Tuesday, 30 May 2017

TUESDAY, 30 MAY 2017

TUESDAY, 30 MAY 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Australia—Accountability and Oversight Committee, Parliament of Victoria

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Neil Angus, chair of the Accountability and Oversight Committee of the Parliament of Victoria, Australia, and his delegation, present in the gallery.

Speaker’s Rulings

Written Questions—Adequacy of Replies

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, on Wednesday last week Chris Hipkins asked that I consider the adequacy of some replies to written questions. The particular situation raised with me was when a select committee rejects or edits an Estimates or annual review question. A member may subsequently lodge it as a written question instead. Mr Hipkins was concerned that Ministers often answer written questions by reference to materials provided during the Estimates and annual review processes.

Ministers have a responsibility to the House, and through the House to the country, to account for the public offices they hold. Questions are an important element of this accountability and Ministers should provide informative answers to them, when doing so is consistent with the public interest. On 10 September 2015 I ruled that a Minister may answer a question by referring a member to information that is already publicly available. However, if a Minister chooses to reply by directing a member to information already available, he or she must do so with some particularity. It is not acceptable to simply state that the information has already been released or that it was provided to a select committee. Rather, the Minister should provide a sufficiently detailed answer to enable the member to directly locate the information. Making reference to information in answers to Estimates or annual review questions in response to a written question is acceptable only if the information actually addresses the question, otherwise the Minister is expected to provide a full and informative answer.

I would conclude by noting that written questions usually have a shorter time frame for responses than Estimates or annual review questions, and that the same officials are likely to prepare answers to the questions however they are lodged. While it is largely up to a select committee to determine how it operates, I urge all select committees to reach negotiated solutions on the admissibility of questions, particularly in light of their key role in scrutinising the executive. I intend to circulate a copy of this ruling to all Ministers.

Motions

International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers—Commemoration

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate that this House note that yesterday, 29 May, was the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers.

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

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I move, That this House note that yesterday, 29 May, was the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers, and pay tribute to more than 113,000 peacekeepers deployed to 16 missions around the world, including New Zealand armed forces personnel and police, whose important work reflects the United Nations’ commitment to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Budget 2017—Family Incomes Package

1. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Finance: How will the Family Incomes Package in Budget 2017 help families get ahead financially?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The $2 billion a year Family Incomes Package in Budget 2017 will help families get ahead through a combination of tax threshold changes, family tax credit increases, and additional support through the accommodation supplement. The tax threshold changes mean that anyone earning over $22,000 receives an additional $11 per week, or $20 per week more for those earning over $52,000. When combined with the increases to the family tax credit, the accommodation supplement, and the simplification of removing the independent earner tax credit, 1.3 million families are better off by an average of $26 per week under the changes coming into effect on 1 April next year.

Nuk Korako: What further assistance is the Government providing to assist families with their housing costs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Increases to the accommodation supplement maxima and changes to the geographic areas that they apply to will further assist families to meet their housing costs. This is a very important part of the package, despite some critics’ attempts to ignore it. For example, the income of a family living in Waitakere with a 16-year-old child and with one partner earning $46,000 per year will be 36c per week down from the tax and Working for Families changes, but they will benefit by up to $100 or more per week when you take into account the whole package. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just mention to the members on my left that I need substantially less interjection than I am getting at this early stage of question time.

Nuk Korako: How does the Family Incomes Package benefit superannuitants?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The changes we are making to the tax system will have flow-on benefits to around three-quarters of a million New Zealand superannuation recipients because of the link between after-tax wages and New Zealand superannuation. For a married couple, New Zealand superannuation will increase by $13 per week on 1 April next year because of the tax changes on top of their normal adjustment. This will mean that there will have been a 35 percent increase in superannuation since we came into office. That is over twice the rate of inflation. In addition, around 15,000 superannuitants with high housing costs will see an average increase of $29 per week from the accommodation supplement changes, to help them with their housing costs.

David Seymour: Does the package, in combination with the tax changes announced by him last week as part of this Budget, shift more of the burden of Government and tax on to higher-income earners?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen an analysis that suggests it is a slightly higher incidence at the higher end.

Nuk Korako: What support has he received for Budget 2017 and the Family Incomes Package?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Budget 2017 is receiving a wide range of support from around the country. I was most pleased to hear the comments from young families on TV and in the newspapers about how getting some extra money every week will make their lives easier. I am also very pleased to see colleagues across the House, including the Greens and New Zealand First, understand that this package is about helping families get ahead. They voted in favour of it last Friday, and I would like to thank them for their support.

David Seymour: How does this expansion of the Working for Families policy gel with John Key’s comments that Working for Families is “communism by stealth”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member is quite young, but some of us older ones are able to remember that we have had family benefits and other packages for families in place in this country since at least back through the 1970s—in fact, I can remember my parents getting the family benefit—so there has always been some form of assistance for people with young families. This is one example of it existing today, in terms of the family tax credits, and it is the most efficient way of supplying extra support to low-income parents with young children.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister of Finance have any confidence in his Budget being passed, seeing as we have got such a lion of anger in the form of the ACT Party member asking questions every day, challenging its veracity and its economic thinking?

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Weirdly, of course, it is a strange day indeed. But I would like to thank the member for his support, which is ensuring that we have got some votes to spare in passing the Family Incomes Package.

David Seymour: If the Minister will indulge my youthful lack of historical knowledge, could he please tell me how long has it been the National Party that is tasked with expanding taxes and transfers and the welfare State?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no responsibility for the National Party by the Minister.

Budget 2017—Impact on Health Services, Education, and Housing

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Did the Minister of Finance tell him that last week’s Budget cut elective surgery funding by $10 million, means the average early childhood centre effectively loses $15,000, and provides new Crown land funding for only 1,200 houses?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): No, the Minister of Finance did not—

Grant Robertson: Oh, he’s misled you?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —because that is not correct. Not correct. Now that the Labour Party has voted against the Budget, it is trying to find reasons to justify that vote, but I would say to the member that he should stop relying on Grant Robertson’s numbers.

Andrew Little: Is Dr Tim Molloy, president of the College of General Practitioners, right or wrong when he says of this Budget “There’s nothing in it. I’m not surprised—I’m disappointed and seriously underwhelmed.”, and tax cuts will be “completely negated if the cost of healthcare goes up.”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I am sure that Dr Molloy, if he considered all aspects of the lives of his patients, would actually disagree with himself, because the fact is that a whole lot of his patients will be considerably better off because of the Family Incomes Package, and those with more complex requirements, including the need for health services, will find that a range of initiatives from the increase in spending in health through to the social investment initiatives will aid his patients. So I am sure that Dr Molloy would figure out he is not correct.

Andrew Little: What does he have to say to the people who will not be able to get surgeries or home support services as a result of his Government underfunding district health boards (DHBs) by over $200 million a year in the Budget?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I would say to them is that the health services have a very large amount of extra money over the next few years, and that will be allocated by the DHBs where they believe the need is greatest. I would also say to them that they should not take too much notice of Labour’s theoretical calculations about the amount of money, because what matters are results, and this Government will remain strongly focused on getting better results in healthcare.

Jami-Lee Ross: Did the Minister of Finance tell him that last week’s Budget will increase the incomes of 1.3 million families by an average of $26 per week?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes he did, and he told me that 156,000 of the poorest families will gain by an average of $35 per week, and he told me that 750,000 superannuitants will also gain with the couple rate of New Zealander superannuation expected to increase by around $22 per week from 1 April next year. But he has fallen down on one task, and that is properly explaining to the leader of the Labour Party and the finance spokesman of the Labour Party that when they use case studies, they should take into account all the measures the Government has put in place, and not just pick one or two. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: Why, when in 2010 he and his Government cut more than $700 million out of Working for Families, have they, last week, restored only $370 million a year to Working for Families? Why is he continuing to rip off working families in New Zealand?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Labour is getting so desperate it is now defining a cut as a smaller increase than the bigger one that could have happened, and he is now working off figures from 7 years ago. Those families are all significantly better off, and they are better off because this Government did not take the advice of Labour over 6 or 7 years and spray money at everything; we actually looked after the public resources. Now we have surpluses, and now we have some choices.

Jami-Lee Ross: Did the Minister of Finance tell him about any feedback that he has received on the Family Incomes Package?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As a matter of fact, he did—the Minister of Finance being someone who has a real skill for listening to the New Zealand public. He advised me that the package has had widespread support around the country and within the Parliament. The Minister of Finance advised me, somewhat to my surprise, that the Greens had voted for the package—and he advised me that New Zealand First had voted for it—having advised me some time ago that the Greens and Labour had a memorandum of understanding, which indicated that they were communicating closely on all matters. The Minister of Finance advised me that the Greens did not tell Labour—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We are now getting well past the original part of the question.

Andrew Little: Moving on from the misleading statements of the Minister of Finance, are early childhood education providers—

Hon Maggie Barry: Misleading statements of his own.

Andrew Little: Is that the latecomer talking? Are early—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I know the member was responding to interjections, so I want the interjections from my right to cease while the supplementary question is asked.

Andrew Little: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will maintain decorum. Are early childhood education providers right or wrong when they say this Budget “means the average childcare centre loses $15,000” in real terms. because per-pupil funding is frozen?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, they are not correct. The early childhood funding has expanded, pretty dramatically, actually, under this Government, by almost $1 billion. It was around $800 million when we became the Government; it is now over $1.7 billion. Of course some people are going to say that they did not get as much as they wanted, but one of the reasons for that is we wanted to spread the benefits of growth right across the community, particularly to the type of families whom the member was trying to quote this morning—the family in West Auckland—when he just happened to leave out, or Grant Robertson just happened to leave out, the fact that they could be eligible for up to $80 per week of accommodation supplement.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Prime Minister, that far from being confident about his Budget, he is cutting and running off to Samoa for 4 days—4 days—for its independence day celebrations, which begins on 1 June, not tomorrow, and, therefore, he is not able to and does not want to face accountability in this House?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will be—in fact, it is not quite 4 days—longer than that member has spent in the Northland electorate since he became elected. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it a point of order? [Interruption] Order! I want to hear the point of order in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, he started out and he was going so well until he decided to start telling lies.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The member asked a very political question; he can expect a very robust answer. Does the Prime Minister wish to complete his answer?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I was just going to point out to the member that I have a lot of relatives in Samoa and it would be rude not to meet them all while I am there.

Andrew Little: Are 500 principals, who wrote an open letter to him, right or wrong when they say that the funding freeze means they cannot afford to pay teacher-aides better without cutting their hours?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: They are wrong in referring to a funding freeze; no such thing has occurred. But I think where we would agree with the principals—if not with the Labour Party—is that it is the way the money is spent and the results we achieve for children that matter more than the Labour Party calculations about how much money it thinks schools could have got. You do not show you care about education just by spending hundreds of millions on it. You show you care by making sure that each child gets the opportunity free education should give them, and that is the opportunity to become a functioning, literate, and numerate citizen.

Andrew Little: What does he say to home buyers who can look forward to house prices rising at three times the rate of wages according to his Budget’s forecasts?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would say to them that there are more houses being built now than there have been for many decades and that, particularly if they are in Auckland, the best thing they can do is tell the Labour Party to stop opposing large developments in Auckland, such as the Three Kings and the Point England development, because they would allow for thousands more houses in Auckland, which would certainly help the price of houses. But Labour insists on opposing the developments there while promising a “castles in the air” housing policy here.

Andrew Little: Why does he think that he knows better than GPs about health, better than principals about schools, and better than young couples about the housing crisis, and can he not see that after 9 years of failing all those people, it is time for a fresh approach, not a shoddy election bribe?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course we do not know more about those specialised professional tasks than the people who carry them out, but some of them have been misled by the Labour Party. This is where the leader of the Labour Party and those groups have something in common. If they are relying on Grant Robertson’s numbers, they will be embarrassed.

Budget 2017—Home Insulation and Health Impacts

3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s decisions?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, especially the Family Incomes Package in the 2017 Budget, which provides around $2 billion to support family incomes. It will benefit around 1.3 million families by an average of $26 a week. I am pleased to see that the member supports this decision, because it will help so many low and middle income earners with young families, and it is impressive that the Greens thought supporting those families was more important than supporting a dysfunctional and flailing Labour Party.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his Government’s decision in last week’s Budget to cut funding for rheumatic fever prevention when rheumatic fever rates are rising?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would have to check the details about the actual funding for rheumatic fever, but I can tell the member this: this Government set up the rheumatic fever scheme, with, I think, $60 million at the time. It has been innovative, it has had a significant effect on rheumatic fever rates, and the lessons from that have been applied to the new Better Public Services result around reducing hospital admissions for children for preventable conditions. So, essentially, we are taking the rheumatic fever scheme and applying it on a much wider basis, so that we can have more healthy children and fewer of them going to hospital.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his Government’s decision in last week’s Budget to stop insulating homes at the end of this year?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: A law has been passed precisely to make sure that all homes are insulated where that is reasonably possible—

Phil Twyford: No—rental properties.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —all rental homes. I cannot help feeling that the Greens are running into the same trap as the Labour Party, and that is that now that those members have decided to vote against the Government on the confidence motion, they are trying to find reasons for that vote.

James Shaw: Can he confirm that the law that he just referred to—the change in the insulation standards that the Government introduced in 2016—is based on 1978 levels, will not come into effect for another 2 years, is lower than the current building code, and is lower than officials recommend for a healthy home?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I cannot confirm any of those things.

James Shaw: Has he seen reports that there are still 600,000 homes in this country with poor thermal performance, which are cold and damp in winter, and which make the people who live in them sick?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen all sorts of reports about the state of our housing stock. That is one of the reasons why the Government has legislated in the way that we have just described, and it is also a reason why we have now put in place for the first time systems for dealing with children, in particular, who show up in hospitals with diseases that may be related to the poor state of the house that they are in. The good news is that more new houses are being built than ever, the State housing stock has been significantly improved since this Government came into office, and the standard of houses in New Zealand is rising.

James Shaw: Does he agree with Otago University professor Philippa Howden-Chapman that home insulation is “a very, very good investment”; if so, why is he not funding it under his social investment programme?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member may be aware, the Government has spent hundreds of millions on subsidising the insulation of homes, and has come to the view that the best thing from here is to make it a requirement for all those who do own rental homes to insulate them. It seems to me, in the same way we do not spend money subsidising the spouting or hanging doors in homes, that that should be an integral part of the standard of the home.

James Shaw: If a 6:1 benefit-cost ratio to tackle a problem that puts kids in hospital 40,000 times and kills more people than the road toll every year does not meet the criteria to be considered a good social investment, what does?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are lots of proposals that meet the criteria for sound social investment, but, as I have already explained to the member, because of the significance of insulation, we have legislated to require insulation to a specific level in all rental homes.

Budget 2017—Vote Health

4. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that Budget 2017 will invest an extra $3.9 billion over four years into Vote Health, taking the total health investment to $16.77 billion in 2017/18?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes indeed. Delivering better health services for a growing population remains this Government’s No. 1 funding priority. This is reflected in Budget 2017. The additional funding will deliver a range of new initiatives to meet cost pressures as well as population growth, including an extra $1.76 billion over 4 years for district health boards to invest in services and to improve access.

Simon O’Connor: How much has health funding increased in recent years?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: An extra $888 million is being invested into health services for 2017-18. That is the biggest increase in 11 years. The total health investment is $16.77 billion in 2017-18. That is an increase of around $5 billion across our nine Budgets. None of this would have been possible without the steady management of the economy, which has allowed us to maintain sustainable investment into our health services.

Dr David Clark: Is the reason he prefers to add 4 years’ worth of health spending that he gave district health boards (DHBs) only $439 million for 2017-18, when his officials told him that the total cost pressures for DHBs was $644 million in the last year alone?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I believe the 4 year total convention was started by Dr Michael Cullen, and this Government has continued with that.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a paper showing that his ministry advises, based on demographic pressure, that in the last year alone, the cost was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need the source of the document.

Dr David Clark: It is an OIA response.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act response. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

Economic Growth—GDP Per Capita and Immigration

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements on the health of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, particularly my statement during last week’s Budget speech, where I said: “a strong economy can never be taken for granted. It must be nurtured and worked on or it will quickly go backwards. While the world economy is growing, there are plenty of risks and plenty of political uncertainties that could affect us.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If, as he told Q+A on Sunday, our economy is “performing as a country a lot better than the UK, the US, Australia, Canada, Europe”—which is not a country but he said it was—“Japan, at the moment,” which of these economies’ GDP growth is based mainly on consumption and mass immigration, like our GDP growth is?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is simply incorrect. The reason this country is growing is that we have strong Kiwi businesses working hard and getting out there and selling their goods and services on the world stage. That is resulting in New Zealand becoming more attractive in very high levels of employment, so we need to attract more skilled workers. The member may want to slow down the New Zealand economy because it is going a little bit too quickly for him, but, actually, I think most people are positive about the benefits of economic growth in terms of wages and increasing incomes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there is the remotest shred of evidence of that being true, why did the Reserve Bank Governor, Governor Wheeler, agree that the GDP growth is a sham once open-door immigration is subtracted, when he said to the select committee: “If where you’re going is to say ‘Look, in terms of per capita GDP growth, it’s a lot less impressive’, that’s indeed correct—just like the rate of productivity growth in the country is disappointing.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I was not familiar with Mr Wheeler’s comments, but I am pretty sure he is not the sort of person to use the word “sham”. I think the sham here is Mr Peters’ comments about Mr Wheeler’s comments. But in terms of the question of GDP growth per capita I am pleased to report to the member that the forecast from Treasury in the Budget indicates a GDP per capita growth of above 1 percent, and heading up towards 2 percent in different years, in the years ahead. It is a solid GDP per capita growth. The member raises a good question about productivity, and that is why the Government invests so heavily in the Innovative New Zealand programme, which is all about lifting levels of research and development and skill development to help lift productivity over time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is true—

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ha, ha! If that is true why then did page 10 of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update state that we are growing because of open-door immigration—their words, not mine—and why did very respected company director Kerry McDonald criticise unplanned mass migration and the effect it is having on real export growth, housing affordability, low wages, and labour productivity?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Kerry is respected—particularly by the member—but in terms of our growth can I just make the following point to him: we have, in this country, the second-highest rate of employment, currently, of our adult population—

Ron Mark: What, for 1 hour a week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —of any country in the OECD. And 80 percent of it is full-time work—80 percent of those people are working full-time. We have the second-highest rate of employment in the OECD. So if the member wants to slash migration, as he says, and to keep skilled migrants away, as he is certainly saying that he wants to do, that would undoubtedly slow and perhaps even stall the New Zealand economy. I appreciate that might be because the member thinks everything is happening a little bit too quickly for him but, actually, for most New Zealanders it is positive.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All of the answers are very long.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of that is remotely true, why is highly respected former director of the Reserve Bank Michael Reddell saying of his claim—[Interruption]—and he does, on page 2 of his latest report, and he quotes the Minister—that “Our economy is 14 percent larger than it was just 5 years ago.”; “Yes, but the population is about 8 percent larger. That would leave an annual average growth in per capita terms of 1.1 percent.”? How come that Minister cannot get that through his thick head?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is completely unparliamentary and not necessary. [Interruption] Order! The Minister can address the first part of the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I stand corrected, but I do not think Mr Reddell has ever been a director of the bank. I think he worked at the bank. As I say, I stand corrected on that—that is my memory of it. I actually have no idea what the member was trying to ask, but I think it was something about per capita growth. Can I say that in terms of per capita growth he just needs to look at the predictions, which he quoted so effortlessly from the Budget before, which show per capita growth of well above 1 percent each year over the forecast period.

Budget 2017—Tax Cuts and Government Priorities

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “I just don’t think of the Budget in terms of the election cycle”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes. New Zealanders have worked hard over the last 8 years. They have made sacrifices and they have turned this country around. Now that the economy is responding well to the Government’s sensible, consistent economic plan, we have the financial capacity, finally, to help New Zealand families share in the benefits of stronger economic growth. I thank the member for his question.

Grant Robertson: Why then did he prioritise giving tax cuts—something called “an election bribe 8 years in the making” by Tracy Watkins—to people like him and me over ending homelessness?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can assure the member I was not thinking of him at any stage in the preparation of the Budget process. But in terms of families’ incomes, I was thinking about New Zealand families. I was thinking about the low-income families with large numbers of children who are potentially struggling to get ahead. I was thinking of those with high housing costs. I was thinking about middle-income New Zealanders who get to $48,000, which is not even the average wage these days, and are facing a 30c-in-the-dollar tax rate. And I was thinking about people who are struggling to get emergency housing, and you will see things in the Budget about that. I think New Zealanders will see a balanced Budget, which focuses on things that matter to New Zealanders.

Grant Robertson: Why did he prioritise tax cuts over funding early childhood education, to make up for the $110 per child, per year cut that has happened under his Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is wrong. The Government has invested something like $1.1 billion more in the education services, including fully funding roll growth at early childhood centres and also providing a targeted payment for childcare centres where there are children who are at risk, and that is all in Budget 2017. The member may not have got to that bit. But the important thing is, actually, it is important to think about family incomes. I appreciate the member never ever wants to think about family incomes, but this Government does.

Grant Robertson: Why has he prioritised tax cuts over funding for primary healthcare, which has led the president of the Medical Council of New Zealand to say that GPs will need to raise fees?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, the member is wrong. This Government has prioritised $7 billion in new expenditure in public services in this Budget, including $3.9 billion in the health sector, which, as the Minister has pointed out, is the largest increase in 11 years. So there is no way the member can say that. And, yes, this Government is focused on family incomes. This Government thinks of those families who are earning and working hard, and who do not actually have the ability to get ahead. The tax package, the family tax credits, and the accommodation supplement will help them, and we are very proud of that.

Grant Robertson: Why has he prioritised tax cuts over support for growing the economy, leading Xero’s New Zealand country manager to say: “The Budget has let down small businesses and the tech sector.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, the member is wrong. The Budget puts a significant investment into the Innovative New Zealand programme around encouraging the development of research and development. We have just had, actually, the biggest increase in business R & D recorded in New Zealand for many years. I appreciate the member is going around trying to find reasons why Labour voted against the Family Incomes Package last week, but he is a little late. They should have changed their minds and voted for it, like the Greens.

Budget 2017—Social Investment Approach and Youth Justice

7. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister responsible for Social Investment: How does Budget 17 support a social investment approach to Justice?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister responsible for Social Investment): As part of the Government’s $321 million social investment package that the Prime Minister announced earlier this month, Budget 2017 provides an extra $46.8 million over the next 4 years to fund two new initiatives to support the Government’s social investment approach to justice. The first is a $32.9 million burglary prevention initiative, targeting those under 25. It helps to fund services to change offender behaviour and support victims. The second is a $13.9 million investment into 14- to 16-year-old offending, over 4 years, to help young people alter harmful behaviour, increase self-control, and reduce future offending.

Sarah Dowie: What evidence is there to support these initiatives?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Through the investment approach to justice, which has been working on this for the past 18 months and which uses data to identify risk early and identify evidence-based interventions to reduce risk, manage offending, and reduce the number of victims, the Government has been able to target intervention points to achieve the greatest results. Through our youth offending initiative we expect to reduce the number of estimated future offences by between 18 and 32 percent and make savings between $166 million and $347 million in justice services over the next 20 years. We know that robberies committed by those under 25 have been identified as one of the highest-risk groups for future offending, and through the burglary prevention initiative we expect to reduce the number of recidivist offences by between 17 and 38 percent a year.

Darroch Ball: Does she really think the social investment approach for youth justice, after 9 years, is working when between 2015 and 2016 the serious offending by teenagers has increased by 12 percent nationally, teenage burglary is up by 13 percent, teenage robbery is up by 40 percent, teenage homicide is up by 40 percent, and teenage sexual assault is up by 5 percent?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, what I would point out to that member is that the social investment approach is just getting under way, and absolutely we believe it will significantly reduce reoffending. But what I can also tell the member is that while we have been in Government we have seen a reduction in youth crime of 38 percent—[Interruption] I know it does not suit the member’s narrative, but work with me here—a 38 percent reduction in youth offending, and reductions in police apprehensions of young people of between 40 and 50 percent. The number of youth graduating into the adult court has halved while we have been in Government, and the social investment approach will take it even further.

Darroch Ball: Does she really think it is working when robberies committed by 15- to 19-year-olds in South Auckland are up by 80 percent, in Canterbury are up by 67 percent, in Northland are up by 55 percent, in Waitematā are up by 45 percent, and in southern are up by 45 percent and yet there has been a decrease in convictions in courts for that same age group over that same time period?

Hon AMY ADAMS: We are very well aware that there has been a spike in robberies in recent times, but what I would say to the member is twofold: first of all, there has been a 49 percent reduction in the number of young people committing serious offences, and the social investment approach is targeting exactly that. The difference with this Government is that we have the data, the evidence base, and now the funding to make a real difference about it.

Housing, Affordable—Accommodation Supplement

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she believe an increase in the accommodation supplement will help to reduce the rate of rent or house price increases?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): The accommodation supplement has never been about trying to set or reduce market rents or house prices; it is about assisting people in need with housing costs. What I do think the boost we announced last week will do is make life a little bit easier for the 136,000 families who will receive, on average, an increase of $36 a week, leaving them with more in their pockets after they pay their rent. This, along with the Family Incomes Package—which every party in this House apart from Labour supported last week—will make a significant difference to millions of New Zealanders, because we are a Government that not only cares about these families but does something about it.

