3 addresses the effect of fragmented ownership by allowing owners to collectivise their ownership interests and making it easier for owners to set up trusts that allow whānau to collectively hold and manage their land interests. Under the bill, owners can establish a whānau trust themselves by simply registering a declaration of trust, instead of having to make an application to the Māori Land Court, attend a hearing, and have the court decide whether the trust should be established, as is currently the process. This part recognises the principle of mana motuhake, and shifts the controls more to the owners by making it easier for them to make decisions about their land on their own rather than apply to the Māori Land Court to make the decision for them, and that sort of discussion was hugely applauded in a number of the wānanga that were held as we took it around the country.

Owners of Māori freehold land with a governance body are able to create their own decision-making processes. If a decision-making process is not included in the governance arrangement or if the land is not managed by a governance body, the bill sets out a default process. This process has been carefully designed to ensure as many owners as possible are aware that a decision is to be made and will have the opportunity to participate. The processes for decision making are clear and transparent. Owners will be able to attend meetings, as I said earlier, in person, via a proxy, via a telephone, internet technology such as Skype, and online voting. This will make it easier for owners to live away from their whenua but still participate in decisions about their lands.

The bill provides that decisions affecting the ownership and retention of Māori land must have the agreement of a minimum threshold of all of the ownership interests in the land. However, other decisions can be made by owners who participate in the decision-making process. To put this more simply, the decisions about what happens to the land must be made by all owners, while the decisions about what happens on the land—such as appointing a governance body—can be made by participating owners. This is an important distinction that, unfortunately, many of those who have criticised this aspect of the bill have not necessarily appreciated.

The participating owner model addresses practical difficulties associated with decision making. For example, it allows a binding decision to be made by the majority of the owners who participate in a meeting where a decision has been proposed, even though the participation threshold for the decision has not been met. This second-chance mechanism cannot be used for decisions about what happens to the land, such as the sale, gifting, or exchange of parcels of land.

The participating owner model contains sufficient protections to ensure that a small group of owners are not able to hijack the process and dictate to the majority what happens to their land. These protections were strengthened by the Māori Affairs Committee, which included a requirement that the Māori Land Court must confirm decisions made through the second-chance mechanism, and specified that a decision-making process to revoke a governance agreement must be initiated by a greater proportion of the owners.

Part 3 also replaces the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court to establish kaitiaki trusts for owners under disability with a new jurisdiction to appoint kaiwhakamarumaru to manage certain property of an owner needing protection—namely, owners under 18 years of age, or owners who wholly or partly lack the capacity to manage their own affairs. These measures will ensure that owners who lack that capability can participate in decision-making processes about their land through kaiwhakamarumaru.

The kaiwhakamarumaru regime is modelled on the provisions for the appointment of managers under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. As a consequence, there are some differences between the new regime and the current model. For instance, under the current model, ownership of the person’s land interests vests in the trustees of the kaitiaki trust. Under the new regime, a kaiwhakamarumaru will not become the owner of the person’s land interests, as I explained a bit earlier. In light of that discussion that I presented to Miss Whaitiri, this is another attempt to ensure that we set out all of the provisions in this section, so that they are well documented for Hansard and into the future.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Again, thank you to the Minister for his explanation on Part 3. I just want to address a couple of clauses in Part 3. The first one is clause 47, “Rights of owners”. If we go to clause 47 it spells out: “(1) Every owner of Māori freehold land is entitled—(a) to engage in decisions relating to the land: (b) to be informed about the land, including its use and management: (c) to be heard in any proceedings relating to the land: (d) to be recognised and acknowledged as an owner of the land.” Then it goes into subclause (2): “However, the rights are subject to any provisions of Parts 1 to 9 [of this bill] … For example,— (a) if the land is managed by a governance body,—”. I was listening to the Minister’s explanation of this part and my question is around the remedy of the rights of owners if they feel that their rights, as described in clause 47, are at all impacted. So can he draw our attention to the rights of the owners if they feel that they are not able to participate as spelt out in this particular clause? So that is clause 47.