Phil Twyford: Does she accept that while the accommodation supplement provides some relief from rising rents, $1.5 billion a year on rent subsidies is fiscally unsustainable; should the real solution not be actually building affordable homes—or did the courier research focus groups not show that one up?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, thanks to the sensible fiscal management of this Government, we have the resources to support New Zealanders in need, and now that we are back in surplus, that is the first thing we are doing—we are supporting New Zealanders who need an increase in their accommodation supplement, as part of a wider Family Incomes Package. For the party that voted against it to lecture us on better support, when this Government not only has a sustainable, funded, credible housebuilding programme—we are the ones who are helping 1.5 million New Zealand families, while Labour voted against it.

Phil Twyford: Does she accept that a half-billion-dollar annual increase in accommodation supplement spending over 9 years in office represents the final capitulation of her failed housing policy?

Hon AMY ADAMS: First of all, the member should look at the total net figure of the package, which is actually closer to about $295 million in accommodation supplement. Secondly, we are very happy to be in a position fiscally to help New Zealanders in need with their housing cost. Thirdly, if only we had not had to spend the last 8 years fixing the fiscal mess we were left, we might have been able to do it sooner.

Phil Twyford: Why is she happy to give out rental subsidies that ultimately benefit landlords, but she refuses to build anything like the number of affordable homes that are needed, she refuses to ban foreign buyers, and she refuses to reform the planning rules that stop our cities from growing?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, first of all, I as an individual do not do any of those things, as Parliament does, and, actually, this is the Government that has reformed the planning rules, while Labour voted against them. This is the Government that is legislating for developments like the Point England reserve bill, Three Kings, and the Riccarton Racecourse, and that party voted against them. What I think the House can take from this line of questioning is that Labour is opposing putting up accommodation supplements, and that Kiwi families who rely on them should not expect to get a red cent if Labour ever gets into power.

Phil Twyford: What has changed since 2015, when the Government accepted official advice not to boost the accommodation supplement because of fears that landlords could pocket the extra money and rents could be pushed up?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Since then we have had a piece of research from the Ministry of Social Development that has looked at this very carefully and looked at whether there is any evidence that the last round of accommodation supplement increases did lead to rent increases. It found no such evidence, and, as a consequence, we were happy to take that advice and give a little bit of money to the New Zealanders who need it—something that they clearly should not expect from Labour. I just ask Labour members to be honest and tell us that they will reverse them. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That particular question has now been asked and answered. We move to question No. 9. [Interruption] Order! I do not want to have to ask the Minister to stop interjecting again.

Budget 2017—Vote Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki

9. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has she made regarding funding to support vulnerable children and young people?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): Last week, as part of Budget 2017, I announced that this Government is investing another $434.1 million in new initiatives to support vulnerable children and young people through the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. This means that the Government, through Vote Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, is spending a total of $857.7 million on the commissioning and delivering of child-centred services. This new ministry’s funding will be 18 percent higher than 2 years ago when it was part of the Ministry of Social Development. The funding will support the radical overhaul of care and protection in New Zealand and is part of a 4 to 5 year transformation programme to build a system that is focused on prevention and early intervention.

Joanne Hayes: What does this funding mean for caregivers of children in care?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Budget 2017 sees an extra $26.4 million for a caregiver support package that will see the Government provide more support to around 4,500 caregivers. Working with caregivers, we have been told that they want a 24/7 support service, more targeted training, more support for children with higher needs, and more effective recruitment and retention strategies—and this is what this Government has delivered in Budget 2017.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suspect the Minister may have been reading from an official document, in which case I am asking her to table it so I can hand it on to the member who asked the question in the first place.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the second part is not necessary. Was the Minister quoting from an official document? She was not.

Early Childhood Education—Funding Per Child

10. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: What was the change in real terms in total annual Government funding per full-time equivalent child in early childhood education between 2009/10 and 2014/15 according to the data posted on the Education Counts website?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I am advised that in real terms entitlement and equity funding to providers per full-time equivalent (FTE) child in 2009-10 was $8,476 and in 2014-15 was $8,486. This is an increase of 0.12 percent. As a Government we are focused on ensuring that all children get the best start to life by participating in quality early childhood education before attending school. This is particularly important for those young people most at risk. I am also advised that the total annual Government funding per FTE, which includes things such as participation programmes, is a difference of minus 1.67 percent.

Chris Hipkins: Why did she not point out in her answer to the question on total Government funding per child for early childhood education that that figure has declined by $538 per child per year during the time period in question?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I quoted the figures that I was given on advice, in answer to the primary question. However, I would point out to the member that early childhood education funding has increased every year under this Government, and that for every $1 a parent spends on early childhood education, the Government spends approximately $4.80.

Chris Hipkins: Does she believe that cutting more than $500 per child, per year from total Government funding for early childhood education has made it easier or harder for parents to afford quality early childhood education for their kids?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat: this Government has been focused on ensuring that all New Zealand children are able to readily access a variety of types of early childhood education. We have focused on ensuring that children are able to participate, and we have increased the funding for early childhood education every year since we have been in Government. In fact, by the year 2020 it will reach $2 billion that the taxpayers invest in early childhood education.

Chris Hipkins: Is she aware that Statistics New Zealand data shows that parents have been forced to pay 25 percent more for early childhood education over the time period in question; if so, does she think that is a sign that early childhood education is becoming more, or less, affordable under a National Government?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am advised that early learning is 33 percent more affordable for parents and families than in June 2007.

Chris Hipkins: Which is she more proud of when it comes to early childhood education: her Government’s freeze on subsidies, the corresponding massive increases in what parents are paying, or her Government’s removal of the requirement for 100 percent qualified teachers, which saved it more than $200 million alone?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government is proud of the fact that we have focused on ensuring that the most young New Zealanders get access to high quality early childhood education and that we target those who are most likely not to access early childhood education, because we know—and the evidence is clear, both nationally and internationally—that that gives them the very best start in life.

Climate Change Policy—Collaboration with Other Countries and Targets

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to have this question redirected to the Prime Minister, to whom it was originally directed—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was unaware that this was being transferred, but I have ruled on many occasions that it is a Government’s duty—in fact, its responsibility—to determine who will answer the question. The question is down to the Minister for Climate Change Issues, and that is whom it is to be addressed to.

11. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does she agree that countries need to work together to combat dangerous climate change; if so, will her Government convey that view to the President of the United States this week?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I do agree that countries need to work together. New Zealand wants all countries, including the US, to stay in the agreement. Our position on that has been clear and we do not plan on reiterating it to the President this week.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister agree that, as Minister, she has a duty of care to protect New Zealanders from dangerous anthropogenic climate change by achieving stabilisation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To the extent that I can.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the Paris Agreement makes it clear that a higher target from each party is necessary, will she commit to setting a higher target to reduce New Zealand’s emissions, consistent with atmospheric stabilisation of gases?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, I believe that our target is ambitious and fair.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that for a 1.5 degree Celsius warmer world, global emissions must reduce by 25 percent between now and 2030, and New Zealand has higher per capita income in emissions than most other countries, how can anything less than 25 percent off today’s levels be regarded as a rational policy for New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: For New Zealanders to lower their emissions and reach the 2030 target, there is going to have to be significant changes in our behaviours and the emissions that we are emitting. So, in the context of that, I believe that our target is incredibly ambitious and going to take significant change, and will play a very small—in some respects, it is kind of insignificant when you look at it in a global perspective, but significant for what we can do here in New Zealand.

Budget 2017—Tax System Changes

12. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Revenue: What improvements is the Government making to New Zealand’s tax system?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Talofa lava. This Government has a massive programme of work dedicated to improving the tax system. Budget 2017 will make a huge improvement to the tax system by increasing after-tax incomes. From 1 April next year the $14,000 income tax threshold will increase to $22,000 and the $48,000 threshold will increase to $52,000, and 2.533 million people are set to gain from this tax package. Those are not the only changes. We are improving the system for families and individuals but we are also improving the integrity of the tax system. New Zealanders deserve a tax system that is fair—that means everyone paying their fair share—and that is why we are cracking down on tax avoidance with new measures to strengthen New Zealand’s rules for taxing large multinationals.

Andrew Bayly: What improvements is the Government making to improve the tax system for business?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The list is very long, but I will just give you a few examples. We are addressing black hole expenditure. So under proposals released as part of the Budget, many business expenses currently written off as black hole expenditure will, in fact, become tax deductible. This Government recognises that employee share schemes are an important remuneration tool for start-ups. Just today I announced the release of an issues paper aimed at improving tax arrangements to make it easier for start-up companies to use employee share schemes. Our Business Transformation stage one, implemented this February, has made it far more simple for businesses to manage their tax, interact with the Inland Revenue Department, and meet their GST obligations. And—just wait, there is more—next year, from 1 April, we will have a reformed provisional tax pay-as-you-go option, which will mean that up to 110,000 small businesses will pay the tax that they need to pay as they go every month.

Urgent Debates Declined

Kaipara District Council—Crown Manager, Termination

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the termination of the Crown manager of Kaipara District Council. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. Mr Peters received information on this matter only on the day before the Budget. An urgent debate cannot be held on Budget day. A ministerial decision to terminate the appointment of the Crown manager is clearly a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility. In considering this application, I have noted the significant challenges faced by Kaipara District Council relating to its waste-water management scheme. Clearly, there have been some errors in the appointment of the Crown manager. While those matters are concerning, I am not convinced they are urgent enough to warrant setting aside the business of the House today. The application is, therefore, declined.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 25 May on the .

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): What a fantastic Budget we saw delivered for New Zealanders by the Hon Steven Joyce last week. What a fantastic Budget for New Zealanders. You see, many Budgets can deliver, let us say, for public services. Some Budgets can deliver for infrastructure. Some can deliver for social investment. Some can see the debt of the country go down over time. Some can deliver a family package for incomes. But this is a Budget that delivered in all of those areas and delivered in all of those things for New Zealanders, from the top of New Zealand right down to the bottom. I think we should be really proud of that as a country, and the results it will deliver for New Zealand.

The reason for that is we have an economy that is growing incredibly strongly. It is growing at 3 percent or over, and, actually, over the next few years it will be growing above that, I think on average—peaking at 3.8 percent. Employment is rising. It has gone up a couple of hundred thousand in the last 3 years and is going up 215,000 in the next 3 to 4 years.

Peeni Henare: How’s Māori unemployment going?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am glad the member over there mentioned unemployment. It is declining and is set to decline to 4.5 percent—very low by developed countries’ standards—and we are seeing all of that happen. Meanwhile, surpluses for the Crown are growing. That did not happen by accident. That did not happen by us simply shutting our eyes and watching it all unfold. It happened because of great businesses around New Zealand that had the confidence to get in, to do it, to employ people, and to take on risk, and because of a Government that has continued to deliver fiscal macroeconomic and microeconomic reforms that have made a difference and have been consistent over time for New Zealanders.

What is also true is that you cannot have one without the other—you cannot have the better public services, the infrastructure investment, the paying down of debt, the Family Incomes Package that sees 1.3 million New Zealanders $26 better off, on average, without also having that strong economy that this National Government has delivered—from a global financial crisis to the figures and the economy that we have today.

What Steven Joyce has done in a range of areas is worth going through. In public services, there is $7 billion of investment—

Hon Member: How much?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Seven billion—the biggest public services package, over that period, that New Zealand has seen. In health, in education, in law and order, and in social development this is the biggest ever total spend. What that means for New Zealanders is better mental health services. It means more police—1,100 more staff out there making New Zealanders, hard-working Kiwis, safer on our streets and in their homes—and it means a new ministry for children that will make a really significant difference to those vulnerable New Zealanders. In terms of infrastructure, it is an incredibly strong Budget on something we know a growing economy, a growing New Zealand, deserves—$4 billion of investment this year. This is the biggest capital spend we have certainly seen, in real terms, this century. It really will make a difference.

Of course, it is not just that $4 billion—that is the new spend. Actually, in context, we are talking about $32.5 billion that the Government is investing in infrastructure around the country: the New Zealand Transport Authority, for roads; Housing New Zealand, for housing; rail; broadband; better schools; and better hospitals.

Denis O’Rourke: How many bridges?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We are the Government of infrastructure, Mr O’Rourke, and we are investing in it like never before. Take my own area—there is $9 billion of investment over the next 4 years in State highways alone—$9 billion and 540 kilometres of new lanes around New Zealand. [Interruption] Well, that would be rail as well as roads. We are doing a bit of that too, I might say. This is incredible investment in infrastructure, a growing economy, and a growing New Zealand.

There is a families package that will make a real difference to New Zealanders. It will make a real difference to those low and middle income New Zealanders who may be struggling to make ends meet, and who will receive real money in their pockets. It will make a real difference to those with families, because of what we are doing with Working for Families. It will make a real difference for those who, perhaps, have housing stress, whether that is in Auckland, Tauranga, or other parts of New Zealand. Simply put, 1.3 million Kiwis will receive an average of $26 more every week because of what we are doing—a couple of billion dollars of money that they have worked hard for, that they deserve back in their pockets, and that we are putting back in their pockets because we have got the economy that can afford it, we have got an economy that is growing, and we are making the decisions that mean we can invest back in them. It comes in the form of income relief, it comes in the form of Working for Families relief, and it comes in the form of accommodation relief for those New Zealanders who deserve it and are working hard. That is a really interesting thing, there.

Hon Member: Why does Labour hate it?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: All the while I hear behind me—well, credit where credit is due, actually. What we know is that the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party are supporting it. They might do so begrudgingly, but credit where credit is due. They are voting for it.

Denis O’Rourke: Only one bill—not the rest of the Budget.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: They know that those New Zealanders, those 1.3 million working New Zealanders—Mr O’Rourke, you know. The member over there knows that they deserve what we are doing. They know that, as we can—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Our friends.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —we will do more. Our friends in New Zealand First and the Green Party—they know that, but Labour voted against it.

Jacinda Ardern: Proudly.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Now those members are working out, or trying to work out—I will be interested to hear from the member Jacinda Ardern—why they did that. They are working out why they did vote against it.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Principles.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Iain Lees-Galloway does not know. He knows that in Palmerston North there are thousands of New Zealanders and families who deserve the relief that we are providing. We are giving them that—

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wonder whether the member would like to yield so I could explain what I know about what is going on in Palmerston North.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, that is just interrupting the debate.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: There is a member who is clearly worried about his seat. Because what—he is leaving! He is giving up the ghost early. He knows we have got a great candidate in that seat, he knows we have got the policies in Better Public Services, in infrastructure, in paying down debt, and in relief for families that will make a really, really big difference.

Of course, what we do not know is what Labour members would stop. My challenge to their next speaker—they did not support the package—is to tell us what they would stop. Would they support the infrastructure investment? Their former leader Phil Goff makes it quite clear that he thinks—fair enough, he is fighting his corner—it should be more investment. Well, would they stop the half- billion-dollar down payment we are making in the City Rail Link?

Jacinda Ardern: Are you kidding me?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Would they stop the investment that is going into infrastructure in Auckland, Ms Ardern, and right around—[Interruption] I doubt they would. She is confirming; I doubt they would. Would they stop better public services—the $7 billion more going into health, into education, and into law and order? I doubt it. So I would like to know what they would stop. Would they stop, when all is said and done, the Family Incomes Package that means $26 a week, on average, to 1.3 million Kiwis who deserve that money? What is it that they would stop? They voted against our bill, they do not know why, and they do not have a clue what they would stop.

I think we heard it right from Claire Trevett this morning—there is a window of opportunity for Labour, come 23 June, where it gets to have the power back. Labour gets to have the power back because, at that point in time, it is the caucus members who get to decide their leader—23 June. Well, I have got another 23rd of the month that I would like to bring to Labour’s attention: 23 September. It is called election day, and we have got the policies on this side of the House that back New Zealanders and that deliver a brighter future for New Zealanders. I am really proud to be part of a Budget that is delivering for all Kiwis.

JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): Malo, Mr Assistant Speaker. Quite frankly, that last contribution from a Cabinet Minister, Simon Bridges—the first speech he is able to give after the Budget and he spent 5 minutes talking about the Opposition, rather than being able to even muster enough from his own Budget to be able to promote it. He managed 5 minutes—5 minutes—on his Government’s Budget and he is meant to be a Cabinet Minister selling the great vision that the National Government has for New Zealand. The reason he probably mustered only 5 minutes is, frankly, a Budget should be the way that people are able to see the priorities that a Government has for the country—its vision, its plan, and its ideas. And the fact that after 9 years we saw two things from this Budget is extraordinarily telling.

The first thing that you can tell from this Budget after 9 years is that it is election year. That was patently obvious in the headline figures that came out of that. The second thing that was clear from this Budget was that when it comes to the hard stuff, when it comes to the difficult problems that, unfortunately, New Zealand is undeniably facing, when it comes to issues like homelessness, the massive social deficits that we have, the poverty, the deprivation, the unfortunate gaps in our education system—all of the hard stuff that everyone acknowledges are wicked problems that Governments have to grapple with—it was out of ideas. How do I know that? Because when the opportunity arose and the Government confessed that it had a surplus and the ability to spend some money on those social deficits that exist in New Zealand, on the hard stuff, it chose to spend $1.9 billion on tax bracket changes—$1.9 billion.

Now the Minister over there might characterise, on average, a $26 a week change as a “game changer”. I do not. I do not consider that a game changer. I consider the incredibly high house prices for New Zealanders—that is a game changer. I consider the fact that rents have gone up since 2008 in Auckland by 40 percent—that is a game changer. I consider the fact that 90,000 kids cannot get a job or get into education in this country—that is a game changer. Now there is no denying that families are doing it tough, but the things that would make a difference for them are loosening up on some of those heavy costs that they are facing, those things that they cannot change that they have to pay for, like putting a roof over their head or putting their kids in schools. Those are the costs that make a massive difference to the kind of disposable income that they have, and this Budget gave up. This Budget gave up on those big issues.

So, yes, Mr Bridges asks us what we would spend the money on. Well, yes, actually, Working for Families is a brilliant way to get money to people who need it most, and what did the Government spend on that? It spent $373 million—when it spent 450. In 2010 it cut out of Working for Families, so it has barely even restored it. But, yes, we acknowledge that was probably money well worth being spent. But $1.9 billion on tax bracket changes? That is not the kind of spending you are going to see from this side of the House, because we know that a well-functioning society and a New Zealand that we can be proud of, that we can take heart in, knows that it has to get the basics right.

The basics that we have not got right, right now, are the ability for you to walk into your nearest hospital and get the services that you need or for your local school to be the best school it can be or for your children to be able to go to an early childhood centre and have a qualified teacher teach your child in the most important stages of their development. Those are the basics and we cannot get that right. So that is where this Government has absolutely got it wrong.

I think probably one of the most frustrating things for a taxpayer off the back of this Budget is that the 26 bucks game changer that the Government claims—they are paying out, and more so, in all of the areas where the Government has failed to acknowledge the problems that we have. Just look at what the fiscal update for 2017 itself has told us. It told us that New Zealanders could expect, through to 2019, wage increases cumulatively of 6.2 percent, but at the same time cumulative house price increases of 17.7 percent—three times the amount that they can expect their wages to increase will go into housing costs. Again, the hard stuff has gone totally unaddressed.

In this Budget, what did we see? The Government is funding Crown land for 1,200 houses—that is it. That is it in the face of a massive housing crisis. That is the best you can hope for from this Budget. It is an admission of complete failure. And nothing is a better admission of failure than the accommodation supplement. I know, intellectually, Nick Smith is sitting there accepting that they have just gone and subsidised landlords.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No we haven’t.

JACINDA ARDERN: They have. You absolutely—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish.

JACINDA ARDERN: —the Minister absolutely has.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Garbage.

JACINDA ARDERN: That is what an accommodation supplement is.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is not.

JACINDA ARDERN: It is an admission of failure when your house prices and your rent prices are going up at the extraordinary rate they have been in the last 8 years—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, promise to reverse it.

JACINDA ARDERN: —it had to move on the accommodation supplement, because it was not keeping pace.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: If you believe it, promise to reverse it.

JACINDA ARDERN: It was not keeping pace, Minister. You had no choice. No. No. We accept that you have failed. We accept that you have failed, and that is why the accommodation supplement change was necessary. We accept your failure, Minister Smith. We accept it. We reluctantly accept it. But do you know what we need? We need some fresh ideas on the housing crisis. We need to start building State houses again, not selling them off. We need to make sure that we are closing the tax loopholes that exist. We need to make sure we dampen down demand by stopping people who are based overseas buying in the residential housing market, and we need to get on and build affordable houses. Those are the ideas that this Budget needed to contain and it did not.

Again, when it comes to health, $1.7 billion has been cut out of health in the last 8 years—$1.7 billion. That is an extraordinary amount. Yes, the Government made it look like it was investing this new chunk of money into health, and we know it needed it. Waikato Hospital just one weekend ago shut down elective surgery, because it could not deal with the demand walking in its door. And what was the trigger for that? Not some great natural disaster—it was winter. Winter came on and suddenly our health services could not cope. It cancelled its scheduled surgeries. Now what does that tell us about our health system? Well, the Budget did not give us any answers. Yeah, it has put more money into health, but it is still $200 million shy of what it needed to stand still.

And even the investment that was made in mental health, which we desperately need—half of the investment that the Government announced, district health boards are going to have to fund out of their own back pockets, when they are already struggling. That is not an investment at all, in our book. Again, we have been really clear. Mental health services need a fresh look. We have got to review where the gaps are in services. It is a critical part of our health sector, but, actually, what the Government has announced goes no way near addressing any of the problems that we know exist.

Education is the next core area. If you have got a roof over your head and you can access health services, then education has to be the next area we have got to make sure that we get right. What did we see in education? It has had frozen funding from this Government, and what did it see this Budget? A 1.3 percent increase for operational funding. Following a freeze, 1.3 percent—what does that mean for a school? Well, that means a trade-off. I spent yesterday with a teacher-aide at one of my local primary schools. As she pointed out, the dilemma for her school is that if it increases her wages, it cuts her hours, because it cannot afford to do both. That is criminal, that situation.

Teacher-aides make a huge difference in a child’s life—their future trajectory in our education system is determined by the work that some of those extremely qualified individuals do—and yet we pay them a pittance, and we ask it to come out of a school’s already low operational budget. That is appalling. These are the kinds of priorities that Labour wanted to see in this Budget, and that is the indication of what kind of party you have in charge: where it places its priorities in the Budget. Instead, the headline figure out of this Government was a $1.9 billion tax cut, at a time when our core services are failing.

I always come back to a really, really basic, basic quote from Norman Kirk, because I admired him so greatly, and what he said at that time still remains true today: all that anyone ever needs is something to do, somewhere to live, someone to love, and something to hope for. This Budget gives us no hope. It gives us no optimism that this is a Government that deserves to be in charge, but it gives New Zealanders a clear message. If you want to get back to basics, get those core services right, and if you want fresh ideas for some of those gnarly problems that we are facing, then vote for a party that is going to give you some hope again, that is going to invest in the stuff that Kiwis care about. That is why we need a change of Government. That is why we need a Labour Government.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): The problem with that contribution from the member for Mt Albert is that she did not answer the fundamental question about whether these tax reductions, these big investments in infrastructure, and these improvements in public services would be supported by Labour. She was blank on that fundamental question that we debate in this Budget debate.

I would say that this is the best Budget this Parliament has seen in more than a generation. It is a Budget that shows our economy is growing strongly. It is a Budget that delivers better public services. It is a Budget that involves the biggest investment in infrastructure—

Carmel Sepuloni: Stuffed up ACC. Stuffed up housing.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —that our country has ever seen, and it is a Budget that delivers for 1.3 million New Zealand households $26 extra per week.

Kris Faafoi: He’s a failure. He got rolled.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The challenge I would give to members who are interjecting opposite is this: let us look at New Zealand’s vital economic statistics. Let us look at the level of growth and how it compares: 6 straight years of 3 percent economic growth, and for the next 4 years at least 3 percent growth.

Let us look at inflation. When we came into Government, inflation was running at over 5 percent per year, eroding New Zealand families’ working base. What this Budget shows on that vital statistic is inflation at only 2 percent, and set to stay at that very level.

Let us look at one of the most important things. Jacinda Ardern talked about the right to a job. What this Budget shows is unemployment under 5 percent and 170,000 more jobs for New Zealanders over the next 4 years, and unemployment trending down to just 4 percent.

I look at another statistic, like interest rates. It matters for homeowners; it matters for businesses that are investing in jobs. Again, we see that vital statistic at less than 5 percent, and so strong for New Zealand.

I look at an issue like debt. I have stood in this Parliament speaking in Budget debates when New Zealand’s debt has been over 90 percent of GDP. That is what I came into Parliament inheriting from a Labour Government in the 1980s. I see in this Budget New Zealand’s debt level trended down to only 20 percent of GDP, and I commend the Minister of Finance for caring about the future and targeting a level of debt of between only 10 and 15 percent of GDP. I challenge people to look at this Budget and line it up with any that has been delivered in this country in the last 25 years, and tell me which Budget in the last 25 years has had better vital economic statistics for our country. There is not one.

Kris Faafoi: 2004.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to the member opposite: tell me a country, a country like our own, that has had a better Budget than us.

Kris Faafoi: He’s a joke.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Tell me whether—well, I ask the member whether he would rather have the Budget of Australia, where they have got substantive debt and increasing unemployment. Would he rather have what you have got in the United Kingdom? Would he rather what they have got in the US? You will not find, and I challenge any member opposite to tell me, a country right now that is in better economic shape than New Zealand, and that is another tribute to the success of this Budget.

I have to also agree with the commentators who have said that, actually, if you look at the families package in this Budget, it is big and bold, and in itself justifies a Budget. Not only to have the families package but also to have the package that is expanding public services and a budget that provides for massive growth in infrastructure spending—to have all that, all three of those components in one Budget, makes it truly stand out.

I do want to speak about the issues of building and construction. Firstly, this is a Budget that provides the billion dollars of funding to support our local authorities to grow the infrastructure—to grow the number of homes that are being built. This is a Budget that provides families under pressure with housing costs with over $600 million a year of additional support. I have heard those silly comments opposite, which claim that the accommodation supplement somehow just goes into the pockets of landlords. Well, you tell that to my constituents.

Denis O’Rourke: Where else could it go?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I say this to the member: when the Government, this Government, increased the benefits for the first time in 40 years—is the member also arguing that when you increase the benefits, they just go into the hands of the supermarkets? To those who rent property, it is flawed economics.

What you see from this Government—it is freeing up land supply through the special housing areas, and there is $4.9 million of money in this Budget to support the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity. If you look at the money and funding to support the Resource Management Act reforms that this Budget is providing for, no wonder we have been able to achieve the longest and strongest period of new home construction that New Zealand has ever seen—now in its fifth year—and further statistics out today from the building numbers show that strength.

It is an appropriate time to also scrutinise alternative policies, and this Parliament has heard a lot about KiwiBuild. Well, let me just ask those members a few questions about their KiwiBuild policy. Labour says that the KiwiBuild policy of 10,000 homes a year is going to be delivered with 5,000 workers. That is what its policy says—5,000 workers are going to build 10,000 houses a year. Which planet is the Labour Party on? If you take the current rate of home construction in New Zealand—we are building over 30,000 houses and it is taking 145,000 people to build those homes. In other words, based on current construction, you would need 46,000 people to build an additional 10,000 houses a year. Labour says it can do it with 5,000. That is one-ninth of what anybody in the building and construction says is required.

Then you come to the issue of the funding. Labour says you can magically build 100,000 homes with $2 billion—100,000 homes with $2 billion. I can see the pig flying past right now, it is so unrealistic. What Labour is banking on—this is what it says, this is what it expects New Zealanders to believe: that if you take the $2 billion and you spend it on getting the resource consents and the building consents, and you build the infrastructure and you build the houses and you sell the houses, you can do that 25 times over, at 4 months per period, and somehow you build those 100,000 homes.

Then you come to the issue, and you ask the Labour Party: “Where are the 100,000 homes going to go? Where is the land?”. They are certainly not going to go at Three Kings. They certainly are not going to be at Point England. Those members do not know. They oppose houses adjacent to graveyards, they oppose housing in Māngere, they oppose housing in west Auckland—they have no idea where the land will come from. They have no idea where the funding will come from. They have no idea where the workers are going to come from. That is not a policy; it is a soundbite. It is an embarrassment.

This is a Budget that, in my view, has gone down better than any I have seen. The fact that the Green Party voted for the families package, that the New Zealand First Party voted for the families package—and it spoke volumes that the Leader of the Opposition, in critiquing the Budget, could not fill his allotment of time. I actually have some sympathy for him. It is damned difficult to criticise such a good Budget. It is no surprise that he could not fill his allotted time with his critique of it.

This is a Budget for our times. This is a Budget that builds on 8 years of hard graft by New Zealanders in improving our economy. It improves public services, it puts money in New Zealand families’ pockets, and it reduces debt—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry, the member’s time has expired.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): New Zealanders care deeply about fairness. That is obvious. They do not want to live in a country where there are record levels of homelessness and child poverty. New Zealanders care deeply about protecting our natural environment. They hate to see what has happened to our rivers over the past few decades. They want to take action on climate change. They want us to be investing in a clean, green economy and infrastructure that is going to reduce our carbon pollution and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. That is obvious in how this National Government has changed its rhetoric.

Now, sadly, it is not doing anything to actually fulfil the aspirations of New Zealanders to live in a fair society where we look after our environment. Oh no, National is the master of spin, and this Budget is evidence of that. There is no real action that is going to tackle our housing crisis in this Budget. There is no real action that is going to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. There is no action whatsoever on cleaning up our rivers or investing in the infrastructure we need to make it easier to get around our towns and cities without relying on a car. There is no real action to make it easier for households and businesses to buy an electric vehicle.

This Government is treading water and it does just enough to keep people’s heads just above the water—just enough tinkering to make it seem like they are doing something. Now, I am heartened by the fact that New Zealanders care about fairness and the environment, and I came to Parliament, along with my colleagues in the Green Party, to make good on our promise to deliver that for New Zealanders. We can do that. But the National Government, in this Budget, has continued its unfortunate habit of prioritising spin over substance, so we see it announcing policies that might, maybe, come into force in 30 or 40 years’ time—you know, like Aucklanders will get that rail link to the airport 30 years from now. Maybe we will start dealing with climate change in 2050 when it is a bit too late.

Rather than actually making our rivers swimmable, the National Government is going to change the definition of swimmable, so it means you are more likely to get sick when you go for a swim in our rivers. Rather than actually reducing rheumatic fever and meeting the Better Public Services target that it set 5 or 6 years ago, it has completely dropped the target to reduce rheumatic fever in this Budget and it has slashed the spending on it. That is because it was unwilling to take on the changes that need to happen to truly deal with the housing crisis. Well, the Green Party knows how to do that, and if this were our Budget we would be doing a lot more for families and a lot more for housing.

The Government has failed to implement an actual capital gains tax that would have made the tax system fairer and helped to reduce house-price inflation in Auckland. It has failed to bring in a reasonable standard for rental properties and protection for tenants. It has failed to deal with the fact that foreign capital is driving up house prices in Auckland, and, like many other countries in the world, we could have said that if one is going to buy a property in New Zealand, they must be a citizen or a resident.

The Government has failed, above all, to build houses. So when this Government gets up and talks about more houses being built, it is talking about there being consents—there are homes being built, but not at the rate that we need them to be to meet our record population growth. The only way to deal with that is to have a Government that is committed to increasing the supply of actual communities, not just big McMansions on the fringe of Auckland that are not really going to help anyone but the developers who make big profits off them. No, we need our Government to be leading on building affordable housing, building more State houses, and building the types of homes and communities with schools and parks and shops and all of the things that people need to live a good life. We could be doing that. That is what the Green Party will do when we are in Government.

This Government—the Minister of Health, Jonathan Coleman—has made the point that we are spending more on health than ever before. Well, it is about time that we increased funding to a point where we are actually going to be able to deliver the services that people need. What I have found, talking to people in the health sector, is that things are at a breaking point and the increase in this Budget is not enough to deliver the services that people need. It is not enough to keep up with record population growth. It is not enough to keep up with the increasing demand out there in the community, because we have an ageing population. We have an increase—a structural increase—in the need for mental health services, and this Budget does not do enough to help people who are in dire need. We have incredibly long waiting lists. We have a shortage of beds for acute care. Even worse than that, we have a lack of services out there in the community that would prevent people from getting to the state where they need that acute care in the hospitals.

What we need more than anything is not more spin from this National Government. We need a change in Government, so that we can start actually tackling these problems, and we have every opportunity to actually resolve them. We are on the cusp of a paradigm shift, globally, about how we look at the economy.

I heard, previously, Minister Nick Smith speaking and rattling off statistics about economic growth and how great our growth rate is. Well, Minister, how can our economy be delivering for New Zealanders, when we have record levels of homelessness—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: We don’t.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: —record levels of child poverty, record levels of pollution in our rivers, record levels of carbon emissions—and they are just going to keep increasing as long as this National Government is in power—and we have record house price to income ratios. The Minister says “Oh, we don’t. That’s not true.” Well, that just demonstrates how out of touch this National Government is. He thinks we do not have record levels of homelessness. He thinks there is no housing crisis. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your National Government—out of touch and out of time. It has not done enough, and we can do better. We know—we know—that investments in clean infrastructure will not only reduce our carbon emissions, they will make life better for people on the ground.

Ultimately, that is what the economy is for. It is not some fancy machine; it is just a word for how we spend our time and how we allocate our resources. Unless we are allocating our resources in a fair way—in a way that means that every child in New Zealand has a warm, dry, secure place to call home, that they have the opportunity to get an education that allows them to get ahead in life, that they have the opportunity to walk and cycle safely to school and to grow up in a New Zealand where they can swim in our rivers without fear of getting sick, and that they have an opportunity for meaningful work that makes this place a little bit better—then the economy is not serving us. And it is really not serving us right now. The reason it is not serving us on a global scale is that the people who have the most—the most wealth and the most power—are influencing politicians to make sure that they can get even more.

Jonathan Young: You’re in the top 3 percent.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: And it is time for those of us who have the most to say that we want to give more back, that we have got enough, and that we want to make sure that the most vulnerable in our community have the opportunities that they need.

We want to make sure that families who go out there and work 40 or more hours a week are not struggling to make ends meet, that they have a place to call home, and that their kids can get the health services and, perhaps, the mental health services that they need. We have this opportunity, and I believe the Green Party understands better than any party in this Parliament just how much things are about to change in this world. We have the opportunity to respond to climate change and to create an economy that is working for people and for the planet, and we can do this only if we work together. All of us need to start working together. The No. 1 priority, I think, for this Green Party is to improve our democracy. It is to improve the ability of ordinary people out there on the street to feel like they have a stake in this society, that they have a voice in this House, and that they have the ability to influence policy in a way that is going to benefit the greatest number—not just the wealthiest, not just the most powerful.

But an election is coming. An election is coming, and New Zealanders will have the opportunity to get involved and elect a Government that will actually deliver on their values of fairness and protecting the environment.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Talofa lava and greetings to the Samoan community in New Zealand and to the many great people of that nation. Before I come to the matters that I wish to raise, the previous member who spoke, Julie Anne Genter, said that this Budget does nothing for the housing pressures in New Zealand, and yet we announced $100 million more for housing on Crown land—$100 million of new capital funding to allow vacant or underutilised Crown land to be freed up for additional housing and developments. We know that one of the big issues around housing pressure is land, and so this Government and this 2017 Budget invest money when that member who just spoke said that this Budget does nothing.

It must be frustrating for New Zealanders to hear some of these speeches that are absolutely just alternative facts with no connection to what was delivered last Thursday in black and white ink to New Zealanders and to the media of this country. And yet Opposition members say such things, and they say such things with the desire that they will pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders, who know better because they see what is happening.

Presented by the Hon Steven Joyce and following eight Budgets presented by Bill English, this comprehensive and complex Budget now puts this country in a strong position and seeks to do the most for as many New Zealanders as it possibly can so that all New Zealanders can benefit, delivering for them prosperity, security, and opportunity. They can fulfil their dreams and they can live and prosper in a nation that gives them a platform to succeed. We never take away the responsibility of the individual to make something of their life, but what this Budget has done is make that platform strong, to enable New Zealanders with aspirations and to enable New Zealanders with vulnerabilities to be able to safely and securely live in this country and to be able to fulfil their dreams.

This Budget takes four significant steps to bring the benefits of a stronger economy to all New Zealanders. We have got to acknowledge the hard work of the previous Minister of Finance, our Prime Minister, Bill English, who is noted around the world as one of the best finance Ministers in this current time. Now we acknowledge the Hon Steven Joyce for the great work that he has done in bringing a Budget that is going to strengthen families and improve resilience in our nation—these Shaky Isles—this place that has in the past cost billions of dollars because of earthquakes, because of natural disasters, and because of flooding. All of those natural things have happened, yet with resilience we can withstand those. We can rebuild, and that is what we have done and that is what we continue to do.

We are making record investments into new infrastructure, which is going to help this country become even more efficient—

Denis O’Rourke: What about railways?

JONATHAN YOUNG: —in the supply—yes, half a billion dollars is going to KiwiRail, to continue to support the work that it does.

There are billions of dollars going into our roading network so that we can efficiently get products to and from markets. I come from a region that really relies upon a strong, resilient roading network, and I am pleased that just 2 weeks ago the Minister of Transport came and signified the commencement of works on State Highway 3, heading from New Plymouth through to the Waikato and through to Hamilton. It is a $135 million investment in one of the most difficult pieces of highway network in the country, and we rely on that. Every time we have a slip and every time that road is blocked for one reason or another, those trucks that carry our products or carry products to us, which we desperately need, have to go all the way down to Marton and up through State Highway 1. It costs $1,000 extra per trip, every time, and that cost is worn by consumers, by the market. So, having that investment into State Highway 3 is tremendously important for the people of Taranaki.

Hon David Bennett: And the Waikato.

JONATHAN YOUNG: And incredibly important for the people of the Waikato, that is right. Thank you, my honourable friend Mr David Bennett.

There is $2 billion invested into families to enable those people to step up and be able to do more with their lives. It is a great thing to see happen. Sharing the benefits of a strong economy—first, it requires a strong economy; first, it requires prudent fiscal management; first, it requires discipline in Government around its spending. And yet, during this time of discipline we have sought to improve public services to the people of New Zealand. We have lifted our goals for the betterment of New Zealanders. All this time we have lived with constraint, through those very difficult years—as Treasury said: “A decade of deficits in front of us.” Now we have years of surpluses in front of us, because during those difficult times we had discipline, we had foresight, we had strong management, and this is what our country is now benefiting from.

We have infrastructure investment, new schools, new hospitals, and new roads. We have rail that is moving freight up and down the country. We have resilience when some of those natural disasters occur, which enables these cities to be rebuilt. Kaikōura, State Highway 1—$812 million has been invested into State Highway 1 in order to not just open up that road but improve it, in terms of capacity and efficiency.

There is 3.1 percent average growth for the next 5 years. If the Australian Government could say that in its Budget, would that country not be happy? Over 200,000 more jobs created in the last 3 years, and another 215,000 expected by 2021. As a father, this is what I want for my son. I want opportunities for him. I am like families all over this country who see their young people and want them to succeed, who want them to stay in New Zealand, who want them to be part of our great future.

What it takes is a Government that can deliver, that can enable those businesses out there to have the confidence to create jobs, that has New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, that has a great trade Minister like Todd McClay out there, working hard, opening up markets for our fantastic export products. All of that enables us, as New Zealanders, to be confident, to be proud, to be very optimistic, and to take those steps of faith and risk that we know are very much part of building a future. This Government has delivered that, through this Budget.

Treasury’s latest forecasts show surpluses growing from $1.6 billion in 2016-17, to $7.2 billion in 2020-21. Because of that strength, because of those surpluses, and because hard-working New Zealanders get out there and make money and pay tax, we have so many more choices. We can do so much more in this nation. We have a great future in front of us, and I believe that that has been built upon, as I said, by wise management, good stewardship, and the right sorts of decisions during those very difficult times.

But this Budget now, which is comprehensive—yes, it is complex and it offers New Zealanders, as many as possible, the greatest advantage of living in this country. I believe that it breeds optimism and it breeds the confidence that our nation needs in order to engage even more strongly in the world in which we live.

The forecast of this Government, in terms of its management, is very, very strong—reducing debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020. The Minister of Finance has stated that he wants to see that figure go down to 10 to 15 percent by 2025 so that we have resilience to face the future with confidence, with strength, and with courage, and so that we will see this nation continue to prosper under the leadership of this Government. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to talk about the housing crisis. The Government does not want to do that, because it is clear from its Budget that it has no new ideas about how to solve the crisis that it actually caused. For example, Jonathan Young said just a moment ago, with pride, that the Government was spending $100 million on homes on Crown land. But he did not mention that the Government is also—

Matt Doocey: On Crown land?

DENIS O’ROURKE: On Crown land, yes. He did not also mention that the Government is spending $800 million on new prisons. So eight times more for prisoners than for housing on Crown land. Big, big deal. And the Government has done very little else about the housing crisis. The Government caused it through grossly excessive immigration, mainly in an attempt to keep wages down and to make Auckland’s consumer economy look good, and, secondly, by allowing grossly excessive foreign ownership of homes in New Zealand, especially in Auckland.

Those are the two main drivers. However much the Government wishes to deny it, that is the truth. The Government has spent years in denial on housing issues. But now the chickens have come home to roost but, sadly, those chickens are actually homeless people and, increasingly, they have nowhere to roost. They are the people who will now never be able to buy a home—never be able to buy a home—and will have the greatest difficulty in renting one. That is the reason why there has been a need for such huge increases in the accommodation supplement, because they cannot afford to rent houses without it, either.

That is not a record of success; that is a record of terrible failure. This is a half-pie Budget because it does not do half enough on housing, amongst many other things. I suspect that Steven Joyce will not dish out the other half, whatever that is, until much closer to the election. That is not the way a country should be run. The Budget should be designed to tackle the housing crisis as the nation’s No. 1 problem right now, not waiting until later for some lollies to make the Government look good on housing closer to the election.

While population growth from National’s immigration free-for-all does generate consumer-led growth, especially in Auckland, it does not produce anything in terms of more production for the nation or more productivity. But it does produce huge pressures on housing, health, and an array of other services, and that is the truth of that. We all have to pay for that.

So here we have it. National causes the housing crisis, now the worst in the developed world—the worst in the developed world—through a shameful legacy of neglect. There are going to be more homeless people in the news over this winter and more State tenants being pushed out of State houses because of inappropriate housing policies. There has been a budgeted expenditure of 34,000 more houses, which is grossly inadequate in relation to the sheer size of the housing problem. Actually, most of that is not anything new because most of those houses are just replacements for thousands of State houses that have been sold off and are budgeted by Housing New Zealand. It is not something new that the country can look forward to. The net result is not much more than 1,000 new houses from this Budget, and so that is pathetic. If you ask people in places like Whangarei, Masterton, Queenstown, and other parts of the country whether they think there are enough houses to buy or to rent, then I can tell you that they will have a very strong message for the Minister and this Government.

As far as Auckland is concerned, the projected shortfall there is nothing less than hundreds of thousands of houses over the next 10 years, while immigration continues at more than 72,000 per year and overseas investors are still rushing to New Zealand to buy up houses that are going up strongly in price in Auckland. The reality is we need about 40,000 more houses in New Zealand. The private market is not going to cope with that—by one of the Minister’s own admissions, in fact, the private market cannot cope and there are just not enough resources for that. This is something that this Government has needed to address over a long period, and that is what has got us to where we are now.

It is a vicious circle: excessive immigration causes excess demand, so the Government wants to bring in more people so that it can build more houses, but that creates more demand, and so on and so on and so on. It is a circle that will never be solved, and there is nothing in this Budget of any value at all for additional residential land, especially in Auckland. That is, I suppose, why Jonathan Young talked only about using parks and reserves like Point England for that purpose. Nor is there anything in the Budget to actually build the houses that will need to go on that land, either.

So what you can say about this Government’s Budget is that it is pathetic, as far as addressing the housing crisis is concerned. Not only that but it does not offer anything more than people who are seeking to purchase their first home already have. Now they have the HomeStart scheme, and the Government says it is doing something about the resource management legislation, but, in actual fact, it needs a much more imaginative and much larger scheme to help all those hundreds of thousands of people who cannot buy a home of their own simply because they cannot afford it and have no way of getting into it.

New Zealand First, on the other hand, does want to establish a new agency to—and we have wanted this for years—purchase and develop land ahead of time to augment the private market, to sell smaller sections for modest homes, and to build affordable homes and to sell them, over 25 years, to people buying a first home at a lower-than-market interest rate. That is the sort of policy that we need and that the Government has not provided.

There are other ways, like housing bonds, that can be provided so that the finance can be provided for new houses in New Zealand, and just ordinary Government borrowing. It is justified because these are assets on the Government’s books, on the Government’s balance sheet. They will not be a burden on the taxpayer and they will be worth it in both economic and social terms, because housing is a great investment—socially, in support of health services, in support of anti-crime objectives, and there are many other social and economic reasons why housing is such a great investment. Yet this Government, year after year after year for the best part of the decade, has done far, far too little to invest in housing in this country. It has relied on the private market to do so, when everybody in this country who knows anything at all realises that the private market simply cannot cope.

There has been a big injection of funds into rental supplements—$25 to $75 a week for two-person homes and up to $80 a week for larger homes, depending on location—but, in fact, that compensates only for the massive increase in house prices, which in turn has led to huge increases in rents, caused by National’s housing policies over the last 9 years. So, again, the Government is just playing catch-up. This is not good money; it is money down the drain, money that should be used to help people to buy houses, and money that should instead be used to actually build houses and develop land. All of that money should be going there. It should never have had to go into massive annual rental housing supplements. It should never have had to go there. It is going there only because this Government’s housing policies are a total and abject failure.

So, in summary, this is a disappointing Budget for thousands and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders because they know that the Government is not going to do anything about immigration, they know the Government is not going to do anything about foreign speculators—they know that that is going to continue—they know they are not going to get the assistance they need to buy homes, they know that there are not going to be enough State houses, and they know there will not be fairer policies for most New Zealanders on housing issues. This Government has been a total and abject failure, and anyone in this country who wants a house either to purchase or to rent will need to vote for somebody else.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Anybody believing all of the last 10 minutes of the New Zealand First member Denis O’Rourke’s speech would probably be left quivering, curled up in the foetal position at the terror, the peril of the issues the country is confronting. According to Mr O’Rourke, everything can be sheeted home at the feet of immigration and migration. Well, I think we need to have a sensible conversation about what is happening right now in migration and immigration, but you will not get that from New Zealand First members, because they deliberately obfuscate and they change data to suit their rhetoric. It is a rhetoric that has been spouted for—[Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member has only just finished his 10 minutes’ worth, which was heard largely, if not completely, in silence. Repeating the same phrase over and over and over and over again does little for his previous speech and will not be permitted in this speech.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The question, really, is the degree to which the comments the member makes, the drivers of the pressures that we are seeing—pressures on growth; positive pressures; things that need to be dealt with in terms of infrastructure and housing—can be put down to the issue of immigration. Now, it is true that some parts of immigration policy do actually contribute to growth. International education is a very good example of that. It generates over $4 billion in export revenue and employs 32,000 people in this country. But most of the drivers of growth generate demand for labour. It is not as if there are lots of migrants walking around Blenheim at the moment saying: “Gosh, we’ve got them there; we might as well plant some more vines. We might as well milk some more cows.” All of those primary industries are going gangbuster right now, and that is driving the very high demand in labour, which has created over 200,000 jobs in the last 4 years.

We have an unashamed Kiwis-first approach to migration policy, but it is true now, and likely for the foreseeable future, given the growth projections—including in the construction industry, so that we can increase the supply of housing—that it will be necessary to rely on the international labour market. National’s policies, which I announced in Queenstown last month, are sensible, pragmatic responses to that growing demand. We do need that temporary labour, and those workers need to come in—firstly having tested that there are not New Zealanders available to do the job—and then be clear about the likelihood of their duration of stay and whether or not they can gain residence. The demand is high, but the residence programme numbers remain the same, and, therefore, the price of admission has indeed gone up.

Now, this Budget has been a complex one with many moving parts, and if any one or two of the sorts of things that are in this Budget had been announced, it would have been considered significant—things like returning tax into the pockets of the hard-working Kiwis who pay that tax; transferring more of that tax paid to the families who need that help with their accommodation support or with the costs of raising children; a really ambitious plan for growing our infrastructure, whether it is roads, hospitals, schools, rail, and so on; increasing investments in public services; an ambitious and challenging social investment target so that we can assist vulnerable New Zealanders to remain confident, independent New Zealanders; and a plan to improve our country’s resilience by reducing debt to GDP down to between 10 and 15 percent so that we can continue to cope with the inevitable shocks that living in these shaky islands will produce.

Any one or two of those initiatives would have seen this Budget be a significant one, but we have put in about six or seven major, major Budget initiatives. The reason we can do that is because of very sound, sensible fiscal management over the past few years, when we had inherited structural deficits projected to be 10 years or more, a global financial crisis, and two major earthquakes. This Government saw through all of those things and is returning to a 2017-18 projected Budget surplus of $1.8 billion, with GDP growth forecast to continue to be above 3 percent on average for the next 5 years, peaking at 3.8 percent by 2019. That gives the country and the Government choices, and I think those choices have been really well finessed by the finance team supported by Cabinet and its caucus, and it has certainly landed extremely well.

One of the big choices that we were able to make was to end the problem with very low-paid workers in the aged-care sector and achieve what I believe was an outstanding settlement, which was funded mostly by Vote Health but also by a little bit of Vote ACC, for which I am responsible. That put more than $2 billion into the pockets of 55,000 women who work incredibly hard for our vulnerable, elderly, and injured, with the pay equity settlement that we know as the TerraNova settlement. That is what strong, sensible, fiscally prudent measures do, because despite the comments made during the first reading of the Care and Support Worker (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill after the Budget statement last week—the first reading of that bill to give effect to that settlement—that we were somehow shoehorned into this position, nothing could be further from the truth. The Government was not even a party to the proceedings that were before the Employment Court. Those parties could have kicked the can down the road for years, but we made a conscious decision that this had to be fixed. It was going to be expensive, it was something that we could afford thanks to that prudent fiscal management, and I am extremely proud of having done so.

As Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety I have been pleased to secure $8.7 million of extra funding for the Mediation Service and the labour inspectorate to ensure that there will be appropriate mediation services available for the raft of pay equity claims that will be made under the new equal pay and pay equity amendment legislation, which I hope to introduce to the House later this year and have passaged into law by early next year. I am very impressed to note that the parties that have already made claims under the Equal Pay Act have committed to continuing that conversation using the principles set out by the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles.

Another very good joint health and ACC announcement was the $59.2 million to ensure that all road ambulances would be double-crewed over the next 4 years. This is a very, very important issue—one that I think will add to not only the quality of the care that is given for emergency management but also the productivity question. It was an interesting conversation, I have to say, on Q+A on Sunday, when the Council of Trade Unions’ chief economist, Bill Rosenberg, pointed out that, in his view, productivity is not possible in the health sector and that it just is—you have to pour in as much money as it could possibly tolerate, but do not expect anything back out of it. Well, with respect to Mr Rosenberg—and I do have respect for him—I think that is just quite wrong.