I then want to go to clause 51A—the Minister touched on the participation thresholds.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Sorry, what was that clause again?

MEKA WHAITIRI: Clause 47, “Rights of owners”.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Yes, and this one?

MEKA WHAITIRI: So you have got the list there in the first—[Interruption] Yes.

Sorry, before I leave clause 47—subclause (3), where you talk about “does not limit or affect other rights that owners may have at law or in accordance with tikanga Māori.” So, again, it just raises what previous speakers have said about how that would be interpreted, how landowners would activate that, and whose tikanga it would be talking about in terms of that particular clause. So that is clause 47.

Going on to clause 51A, the Minister touched on the participation thresholds, and it is clearly spelt out in the bill, in terms of—if there are fewer than 10 owners, then all owners must be involved; between 10 and 100 owners, at least 10 owners, with at least 25 percent or more shares must be involved; between 100 and 500 owners, at least 20 owners, or 25 percent of all shares must be involved. For me, my experience with Māori land holdings is that you are likely to have more than 500 owners of a block of land, and the decision-making threshold is at least 50 owners, with 10 percent or more shares. The question I have for the Minister—and I note the point around fragmentation; there could be more than 500 owners. We could have up to 1,000 owners. We could have up to 2,000 owners of a block of land, and for this threshold you need only 50 landowners who collectively have 10 percent of the shares.

So the question I have is: if we had a scenario of, say 500—let us just keep it close—what happens to the other 450 owners? If we take the 10 percent shares, what happens to the 90 percent shares? So, again, it is a safeguard for those 450 owners in that particular threshold and the 90 percent shareholders. I think that is something that we could ask the Minister. Those owners who fall in that category—the 450 I am talking about, and the shareholders who collectively have 90 percent—what remedy do they have, to have assurances that they do not lose what we have spelt out in Part 3 under clause 47 “Rights of owners”? So, for me, that is that one.

Of course, I just want to touch on—in the time I have got left—clause 51B “Second decision-making process”. The Minister did give an explanation of it, but, as I read it—and I do understand that ultimately the Māori Land Court has the final say in terms of ensuring that the process is right. I will come back to that.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I want to follow on from my colleague Meka Whaitiri because I think the issues that she raises are very important. One of the things for the Māori Affairs Committee that we understand, having processed so many Treaty settlements, is the actual participation rates of people in decision making per se. Therefore, how do we encourage Māori owners to make decisions around their land interests, to be able to be a part of improving the utilisation of their land? I question aspects of the approach in so far as how complex it is. We discussed this at length within the select committee. The participation thresholds—we wanted to ensure, Minister, as you are aware, that the highest participation threshold was around the disposition or sale of Māori land. But we really grappled with just how complex it is around the range of decisions, the varying participation rates, and trying to ensure that Māori land owners had good information around this.

We hazarded a guess that it is going to come down to the way in which the Māori Land Service works with Māori land owners to ensure that they are really well aware of their rights and interests as decision making occurs. So clause 47, as commented by my colleague Meka Whaitiri, is a really important clause because it sets out those rights in a somewhat clear way. But as we progress through the bill and you start to understand how the decision-making process takes place, the potential positive impact of a second decision-making mechanism—I think it has been improved because of the select committee. But the way in which it works to improve the transparency of decisions and the participation of owners in those decisions is yet to be tested.

So it would be useful for the select committee because the wider conversation of the role of the Māori Land Service in assisting owners to participate in the decision-making regime, to understand it as they are participating in it—it would be good to get a steer from you about how that is intended to take place. Again, we grappled with the extent to which it needed to be—clearly—in the legislation, and are of a view that it is a good thing that it is.