One of the best examples of productivity gain, albeit it is not financial productivity, was in the research that was announced earlier in May that said that the Government’s policy of ensuring that patients wait no longer than 6 hours in the emergency department, which was introduced in 2009, has saved thousands of lives. Literally thousands of lives have been saved by the simple expectation that people should not wait longer than they need to, nor than is clinically appropriate. What that meant was that systems had to change. Yes, there was more money for that. Yes, for a growing population we have certainly put more money into Vote Health year on year ahead of the rate of inflation. But there was also an expectation that there should be more out of it, and the thousands—50,000 a year—more elective surgeries, the number of immunisations, the number of preventable illnesses, and the lives that have been saved in the emergency departments around the country are a very direct example of how important investments into health can have a financial and a clinical payback.

But, really, for all the rhetoric that we have had, particularly via my friend in New Zealand First, about how complex and awful and terrible and worrisome these things are, what this is really about is two choices. Do we as a country want to go forward or do we want to go back? Because shutting down the borders, sending tens of thousands of people away—as Labour would have you do—and having arbitrary cuts to migration, arbitrary cuts for fear of what that might do, is a very backward step.

This is a confident Government, a Government confident in the ability of New Zealanders to understand what is good for them, to meet the challenges of infrastructure and growth—and the only parties, I have to say, talking about 9 long years are the Opposition parties. For me, who has been in this caucus for those nearly 9 years, those 9 years have flown by. They have absolutely flown by, and what we have on this side of the House are fresh faces—and there will be more to come after the election—fresh ideas, and amazing new energy. The 9 years have flown by. I look forward, frankly, to the next 9 years, and this Budget is a very important part of it.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): In the Budget there is a group of New Zealanders who missed out significantly, and that group is Māori. Māori got a measly, miserly 1 percent of new spending in the Budget. Compare that with the amount of spending that Corrections got, at 8.5 percent. We are going to spend 10 times more money on keeping Māori in prison this year than we are on keeping Māori out of prison.

I knew there was something up in the Budget when Steven Joyce announced that there was going to be $93 million worth of spending over the next 4 years for Māori, and then 10 minutes later Te Ururoa Flavell gets up and says there is going to be $122 million worth of spending for Māori over the next 4 years—so I am wondering where this extra $30 million comes from. Why is it that the Minister is pumping his own tyres? I looked at the Budget book and, actually, Steven Joyce was correct: there is only $93 million over the next 4 years for Māori initiatives and new funding. But if we just take out this year’s amount alone, $25 million is all that Māori get. If we start to scratch away at the surface, we find that they are actually getting crumbs.

The Māori Party members say they get all the benefits of sitting at the table with the Government. I say that, actually, they are outside in the foyer, sitting at the coffee table and getting the crumbs of what the Government lets fall on to the floor for them. If you are going to get crumbs, you may as well get crumbs that are recognisable. Instead, the crumbs are so tiny they are atomic—you need an electron microscope to see that they actually are crumbs.

Whānau Ora gets $2.5 million; just $2.5 million in new spending this year. When Whānau Ora was launched, Dame Tariana Turia said it needed $1 billion, and it is getting just $2.5 million. We all want Whānau Ora to succeed, because we all have whānau; so we want it to succeed. But it gets $2.5 million, and the Government and the Māori Party say that that is going to bring in another 2,500 whānau. Well, that would be good if it is true, but there are just around 10,000 whānau now after 9 years of Whānau Ora, and they are saying that just $2.5 million is going to bring in another 2,500 whānau. I just do not believe it.

Then I was looking through more of the announcements. There is going to be—and this sounds really good—$1 million for Māori health, for remote rural Māori communities to access health. I had a good look at it, and what the Māori Party is proposing to do is to buy a bus—a bus that it is going to convert into a clinic. That bus—just one bus—is going to drive around Mātaatua—the Mātaatua area and part of the East Coast. Mātaatua is Waiariki—Te Ururoa Flavell’s electorate, and another electorate that they have no hope in Hades of winning off my fine colleague here, Meka Whaitiri. So they are going to buy this bus, do it up, and that will cost about $250,000 to $300,000. They are going to start probably with a nurse, maybe a doctor, and a bus driver, so there is going to be a heck of a lot of money spent on salaries. There is going to be money spent on accommodation. There is going to be money spent on gas.

And how many times would a bus get around all of Waiariki and half of the East Coast in a year? I would say once, maybe twice. So you think of it: old Koro, whose gout is playing up, if the bus went through the little remote rural community a week before, is Koro going to say: “Um, nah, it’s all right. I’ll wait for Te Ururoa Flavell’s ‘Panadol on Wheels’ to turn up in 6 months’ time, and I’ll get my gout seen to.” No way. He is going to go into town, he is going to go to the doctor or the pharmacy and get the pills that he would have got anyway. He is not going to wait for some bus to turn up. This is electioneering at its worst. It is pork barrel politicking. I believe that the only two things that this bus that Te Ururoa Flavell is going to spend a million bucks on is going to dispense will be Panadol and Māori Party propaganda.

Then we look at the Māori Housing Network. It gets $3 million a year, or something. Now, the Māori Housing Network has apparently created 140 projects. Well, how many people can live in a project? It is like, how many people can live in a permit? There were 140 projects—and I wonder why it says “projects”, instead of giving us the number of houses that it has actually built?

Meka Whaitiri: Eleven over 9 years.

KELVIN DAVIS: Eleven. We heard Winston Peters say it the other day: 11 houses over 9 years. But, hang on, it does get better—379 Māori homes have had repairs. I feel fantastic for those 379 Māori whānau who have had their spouting repaired—that is fantastic—but when you think of the Māori population being 450,000 in New Zealand, that equates to about 0.08 of 1 percent of Māoridom getting their houses fixed or involved in these projects that have not produced houses.

Then there are the kōhanga reo. They get $5 million. I thought: “Oh, that’s excellent—$5 million.” You know, as a former school principal, I thought of what I could do with $5 million—until you look at what the five million bucks is going to be used for. It is going to be used—not to invest in kaiako, not to invest in children, not to invest in resources, but to invest in buying cars and vans and fixing the kōhanga reo vans. Now, if a shiny van at the front gate is the mark of success for kōhanga reo, then that side of the House—National and its mates the Māori Party—do not understand education. If it is going to put $5 million towards buying shiny vans and fixing vans, then it should have put double that amount into investing into kaiako, into tamariki, and into the resources that will help those children to learn Te Reo Māori so that they can graduate to kura kaupapa and be successful Māori there.

Māori youth suicide is going to get $8 million over 4 years. Now, that sounds pretty good—until you compare it with the $40 million that Labour has pledged to invest every single year to get health professionals into every single secondary school, plus another $40 million for primary mental health care in the communities.

Now Te Ture Whenua Māori is going to get $2 million for educating the community about Te Ture Whenua Māori. The Minister for Māori Development has said—having spent money on all these hui over the last however many years telling people about how great Te Ture Whenua Māori is going to be, but they still have to spend another $2 million just to convince people that it actually is of benefit.

Adrian Rurawhe: It is more campaigning.

KELVIN DAVIS: It is more campaigning. Then it is going to put some money into the Māori Land Service. The service has no business case. Nobody really knows what it is going to do. It has not been developed. It is going to start work, I think, 18 months after the bill becomes an Act. The Ture Whenua Act has just got widespread disdain throughout Māori communities; throughout Te Tai Tokerau, throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. Of the 20-odd consultation hui, Labour MPs turned up to 14 of them and all 14 hui had motions from the floor to chuck this bill out. Nobody wants it, and yet the Government has got to spend another $2 million over the next couple of years convincing those people that it is right and the community is wrong.

Then there is Te Mana o te Wai Fund. This is the $1 million fund for whānau, hapū, and iwi to improve water quality—$1 million. I read somewhere the other day where the Government said that $2 billion is needed by 2040—$2 billion—to make water swimmable. Yet Māori get a measly $1 million to improve the health of the water—$1 million out of $2 billion. Now, maths was not my strongest point at school—as a student or as a teacher—but $1 million of $2 billion is less than 1 percent. It is a drop in the dirty river—that is all it is.

Family violence gets a bit of money. I say “a bit”, but here is the clincher: in this Budget a worker on the minimum wage—and Māori make up many of those workers on the minimum wage—will get one extra dollar per week. One extra dollar. There is nothing in this Budget for Māori. We do not support it whatsoever.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I actually feel quite uplifted by that speech. The reason I do is I know that it is a speech that member has been delivering in my electorate of Northcote. With its lack of structure, its downbeat message, and its general negativity, I am pleased that Mr Kelvin Davis will be taking that message to a much wider audience because I think that traditional Labour supporters need to hear the sort of negativity that is coming out of the Labour Party.

I was very disappointed with the very narrow focus that Kelvin Davis was taking there. You know, he should be looking at the big picture, because, Mr Davis, there is actually a lot in this Budget that is fantastic for Māori. I was very disappointed that Mr Davis completely ignored the $2 billion Family Incomes Package, which is going to lift the incomes of all middle to lower income New Zealanders. It is going to make a huge difference, and I can assure Mr Davis that many Māori will benefit from that.

We almost had a rare outbreak of consensus here in the House last week because those sensible Opposition parties literally came to the party with the announcement of the Family Incomes Package. We saw widespread almost-consensus in favour of what is a very good initiative to lift the incomes of 1.3 million New Zealand families. But we did not quite get there, because the Labour members could not quite bring themselves to vote for it. That was a real shame, because what they are not able to lay out for the public is what, in their minds, is the counter-factual. Those members are opposing just for the sake of opposing. I think in their hearts—you know, people like Stuart Nash would know that this is actually an excellent Budget. That is because it has managed to do what no other Budget in our 9 great years of Government has managed to do: it has actually lifted incomes at the same time as investing extensively in infrastructure, at the same time as insuring us against future shocks, but also, interestingly, on top of all that, investing heavily in public services. What other Budget has brought together all four of those elements at once? I mean, this is an artful Budget. The architect Steven Joyce has done a fantastic job of it.

I can tell you, the reception we are getting out in the electorates—you know, I was out on the main street of my electorate, Birkenhead, the other day. Boy, was I getting great feedback on this Budget. This is because it has actually covered all the bases. It has hit the right points and it is the sort of Budget that people were expecting to see. In this context, you have just got to look back over the last 9 years and the situation that the National Government inherited. They were dark days around the time of the global financial crisis. We were facing a decade of deficits. It was looking pretty grim. Debt was getting out of hand; it was set to peak at about 60 percent of GDP, and it needed real fiscal discipline, which was applied by the finance Minister Bill English over eight Budgets, to get us into this situation today where the Government now has real choices about how we are spending accumulating surpluses. That is something that now gives us huge choices. It enables us to actually start spending more money on things that people are requiring of the Government.

If you look at the state of the economy, in the last 6 years there has been positive growth in all but one quarter. The future outlook is good as well: average growth of over 3 percent over the next 5 years, peaking at 3.8 percent. But those surpluses are going to be the key: $2.9 billion in 2017-18, rising to $7.2 billion in 2020-21. When you think that we were dealing with an $18 billion deficit a few years ago—boy, have those books been turned around. It is a very positive story. It is an outlook driven by a strong economic plan that the Government has, and it is supported, actually, by confident New Zealand companies that feel confident to employ more people, to develop more products, and to look for more markets. We have got a great growth in jobs. We have had about 215,000 jobs added over the last 3 years, and over the next couple of years we are looking to add another 200,000 jobs. The unemployment rate is set to fall below 4.5 percent.

Very importantly, at the same time as we have got these economic gains—you know, debt falling below 20 percent of GDP by 2020—we are also dealing with the hard social stuff. I do not think even the most hardbitten Labour member could begrudge the fact that we have got 60,000 fewer children growing up in benefit-dependent homes than we did just 6 years ago. You know, that is a massive achievement. That is something—

Hon Member: How many?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —60,000 fewer—that is going to be a real legacy for this Government.

If you look at the debt situation—so, 20 percent of GDP by 2020—we have now set a new target in the Budget of 10 to 15 percent debt-to-GDP ratio by 2025. Of course, living in an environment where natural disaster has been something we have been exposed to over the past few years, we know the importance, as a country, of literally storing up resources for a rainy day, because those rainy days have come in the past and they will come again. It is a great Budget, though, in terms of the $4 billion for infrastructure—a record amount in one Budget—that $2 billion for the Family Incomes Package, and, of course, $321 million for flagship social investment projects.

Last week I was at the World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization annual meeting, and it was interesting meeting with other health Ministers from around the globe. What is very clear is that we are all facing a common set of challenges with the ageing population and the growth in population in Western countries, but we are also grappling with these three big disease groups: non-communicable diseases, infectious diseases, and the third big grouping—which has taken on much greater prominence over the last 5 years—of mental health issues. Around the globe, all Western countries are grappling with this issue of how do we adapt our response in the face of rising mental health demand.

Well, I can tell you, this $888 million in the Budget, this allocation of $3.9 billion over the next 4 years—record amounts for health under this Government, taking the total budget to $16.77 billion—is going to enable us to continue to improve and increase access to a range of health services, including mental health. So there is $224 million over 4 years for mental health—that is $100 million within the ring-fence—and $24 million spread for initiatives across Māori development, education, and corrections. But also, very importantly, there is $100 million that is going to focus on innovative solutions to what is a real societal challenge—that is, maintaining and improving the mental wellness, the mental health, of New Zealanders.

It is a great year for district health boards (DHBs)—$439 million is in there. That is going to enable them to continue to improve and increase access to services. Of course, none of this would have been possible without that steady, strong, long-term management of the economy. I am very proud that we are going to be investing another $38.5 million over the next 4 years for the further roll-out of the bowel screening programme. We are doing the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa DHBs, of course, and Waitematā DHB as well in July, and later this year, the Southern and Counties-Manukau DHBs. That is going to screen 700,000 New Zealanders every 2 years, and save 700 lives a year. It is an initiative that literally will be lifesaving.

We are putting in another $205 million for disability services. That is going to take the total spend to $1.2 billion this year.

Double-crewing for ambulances—a huge issue in Todd Barclay’s electorate. That is going to be massive for those rural electorates where they have been facing over the long term one ambulance turning up, 90 percent—

Hon Scott Simpson: Coromandel.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, Coromandel as well—Scott Simpson’s electorate.

Andrew Bayly: Waiuku.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Andrew Bayly’s electorate, as well. So, you know, that is very well received out there by the constituents. That is going to be another initiative that literally saves lives.

But, of course, there is also $60 million over 4 years for Pharmac. It is important that New Zealanders continue to get access to the world-class drugs that they need and deserve. It is incredible, you know—3.5 million New Zealanders received a funded medicine last year.

But the big one is $2 billion for the care and support workers over 5 years, benefiting 55,000 of the hardest-working, lowest-paid New Zealanders, most of whom are on the minimum wage. They are going to see a rise in their incomes of between 21 and 49 percent.

I can tell you, I was in the Northcote local rest home, Anne Maree Court. The people were literally singing and dancing. They had the karaoke machine out. They were very appreciative. So there is a lot to sing and dance about around this Budget, and I just wish that Labour would get on board and cheer up about it.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): You might be surprised that Jonathan Coleman and I actually agree on something. I listened to his speech and there was a line that he gave, and I thought: “You know, that Minister is dead right.” What he said is “Now that the Government is in surplus, it has choices.”, and it does. But, unfortunately for the vast majority of New Zealanders, it has just made the wrong choices, and it is a shame.

You know, you talk to the vast majority of New Zealanders—and I have talked to a lot of my friends about this—and no doubt, because we are politicians, people engage with us in a way that they would not normally. You ask them: “Do you want a tax cut?”, and do you know what? Most people say: “I would love a tax cut.” Then you say to them: “But would you like a tax cut, or would you rather have a fully funded health system, an education system that delivers for all our children, a housing network that actually means that first-home buyers can afford something, social housing that actually means that those who find themselves in desperate situations have somewhere to go, and a police force that is funded so that when you are in trouble the police are there and there are plenty of community police keeping our communities safe?”, and, without exception, all my friends from the far right to the far left and everyone in between actually say: “Do you know what? What I want is a highly functioning country and a society that looks after its citizens.”

This is not the preserve or the ideology of the left. This is the expectation of the vast majority of New Zealanders, because it is the sort of country we grew up in, it is what we have come to expect, and it is how we sort of market ourselves overseas.

The irony about this Budget—and the Ministers and members on the other side in the Government have crowed about this quite a lot—is the party that in the past has been there for business and has been tough on law and order has delivered a Budget that does nothing for business and underfunds a police force stretched to the limits. It is quite surprising, actually, and the commentary has reflected this. There is a sort of puzzlement around what is going on.

Let me just briefly mention a blog that was put up by the New Zealand country manager of Xero. Xero is hardly what I would call a left-leaning company, and Rod Drury and I were at school together and he has done incredibly well in every single measure.

Phil Twyford: Name-dropper.

STUART NASH: Yes, well, thank you. He is a Napier Boys’ High School boy, of course. He did very well. It is a school of high achievers, apart from me. But one thing that the blog says is: “One other gripe is there’s little in the way of productivity support, access to talent, access to support for exporting for small businesses in general—and no mention at all of small business in the regions.”

I mean, you would expect that Labour would be standing up here and saying: “That Budget is all about businesses. There’s nothing for the workers.” Well, there is nothing here for businesses at all. There is nothing here for the regions. In Hawke’s Bay, where I am from, in Napier, the city and the electorate I represent, the business people were saying to me: “What has happened to this National Party? There is nothing here for us at all.”

The thing about productivity growth is that we cannot keep working longer and longer and expecting GDP to increase. We need to have a general increase in overall productivity, and yet the Government is putting no incentives in place whatsoever for companies to invest in the plant and capital and machinery and technology that would allow that increase in productivity. It is surprising, but this is one thing that we absolutely need.

Of course, that leads on to jobs. We absolutely need jobs—of that, there is no doubt. Our leader, Andrew Little, has articulated a fresh approach to employment. What we are going to do is actually create jobs for New Zealanders who want jobs, because we have faith in our young people. We do not say they are “pretty darn useless”; we say they are “pretty darn good”, actually. That is why Chris Hipkins has said we need an education system that is delivering for all New Zealanders, not just those who can afford to go to private schools and not just those in high-decile schools; for every single New Zealander. Equality of opportunity is the underlying political philosophy for most people—I would say for everyone—in the Labour Party. Yet if schools are not funded in a way that allows us to deliver that, then we cannot expect our young children to be educated, to develop, and to grow in a way that is going to allow them to become productive citizens. We are facing a lot of challenges in this country.

This Government did have a lot of choices, but it made the wrong choices. If it actually had invested in education, in healthcare, in a housing programme, and in law and order then it would be very hard for me to stand up here and argue about it. But the Government did not invest in any of these core social products, policies, and ministries.

Let me talk about police for a moment, which is my portfolio area. Police themselves have admitted that New Zealand, as a destination for methamphetamine, is “becoming more vulnerable”—i.e., there is a lot more meth coming into our country. The Police has admitted that despite the increase in seizures, the price of meth is lower, the supply of meth is greater, and the ability to access it is easier. Police are not winning the war on meth, and what the Police told the Government—it was quite specific—is that it needs 1,165 police over the next 4 years. Labour heard that, and we are going to supply them with 1,000 police over 3 years—we will do better than what Police itself wants. What did National deliver? It delivered 880 police. It had quite a comprehensive business case for how the police were going to use these resources to solve more crime, keep our communities safe, and put the bad guys behind bars. Yet when I have a look at the Budget and what the success measures are, I just shake my head and wonder whether we are living in a parallel universe.

The Government has actually said it is going to cut the budget for case resolution and support to judicial processes. In 2016-17, there were 100,000 cases prosecuted, yet this Budget is funding only 90,000 cases. It is as if Government members believe that crime is falling, and yet the stats simply do not show that. Our communities will tell you that crime is increasing, and the men and women on the front line have got the evidence. You cannot just say it and believe it is true if the stats say something different.

It is surprising that the budget for general crime prevention services has increased by only $11 million, or $42 for every crime committed last year, when the number of victimisations increased by over 11,000. In fact, that is 222 extra victimisations per week last year. Burglaries were up over 10,000, and that is mainly to do with P, yet we are not funding this part of policing in a way that is going to make a difference. The people in law and order whom I speak to around the country are concerned about this. Partly, they are concerned because they read about what is happening in the paper and they see what is happening on the news, and partly because they have an expectation of what law and order looks like in their community. We all, everyone in this House, grew up with the local bobby on the beat, who was—usually, in my case—a big, smiling, friendly chap who helped you out. That was in a day when, if you were mad or bad they would grab you by the ear and take you home. But the most surprising thing—[Interruption]—exactly, exactly; they were allowed to kick someone, and it worked. Community policing works, and at the moment, we are retrenching numbers from communities and putting them in the station, and they are just not getting the advice they need to solve crimes, and communities are not feeling safe. Sir Robert Peel, who was the founder of the modern police force, said “police are people and people are police”. That means we are all part of the wider community that is charged with keeping ourselves safe and our community safe. If the police are not there, then we cannot do that.

I suppose one of the surprising things is that the amount of money put into road safety policing has actually dropped—it has dropped by $12 million. Yet if I have a look at the road toll for the first 3 months of this year, 11 Kiwis more have died on our roads. We all know this—we all know that when you are driving along and you see a police car, the first thing you do is check your speed, and if you are travelling at 100 kilometres an hour, which I doubt anyone here would travel over, you tend to brake anyway. Well, you travel at 1 kilometre an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker, we know that. I suppose that all I am saying is that if you want to save lives, you do not cut the budget for road policing by $12 million; in fact, you increase it. This cut in road policing is one area of the Budget that I can confidently, but very sadly, say is probably going to cost Kiwis lives. Road tolls around the world are dropping; New Zealand is an outlier because ours is increasing.

I suppose, just to sum up, what Labour has done is it has put forward a whole raft of policies that have come about because we have listened to what Kiwis are saying to us. We have gone around the country and heard that people want an education system, a health system, a police service, and houses, and we have developed policies because of this. This Budget does not deliver in a way that we believe, and New Zealanders believe, fundamentally delivers for them. Thank you very much.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is usually a pleasure to follow that member from Napier, Stuart Nash, because normally he is motivated, and he is enthusiastic, and he is full of vim and vigour and enthusiasm for his party. But today we have had a 10-minute apology of a speech from him on a really important Budget when Labour, again, has failed to deliver anything in the way of formed policy or debate or initiative or even any sensible opposition to what has been the first Budget produced by the new Minister of Finance, the Hon Steven Joyce.

My, what a great Budget it has been. What a great Budget it has been for the people of New Zealand, for families who are working hard, for superannuitants, for business people, for our young people, for those people who are struggling with high housing costs, and for people who have had tax creep occur. The new tax thresholds will kick in and give them some relief, and return back to them some of their own money, which is really what it is all about. What a good Budget this has been. This has been, absolutely, as all the commentators have been saying, a Budget that delivers for New Zealand and for New Zealanders.

It is a Budget that has come from a National Government in its ninth year of Government, after some very hard times early on in that term. In those early years, we had the global financial crisis to contend with and we had the situation of the Christchurch-Canterbury earthquakes to consider and to support. We have come through all of that with the careful, prudent management and economic steerage and stewardship that came from the now Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Finance. It is because of those careful, prudent years of steady-at-the-helm guidance that came from the Hon Bill English when he was Minister of Finance that we are in a position with this Budget to be able to make choices about really providing positive impacts for all New Zealanders. This is from a Government that cares. It cares for families, it cares for people, and it cares about getting things done. People around New Zealand, and around the Coromandel electorate, have certainly welcomed this Budget.

In my electorate—it is a provincial, rural electorate, and the local economy there is booming. In the provinces all around New Zealand, the economy is booming. In fact, people are telling me as I travel around my vast electorate in the Coromandel—the beautiful Coromandel—that they have not seen economic activity and economic growth like we currently have since the 1960s, and that is phenomenal. It means people are building houses, roads are being built, bridges are being built, all kinds of activity is occurring, and we are the net beneficiaries of that in the provinces and in the regions. We have been able to make that huge progress on the economic level, and in terms of the social advancements in health, education, and welfare, because, as a Government, we have got this careful stewardship of the economy that does give us choices.

At the very core of this year’s Budget is the Family Incomes Package and it is key to the Budget and it is key to what we are trying to achieve. Yet what has happened when the Budget was introduced? The Greens, very sensibly, and New Zealand First, very sensibly, voted in support of that, and Labour—who one would have thought would be jumping for joy at the opportunity to support struggling families and those in need of some improvement to their Working for Families arrangements—actually voted against it.

It was unbelievable that a Labour Party could vote against it. Not only did it vote against it—unbelievably, last weekend on TV3’s The Nation programme, having been invited to attend and present its argument, its case, its rationale for voting against this very good measure, nothing happened. It failed to turn up. It failed to show—no show. It was an absolute no show. I have been watching politics most of my life. I have never seen a situation where an Opposition party, in the ninth year of Opposition, would fail to appear on one of the country’s very good political programmes, and it was not there. It did not show. I tell you what: those members were probably still recoiling—

Hon Todd McClay: Curled up.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —curled up in a foetal position somewhere in the Labour caucus room after hearing Steven Joyce deliver the Budget, because they did not think it was going to be a Budget that was going to be as generous, as supportive, and as positive as it was.

Economic growth is predicted to continue at the rate of over 3 percent for the next 4 years. If we are able to continue that growth, which I am confident we can, and if we are able to continue to produce surpluses through careful management of the economy, as I am confident we can, then that means that there will be even more jobs for New Zealanders, even more opportunities for New Zealand families, and even more benefits for us all as New Zealanders.

The unemployment rate is expected to fall to below 4.5 percent, and our employment rate is expected to stay at the top of the OECD nations. Now that is a dramatic change on where we were at the end of the Labour-Greens Government that was led by Helen Clark, when we had a decade of deficits being predicted by their finance Minister. We have managed to turn that around and get the country back on its feet in a way that was simply not ever thought possible by the Labour Party members. And they have no answers. They are bereft. They have no answers, no policy, no direction, and no leadership.

I have been given the privilege by the Prime Minister and my colleagues to serve as the Minister of Statistics, and there was an announcement in the Budget that I do want to draw the House’s attention to and it relates to an investment of $4.5 million to Statistics New Zealand that it will use over the next 3 years in order to fund an investigative programme into transformational census policies and processes. We come from a tradition of having a census every 5 years, and the tradition and the policy has been that on a given night, once every 5 years, a snapshot of statistical data would be collected across the nation and that data would be used to make all kinds of governmental decisions and businesses and individuals would use that information. But, of course, we now live in an age of technology when information and data has never been more freely available, never more accessible, and never more able to be analysed and used in ways that, actually, we could not even think about just a few years ago.

In this Budget there has been an allocation of $4.5 million. And what will that do? Well, it is going to be used to investigate a transformational census change, and that will mean that instead of potentially having census information collected on just one night across the nation once every 5 years, that perhaps we can look at mechanisms for capturing data and information on a progressive, moving schedule of time and place, and that is going to be really useful for the country and really useful for people who want to use that information.

I liken it a wee bit to a business that may have used to, in years gone by, conduct an annual stocktake where it physically counted every nut, bolt, and widget in its warehouse. It would not take long in the Labour Party warehouse to do a physical stocktake—mind you; there are a few nuts and bolts and widgets over there. But these days many companies no longer do that sort of thing. What they do is a rolling stocktake where they are checking stock and inventory on a progressive, rolling basis. This transformation of the census provides that kind of opportunity. So I think that this is going to be money very well spent. I think we will still have a need for a census every 5 years, but if we can add information to it progressively on a rolling basis over that period of time that will be all well and good.

Just in summary, this is a very good Budget. It is a Budget that delivers for New Zealand and New Zealanders. It reflects the hard work that New Zealanders have made over the last 9 years, in terms of coming to terms with some pretty tough times, and it is a very good Budget. It is the first Budget that Steven Joyce has made as Minister of Finance, and I for one am looking forward to him presenting many more to this Parliament—many more good Budgets from Steven Joyce for this Parliament and for the people of New Zealand. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Fa’afetai lava, Mr Deputy Speaker, and talofa lava to all the Samoan speakers in Aotearoa for Samoan Language Week. This week has been quite bizarre in many ways, and the thing that I found most bizarre was when Steven Joyce was on television saying that the Budget had nothing to do with the election. I think that stretched the credibility of almost everyone in the country—maybe not Steven in his parallel universe, but we all know there is an election in 3 months and that this Budget was about that. I do not see the point in pretending that it is not. That is what it is about. That is what is always going to be about from any Government, and this Budget was a typical one for a pre-election Budget. Why not just admit it instead of pretending to be a bad spin doctor?

However, moving right along to the Budget and a couple of issues that we really need to concentrate on, and read my lips: we are not voting for the Budget. What we are saying here is if you look at the environment—in the environment this Budget has completely failed, and I am going to touch on that and I am also going to touch on education, because they both have created deep disappointment in the communities.

Before I do that, I just want to acknowledge that I am also from the Coromandel-Hauraki area, and I will tell you what is booming: we have a housing crisis and we have food banks booming. So along with all the rhetoric about how fabulous everything is, watch out for the global financial crisis that is coming our way, which economists like Steve Keen have identified. Watch out in the regions for what is really going on, rather than just what people want to see.

So water—what does the Government do for water in this Budget? Well, I have just come back from a local government conference on water this afternoon, and everybody knows that this is an important issue. Everybody even thinks that it is an election issue, but the Government has not really grasped that, so all that it did in this Budget was give $63 million to big irrigation. So even though the entire country is worried about the state of our waterways, concerned about water—and, in fact, Nick Smith spent a lot of time running consultations and making us all fill in forms about it—the Government did nothing for water. The only fund that is mentioned is Te Mana o te Wai Fund, and that is $1 million versus $63 million. And that $1 million—the hapū on the ground have told me that they have to raise half the money. So they cannot actually use the fund unless they have already got the money, but they do not have the money and that is why they need a fund. So that one is not a victory when small groups—it is fine if you are talking about regional councils and people who have access to money, but the groups that I work with, the champions of hapū and community groups working on cleaning up rivers, were really hoping the Government had heard the message that water was important.

James Shaw, in his speech, talked about broken systems, including our management of water. He is quite right, and this Budget has failed to address it. The $63 million the Government is giving to big irrigation is not the only dollop of money that it has given. It is subsidising—and has in the last few years subsidised—large amounts of money, including this $63 million, for schemes that will strip waterways and aquifers so that we could all become dependent on water as climate change absolutely destabilises our climate. But this is all it seems to be capable of—pretending that there is nothing coming straight towards us, that there are no enormous ecological changes under way, and that we have not already stripped the Canterbury rivers; that the rivers are not already struggling. People are gobsmacked that this Government not only does not mention climate change in the Budget; it also does nothing for water except ask people to come up with half the money for a very small fund. It is very, very disappointing indeed.

In terms of the other area I want to touch on, as the education spokesperson I have been on, I do not know, four or five panels in last 7 days. Some of that was before the Budget; some of it was after. After the Budget there was a definite tone in the teachers’ voices. They were not happy. The rural principals were not happy. The Early Childhood Council was not happy. They told us in no uncertain terms that they saw the Budget as an abject failure for education, and they told us why. They said that the operations grant, which has been frozen, has been increased by only 1.3 percent, which is not even a catch-up. The education system is bursting at the seams with broken buildings and children, and the money that has been put into the operations grant will not be sufficient to allow schools to do what they need to do. So they were furious that they were still stuck in that same place of struggling and taking money off families for what is supposed to be a free education system. It will entrench inequality.

They were also very disappointed in the early childhood education sector. They told us that this is the seventh year without any money for early childhood education, and they told us that each centre could lose up to $15,000 a year. They told us that the chance of actually being able to bring more quality teachers into early childhood education is gone in this Budget. They were very disappointed. The Government will say “Oh, but we gave $35 million over 4 years”—you can do the maths on that, because there is quite a bit in the Budget that is over 4 years; it is always important to remember that—“to help one part of early childhood, which is going to help some disadvantaged children.” But the early childhood community said that is about $2 per child. So it is not going to fix the crisis and disadvantage, and it is not going to fix the fundamental functioning of early childhood education. It is not going to allow schools to actually do their job, because they are going to be fund-raising yet again. So there is deep disappointment in the education sector around the Budget.

The compulsory sector and the principals whom we talked to were also very disappointed. They are struggling with a Government that underfunds them on a regular basis, and then does not listen to them. The Government is hell-bent on getting rid of deciles, but what we are afraid of is that it is actually just going to be rationing from now on. While the Government tries to find which child comes from which type of so-called deficit-based dysfunctional family before they get any funding, the rest of it, the public, quality, universal education system that people like myself were lucky enough to experience—people are not going to experience that. Rationing, competing, capping, and thinly spreading—I think it was the Post Primary Teachers’ Association that described the Budget as a “timid sprinkling” of funding. I thought that was quite a good description for what we see in the education sector—a timid sprinkling. A little bit here, a little bit there, but for the rest of it you are on your own. The schools are on their own. That is very, very disappointing, because there is so much rhetoric from the Government about the importance of education, so much rhetoric about participation in early childhood education, but, as we know, participation is nothing without quality.

Then we heard from the early childhood teachers who every 15 minutes have to report on their activities. That is going to ensure quality, but the money is not going to be there, and the respect for what they actually do is not there, otherwise why would you spend every 15 minutes trying to record? You can picture the scene in an early childhood centre—short of money, short of qualified staff, and then here we go. Sometimes some people are looking after five kids under 2. Just imagine trying to look after five kids under 2, but every 15 minutes you have got to fill in a form to say what you did, to prove that you are delivering quality. That is supposed to be a “data-rich”, evidence-based approach to education. It is ridiculous. The Budget has failed on education.

Just returning for a moment to the bigger picture, education and water are two passions of mine. I have been in this Parliament for 8½ years seeing Budgets that have failed both of them. I am really disappointed that we continue to have to listen to this Government crowing about its great achievements while the education system falls apart and while the education sector tells us that it is drastically and chronically underfunded by the Crown. It is the Crown’s job to fund education. It is not a business. And it is the same for the waterways. If we cannot have clean water and if we cannot lead from the front on clean water, we as a nation have nothing. We can suck it up and sell it all we like, but future generations will hold our names to shame for what we have done to our schools, to our early childhood centres, to our waterways, and, ultimately, to our entire society. These systems are broken. This was a chance to change them. The Government did not take it. And Steven Joyce says “Oh no, we’re on a track. It was never about the election.” People will see through this. I am looking forward to 23 September. Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Trade): If I may, before I start my speech I would like to give my thoughts to Steve Chadwick, the Mayor of Rotorua, whose husband sadly died on Friday of last week. I have just been, at home this morning, to John Chadwick’s tangi, his funeral. It was very well attended, and it was obvious the great affection that all of Rotorua and many others around the country had for John. I am sure, as a former colleague in this House, the thoughts of the Parliament are with her and her family at what will be a difficult time.

This was a good Budget. Contrary to the last speech, by Catherine Delahunty, it was a good Budget. It delivered for families and it delivered for workers, and it was able to achieve something that the Government has not been able to do over the last 8 years, and that is to start spending money in areas that are important for the economy, are important for society, and are important for New Zealand. The reason we are able to do that in this Budget is the hard work of New Zealanders and the focus of Bill English, as finance Minister and now as Prime Minister, on growing the economy through very difficult times to create surpluses that we can now apply to important areas of Government spending. That has happened only because of that hard work and it will happen only through continued hard work of this Government to focus on what matters for New Zealanders, to create opportunity, and to make sure that, as the Government has choices going forward in what it spends money on—because there are surpluses—so do New Zealanders have choices as well in so far as where they want to focus their activity.

The Budget does offer more in education. The education budget has gone up. We will spend more on education in the coming years than in any year before. Actually, as we go through all the policy areas, more money has been attached to them, but it is not just about more money, as opposed to what the last speaker said. It is about making sure that the Government spends taxpayers’ money, taxpayers’ resource, as carefully as it can. There is a return for the taxpayer, and that return is that they get more productivity out of the Government, out of Government agencies, and at the same time their taxes go further. This is a Budget that is delivering more money in the pockets of New Zealanders through changing the tax rates through the different bands, as well as recognising that movements are needed around Working for Families. Families up and down New Zealand will find that they have more money in their pocket. This is a Government that believes that they are the ones who are working hard, they are the ones who should decide what their money is spent on, and they should get to keep more of that money to make those decisions.

I am very proud that as part of Budget 2017 we have seen the largest investment ever in trade policy in New Zealand. Two months ago we launched Trade Agenda 2030: Securing our place in the world, the Government’s trade policy for the next 10 to 15 years. Trade is exceptionally important to a country like New Zealand. If we are not out there finding better access to markets overseas to sell our goods and services in, then the Government will not have the choices it has in so far as Budget surpluses, and New Zealanders will not have the choices that they have, they demand, and they deserve, because their economy will shrink. You see, we are an export nation, and we have to sell the goods and services overseas that we produce. The reason for that is we are 4.5 million people, and nobody owes us a living.

We must have a very secure place in the Asian market. We must have high-quality free-trade agreements (FTAs) that give us better access to Asia. We need to make sure that the European Union opens its markets to New Zealanders and does not put up barriers, so that New Zealanders and our goods and services can flow there more freely. We need to be out continually fighting for, arguing for, persuading for a better go for New Zealanders so that they can do more overseas. This Government has done that and I am very proud of our record.

We have set an ambitious target under Trade Agenda 2030 that 90 percent of our goods trade should be covered by FTAs by 2030. That will take detailed, focused work on the part of the Government. It will have to work closely with New Zealand businesses, but it is achievable. It is ambitious; we must be striving to do more because we will not become richer as a nation if we are merely selling to ourselves.

We have backed it up with $91.3 million of additional money over the next 4 years through this Budget. This is to support Trade Agenda 2030. Of this, $35 million will go to the primary sector exporters to help them do more in markets overseas—to see if we can reduce some of these non-tariff barriers (NTBs) that get in the way of them fairly accessing these markets. There will be a $27 million boost for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, so we can have more trade negotiators and we can accelerate the pace at which we are negotiating. We are also investing $55 million—aside from the $91 million—into Expo 2020 Dubai, and what that will allow us to do is to showcase the very best of New Zealand, to make sure that we are relevant, that we have a place in the world, and that people are reminded of all the things that we have to offer them.

In reaching this target of 90 percent of goods trade by 2030, we will have to do more trade deals. We will have to make sure that we have a deal with the European Union, that we upgrade the current deals that we have—such as with China—and that we are out seeking opportunity wherever we can. It is not just about goods trade any more. Large parts of the New Zealand economy are now growing quickly, providing jobs, and they are involved in the digital services, in services themselves, and in investment. Over time, under a Trade Agenda 2030, I would like to see our services and investment profile receiving as much attention as goods trade does, because that is the area where, in services, young New Zealanders can exchange their high-quality and very expensive educations for higher-paying jobs everywhere in the world, including right here at home.

We want to focus on non-tariff barriers. The thing that is probably raised with me the most from business and industry—and people who are not involved in exports—is non-tariff barriers: all of those barriers that stop New Zealanders selling overseas that do not have a tariff rate attached to them. We want an all-of-Government approach to dealing with these, because that is fundamentally the No. 1 area where the New Zealand economy will grow the most through exports if we can reduce some of these barriers that our exporters face overseas.

This is not a matter of others changing their rules. The Government of New Zealand reserves the right to pass good law and pass regulation, as this House does. At the same time, we think we can line up some of our rules so that exporters can do better overseas. We are creating an NTB flying squad with that $35 million attached to the Ministry for Primary Industries. That flying squad will be made up of detailed, experienced individuals who, when a problem comes up for New Zealand exporters around the world, will be able to deal with it more quickly. We already have a lot of capacity in this area, but we want to focus and be dedicated because we think this is where the real challenges of the future will be.

We also want it to be easier for New Zealanders to engage with Government agencies when it comes to NTBs. We are creating an NTB clearing house so that exporters and business people will no longer have to wonder who they should talk to in Government; there will be an online portal where they will get a response within 72 hours and their concerns and requests will be directed by Government to the appropriate people who will then deal with it. All of this, again, is about that all-of-Government approach to fixing barriers so New Zealanders can export more.

The final thing we want to do under Trade Agenda 2030 is to help New Zealand companies do better overseas. We have a number of New Zealand companies that are world-beating. I want to recognise that BurgerFuel just this week has opened a burger restaurant in Indianapolis in America. It is fantastic that they are over there doing that. That is New Zealanders doing well on the world stage. Who would have thought that that was possible? No harm at all with that. We should be backing more New Zealand businesses to do this. We want to help them go from market access to market success, and the Government is going to apply effort and resource to help them here.

It does not matter whether it is a large company or a small company, this Government is ambitious for them. Be it BurgerFuel or Fonterra, we want them to do well overseas, because when Kiwis are doing well overseas, New Zealand is doing well also. This Government, more than any party in this Parliament, supports business, supports exporters, works hard for them, and wants to do more for them. We are unapologetically ambitious on their behalf. We are going to go out and find better deals for them in all parts of the world where they are available. We are going to help them to do more. We want the economy to grow through being an export nation. We back New Zealand businesses. We back the export economy, and Trade Agenda 2030 supports that vision. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well I have got to start by saying that it is interesting being back in the House, and the wonderful thing about this modern world is the connectivity that we have and the fact that we can connect up anywhere in the world through the internet and we can see things, hear things, that are thousands of miles away from us. The great thing was that I was able to sit there and watch the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ reply to the Budget speech, in the United States, with family who are following New Zealand First online. The bad thing about connectivity and the internet is that you get to watch Steven Joyce deliver the “Budget of all Disasters”, and this is it. So it is a pleasure to be back here and to be speaking in the House, but not so much a pleasure to be talking about this Budget.

Let us have a look at this Budget. The first thing we look for is what is in it, what is not in it and why, and what should have been in it and why. The one thing that stands out—a couple of things that stood out to me in Steven Joyce’s speech: he said that this is about delivering for New Zealanders, delivering more public services, the infrastructure, the resilience, and the incomes that they need to get ahead and provide for their families. What he did not say is that is “unless they live in the provinces and rural New Zealand.”—that is, in the regions. He went on to say: “This budget is about the opportunity we have to build on the platform we have all created and deliver greater prosperity for New Zealanders.” What he should have said was “to deliver to foreign investors, property speculators, and financiers like the ones in my caucus.” That is what he should have said.

Looking at his speech—it is quite astounding, actually—I go through page 8 and a couple of things leap out to me. Look at this: “$576 million for Defence Force upgrades, $763 million for new prison capacity.” Stop. What? This is in the same sentence, in the same paragraph—$576 million for Defence Force upgrades and $763 million for a new prison, at a time when crime is plummeting, when there are fewer crimes being committed, when the Government is trumpeting its success over the last 9 years in law and order. Why would they be building a new prison and spending more on prisons than they are on the Defence Force? It is absolutely mind-boggling for anyone in America to read this nonsense. There is “$63 million for Crown Irrigation to invest in new water”—sorry, this is old money, previously announced. If you have a quick look, you will find that the Government keeps announcing these figures and not spending it. Not spending it—why? It is because the people who are wanting the money have got to put up the half—we know that. That is the sort of give with one hand and take back with both—give it with one hand from Steven, and the Prime Minister takes it back with both.

Then “$100 million for the Crown Land Programme”—old money re-announced—and “$450 million for KiwiRail for the rail network around New Zealand”. “Hallelujah!”, people say, “This is great.” But, wait, most of that goes on reparations for the Kaikōura earthquake. So we are left looking at two figures: $450 million for the KiwiRail network for the whole of provincial New Zealand—“$436 million for the first stage in Auckland’s City Rail Link.” For anyone in the provinces reading that one paragraph, they have got it all. They know where the Government’s priorities lie, and they know where they do not lie.

It is interesting when one has a quick look at the press release put out by the Rt Hon Winston Peters on 29 May, which pretty much summed it up for Kaikōura people: “Kaikōura business people and residents hit hard by the recent earthquake have been dealt two new blows, says New Zealand First. Like the rest of regional New Zealand they were virtually ignored in the Budget, and face rates rises of around 6 per cent each year for four years.” We are talking about business owners in Kaikōura facing ruin—some have gone, many are just holding on, while most homeowners and businesses have not got insurance payouts yet.

It is interesting to note further down, in the comments made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters: “It is disappointing to learn that too often at meetings”—and this is information direct from people in the provinces, directly from the people in Kaikōura—“decision makers comment that Kaikōura businesses are falling over, but new ones are starting”. Well, sorry, what about the families of those businesses? Hello, National: the party that once, apparently, used to represent small business and medium business; the party that once used to be interested in small-business people who employed other Kiwis. What about the families of those businesses that are falling over? What about the unsecured creditors?

You see, the people who make these types of comments so flippantly are the shining examples of the National Government’s view of business, their ethics, and their values. The fact that a proud family business is forced to close its doors after decades of successfully operating in and serving its community means nought to Steven Joyce and means nought to this Government, whose members have made their fortunes playing the spectrum market or clipping the ticket as bankers. Those people in National’s caucus think nothing of a statement that says: “Well, a few businesses in Kaikōura have fallen over, but, hey, there’s some new ones started up.” They do not give a stuff about the unsecured creditors, at all.

These are members of the caucus who have never hammered a nail, never turned a wrench, and never welded a beam, or toileted a patient. These are the reef fish of the New Zealand economy. These people see a closed family business in Kaikōura as an unfortunate piece of collateral damage and nothing to be concerned about. We in New Zealand First are appalled at that attitude.

If we look at some of the other utterances and the statements that have been made by this Government, I think one of the things that it needs to understand is that provincial New Zealand provides the backdrop. Provincial New Zealand provides the roads that the tourists travel on. Provincial New Zealand provides the scenery, the visitor information network, and the toilets. It deals with the freedom campers and it provides that local infrastructure that underpins the tourism market that this Government promotes internationally and pats itself on the back for increasing. Well, that increase comes with a price tag that has to be borne by ratepayers, taxpayers, and provincial New Zealand.

What does the Government get out of this? It was prattling on about the increase in tourism and how much its coffers are bulging through an increase in tourism, with no mention of the amount of GST that it rakes off, no mention about the cost to Masterton, Martinborough, Carterton, the West Coast of the South Island, Franz Josef, Kaikōura, or Bay of Plenty—no mention of the cost of the infrastructure bill that comes with that increased tourism. Oh no, just pat yourself on the back, National, that you have increased tourism! It is as though there is no debit side to the ledger. Well, the debit side to the ledger is carried by provincial New Zealanders, and where are they represented in this Budget? Ha! Even the Government members are silent on that—not a mutter, not a murmur out of them. They put their heads down behind their tables and they say naught, because the sad reality is that they know that they could nominate a dead dog, tie a blue ribbon round its neck, call it “Bill”, stand it in an election in provincial New Zealand, and right up until 2017 it would have won.

But there is a move coming. The move is coming built on the realisation of provincial New Zealand that they count for naught. Well, now it is starting to get a little active. But have a look at what this Government has budgeted for Auckland. Compare it with what it has budgeted for the rail networks in Gisborne. Compare it with what it has not put in—you know, where is the vision? For the amount of money that it is spending on roading it could actually extend this further. It could actually move the Auckland port up into Northland. It could actually relocate and free up land in the Auckland area, something that Aucklanders would be happy about and something that would give Northland a hell of a shock to its economic arm. But the Government is not interested in that, because it has no vision. It would rather focus on metropolitan areas because that is where its votes lie. It would rather focus on—well, let us say it—those people who are funding its coffers and on that part of the electorate that is paying into its coffers for its campaign, because that is where its resources and its votes lie. There is nothing for provincial New Zealand.

Provincial New Zealand has woken up. Provincial New Zealand saw in what was achieved in Northland a hope and a vision for itself, something that it once used to enjoy from a proud National Party. But that party is gone—long gone. And it is not just us saying it over here; this Budget says it. Rural New Zealanders are saying it. We have only got one thing to say: bring on that election. Bring on this Budget. Walk out on the election trails and wave it around, and tell everybody that you are helping provincial New Zealand. From everything I have read in this Budget—and it did not take too long at all—there is nothing.

What provincial New Zealand knows is that in biosecurity alone it is forgotten. Black-grass, pea weevil, myrtle rust, velvetleaf, and fruit fly: these are the legacy of the National Party on rural-provincial New Zealand, and it will not forget it.

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

BRETT HUDSON (National): Well, listening to that contribution from the previous speaker, Ron Mark, I can only surmise that he has been on a trip to Colorado recently. It is an absolute pleasure to speak to speak on this Budget. It is a Budget that is delivering for all New Zealanders. It is a Budget that understands that the Government needs to invest in a growing New Zealand. It is a Budget that understands the work that is being done for New Zealand with the Business Growth Agenda, and provides further investment to keep economic growth going strong. And it is a Budget that acknowledges that in strong economic times, particularly when we are forecast to continue at growth rates of over 3 percent for the next 4 or more years, now is an opportunity to share an economic dividend with hard-working Kiwis and their families. Kiwi families on lower and middle incomes have been working hard, and while their wages may have been outpacing inflation, they still have challenges in their lives, and this is a way, through this Budget, that we can help to give them some relief. We are doing that with our fantastic $2 billion Family Incomes Package, a package that includes some changes to tax thresholds that will allow hard-working Kiwi families to keep hold of a bit more of the money that they earn for themselves.

In the debates that have raged in this House since Budget day many people have talked about tax breaks and giving money back. There is no giving money back; the shifting of the tax threshold means the Government is not going to take those hard-working Kiwis’ money to begin with. That is why it cannot possibly be termed a bribe. You cannot bribe someone by not taking their money in the first place. But in not taking an amount of money from people, whether it is on the bracket that is shifting from $14,000 up to $24,000 or, indeed, from $48,000 to $52,000, what we will do is put more money in hard-working Kiwis’ pockets, and when you take that and match that with what we are doing with the Working for Families adjustments and with the accommodation supplements, we are going to see about 1.34 million Kiwi families, on average, better off by $26 a week.

Those larger families, and people who live in parts of the country that tend to have higher accommodation rentals, will get even more. It is a Budget that clearly targets support at Kiwis who are working hard but who still have challenges in their lives. It is one that will make a real difference to them.

On top of that, we have announced a further round in our Innovative New Zealand programme—$373 million. This is the sort of money that goes into supporting initiatives that are funded, perhaps, out of the Marsden Fund or through Callaghan Innovation—those initiatives that we have that help to encourage New Zealand businesses in particular to invest a bit more of their profits and a bit more of their retained earnings into research and development areas, areas that will help them to deliver even greater products or services that markets within New Zealand and abroad will want. This thinking and this approach is the sort of approach that will help us to remain at the forefront not only of our primary industries, where we can continue to add value to our products and services and our goods there, but also, importantly, speaking from my experience, the ICT industry. That is an area where companies like Xero, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, and others demonstrate very clearly to us that Kiwis can do anything, and, given the opportunity, they will. Our R & D grants—our growth grants in particular—are a means to help Kiwis to invest a bit more in creating their own success.