I wanted to also comment on the issue around minors not being counted as participating owners and the role of kaiwhakamarumaru, which I alluded to earlier, and ensuring that the obligations of a kaiwhakamarumaru are representing the best interests—the whakapapa interests—of those under whom they are exercising decision-making responsibilities. It may or may not have been a big issue as you considered this on the way through, so I do not want to make a mountain out of what might be a molehill, although we accept that when we considered the role and responsibility of kaiwhakamarumaru, we understood, primarily, the aspects relating to minors and those not able to vote themselves.

The other area that I thought was useful to comment on—it is one that you raised in your opening comments, Minister—is around the small shareholding interests and needing to amalgamate. If ever there was any example of the onerous aspects of trying to go to a whole lot of meetings to get a whole lot of whānau to agree to amalgamate their interests for a development purpose, it would be around the East Coast and the projects that were led by Chris Insley to try to get, I guess, the economy of scale and the collective ownership focus on a broader development opportunity. It was done, but it was done with much difficulty, as I understand it. So that approach to try to consolidate lots of little ownership interests I think would work well. But, again, on the way through it is about giving assurance to those small owners that their interests and visibility over the decision making are actually really important, and that they are not going to kind of get superseded in any shape or form.

I know that I am kind of tackling these at a very global level, but I do know, Minister, that you have a good knowledge of these particular issues, and I would hope that you respond to the questions.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te Whare nei. Otirā, tēnā tātou. Thank you for the opportunity for this first contribution on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.

It is a complex bill, and I have had some questions and contact from constituents who are concerned about it. I just wanted to make a quote around the complexities of it, from the Māori Land Court judges, who said the complexity of the reform risks parties lawyering up, which will change the dynamic of Māori land disputes. And I think my questions on this part are relevant to the complexities of it.

My question is because I was contacted by a trustee of a reserve that has been set up under the Māori Purposes Act 1954, and I am assuming that the interest of that particular land will come under the Part 2 arrangement as whenua tāpui. Given that and also the ownership interest in Māori in this part of the bill and the threshold required, under that particular trust, it is held on behalf of a large number of people; 40,000 in fact. So the threshold under this particular part would be incredibly onerous on the trustees for that particular trust. When they asked me, I said “I don’t know.”, but I feel obliged to actually ask the question. It may or may not even be relevant; I just do not know, but I refer to the comments from the Māori Land Court judges—and this is a very complex piece of legislation that removes an entire Act and then replaces it.

On top of that, we have added into it over—from my count, anyway—60 substantial changes since the select committee. In that context, these parts have not been scrutinised on the changes since the select committee, and so the only avenue that I have on behalf of my constituents is to ask the questions at this stage of the Committee of the whole House. So I think it is really important that we do get answers to these questions. To be honest, there is probably a simple answer, but I just do not know. If we had had the opportunity to scrutinise it through the select committee, then these questions could have been answered quite quickly. And that is probably the main point of this contribution to this part of the bill—I tried to get up earlier—which is that it has not been scrutinised to that extent.

So, if we think about the contributions and the consultation that has taken place on this part and all the other parts, from the first consultation to the time it left the select committee, there have been at least 16 or 17 versions. I do not know; it could even be more. The fact of the matter is, you know, the constituents who have contacted me, I believe, deserve to have those answers, and it is a great shame that they have not been able to be answered through a more efficient use of Parliament’s time. So that is my contribution on this, and those are my questions. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I have just a couple of quick points, which I am genuinely wondering whether the Chair will allow. So I will start by saying that in Part 3, as through the whole bill, we are referring to a number of tikanga phrases and concepts—so they are not just kupu—like kaiwhakamarumaru, kaiwhakahaere, whenua tāpui, and kawenata tiaki whenua. So I wondered whether the Chair would just allow me—I did not get to make my point in the earlier parts—to just make the point that we are inserting, right throughout the whole bill, these tikanga Māori terms and concepts.