The point I will make on these, before moving on, is that one of the fundamental strong points of those growth grants is that they match Government money not on a whim but against the opportunity that companies have to raise private funds. So in order to get the incentive from the Government, the company has to have shown that its ideas have excited enough investors to want to put their own money at risk that the Government can have confidence in the potential success of that business. It means that we are not just backing our winning industries. It means we are backing Kiwis who have got ideas that people in the market place can see have merit.

This is another fantastic Budget from this Government. It is one that provides an economic dividend to those who deserve it the most. I have absolutely no problem in commending the actions of this Government to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Dr Parmjeet Parmar—5 minutes.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Last week was a great week. It was Budget week. The hard work of all Kiwis, supported by this National Government, means we have been able to make choices that only a very few other countries have. While several countries around the world are playing catch-up after the global financial crisis, we are in a very prestigious position, after seeing what Budget 2017 delivers. It delivers for all New Zealanders.

The most remarkable and thrilling news leading up to the Budget was that the surplus is bigger than forecast, and I believe this has been one of the biggest offerings of this National Government to New Zealand. Through Budget 2017, again we have shown that this National Government—our finance Minister Steven Joyce and our Prime Minister Bill English—knows how to run the country in a very sound manner. There are still predictions of another global financial crisis, so it is really important that we deliver success for New Zealand, and there is nothing like being in such a sound position as we are in.

Kiwis know that this National Government is about delivering better public services. We are about delivering the best possible value for each and every taxpayer’s dollar. Kiwis know that this National Government has been, and will be, fair to all hard-working families and businesses. This is why providing all the support that is needed for families that are at risk of remaining behind is necessary.

We have been able to do all this because our economy is so strong under this National Government. We are investing hugely to diversify our economy. For example, in Budget 2017 we are investing $178 million for tourism infrastructure. Leading up to the Budget there was the big announcement of close to half a billion dollars for 1,125 police staff, and then in Budget 2017 we saw $786 million to increase prison capacity in response to the increasing prison population.

The prison population is increasing because we are tough on crime—

Hon Member: Ha!

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: We are tough on crime, and this brings our investment in the justice sector to $2 billion over the next 4 years.

For infrastructure there is $11 billion, bringing our infrastructure investment to $32.5 billion over the next 4 years. We are talking about education infrastructure, health infrastructure, justice sector infrastructure, defence infrastructure, and, of course, transport. Looking at transport, $9 billion is just for some key roading projects, and I am really looking forward to the opening of the western ring route. I am really looking forward to the East-West Link. We are investing close to half a billion dollars towards the first stage of the Auckland City Rail Link. These are the kinds of things that are going to make a real difference in people’s lives in Mount Roskill and in Auckland.

Talking about housing, Minister Amy Adams is doing a great job. She has announced 34,000 brand new houses. We are going to replace 8,300 old, run-down houses with 34,000 new houses. Analysis shows that this is adding 3½ houses on each street in Auckland. That is the magnitude of this announcement. It is a big commitment, and we know that we can deliver it.

I know that the Labour Party members are very nervous about this Budget 2017. They are very, very nervous, because they oppose the income tax package of $2 billion to help low and middle income families. Yes, they are very, very nervous, since they oppose that income tax package bill. By opposing that bill, they have sent a message to low and middle income families that they do not care about putting more money in their back pockets. All they care about is their politics. All they care about is playing a position in the House.

The Labour Party is about taxes up, spending up, and hardship up for families and businesses. There is another very interesting thing that is up in the Labour Party, and that is the popularity of its deputy leader. That is actually more than the Labour leader’s popularity. But to counter all these ups and ups and ups in the Labour Party—the ups that its members like—there is one thing that is steadily staying low and it is going to stay low because of Labour members’ opposition to the income tax package. That is their rating. Thank you.

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

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): You know when a Government is actually very nervous. It is when its members start delivering election bribes instead of true reform. That is what this Government is doing. The Labour Party is certainly not nervous. The Labour Party is very disappointed in the Government. It is very disappointed with this Budget. After 9 years, this is all the Government can come up with—a tax cut that increases inequality. There is a bit more for people at the top, and bugger all for those at the bottom.

At a time when we have got a housing crisis sweeping the country—not just in Auckland, but sweeping the whole country—and our health and education systems are under severe pressure, why is it that this Government throws out some poorly targeted tax changes that will not address the big issues, and gives those who are struggling the most a very small amount, if anything at all? In fact, many people will be worse off. If you are single and on the minimum wage, you will get $1 a week. If you are a family with one child, you will be worse off. If you are a family with teenagers, you will be worse off. This is a Budget that gives with one hand and takes with the other, and it does not address the big issues.

Finally, though, the Government has acknowledged that there is a housing crisis. The Government is calling it severe housing stress. But how is the Government addressing it? It is addressing it by bumping up the accommodation supplement, from $890 million to $1.5 billion. The frightening thing is that it is as though the Government is using those who are suffering severe housing stress as a conduit to hand landlords an extra subsidy.

Housing agencies and private landlords demand proof of income when you let a house. They know how much you get. What is to stop a raft of rent increases next year, just before 1 April? In fact, almost all of the myriad of housing cases that are coming through my electorate office at the moment are as the result of people who have lost their houses because they could not afford them any more. The lease had run out, the landlord had not renewed the lease, and the rent had gone up. Therefore, they are in a position—I have got case after case after case where people are unable to find rental accommodation that they can afford.

And in health—60,000 people throughout the country have been denied elective surgery and 500,000 cannot afford a GP. No big-picture approach—no addressing the $1.7 billion that needs to go back into health; not even catch-up funding.

Here is what is happening in Dunedin: I will give you an example of a mother with an 8-year-old daughter. Last week she received $478, made up of income assistance, accommodation allowance, and family support. She was homeless for 8 weeks before securing a two-bedroom private rental for $325 a week. Why am I telling you those numbers? Because that is 68 percent of her income, with electricity at $45 a week, and a car that costs $65 a week. Because she is a seasonal worker and needs transport to her job, she has no choice but to take her car. This leaves her with $43 to provide for her daughter and herself to live on.

How is she expected to survive? Currently she can receive up to 75 percent a week in the accommodation supplement. This may rise by $30 a week. What happens when she needs to go to the doctor? What happens when the education fees go up for her daughter? What happens when all of the other costs in the systems—the housing system, the education system, the health system—that are not being addressed impact on her income? That is paltry; it is not addressing the real issues, and it is time—it is time for a Government that takes a fresh approach, that will deal with the systemic issues in housing, health, and education. It is time to change the Government.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Adrian Rurawhe—5 minutes.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Malo lava le soifua, Mr Assistant Speaker. Manuia soifua, manuia Samoa, fa’afetai lava e Te Māngai o Te W’are. I am pleased to take this call on the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill. I think that after 9 years of Government the National-led Government, along with its support parties, has failed to deliver with this Budget. It is playing catch-up in housing, playing catch-up in health, and playing catch-up in education, and it is actually time for a new, innovative approach—a fresh approach—and that is what a Labour-led Government would be delivering if we were delivering a Budget.

I think the tax cuts in particular—I want talk about that. It reminds me of what George Orwell wrote in his book Animal Farm: “All animals are created equal, but some are created more equal than others.” This is what this tax cut regime delivers, because the top 10 percent of income earners receive the total amount exactly, or similar, to the lowest 50 percent. That is not fair—it is not fair. It is poorly targeted, and I do not agree with it. I am proud that the Labour Party is the only party in this House that voted against that kind of regime. I would never vote for a watered-down version of the families packet that it should be and that the Government has failed to deliver.

So I stand here in this debate and say that I am proud that we listened to the concerns of the people, and the concerns that they told us about in my electorate, Te Tai Hauāuru, and others throughout the country. The concerns that they had were about housing, health, jobs for the rangatahi, and education. Those are the things that they told me, and I am glad that we put their interests first ahead of these poorly targeted tax cuts.

The Māori Party has made a big deal about all this money that it has supposedly secured for kaupapa Māori issues. Well, around 1 percent of the total new spend in this Budget has been targeted for Māori initiatives. I want to talk about that, because, as we always hear in this House, there are a number of areas we are particularly not doing well in. For example, the number of homeless people living in this country, a huge number of those—40,000—are Māori families. They are living in garages and cars and caravans, they are two and three families to one house—that is not sustainable. It is not sustainable, and I go back to my point that if we want an equal outcome for all of our people, no matter who they are, sometimes you have to put the funds—actually, always—where the issues are, and this Budget fails to do that, miserably, because 1 percent of the new spend is going to a particular group in New Zealand that needs a lot more than that.

We have heard in this debate so far that only 11 new houses have been built. I would imagine that my predecessor the Hon Dame Tariana Turia, who released the housing policy in 2014, would be very disappointed with the outcome over the last 3 years, that through that initiative only 11 houses have been built for Māori whānau—and this after the Māori Party voted to sell off State houses. How does that happen? How is that good for our people? Well, I will be going back—I have attended a number of meetings in my electorate, and the people are dismayed about that fact. That is something that is not going away. It is a fact that I am going to repeat, because our people—all New Zealanders—deserve better than that. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3)

First Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.

Bills

Statutes Repeal Bill

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Regulatory Reform): I move, That the Statutes Repeal Bill be now read a third time. This bill repeals or partially repeals 137 Acts that are no longer needed. This because they no longer have any actual effect, have very limited effect, or are designed to achieve regulatory outcomes that are no longer relevant. By removing some unnecessary legislation from the statute book, this bill is a small part of this Government’s work to improve the regulatory environment in New Zealand. The Government signalled this work in its response to the Productivity Commission report on regulatory institutions and practices.

After the bill receives Royal assent, the legislation listed in schedules 1 and 3 of the bill will be gone. This bill contains a self-repeal clause, unlike the last repeal Act, the Statutes Repeal Act 1907, which this Act also repeals. There will be no need for future Acts to repeal this Act once it has done its work. During the Committee stage debate, members asked about the effect of repealing other repeal Acts. I would remind the members of the rule in our Interpretation Act 1999, which provides that the repeal of an enactment does not revive an earlier repealed enactment.

The Acts repealed by this bill vary substantially in their original purpose and are an interesting reminder of the types of activities regulated throughout New Zealand history. For example, this bill repeals the Post Office Act Repeal Act. Not that long ago, the Post Office Act regulated the postal market in New Zealand, and the New Zealand Post had a monopoly on the delivery of the standard letter. This changed in 1998 with the deregulation of the postal market under the Postal Services Act. Another example of note is the Wheat Board Amendment Act 1986, which dissolved the New Zealand Wheat Board. Prior to this, the New Zealand Wheat Board had complete control of the purchase and sale of wheat and flour in New Zealand, including quantitative control of all imports of wheat.

The bill also repeals some latent legislation. The term “latent” is used to describe Acts that were once passed but which have not yet been brought into force—in other words, laws that are in legal limbo. This is needed where New Zealand is waiting to ratify certain international instruments, or certain prerequisites steps have to be completed first, or other related reforms or technological changes need to happen first. Sometimes policy changes mean this legislation is no longer needed. The latent legislation being repealed in this bill includes the Forests Amendment Act 1996 and latent sections of the Fisheries Act 1996 that are no longer required. Repealing this latent legislation will increase certainty for those who are potentially impacted. My colleague the Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson regularly reviews latent legislation to see whether it can be brought into force or repealed. He presents a list of this legislation to Parliament each year.

This bill has been through substantial consultation, which is the appropriate process for any repeal bill. This has been useful both in finding additional Acts to repeal and in ensuring that no repeals in the bill have had unintended consequences. The exposure draft of the bill was publicly released in late 2015, and responses helped the Government thoroughly consider the bill before its introduction.

One submitter expressed concern about the repeal of the Sentencing Council Act 2007 through a statutes repeal bill, suggesting that the decision not to establish the sentencing council appears to be a serious constitutional matter. The Sentencing Council Act does not require the sentencing council to be established by a particular date. The Government Administration Committee noted in its commentary that it received advice that the regulatory outcome of the Sentencing Council Act is not relevant, because the sentencing council has not been established. The Government announced publicly some years ago its intention to repeal the legislation. Parliament has been free since the Act’s commencement to scrutinise the Government’s actions and intentions with regard to the Act, including through questions to Ministers and scrutiny of appropriations and expenditure. While a separate repeal bill for the Sentencing Council Act would allow more parliamentary time to be devoted to looking at this particular aspect of the bill, it would result in substantially more use of Parliament’s resources and further delay. It would create uncertainty for the legal community and others.

Another question, raised in the debate at the Committee stage, was whether the repeal in this bill covers every piece of redundant legislation in New Zealand. Well, of course it does not. It has not been possible to research every piece of legislation. There are over 1,900 Acts in force in New Zealand, many of which will be redundant as more Acts outlive their original purpose. Statutory repeal bills are periodically advanced in the UK to repeal obsolete and redundant laws there; this will not be the last in New Zealand. Repealing redundant laws is just one part of the wider work we are doing to improve the quality of law in this country.

Departments have the legislative stewardship responsibility that requires them to search and review their legislation to keep it current. Working with departments and agencies on this, the Parliamentary Counsel Office is committed to promoting high-quality legislation that is easy to find, understand, and use. The Government’s revision bill programme is part of that work, and through this programme old, scattered laws are put into accessible and up-to-date form, and redundant provisions are found and repealed.

In conclusion, I do want to thank everyone who has been involved in the process, including members of Parliament and particularly the members of the Government Administration Committee; the previous Minister for Regulatory Reform, Steven Joyce; the Attorney-General; and those members of the public who have made submissions on this bill. It has been a valuable exercise in trimming down New Zealand’s body of legislation—I have thanked the committee and I do thank the committee—making it more up to date and fit for purpose. I do commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am absolutely astounded that the Minister in charge of the bill, Paul Goldsmith, did not manage to fill in the full 10 minutes on this, the crowning jewel of the Government’s regulatory reform agenda, this Statutes Repeal Bill. But I do want to commend him for bringing it to the House and bringing this bill to fruition. The statues repeal bill process, as the bill has gone through the House, has forced me, one could say, to end up debating aspects of legislative process in New Zealand that I did not ever realise that I would be able to speak for so long about. But you never quite know what is possible until you try.

There are many aspects of this process that I support. I certainly support the notion that we should regularly update and streamline our laws in New Zealand and that we should repeal those that are no longer relevant. I attempted to add to that process during the Committee stage of this debate by repealing the law of blasphemy, which, of course, is no longer applied in New Zealand. Unfortunately, the Committee of the whole House did not agree by a majority to incorporate that into this bill, so it will go no further at this point. I hope that the House will have an opportunity to come back and look at that at some stage, because I do think that that fits within the spirit of what this bill is trying to do.

I note on page 1 of the Statutes Repeal Bill, as presented back to the House by the Government Administration Committee, that it adds additional Acts to be repealed. There are five additional Acts that the Government is seeking to repeal here: the Education Law Amendment Act 1933, the Infants Act Repeal Act 1989, the Taxation Acts Repeal Act 1986, the Wellington City Reserves Act 1872, and the Wellington City Reserves Act 1871. One could argue that those Acts that are now being added for repeal have not gone through that extensive consultation process that the Minister mentioned and therefore should not be included in this bill. I personally would not be comfortable with that argument. I am quite comfortable that there are good grounds for repealing these, just as I am comfortable that there would be good grounds for repealing the law of blasphemy without it going through a further process.

There were some interesting submissions raised, and I was particularly taken by the submission of Sir Kenneth Keith, whom members on this side, certainly, quoted during the Committee stage of the debate. I think it is important when we debate something like the Statutes Repeal Bill to ask a couple of questions. One of those questions is: “What’s the mischief?”—so, what the problem is that we are trying to solve by repealing whatever the legislation is that is in this bill. And the second question relevant to that is: “What’s the harm?”—so, what the harm is in either repealing or not repealing. The point that Sir Kenneth Keith made in his submission to the committee was that, in fact, many of these bills no longer have any legal effect whatsoever. There are there only in name—and, in some cases, there was debate as to whether they were even there in name or whether, in fact, they had already been repealed and therefore ceased to exist, so we were repealing laws that no longer actually existed in the first place. The question therefore becomes: “What is the point of repealing them again?”.

One of the points that Sir Kenneth Keith made in that regard was with regard to amendment Acts. These are Acts that have no standing in their own right; they simply remove or amend things in other Acts. So once they have done that job they, effectively, cease to exist because they were never Acts in their own right; they were only amendments to other Acts. You will see some of those Acts now being repealed, but there is actually no need to repeal them because they were never stand-alone laws in the first place. Once their amendments had been incorporated into the statutes that they were amending, then they, effectively, ceased to exist. So what is the mischief? What is the harm? What are we trying to fix by repealing them, because they do not actually exist.

Then there are some other Acts that have ceased to exist through other means. For example, the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act 2010 has already been discharged by Order in Council. That Act allowed Ministers, by Order in Council, to say “This Act has now expired.”, and they have done so. So why the need to repeal them when they have, effectively, been repealed by another means already?

Todd Barclay: Just in case.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Just in case. There was a lot of discussion about the Sentencing Council Act of 2007 and whether, in fact, this was the appropriate mechanism to repeal that legislation. As the Minister noted, the Government has signalled its intention for some time to repeal this legislation, but I think, as some others have argued, the fact that this legislation has been on the book for some time and has not been implemented is not good grounds to include it in a statutes repeal bill, because it does not actually fit the criterion of a law that has become redundant. It is a law that was never enforced. That does not mean that it has become redundant because it has expired or the issue has passed. It has not been implemented, because Government policy has changed and therefore it does not actually fit the criteria of what this bill is trying to achieve, and therefore, it is somewhat surprising that the Government has incorporated it within this legislation. I think that is quite a legitimate concern to raise.

There are some other examples in here that are somewhat interesting. As the Minister noted, there is the last Statutes Repeal Act. Actually, I have to correct him. I did some research of my own and there has been another Statutes Repeal Act since then, but it has already been repealed. But the last Statues Repeal Act on the book was from nineteen hundred and—whatever it was—

Paul Foster-Bell: 7.

CHRIS HIPKINS: 1907—and it is now being repealed by this. We will not need to repeal this Act, because the Act itself, which we are about to pass, includes a repeal provision within it. So, basically, once it has been enacted it will itself just—it has got a self-destruct mechanism built within in it, and that is something that I am sure the House will welcome so that we do not have to torture ourselves with too many further debates like this one. But I do welcome the progress of this legislation. I am disappointed that blasphemy is not being repealed as part of this process, and I hope that we will get a chance to do that very soon.

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

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Talofa lava, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call in the Statutes Repeal Bill third reading debate. I do want to respond to a couple of the things that were mentioned by the Labour member Chris Hipkins, who was speaking before the dinner break.

This piece of legislation, I think, is very useful in that it does serve a purpose, and that purpose is, effectively, spring-cleaning our statute book. It removes some of the clutter, and in this day of electronic storage of information where there are no longer, necessarily, huge rows of statute books sitting on shelves, but these things are available electronically, one might, quite reasonably, ask the question: why would you need to do this? But the fact is that if you are a lawyer practising in a certain field of law, having additional pieces of legislation—some of which, well, certainly all of the 137 that we are repealing this evening in part or in total—that are no longer needed, that no longer have any effect, that have become dormant, and that have become, certainly in some cases, outmoded, having to be aware of these pieces of legislation and the possible interaction that they might have with other law is an unnecessary clutter. So this is a useful piece of regulatory reform to consign these outdated bills—such as the Education Law Amendment Act 1933 or the Wellington City Reserves Act 1871, section 4 of that Act, and 1872 in total—to repeal them and remove them.

I also want to respond to the point made by the member on blasphemy. Now, personally, I do think it is time for New Zealand to have a good, careful look at section 123 of the Crimes Act, and I am personally of the view that it is no longer necessary in a country like New Zealand to criminalise thought or speech associated with blasphemy, heresy, or apostasy; any of those concepts.

However, I think it is important that the Government approach this matter in an organised and sensible fashion, and I would note that it is the Government’s intention, under our very good justice Minister, the Hon Amy Adams, to review the Crimes Act and to look at tidying up some of these elements of the Crimes Act in a crimes amendment bill later this year. I do not think it is appropriate that we, in almost knee-jerk response to a media case of Stephen Fry being initially accused of blasphemy in Ireland—of course, the police have subsequently dropped charges in Ireland. It is not actually appropriate in a statutes repeal bill, which is supposed to be uncontroversial, to exert that measure at the last minute without any consultation of the public or of interested organisations. So I think it is very appropriate that that be dealt with by the Government in the normal way, following due process in the fullness of time. And given there has not been a single successful prosecution—only one attempted prosecution in the last hundred years for blasphemy—it is certainly not an immediate problem. But it is within the Crimes Act, so it is quite right and quite proper that it be looked at very carefully to ensure that there will be no unforeseen impacts of such a repeal.

So the rest of this bill is very, very sensible, from the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act—the empowering legislation for the Rugby World Cup, special measures—through to the 1931 Hawke’s Bay earthquake legislation, all of which are out of date and all of which will be consigned to the history books rather than the statute book. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted to be speaking in the third reading of the Statutes Repeal Bill, and I want to commend the member who has just resumed his seat, Paul Foster-Bell, for his contribution at our select committee consideration of this bill. One would probably assume from hearing the title “Statutes Repeal Bill” that it was not going to be a very interesting or exciting bill, but, actually, exactly the opposite was the case with this bill.

We started off with a proposal to repeal 132 pieces of legislation that were no longer in use, that were out of date, surplus to requirement. This was described by the Minister as being—I think the Minister was the Hon Steven Joyce at the time—as the great leap forward in the implementation of the Productivity Commission’s recommendations. I have to tell you, there is not a single thing in this bill that will improve the productivity of New Zealand—not a single thing—because none of these Acts are in force any more, none of them are being used; they are all surplus to requirement. We have spent hours of parliamentary time debating the need to repeal Acts that are no longer used. That is Steven Joyce’s idea of a major contribution to improving the productivity of New Zealand.

So we started off with 132 Acts to be repealed. Two of those 132 were controversial. Now, this is not a statutes amendment bill, so the controversy around those two Acts to be repealed was not relevant in the way that it would be in a statutes amendment bill, but I want to come back to those two.

We got so enthused by this process of repealing things that meant nothing that we added another five, so we ended up with 137 Acts. I remember Paul Foster-Bell and I having a little “who was right” on these figures during the Committee stage of the debate, and, indeed, we were both right because we started off with 132 and ended up with 137.

The two Acts to be repealed that were controversial are the Sentencing Council Act and the Medicines Amendment Act. Neither of those two was considered appropriate to be included in this legislation, because they were not surplus to requirement in the way that the others were. They were Acts that the Government no longer wanted to progress. So the Acts have been passed by Parliament, they were in force, but they had not been implemented.

We had an outstanding submission from Sir Kenneth Keith, and I am sure that the Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams, is well aware of his legal mind and would be inclined on many occasions, I would imagine, to agree with his view. So Sir Kenneth Keith has been well recognised by New Zealand Governments. He has received an Order of New Zealand, he is a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, he is a Queen’s Counsel, he was a New Zealand judge, and he was the first appointment to the International Court of Justice—the first New Zealander. He was a judge in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and one of the inaugural appointments to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. He has got quite a good record in the law; knows a thing or two about it. He said to our select committee in his submission that it was wrong for us to include the Sentencing Council Act in this bill, and I agree with him. Labour agreed with him, and the Green Party members on the committee agreed with him. And I do not, for the life of me, know why the National members, who seemed to be nodding their heads all the way through his submission at the committee, then got rolled by their Minister, who said to leave it in there.

The proposal that a Government does not want to proceed with an Act does not mean that it is appropriate to repeal it through a statutes repeal bill. It is, of course, appropriate for the Government to go to the country by introducing a bill and saying: “We’re over this. We don’t want this to happen.” That is what Governments are elected to do. They are entitled to do that, of course. But sneaking it through in a statutes repeal bill is not appropriate. Sir Kenneth Keith was pretty tetchy about it, actually, and his submission was quite strong. Can I just quote a piece of it that had particular impact for me. He quoted some of the reasons that were noted in the explanatory note of the bill, and one of those said: “the Sentencing Council Act 2007 came into force”—and those are important words—“on 1 November 2007 but was not implemented”. The explanatory note goes on to say: “Repealing that Act will clarify that the Government will not set up the Sentencing Council in the future and will allow the courts to retain their ability to develop their own sentencing guideline judgments.”

He described that as “misleading” and said that “The Sentencing Council Act presents a completely different case from that of the Acts not in force. That Act has been in force as part of the law of New Zealand since 2007 … the Executive has suspended its operation,” which he described as “an apparent breach of s1 of the Bill of Rights 1688;” and he referred to the Fitzgerald v Muldoon case, which many members in this House who are interested in political history will be aware of. He described the refusal to put that into operation and then to include it in a statutes repeal bill as a serious constitutional issue.

I actually think that when we have a submission from a person who is of such high-quality legal standing as Sir Kenneth Keith, we should take notice of it, and, you know, this does not actually do anything, anyway. It does not do anything, so why would you thumb your nose at one of the sharpest legal brains—with the exception, of course, of the Hon Chris Finlayson—that we have in New Zealand? Why would we do that? Well, as a Parliament, I think it is really disrespectful and unnecessary.