While I personally do not have a huge problem with having a go—and I have talked to my colleague Marama Fox about this—at seeing how and testing how we incorporate Māori law into statute law, I will make an acknowledgment of the fundamental view, also, that is quite cynical and quite wary of that. I think it is important, as we continue to debate these terms through the bill, that I need to acknowledge the valid cynicism, purely because tikanga Māori, by its very nature, operates and begins from a whole different standing of leadership. And what we are doing, which we have done for a long time, I acknowledge, before this bill, is trying to translate or insert a whole different concept of living and maintaining and establishing relationships into a Crown and Western law system that starts from an entirely, almost, opposing concept of leadership and relationship to people and land. So I will only do it in one part, because it does occur through the whole bill, but I will take the opportunity in this part, as I am looking through, to just make that point and at least have the Green Party in the Hansard record as acknowledging what I think is valid cynicism and being fearful and wary of inserting our amazing concepts and tikanga into law.

Secondly, this is just a small point, and it is really a genuine question, because I do think it is worth continuing to raise that this is a big, thick, telephone-book bill, and this is a big, thick Supplementary Order Paper, so I am genuinely left asking to clarify. We are in Part 3, I think, going on to clause 51C, where it talks about “Summary of specified majorities of owners who must agree to [certain] decisions about Māori freehold land”. So, essentially, clause 51C presents a schedule of those thresholds for how certain decisions are made. Clause 51C goes through, for example, the required levels of owners to reach those agreements. It is different depending on the decisions. So, for example, disposition of land has a certain, different threshold to boundary adjustment—just two quick little examples, so I am clear about what I am asking. Earlier, at the beginning of this part, the Minister for Māori Development, I believe, made the comment that the thresholds for making different decisions remain the same, or are improved or increased, but the decision-making thresholds have not been reduced. I just want to get some clarity, and it may not be a simple answer, because I take on board what my colleagues raised about the different scale. So I would appreciate—and I also apologise—some actual clarity about that.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Reference was made to this bill being a complex one. Can I say that in this part of the bill, particularly around clause 51, I think is an example of the complexity that a number of commentators have made reference to. For me, it is the issue of the second-chance meeting. While the Minister for Māori Development made reference to the fact that all owners need to be involved, the issue of a second-chance decision-making process will contradict that comment, because it then allows for a fraction of the total ownership to make a decision on behalf of the ownership. That point was certainly highlighted by the Māori Land Court judges themselves, where they say that the participating owners’ regime will mean that a minority of owners who can satisfy the bill’s participation thresholds will be able to make decisions with binding effect on all owners, without any court process where the interests of the owners as a whole are assessed. Those decisions can be made outside of any governance structure, meaning that the owners owe very few, if any, duties to their fellow owners.

Furthermore, the second decision-making process—again, in clause 51—will mean that if an initial meeting does not meet the participation threshold and another meeting is held within 20 working days, there is no participation threshold whatsoever. So that, for me, does not augur well for many of the shareholders, particularly those who are living away from home, and we know that it is intended that this clause will allow for the participation of those who are not living at home and are living away in other areas—in fact, in some cases, in other countries. My feeling is that the possibilities of a second decision-making process can alienate those particular shareholders from this decision process.

The bill itself goes on to identify the circumstances in which this decision-making process can take place. It identifies how owners of Māori freehold land will be required to make decisions. However, if the participation threshold for a decision is not satisfied, and I quote from clauses 51(8)(a) and (b), “a second decision-making process for the decision may be commenced within 20 working days after the day on which the level of owner participation in the first decision-making process was calculated (which may be the day on which voting on the proposal closes or the day on which owners consider the proposal, if the proposal does not proceed to a vote because the required quorum of owners is not present);”. In subclause (8)(b), “there is no participation threshold for the second decision-making process, as long as—(i) the applicable decision-making process is followed as if the decision were a new decision;”. Subclause (8)(c) goes on to say that “if the applicable decision-making process includes a separate quorum requirement, a failure to satisfy the quorum requirement does not invalidate the decision.” That does provide some concern for me. In terms of the use of the words “a complex bill”, I think that this provides for that issue of complexity.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Just in the time that we have available, I want to clarify a couple of matters. To help the member who just took his seat, Pita Paraone, I suggest he might be reading clauses from an older version of the bill, which is probably not going to help.

Just to clarify the second chance issues that have been raised by members regarding clause 51B, the clause that has been mentioned earlier—I just note for the Committee that the second-chance provisions cannot be used for decisions that require a threshold of all owners. They can be used only for participating owners, and, actually, the Māori Affairs Committee added a requirement for court confirmation. I hope that clarifies that issue in respect of the second-chance issues.

Marama Davidson asked the question about thresholds being reduced. I can confirm to the member that they are not reduced. The current thresholds are those that currently sit within the Act right now, but, as I said in the earlier contributions, those thresholds can be lifted on the basis of what the trust cum the owners wish to do. They can take it up to 99 percent, 80 percent—whatever. It cannot go under that threshold ever, and that is documented within the law. OK? So it strengthens, again, the provisions in respect of the retention of the land.

She also raised an issue in respect of the use of Māori terms in law. I mean, of course the use of kupu Māori in law is not new. We have it in Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori and Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori, we have it in fisheries legislation, and we have it in Treaty settlements, so a precedent has already been set in respect of the use of Māori language in this House and in law. It is not new, and, as I said earlier to the member and to the Committee, we took careful consideration to think about those concepts.

In the end, as has been mentioned by all of us, our tikanga is our tikanga. Ko te āhuatanga ki a Ngāpuhi he rerekē anō rā ki te āhuatanga ki a Te Arawa, ki a Ngāti Raukawa, ki a Ngāti Porou rānei. Kei tēnā iwi, kei tēnā whānau tōna tikanga, kei tēnā hapū o roto i te āhuatanga o tētahi iwi te tikanga o roto i a ia.

[The situation as it relates to Ngāpuhi differs once again from that of Te Arawa, Ngāti Raukawa, or Ngāti Porou. That tribe and that family has its own tradition, that subtribe within the circumstance of a tribe the tradition within itself.]

We are sometimes a little bit different from what Te Arawa collectively believes and thinks. Our tikanga is our tikanga, and that, I believe, is one of the strengths of this legislation, because it allows whānau, hapū, iwi, rūnanga, or whatever other body to operate by our tikanga. I am hoping that it is about time we recognise that a tikanga has some place for us to be able to do the decision making, and not necessarily have it always legitimised by law, because it is our tikanga. This is at the forefront of this legislation: allowing our people to make decisions in a way that is right for us.

I am fairly clear, as Pita Paraone talked about, that when we went up north and had the discussion about, I think it was version No. 4 or 5, they had a particular tikanga at the time. It was not necessarily too friendly. In fact, even within the hall there was a different tikanga about how everybody respected each other and so on and so forth. Be that as it may, that is what we operate by as Māori, and surely, utilising our land in a way that we believe is appropriate. Me whai tātau i ō tātau ake tikanga. [We must follow the tradition that applies to us only.] That means that we are not locked down to a generic tikanga base called “Māori”. I runga i te āhuatanga, he rerekē te kōrero o Te Tai Tokerau ki tērā o Te Tai Rāwhiti, ki tērā iwi, ki tērā hapū.

[And so based on the situation, Northland talk will differ from that of the East Coast tribe and subtribe.]

I hope that that gives some assurance to the member that we are in the right zone, and the use of Te Reo Māori—ēhara i te mea he āhuatanga hou, karekau, i roto i ngā āhuatanga o Te Whare Pāremata e noho nei, ko te āhuatanga o Te Reo Māori e kōrerotia ana [it is not as though it is something new, far from it; in circumstances relating to Parliament as it sits now, the situation concerning the Māori language is being addressed].