The other thing that I found quite gobsmacking was the response to Chris Hipkins’ Supplementary Order Paper 315, to include the repeal of the blasphemy legislation in this bill—a perfectly sensible thing to do, because everyone in this House agrees it is no longer appropriate to have the blasphemy legislation included on our statute book. David Seymour tried to introduce it. Bill English said: “What a jolly fine idea. We should repeal it, but not through that process.” We said “What about a statutes repeal bill?”, and the Prime Minister seemed to agree with that. But when it came to the crunch, when it came to putting his money where his mouth is—or, actually, putting New Zealanders’ money where his mouth is—he could not do it. He voted against the inclusion of the blasphemy legislation repeal, despite having said within just days that it was prime legislation for repeal.

The other controversial piece of legislation in this repeal legislation was the Medicines Amendment Act. Again, this is an Act of Parliament that the Government just does not agree with. It is not that it is surplus to requirement and it is not that it has not been put into force; the Government just does not agree with it, and the way to repeal legislation that a Government does not agree with is to introduce repeal legislation standing alone, not under a statutes repeal bill.

While we support this bill and agree that 137 Acts of Parliament, with the exception of those two controversial ones, should be repealed, this has made Steven Joyce a laughing stock in the business community, which took him at his word when he said that he would implement the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, a body set up to look at how we can improve New Zealanders’ productivity. We lag a long way behind other countries that we should be ahead of in this regard. So Steven Joyce has used this as the one and only response to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, and it will achieve absolutely zero—absolutely nothing—because these are Acts that are no longer used. They are not the barriers to improving productivity that the Productivity Commission was talking about, so the Government has squandered hours of parliamentary time to achieve absolutely nothing. It has used this as an opportunity to slide legislation off our statute book, because it does not seem to be able to go through a proper process, and it has squandered the opportunity to include in this repeal bill the blasphemy legislation, despite saying that it no longer had a place on our statute book.

This makes absolutely no sense. I think we did a jolly fine job at our select committee, but I also know that not one single member of the committee felt that it was the most productive thing we could do.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Government in support of the Statutes Repeal Bill in its third reading. It is fair to say that, for me, the repealing of statutes was not a primary driver of getting into politics, nor have I had many constituents of the fine electorate of Waimakariri bring up issues around repealing statutes. I do hope this is not the highlight of my backbencher career.

I am new to the Government Administration Committee, so I was not on it for the hearing of submissions or for the debating of any of the legislation to date, but I would just like to, for this reading, acknowledge the work of the Hon Ruth Dyson as chair, ably supported by the deputy chair, Paul Foster-Bell.

I think it is, in fairness, an important law, removing redundant law and repealing or partially repealing 137 Acts. Overall, it is about improving the quality of our law, and it does make us think that, in a week where the Government has worked hard to improve the quality of the living standards of New Zealanders, it still has time to focus on the quality of law. I think it just shows the depth of this Government—that it is able to focus on multitasking at the same time. So I want to congratulate the Government on that.

Hon Amy Adams: So much good to do; so little time.

MATT DOOCEY: I think it is just a quality Government all round, I would have thought.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill.

MATT DOOCEY: So back to the bill. I think what this bill identifies is actually the value of a good legislative process. What I mean by that is that when you look at the additional four Acts for repeal, they were brought up through the submission process, and I think that just shows the value of the public consultation and the value that the public can bring to the legislative process.

Overall, I think we would call it the “Good Housekeeping Bill”. We all know the value of good housekeeping—have a good tidy-up and throw things out that you do not need at the current time. I think this bill will oversee a reduction of about 10 percent in the number of Acts, and when we look at the repeal of statutes Acts internationally, we see it very much as a very cost-effective and timely way of collectively wrapping up Acts that need to be repealed.

There has been some discussion tonight around the blasphemy law. I think it is right, because it is a section of the crimes amendment bill—it will be looked at within that—and more so because we are talking about public consultation. This bill went out as a draft exposure bill. It had 8 weeks when it received feedback from the public. Quite rightly, we will go through any change or repeal of the blasphemy law with the crimes amendment bill, when the public can have their say about how that clause might be partially or fully repealed. So I commend this bill to the House.

BARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to address this bill, the Statutes Repeal Bill. As previous speakers have said, it is not the most exciting piece of legislation we are going to have to deal with in this House and, in fact, as previous speakers have said, it is of somewhat dubious value.

The Green Party initially supported this bill to select committee. We are unable now to support it any more. We oppose this bill. We oppose it for a relatively simple reason, which is that the purpose of the Statutes Repeal Bill should be, as stated, to remove “redundant or superfluous” legislation. It should not be to remove legislation from the books that is in force and that the Government just does not want to observe.

I refer to a previous speaker who reminded us that Sir Kenneth Keith, when he came to the Government Administration Committee—and I commend the committee for inviting him to appear in person, because having somebody of his stature to talk about these issues has been enormously valuable. He reminded us that, actually, the Government’s role is to enact the law. The Government cannot pick and choose what pieces of law it upholds and what it does not uphold. In particular, the Sentencing Council Act 2007 was brought into force. The Government chose not to establish a council and not to observe an existing law on the books, and it is now trying to remove it via the very dubious process of the Statutes Repeal Bill.

We do not agree with that. The purpose of the Sentencing Council Act was, firstly, to ensure the consistency of sentences, and that is partly because of concern about the inequality of sentencing outcomes between Māori and Pākehā. That reason for the bill’s introduction in 2007 is still valid today. This bill, we believe, is taking a piece of legislation off the books that should not be removed, and certainly should not be removed in this way. The Sentencing Council Act also aimed to create more consistency with regard to parole board rulings, to promote transparency in rulings, and to have a base of reliable information.

We believe that the Government should have established the council. We believe that the Government should not pick and choose Acts to implement that are already in force. We believe that the Government should not play fast and loose with our law and parliamentary processes. We think this is an act of disrespect to our legal and parliamentary processes. We oppose this bill for that reason.

While we would have liked to see the other 136 pieces of legislation taken off our statute book, the fact that they have not been is not, I do not think, a major problem for the future of our country. However, the principle that the Government can pick and choose what it does about existing legislation, and use circuitous routes that should not be used in order to remove legislation, we believe is such an important issue that we have no choice but to oppose this legislation. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): It is really good to see the Government actually doing something useful in this term of Parliament. This is that thing, and what a wonderful piece of legislation it is. For that reason, most uncharacteristically, New Zealand First is going to be able to continue to support the Statutes Repeal Bill. So that, I think, is really good; it is really good to be able to do that. It is good to see a process for repealing redundant Acts, because they actually do get outdated, and I totally disagree with the previous speaker, Barry Coates, about that.

This is the right kind of process to get rid of a lot of very small, often totally outdated, completely irrelevant—in this day and age—pieces of legislation. I do not have any problem with using a statutes repeal process to do that. After all, it has been through the select committee process, there have been submissions, it has been well and properly considered. I see no problem. Actually, it can be dangerous to leave redundant statutes on the statute book because you can have situations where the police feel obliged to actually enforce them. The blasphemy law would be one of those, and it is only good fortune that nobody has recently—or, in fact, ever, I think—been prosecuted under that piece of legislation. It should have been removed by this process.

Other laws—latent Acts, as we know them—actually never get activated, because they should not be, and one of those is the provision for the sentencing council in the Sentencing Council Act. I am glad to see it go. It should never have been enacted in the first place. It impinged on the job of the courts. It would inevitably, if it had been used, have led to political interference in the sentencing system, and that is a very bad thing for the justice system and for New Zealand.

I do not accept that there is necessarily anything wrong with what is called the disparity between sentences between Māori and others, because we actually have no evidence whatsoever that that is the result of inherent racism within the justice system. It may actually just be a fact that emerges without any particular reason at all, except, maybe, more Māori actually carry out more serious offences than Pākehā, on average. Who knows? It may well have been the other way around, but it just happens to be that way this time. I do not accept that there is necessarily any racism about that whatsoever.

This council, in any event, would never have made any difference to that situation, even if that had been the case. So I am very glad that this stupid sentencing council and the legislative provision in the Sentencing Council Act is going. It should have gone; it should never have happened in the first place. It has never been activated, and neither should it have been. I hope we never see it again.

For those reasons, we in New Zealand First are perfectly satisfied with this bill. We know that the Government Administration Committee has done a good job in looking at it. We have come through that process, and it is quite clear that those enactments that are going to be repealed should be repealed. For that reason—that totally objective reason only—New Zealand First will continue to support it.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to speak in the third reading of this Statutes Repeal Bill. Just off the bat, I want to take issue with Mr O’Rourke. I am really disappointed, but not surprised, that New Zealand First is supporting the repeal of the Sentencing Council Act. To hear Mr O’Rourke say that there was no need for the sentencing council, and that there are no issues around inconsistency in sentencing in our justice system—I am absolutely appalled at that. One needs only to look at the prison population in Aotearoa New Zealand—50 percent of the prison population are young Māori men, and yet we make up only 15 percent of the total population.

Denis O’Rourke: That doesn’t mean anything.

RINO TIRIKATENE: It does—it means plenty.

Let us take a case in point—let us look at the case of Teina Pora, a young 16-year-old at the time. He spent 22 years in prison—wrongfully in prison—because of systemic failures within the police system, within their investigation, and within the court system. After two failed trials, we had to go all the way to the Privy Council to get the admissibility of his foetal alcohol syndrome. They had to go to all those lengths, through some good Samaritan people, to finally get justice for that young man. Even then, the Government was reluctant to give adequate compensation for 22 years of wrongful imprisonment. And we say there is no problem with the consistency of sentencing in our country! I think that is appalling, but it does not surprise me, because there is institutional racism among our institutions in society. Of course, for someone like Mr O’Rourke, that is invisible to him. He does not see it, because he is a typical Pākehā white male. They do not see the institutional racism that Māori have to deal with each and every day. I am disgusted, but I am not surprised, at the approach of New Zealand First in relation to that.

If I may, this bill—yes, it is a spring-cleaning exercise. Quite frankly, it is neither here nor there, really, in terms of this bill. I doubt whether folks out there are kept awake at night wondering about whether the Post Office Act Repeal Act is still in force or not. I doubt whether folks are wondering about the numerous finance Acts, or the New Zealand wheat Act, or whatever other Acts that we are repealing here, because they are of no effect at all. They are just sitting on our books. They do not mean anything. No one is actually going to look them up, because there is no need to. So, for all intents and purposes, many of these Acts are of no purpose whatsoever. Nevertheless, the Government is thinking it is that important—to improve the quality of our legislation, I guess, it wants to do a bit of a culling exercise, so here we are. We are supporting this bill, albeit reluctantly myself, at this final stage, because, yes, we do need to clean up the statute book.

Certainly this bill does that; however, again, it is a moot point. I guess we will leave it up to second year law classes and whoever takes an interest in what the effect is of repealing Acts that are amendment Acts or earlier repeal Acts—and then there are the ones that repeal everything through a self-destruct clause. So, yes, we are going to make all these Acts disappear. It may make the Government feel good, but, really, I am really disappointed that this Government is repealing the Sentencing Council Act. I have stated my reasons for that.

The irony is that there was an opportunity here for the Government to repeal a very archaic piece of legislation in respect of the provision of blasphemy in the Crimes Act. And what do we hear? We hear the Government members say: “Oh, we need more time. We need more time to look at this issue, and we’re going to put it in with an amendment to the Crimes Act. And so we can give proper consideration to that.” Well, where is the consideration for the Sentencing Council Act? Where is the consideration from this Government on the inequities and on the disproportionate sentencing of Māori in our justice system? There is not any. That is right—they are repealing an important piece of legislation, which could have been beneficial, but this Government’s policy was totally against it. It has put no effort into implementing it, and now it just wants to strike it off the statute book.

And all the while, more young Māori men will be filling up our prisons. How do we know that? Because this Government is building a brand new $1 billion prison to take into account the projections of an increased prison population. It is putting $1 billion into that when it should actually be addressing the real issues. It could have been doing that through supporting something like a sentencing council. But, oh no, it wants to build more prisons, because it wants to fill these new prisons up, again with more young Māori men. It is a disgrace. But it shows what this Government is really all about.

I am glad that my colleague from Tai Tokerau, Kelvin Davis, busted one of those Serco prisons. That is what the Government wants; it wants to have profit-generating prisons. It is absolutely abhorrent that all this Government cares about is building more prisons, putting in more private operators, trying to lock up more young brown men. Hence it is adding greater force to that through the passage of this legislation today.

I am disappointed in this legislation. I think it is two-faced of the Government members to say they want more time to look at blasphemy but are not prepared to look at the merits of a sentencing council or an equivalent body. So I am disappointed in that aspect, but I know that there is some spring-cleaning to be done, and I am sure the 135-odd other pieces of legislation that are about to be expunged from history will not be missed. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Statutes Repeal Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 105

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 14.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to stand and support the second reading of the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins for her leadership in sponsoring this bill.

The previous speaker on the last bill, Rino Tirikatene, mentioned that this Government should be doing something important. This bill is a very important bill that brings in some of the changes to our energy sector, so we can have a diverse opportunity to talk about this. This omni-purpose bill aims to encourage energy innovation, including emerging energy technologies and increased variation in energy-related business models, so that New Zealand is well placed to effectively respond to its evolving environmental and energy objectives.

New Zealand is one of the signatories on some of these issues, and we want to ensure that we have got legislation in place to deal with such issues. National is committed to ensuring New Zealand meets its international commitments regarding global climate change. Consistent with those commitments, the National-led Government is focused on improving the efficiency of New Zealand’s use of energy. As of now, we are producing more than 80 percent of our energy from the renewable resources, which is very well respected all over the world.

Efforts are being made to improve energy use productivity. If well managed, it can be good economically and will promote innovation, while also facilitating efforts to better manage our greenhouse gas emissions. Transport energy and process heat are two major areas where positive gains can, and will, be made to our climate change commitments, while improving the efficient use of our precious energy resources. Our vehicles are mostly run on fossil fuels. If we are able to encourage the use of more electric-driven vehicles, then that can really help to reduce our emissions, and it will have a more positive effect on our emission house gases.

This bill implements part of the National-led Government’s electric vehicle programme. It makes changes to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority levy funding and clarifies that electricity industry legislation applies to secondary networks. With these words, I commend this bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Stuart Nash.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, this’ll be good.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you very much, Ruth. I will do my best. Look, I do disagree with the last speaker, Mr Bakshi, on one thing. He said that this is a very important bill. Well, if it was a very important bill, then I would be standing up here and saying that this is finally a Government that embraces innovation and that is going to drive meaningful change in this country.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Then he would’ve spoken for longer than 3 minutes.

STUART NASH: And you are right, the member would have spoken for longer than 10 minutes—or 5 minutes or 3 minutes.

Hon Ruth Dyson: 3.

STUART NASH: 3 minutes? Goodness me! You cannot say that this is a really important bill and speak for 3 minutes. If this was a really important bill, then, like the Minister, Dr Coleman, you would stand up here and wax lyrical about how it is going to change the world. It will not.

The interesting thing about this—let me tell you a very interesting story. Simon Bridges, who was the Minister of Energy and Resources—there was a PR shot of him. I think he was there registering the thousandth electric vehicle in the country. What he did was he drove up in this huge big diesel BMW. He got out, took the photo shoot about the electric vehicle, then jumped into this huge big BMW diesel vehicle and drove back. I would have thought that if the Government was into meaningful change around electric vehicles, then what it would have done—the first thing it would have done—was replace its Government Crown fleet with electric vehicles.

In fact, I was talking to a gentleman friend of mine who knows Elon Musk very well, and I was telling him about this, and this gentleman said: “I bet you if the New Zealand Government went to Elon Musk and said ‘We want to replace our Crown fleet with Teslas.’, Elon Musk would say: ‘How many do you need and when do you need them there?’.” He said it would be a beautiful partnership between a guy who knows his marketing—I mean, it does not come any better than Elon Musk, from a global perspective—and the New Zealand Government.

I think this party sometimes forgets that our global brand is “clean, green”, “100% Pure”. We have a brand that lends itself to innovation. In fact, in 2005 the then Ministry of Economic Development tried to value this brand. It is very difficult to value a brand, we know that, but 17 years ago they came up and said our global brand—which started as a marketing brand, to be fair, but was so successful it morphed into our national brand—was valued at $20 billion a year. That is what people overseas will pay for products from New Zealand or for the New Zealand experience, and yet here we are. Our Ministers, who are responsible, who are guardians of our national brand, drive huge big diesel BMWs. Drive Teslas—that is still pretty cool. Imagine picking up international dignitaries in a Tesla. That would send a very clear message to the world that not only do we value our brand, but we are actually walking the walk.

What this bill does is it purports to sort of champion electric vehicles, but it does not go nearly far enough in what we view is an innovative way to send the global community a very clear message—that not only do we value our brand but we live it, and not only do we live it but we as a Government put policies in place to really champion this. But this bill is not about energy innovation. It is a small wee step. We are supporting it, I must admit. It is the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We are supporting it because it would probably be a little bit churlish not to, because we do believe in energy innovation. We do believe in electric vehicles. The other matters—well, they are just part and parcel of an amendment bill. But if the Government really wanted to be innovative—if this was a Labour Government putting this forward—you would see a bill that was incredibly innovative and drove change in a way that played into our global brand.

In terms of driving this innovation, the Government fleet is by far the largest fleet on the roads. The Parliamentary Library gave me some statistics and said it was about 20,000 vehicles, I think. It is huge, so the way to really drive innovation, I would say to Simon Bridges—and the members over there know. You can see their heads are bowed, because they are a little bit ashamed of this little bit of nothing bill—a bit like the ones we have been debating in the last couple of weeks. The way to really drive innovation would have been to actually take the bull by the horns and say: “Not only are we going to transition our Crown fleet, we are going to transition the Government fleet to electric vehicles.” When that happens, when the Government makes a decision to do that, it will have a whole lot of downstream effects. What it does is it gives business and gives the private sector the confidence that they need to be to invest in the infrastructure that is required to really drive the electric vehicle fleet right across the country.

There are a couple of interesting things in this bill. The first one is it allows regional authorities or territorial authorities to permit electric cars to go down bus lanes. That sounds, on the surface, like it is not a bad idea. It means that if you have got an electric vehicle, if you have invested in an electric vehicle, then you can probably get to work a little earlier. The thing about that, though, is they think there are going to be about 64,000 electric vehicles in the next 10 years. That is good uptake, but what is the point in having a bus lane, what is the point in parking at some place that is remote and jumping on a bus, if in Auckland you are competing with 50,000 of those 64,000 electric vehicles? It actually makes no sense.

I do not think that people will invest in an electric vehicle because they can drive in a bus lane. They might initially, but that sort of competitive advantage will disappear extremely quickly. People invest in electric vehicles for a number of reasons. First of all, obviously, the cost of petrol drops considerably, because you have not got petrol if it is fully electric; if it is a hybrid, then you pay very little, is my understanding, if you to keep it charged and drive it around town. The second reason is that it is actually the right thing to do. We hear about climate change and we understand the impact it has—and we were global leaders in this space. Again, it plays into our global brand. We used to be leaders; now we are laggards. But it is a consumer’s way of doing the right thing. The Minister of Transport himself has said he has bought two electric vehicles for his own household. That is quite ironic, is it not? He will buy an electric vehicle for his own household, but he will not encourage his colleagues to transition the Crown fleet to electric vehicles.

Peeni Henare: Goose and gander.

STUART NASH: You are dead right. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, is that right—it is something like that.

Peeni Henare: They’re all gooses.

STUART NASH: Ha, ha! What I mean is you have got to start walking the walk. Do not buy an electric vehicle so you can drive in the bus lane. That is a bit of an anomaly.

The other thing that is in this bill that we need to be aware of, because it is one of these things that has sort of been slipped in there, is something called a gas levy, and it is quite substantial. It is a couple of million dollars a year, and it goes back into promoting safety around gas and that sort of stuff. Well, it used to be collected at the wholesale selling point. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment itself admits that there was significant under-recovery of this gas levy—I mean, up to 50 percent. In essence, it was not being recovered, and we came to the impression it was not not being recovered due to any sort of incompetence or any sort of of illegal activity; it was just incredibly hard to collect, because it is such a small percentage on a per unit basis, but when you add it up, it actually adds up to quite a bit.

So it is now going to be collected at the retail point, which makes a lot of sense—we all agreed on that—but one thing that we are going to be keeping an eye on is that retailers do not use this as an excuse to drive up the price of gas. The last thing we want to see after this bill receives Royal assent is everyone who has got a gas bill—and there are a lot of people who have got them—seeing: “Oh, we are now going to charge you a couple of cents extra per unit used, because Parliament has passed a gas levy, which means that we have to collect it.” That would be dishonest, because what we were told at the Commerce Committee was that the portion of this levy per unit used is infinitesimal, so it should not make any difference whatsoever to anyone’s gas bill at all. It just changes the point in the whole supply chain around where this levy is collected. I would say to anyone who is watching this that if you are on gas—and I am myself—and you see a new item on your gas bill that says “gas levy”, then query it, or get hold of me, or, better still, get hold of the Minister of Energy and Resources, and say “This is wrong, because this should not be here.”, because we do not want to see this levy as an excuse to increase charges to consumers.

Just summing up, we are for innovation. I personally believe that we need to drive innovation in a way that we are not doing at the moment, and I firmly believe that when it comes to the energy sector, and certainly electric vehicles, the Government has a very important role to play. I am not talking about subsidies; I am talking about Government behaviour. Imagine if the Prime Minister turned up in an electric vehicle—imagine the message that would send. Imagine the message it would send if not only were the Minister of Transport’s personal vehicles electric but his Crown car was an electric vehicle. It is incredibly easy to do. The message it sends would be incredibly powerful, so instead of this sort of nothing piece of legislation—it is a start, but it is not the start we need. I think the Government needs to be a lot more innovative. The thing that you will find with a Labour Government is we will bring a fresh approach to this sort of innovation, to this sort of sector, with fresh ideas around how to drive this forward. Thank you very much.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is about innovation—

Tracey Martin: No it’s not.

STUART SMITH: —and if we cast our minds back in history to when the motor vehicle really got going, just prior to that period, and I am sure the leader of New Zealand First will remember this well, the internal combustion engine had not really gained the foothold. It was a real toss-up as to whether electric vehicles or the internal combustion engine would be the mode of transport of choice. However, the internal combustion engine won that race, and hopefully the leader of New Zealand First bought the right vehicle at that time.

We have built our economy around the internal combustion engine, and we are in a period now of rapid change. I think for some, they would like things to change overnight, as the previous speaker, Stuart Nash, perhaps was alluding to. Electric vehicles require charging stations at regular intervals, and we are only just getting to that point now. In fact, there are two charging stations right in the middle of Kaikōura, put in there not long before the earthquake, as it turns out, and they are sitting there as part of State Highway 1. There will be more stations installed along State Highway 1, which will make it much more practical for the use of electric vehicles.

One of the issues that people face with electric vehicles is the anxiety over the range of those vehicles. Although most people’s—in fact, the average distance of driving a vehicle in a day is fewer than 30 kilometres, and people have this anxiety that they need to be able to drive for several hundred kilometres and be able to fuel up, or charge up, and continue a journey, when they very infrequently take trips of that length.

It is a very interesting time that we are living in, where we are sitting here now, waiting for this revolution that is coming our way. But what comes first? Government regulations have some part to play, and this bill is part of that, so that we can allow the ground for the market to work in the way that it will, to get this across the line.

We had an e-day in Marlborough a couple of months ago and it was fantastic to get along and see the electric cars that were available on display that day—even electric lawnmowers, believe it or not. A ride-on electric lawnmower—I did not think there was such a thing, but there is. I was not quite so taken with that as I was with the little robotic one where it does its own thing and you do not even have to go out and sit on it—which would be quite good, I have to say. I am trying to talk my wife into getting one—save me a job.

Electric vehicles will come, but we need to get all of those things in place. Battery technology is coming a long way, but the latest vehicles—each iteration that comes out has that greater range, has that greater usability for users, but we need those charging stations along the way and there is a great group putting them in. I think there has been fantastic progress made, and there will be more in the near future. But I guess the big prize for us is heavy transport fuel, which is actually a big thing in terms of climate change and, as an executive member of GLOBE, it is something I turn my mind to quite a bit and how we might deal with that. Interestingly, in Norway they have electric ships; I think we are a long way from that here in New Zealand.

Anyway, I think this is a fantastic bill and it is a great step—great leadership shown by the Government in this area—and it will evolve in time. In a few years’ time we will look back and think how quickly things have changed. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Points of Order

Leave to Reopen Debate on Part 2—Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I move that the Committee of the whole House, on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, be instructed to reopen debate on the question that Part 2 stand part.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be objection.

Bills

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 3 May.

Part 3 Ownership interests in Māori freehold land (continued)

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): It seems like so long ago that we were actually debating this particular bill as the Committee of the whole House.

Pita Paraone: Why the hurry?

PEENI HENARE: That is a relevant question. Why the hurry, and it is clear, then, given the motion put on the floor by my colleague here, denied by the Minister sitting on the other side who knew nothing about the particular request—given some of the intense debate that took place over Parts 1 and 2.

To Part 3, clause 48: the defining class of collective owners. I just have some questions, and a bit of clarification is sought from the Minister in the chair, Te Ururoa Flavell, on this particular matter. “Conversion to collective ownership of Māori freehold land”, clause 48(3), says: “The decision must define the class of collective owners in 1 of the following ways:”. Clause 48(3)(a) is very straightforward: “as the named persons who, immediately before conversion, were the living owners of the land …”—that is straightforward to me. But clause 48(3)(b): “as named persons who are associated with the land in accordance with tikanga Māori, and their descendants, as long as the class also includes every person described in paragraph (a):”—as I mentioned, paragraph (a) is very straightforward to me.