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Interesting—the Minister talks about tikanga ki tēnā hapū, whānau, and iwi, and the ability for Māori to be able to utilise that, and I just want to quickly touch on something. Why, then, in this particular bill, does the court have the ability to appoint a kaiwhakahaere? The interpretation in the bill of the “kaiwhakahaere” is actually quite far removed from whānau involvement, but we will get to that part a little bit later on. [Interruption] According to this, Minister Flavell, it is actually appointed by the court, and later on it then says that the kaiwhakahaere does not have to have the involvement of whānau. But, like I said, we will get to that one a little bit later.

People such as Ngāpuhi, we are a victim of our own success—our ability to breed. I can tell the Minister that, in fact, in his own electorate, one in three babies born is Ngāpuhi. Hey, that is just the strength of Ngāpuhi. So, as a result, we do have this tīmokamoka, which is the Māori word about a fragmentation of shares.

I want to commend in this particular part of the bill, Minister, the ability for whānau trusts to be able to be established to make sure hei whakatōpū i ngā hea [to amalgamate the shares]. I think that is a good thing. But I do have just one question with regard to that, Minister. It is just for clarification purposes. It is about clause 59(3)(d), which states “other property, including other land.” I just want a bit of clarification, Minister, around exactly what “other property, including other land.” means. The clause is quite clear about the beneficial interest in the freehold estate in one or more parcels of Māori freehold land—I understand that—and the beneficial interest in one or more individual freehold interests in the freehold estate in one or more parcels of Māori freehold land, and so on. But then it gets to paragraph (d), and it says “other property, including other land.” Are we talking about private land ownership, separate from Māori shares and separate from Māori freehold land ownership? I wonder whether that also includes private property, as it states there—“other property,”.

So I just want a little bit of clarification, but I do want to commend the Minister for this particular part of the bill, because it is an important thing. For whānau who wish to collect all of the shares as a result of “Our grandmother had 1,000 shares, and now she has almost 1,000 mokopuna, and so each one gets however many shares.”—you do the maths—

Marama Fox: One.

PEENI HENARE: Well, no, because she might have had children, and the children are still alive—ah. So you do the maths. It is important to make sure that you bring it together, but it is more important that there is a mechanism for that process through this particular bill, because the experience of Māori land owners—certainly in Ngāti Hine, which this bill has a serious effect on—has been that it is actually quite difficult to establish whānau trusts to do that. So I would like just a bit of clarification around that, please, Minister.

I do want to go back to clause 51A, and it is the bit about the thresholds. It would have been heard in the count of the votes earlier that maybe my maths is not the best, but I do want just a little bit of clarification. In clause 51A(3)(b), it says that if “there are more than 10 but not more than 100 owners,”—straightforward—“there must be participation by at least 10 owners whose individual freehold interests total a 25% or more share in the parcel:”. Is that suggesting that 10 or 11 owners can come together out of 15 shareholders across the entire block, yet the entire one owner, or the final four in this particular instance, who holds the majority of the shares—say, 74 percent of the shares—can still be overturned by a smaller number of shareholders who actually own, collectively, a smaller percentage of shares?

That is a serious issue—to think that if there are more than 10 but no more than 100 owners there must be a participation of at least 10 owners. So 11 of those people can come together in a 20-person shareholding and individually they might have small shares, but collectively, with 11, they will have 25 or 26 percent. That is of real concern because the remainder of the shareholders actually own close to 74 percent of the share.

So I am just asking for some clarification around those particular numbers, with a particular focus on—while I understand the intent of these types of mechanisms, the reality on the marae of, say, the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust AGM, according to these kinds of numbers, these thresholds, and these requirements, almost requires genius computer applications just to crunch these numbers to get through the process of an AGM in 1 day. So I am questioning here—while I understand the intent, I wonder whether the Minister can actually explain a little bit more about the roll-out and its application on the marae. When you have got owners and beneficiaries numbering approximately 4,500, you get a high participation rate of—sorry, Mr Chair—

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

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, and progress on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.