So the question to the Minister in the chair is: does he or do his advisers see any issues with this particular clause 48(3)(b), in so far as we have mentioned this word—I have mentioned this word in the Chamber many times on this issue around the fragmentation—tīmokamokatanga, so, the fragmentation of particular shares in relation to an association “with the land in accordance with tikanga Māori.” Those may not necessarily come from those who were the original owners or the ancestors mentioned as collective owners of Māori freehold land, but, by way of tikanga, in reference to ahi kā, actually can be named, according to this—and this is just my understanding of it, and I ask for some clarification from the Minister in the chair around the particular ownership around that, with regard to “named persons who are associated with the land in accordance with tikanga Māori.”, once again, the reference being towards the tikanga of ahi kā.

The next part I want to raise is in Part 3, clause 49 “Effect of conversion to collective ownership”. Once again, this is a question of seeking clarification. Clause 39(3) says: “If any beneficial interests in the parcel were held under a whānau trust and the trust has no other trust property, the trust is terminated on the date on which the beneficial ownership is vested in the class of collective owners.” I know, as a Māori land administrator in the past, that many whānau have actually sought to collect their shares together to put them into whānau trusts. In fact, if you read the list of beneficiaries just for the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust, for example, there are plenty of examples in there around whānau who have decided that fragmentation of their particular shares is actually devaluing the shares, if you like. So they did what they call whakatōpū; they brought it together under a trust. Is this particular regime saying, then, that once the conversion is completed those trusts are no longer relevant, that they become void in this discussion? Because, if that is the case, there are obviously concerns that we have—and I have, even as a descendant of some of those trusts; a beneficiary of some of those trusts—around the compliance for whānau.

What does that mean? We know, having set up those trusts, that the compliance issues involved with lawyers, with courts, and with simply organising whānau to get together to discuss this particular issue have proven to be quite difficult. So the question here is: once this conversion happens and those trusts become no longer relevant in the discussion of the collective ownership of Māori freehold land, then what does that mean for the whānau? What does that mean for compliance issues for that whānau to become relevant in the discussion of collective ownership of Māori freehold land, and what does that mean for them? But also, more importantly, as a collective in the entire ownership of the Māori freehold land—what are the implications for them, in respect of that? Is it a case of the whānau having to organise themselves to get their stuff sorted, or is it a case of the actual entity that is put in place to administer this land—is it their responsibility to make sure that they engage whānau in a fair process to make sure that their interests are still represented, given the fact that whānau had already come together to make sure that they were able to protect those parcels of land? So those are two questions I have for the floor and for the Minister in the chair.

I want to come now to Part 3, clause 51, under the title “How owners of Māori freehold land make decisions”. Clause 51 is “Decisions by specified majority of owners of Māori freehold land”, and my concern here is around the weighting of shares given to Māori land owners. The concern there is, for example, when the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust in the 1970s and 80s allowed whānau to put their land into trusts to make sure that it was administered for the benefit of all, we know that for many whānau who put large, vast amounts of land into that particular trust, the weighting of shares given to them was less than the actual value of the land that was committed to the trust for administration. That might sound like, perhaps, there is an error in the formula, but what we have seen over 30 or 40 years of administration in that trust is that, I guess, it is a failed democracy, if you like.

What we see are constant situations of large shareholders, regardless of the original landholding that went into the trust, actually being the tail that is wagging the dog—being the tail that is wagging the dog. That is of huge concern for many shareholders. For some who did not quite get the time to put their particular shares into a trust, to have a stronger voice in the administration of that particular land—that is a concern for them. It is also a concern for those who failed to do that and have seen the fragmentation of their shares. So that question, once again, is around the decisions of a specified majority of owners of Māori freehold land, and the weighting formula that was, I feel, discriminatory, many years ago through the 1970s and 80s and into the 90s, and even in more recent times, and that does not give a fair weighting to, actually, the contribution that they have made by way of land and resource to the administration of the trust.

So those are the three questions I have for now on this particular part. I will take my seat. Tēnā koe e Te Heamana.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koe e te mema i tū i mua i a au me te āhuatanga o ngā pātai i whakatakotohia ki roto i tō tātau Whare Pāremata i tēnei wā, ka ngana nei au ki te whakautu i ō pātai.

[Thank you to the member who got up before me and the circumstance of the questions put forth in our House at this time, I will attempt to respond to your queries.]

I would like to sort of take the opportunity as early on as possible to respond to some of the issues that were raised about Part 3 the last time we debated. Some of the members have questioned a few things, so I will hopefully try to iron those out and give a response to Mr Henare.

Some members have questioned, as Mr Henare did, the bill’s participating owner regime and the thresholds for participation. This is absolutely fundamental to Part 3 and to the bill as a whole. The participating owner regime is the mechanism to give the owners the say about what happens on their land. It is the mechanism that enables us to replace the paternalism and unpredictability created by the current Act’s reliance on court decision-making, with the mana motuhake of owners making their own decisions. That is what is happening in this bill.

For example, take the process of setting up a governance arrangement. Currently if a group of owners wants to set up a trust, they need to organise a meeting of owners themselves. Under this bill they will be able to ask the Māori Land Service to do that for them. Currently they have to give “sufficient notice” and “sufficient opportunity” for owners to consider the proposal, but there is no guidance about what this term “sufficient” actually means, so owners face the uncertainty of not knowing what the court will consider as being sufficient until after they have carried out those steps and proceeded to court hearings. This is the kind of uncertainty that people have been criticising, and it is something that the bill addresses.

Under this legislation, the owners will go into the process knowing exactly where the goalposts are. The participation thresholds are clear, as is the required level of support. If the thresholds are met, then the decision is made—pretty simple. The bill’s participation thresholds have been set after consulting Māori land entities, and the thresholds were fully considered by the independent advisory group, and, indeed, the Māori Affairs Committee as well, as the member will know.

The threshold should be read alongside the procedural safeguards. These include requirements for giving notice, the ability to use proxies and representatives, participation using phone or internet technology, and confirmation of compliance by the Māori Land Court. Currently it is at the discretion of the court as to whether a trust is established, what its terms are, and who the trustees will be. This involves litigation risks. The process can indeed stretch out over months and, sometimes, years, as many people will know.

Under the bill there are no court cases. There is a clear, predictable, and robust decision process by the owners themselves—a decision-making process by the owners themselves. It will be for the owners to have the final say on whom the trustees will be and the terms of the trust. Instead of a court case there will be a straightforward registration process. As the select committee noted, the participating owners model will make decision making easier, while still protecting the interests of absentee owners.

Concerns have been raised about the second-chance decision-making process in clause 51B. Over the years many whānau have become disconnected with their whenua—with their land. It is not their fault; that is just how it is for some, and it is one of the reasons we need this reform. One of the consequences, of course, associated with disconnection to your land is that it is not always easy to get people to participate again. This is why it can sometimes be challenging when it comes to meeting thresholds and quorums. The bill recognises this by including the second decision-making process, so that if participation thresholds cannot be achieved there is still a way forward—a safe way forward—to get decisions made for the benefit of the land and all of the owners. To be clear, though, the second decision-making process cannot be used for decisions that have to be made by a threshold of the total ownership—by all owners. That is, the process cannot be used for major decisions like sale, partition, or long-term lease. When the second-chance decision-making process is used, it is restricted to only those decisions that can be made by the participating owners—decisions about how the land is managed, rather than what happens to the land.

The second decision-making process is optional. It is not mandatory, and owners can choose to disallow it if that is their preference. If the owners have set up a governance agreement, it does not allow a second decision-making process, or if it requires a different process then the second process will not be able to be used. When the second-chance decision-making process is used there is an additional safeguard that was included by the select committee, which I agree with. A decision made using the second-chance decision-making process will only be valid if the Māori Land Court confirms the decision, complies with the requirement of the Act, and the court is satisfied that the decision would help the owners to retain control of or develop their land for the benefit of present and future owners.

The Hon Nanaia Mahuta raised the issue of minors being able to participate in decision making only through what we have called the kaiwhakamarumaru. This is not about restricting minors; it is a mechanism to ensure their voices are actually heard. Without this, the general law about the legal capacity of minors would prevent minors from participating in decisions about their land. The bill enables kaiwhakamarumaru to be appointed to represent and speak for minors or for any other owners who lack the competence to exercise their legal rights themselves. Kaiwhakamarumaru will be appointed by the Māori Land Court.

Clauses 78 to 81 of the bill set out a thorough and robust process for making these appointments. When taken together with the functions of the kaiwhakamarumaru, which are set out in clause 76, these provisions ensure that those who are appointed have the skills and experience needed to carry out this important role. The extent to which this might include knowledge of relevant tikanga is something the court will be able to consider on a case by case basis. The main thing will be to make sure that the interests of the minor are protected and promoted, and this is what this part of the bill achieves.

Part 3 of the bill enables owners to establish and register whānau trusts themselves, without having to go through the court to do that. As the member Peeni Henare acknowledged, whānau trusts have been successful mechanisms under the current Act for whānau to collectively hold and manage their property, so their interests are not diluted through fragmentation over the generations.

The member asked for clarification about the types of properties that could be included in a whānau trust. This was included in clause 59 of the bill and is made clear in my Supplementary Order Paper 279 by moving it into its own separate clause, now called clause 59A. Whānau trusts can be established by the owners of interests in Māori freehold land, so the property of the trust will always include Māori land interests. If the owner also has other property they want included, so that it can be used and managed for the benefit of the whānau, the bill actually provides for that.

If the trustees of the whānau trust think it would be advantageous for the trust to acquire other assets or property, the bill also allows for that in clause 63(2). What this means is that all whānau trusts will hold interests in Māori freehold land, although some of them could also hold interests in other land or property. The key thing, if they do, is that it is consistent with the declaration of trust the original owner put in place, and that all trust property is held and managed for the benefit of the whānau.

The issue that some members raised and talked about was the place of tikanga and who decides how and what it is and how it is going to be applied. This has been well debated, I think, so I am not going to repeat what has been said. But it is an important question, and there will be a couple of points just to clarify.

Tikanga is not Parliament’s law; it is the law of iwi, hapū, and whānau. The bill does not try to make tikanga part of the law enacted by Parliament. This is clearly stated in the bill’s explanatory note. It was explained by the Associate Minister for Māori Development, Minister Finlayson, when he took a call earlier in the debate. What the bill does, and this is important, is it says that where something is best determined by tikanga, then instead of looking to the law for the answer, people should look to tikanga. Examples of this include identifying customary ownership, how disputes are resolved, and ascertaining who is a whāngai and what their succession rights are.

Members have pointed out that tikanga is different and unique from iwi to iwi, hapū to hapū, and whānau to whānau. It is stronger in some and weaker in others. This raises questions about whose tikanga should apply in any situation, and if there is a dispute, how it is resolved. But these are matters that the select committee—[Bell rung] Mr Chair? If I could just indulge you, to finish off. These are matters that the select committee considered. It was its recommendation that in a disagreement about which tikanga should apply, where whāngai is involved, the tikanga of the respective whānau should be considered ahead of the tikanga of the hapū. So the select committee said that. This is now set out in clause 300(3A) of the bill.

If there is disagreement about the applicable tikanga, the parties will be able to go to the new disputes resolution service to help them sort it out amongst themselves. If they are not able to agree, they can then go to the Māori Land Court. They will not have to go to the High Court, as Pita Paraone suggested. The court will be guided by evidence from the parties and kaumātua, not by the legal framework.

I was going to stop there, but I will just touch on Mr Henare’s final points. The member raised the issue about clause 49(3). If the ownership is converted to collective, then no one has individual shares. So if a whānau trust only had interests in that block, the collective ownership is for all owners, not just the whānau. All members of the whānau will remain within the ownership class.

Clarification in respect of clause 48(3)(b)—this allows the collective class to be widened to, for example, members of the hapū associated with the land. Tikanga is determined by the owners themselves, as I mentioned earlier, and conversion to collective ownership is a choice of the owners—that is, they do not have to do it. I hope that that clarifies those two points. I missed the last one, but we will come back and hopefully gather it from the officials once we catch up. Kia ora tātou.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Māori Development for his very comprehensive explanation of some of the provisions in Part 3. I want to pick up on the issue of the ability for minors to participate in meetings. I know that the Minister said there is the process for an application to be made for the appointment of a kaiwhaka—

Hon Member: Kaiwhakamarumaru.

RINO TIRIKATENE: —kaiwhakamarumaru. I have never heard that before. It is a new thing to me. But my question is really, if this bill is all about empowering owners and letting them determine their tikanga, why has an arbitrary limit been placed, that you have to be 18 years or older to participate and actually vote for your ownership interests when key decisions are to be made?

My point is, I am really speaking up for our rangatahi out there, who are two-thirds of the Māori population. OK, sure there is an age limit set at 18, but why could it not have been at 16 or, even better, why cannot the whānau or the hapū be left to sort that issue out themselves, in accordance with their own tikanga? If it is good enough for the age of consent to be 16, and this is obviously a separate matter, there are many of our whānau, and my nieces and that, who have many kids, and they are under 18 years of age, and yet they will not be able to vote at a meeting to determine some very key aspects of their rights to their whenua?

It just seems a bit out of alignment, because on the one hand the intent of the legislation is, yes, we want to empower the owners, and yet on the other hand, we are saying “Oh no, no. Rangatahi, if you’re under 18 you have to go and make an application to the court to appoint a kaiwhakamarumaru to be able to vote on your behalf at your meeting. We don’t think that you are of sufficient maturity to be able to make that decision.”, even though there are lots of kids running around. They still will not be able to make that decision.

So I just think, again, it seems out of alignment. It is one thing to say, yes, tikanga, yes we believe in determining tikanga. And yet there is such a highly prescriptive regime and it still involves going to the court. I mean, I just think, what 16-year-old will know: “Oh, there’s a meeting on with my uncles and aunties this weekend. I’d better make an application to the court to get my kaiwhakamarumaru, so I can go and have my voting interests recognised at this meeting.”? It is ludicrous—ludicrous. What 16-year-old would be able to do that? And then they are talking about this Māori Land Service—well, that is probably just an extended arm of the Māori Trustee, trying to create some more putea and mahi for his poorly performing organisation. But that is another matter.

Getting back to this point—I do want to speak up for the rangatahi, because this is very important. Eighteen is quite a high threshold, and having to go through the rigmarole of the kaiwhakamarumaru—it just seems so unnecessary and so contrary to the intent, that you still have to go to court, as a 16-year-old or 17-year-old or whatever age, to get that appointment made. I question the workability of this clause, and I think that has been pointed out by many submitters as well. If they are old enough to have kids, they should be old enough to vote at these meetings. We are not talking about just everyday meetings. There are some significant decisions that will be made, as the Minister has pointed out, with the different processes.

The other point I want to make is around those second-chance meetings and the thresholds. I think the Minister has addressed them, but there is a serious concern out there among Māori right up and down the motu that even with the very clear thresholds set, you can make some very key decisions with a very small number of engaged owners. I guess that is a fundamental concern that iwi Māori have around the rushing of these provisions and ramming them through the House in this attempt. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Rino Tirikatene.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will just wrap up this point, and I am sure my colleagues will have many more points to add on this Part 3 as well. The concern is that, I guess, the Minister in the chair, Te Ururoa Flavell, has not alleviated the concerns of the whānau at large that this is a means for a very—you know, those smart cousins or whoever who have been through law school or whatever and who like to hijack the processes, who can scheme up a way whereby they can make those key decisions to the exclusion of all the whānau.

I guess my concerns are compounded by my concerns that the rangatahi are excluded—under-18-year-olds are excluded—from voting themselves in respect of their own interests in their whenua. I believe that that arbitrary limit of 18 years is wrong, and, ideally, I would like that to be addressed, because that certainly does not seem to be tikanga to have such a prescriptive process that excludes two-thirds of the Māori population. Can you imagine how many applications would have been made to the Māori Land Court for kaiwhakamarumaru, with two-thirds of our population under 18 years of age, all rangatahi? Is that what we want?

Meka Whaitiri: Clogging up the court.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Clogging up the courts with applications—who are these kaiwhakamarumaru going to be? Where are they going to come from? I mean, it just seems ludicrous, if the whānau and the hapū say: “Yep, they can vote. They should be able to vote.” So I would just like to make those points, and then, hopefully, the Minister might be able to address them. Kia ora.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti. I want to address both the establishment of w’ānau trusts and the operations of w’ānau trusts. I just want to take up something that the Minister in the chair, Te Ururoa Flavell, said and it relates to clause 61(3), which seems to me to be saying that if a w’ānau trust, in its declaration, does not want land or interests to be sold, then it has to declare it as part of the declaration. Given what the Minister has said—

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Reference?

ADRIAN RURAWHE: Oh, sorry—clause 61(3). I understand that the clauses around the disposal of land are coming up in a later part—in Part 4, I think it is. It seems to me that if it is in fact that shareholders, beneficiaries, must be consulted and must vote on whether or not land is to be sold, then what is the purpose of having this line within this clause? It would seem to me that that is redundant, that the w’ānau trust, based on what the Minister’s answer to a previous question was, does not apply to this clause, and that this clause is basically saying that if a trust, or if the shareholders, want to they can, in the declaration, allow or enable the trust to sell that land or sell their interest, And yet there are situations or clauses that are coming up in later parts that the Minister has said the beneficiaries and the shareholders must vote on. So what is the purpose of having this as part of the declaration? It would appear to me to be inconsistent with what the Minister has said and totally redundant.

I also want to pick up on and refer to clause 59(1) and the two ways in which w’ānau trusts can be established and a declaration made—it also seems to me that it is not as straightforward as we are led to believe. I think, as the Māori Land Court judges said in their submission, it would require a relatively sophisticated document.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Reference again, please?

ADRIAN RURAWHE: That is clause 59(1). I just think that, in that sort of situation, then, it may be more cumbersome for a w’ānau to go through, to make that declaration.

Further on, still with w’ānau trusts, and I know this is coming up also in Part 7, but the alienation or the selling of the trust, under clause—oh, it actually comes up later on, but it is relevant to these clauses in establishing a w’ānau trust. That is relating to what I said before on clause 61, that it does impact on the ability to use those clauses later on in this bill.

Clause 66(1), which entitles the beneficiary of a w’ānau trust to—

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Thank you for the opportunity to be able to participate in this part of the Committee stage. I want to just talk specifically to clause 51C, where reference is made to the words “participating owners”. We have often heard in leading up to this stage—from the time the bill was introduced right up to this evening, may I say—that this bill is all about the retention of Māori land. Can I say that when we talk about participating—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry, could the member give me the reference again?

PITA PARAONE: Clause 51C—participating owners. That is fine for those owners who participate, but they may be in the minority in terms of the overall ownership. So what this suggests to me is that we have a minority group that makes up the participating owners making a decision on behalf of the rest of the owners. Most of them—well, they are not participating because they are not there, people do not know where they are, or, in fact, some of them may have even passed away. So, for me, that is a concern.

It has been a long-lasting concern, even under the present administration, if the whereabouts of many owners are not known. Where they are not known, it seems to me to be very unfair for a small group of owners whom the system or the process knows who they are—or it knows their whereabouts, more importantly—to be making a decision for those who may not be aware, for a reason not of their own making, of what is happening to their land. So they could end up having their land alienated by a small group with possibly only a small shareholding, and that, I think, is an even greater crime than having the authority to make that decision by virtue of this particular clause in the bill. I think that is an issue that has to be addressed, and it can be addressed only if people know where the owners are.

If their whereabouts are not known, then it seems to me the be very unfair for them to have the future of their land determined by that group of owners who happen to be known to the authorities as to where they stay. So to have this process managed by the proposed Māori Land Service is, I think, an even greater insult to those shareholders.

As we have often heard, our people are a mobile people. So people who are living offshore, for instance, or away from home can have the future of their legacy—can I say—which they would hope to leave to their children, being lost by virtue of the fact that they are not regarded as participating owners. So I hope that Minister Flavell might be able to explain how this will, in fact, prevent the sale of Māori land.

As I go on to the rest of that clause, I do not have too much difficulty with that, other than to support the comments made about those shares that owners have decided to retain within whānau trusts. I think the notion of whānau trusts does have its merits, because it prevents the downsizing of the families’ shares.

Hon Members: Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh, what a dilemma. I call the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. I would have given the call to Meka Whaitiri because she is the spokesperson, but anyway.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair, for letting me make a small contribution. Look, Part 3 was probably one of the areas of the bill that exercised much of our conversation, because it goes something like this: when is a decision a decision? A decision is a decision if you have a specified majority, but if you do not have a governance agreement it is not a decision. So when might a decision not be a decision? Well, it might not be a decision if you do not meet the participating thresholds that are set out in the bill—very complex. So could a decision really be a decision if you do not meet the decision-making thresholds, do not have a governance agreement? No, it is not a decision.

So, you know, you can see where the Māori Affairs Committee got to when we were looking at the complexity of this bill, Minister, and trying to think that, actually, if we were just a humble Māori land owner wanting to do something on our whānau land, we would blimmin need a lawyer to navigate our way through just this one clause, clause 51. It is very difficult to try to get a feel for just how easily it was intended to ensure that decisions could be made, might be made, should be made—however, you need to understand the complexity around the participating thresholds.

The other issue is that it is not a decision if you do not meet certain provisions, so you get a second chance at a decision. These are the things that we debated at length, and we thought to ourselves: “It’s not that easy.” It is not that easy for people to understand the way in which the law is intended to ensure that decisions for decision’s sake can be made with a level of clarity that landowners know what threshold they need to meet to get an outcome. If you need a lawyer to navigate your way through a simple thing like making a decision, this is not the clause to be looking at—in fact, far from it.

However, Minister, if you would take a call, there were some aspects of the second-chance provision that I think were a matter that you reflected on around improving the way in which it operated for decision makers, landowners. It would be quite useful to see whether or not, in light of the complexities of this clause, you believe, Minister, that the second-chance decision-making process will actually be some gain for landowners or actually much more difficult to prove that a decision has been made.

The other aspect was the inclusion of the participating thresholds in the bill. That was something that clearly needed to be done, because it was really difficult to understand at what point certain thresholds need to apply. If you take, for example, the issues around disposition—sale and exchange or gifting of land, boundary adjustments, partitions and amalgamations—if all those things become quite contentious, then it would be absolutely necessary to have the participating thresholds outlined in the bill, in the way that it has been.

But can I just come back to clause 51(2)—actually, all the way through—and just highlight the difficulty, if you were navigating your way around the decision-making process. Clause 51(2) says: “If the parcel is managed under a governance agreement, the decision must be made using the decision-making process required by the agreement.” OK, then it sets out what that looks like. A participation threshold—going on to clause 51A, it states that for a decision by participating owners the requirements of clause 51A or 51B, which relate to a participation threshold, must be satisfied in addition to the specified majority requirement prescribed by subclause (9)—more difficult. Go on to subclause (10): “See the following provisions for the specified majorities of owners who must agree to certain decisions about Māori freehold land:”.

You can see the dilemma a Māori land owner would be in if they just navigated their way through this Act by themselves and thought: “Oh my gosh, how is this going to work?”. They will have to get a lawyer with money they do not have to be able to understand what to do. I really think that of all the complexities in the bill it is the way in which such a simple thing—making a decision—can or cannot be achieved under the portents of this particular bill. So, Minister, it would be good to get your view on the second-chance provision. Will it be a total-sum gain to the landowner or not?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): I will try to cover off some of the issues that have been raised. Just unfortunately for the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, pretty much in my first call this evening I covered most of those issues, but, unfortunately, she was not here to hear it—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Oh, sorry. I did not realise. I am sorry about that, but I have made those references already so I will not go back over them, but I did want to return to some of the issues that have been raised already.

One issue raised by Rino Tirikatene talked about minors’ participation in meetings. I am advised that 18 is the recognised age of what they call the age of majority. They have legal capacity to make decisions that bind the land, and that is under general law. Under the bill there is a mechanism to allow them to actually participate, through a kaiwhakamarumaru, so—there you go—there is an opportunity to be able to participate there, unlike the current situation. It is the same under the current Act, where minors need to go to court to get a trustee appointed under a kaitiaki trust. So, hopefully, that addresses the issue that Mr Tirikatene raised.

Adrian Rurawhe pointed out clause 61(3) and noted that the clause states: “The trustees must deal with trust property in accordance with any conditions or restrictions set out in the declaration of trust (for example, if a declaration of trust prohibits the sale of an interest, the trustees must vote, in any decision-making process of the owners of the land, against a resolution to sell the land).” Just to inform the Committee, actually in that clause all this is talking about and all it is saying is that if the trustees have no power to sell shares, then if the wider ownership of the block is voting on a proposal to actually sell the block, the clause requires the trustees to vote against the sale. This is going to be covered further in Part 4 as we move towards that.

So it is important just to clarify those other issues and, indeed, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and other members, Pita Paraone and Adrian Rurawhe, have raised issues that I covered off sufficiently enough earlier, to give the Committee some degree of understanding about where this has been sitting. But I thought it was important just to cover off those points so that we do not get too far ahead of coming back to address to them. Ka nui te mihi.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I hear that the Minister is saying that he covered off, I think, the specific points that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was raising, in terms of the clarity of the participating and decision-making thresholds, but I did just want to add, for the Green Party records and for the Committee, that the complexity of those—because I have it noted here, and I could be wrong, that this is a new provision. I hear that the Minister is saying he addressed the House earlier on the specific point of clarity of decision-making thresholds and when a decision is not a decision, but I am wondering, though, whether—so that is the bill, and then we have got the Supplementary Order Paper to the bill. It seems that, in my research that I have noted, it is a new provision, and therefore, I think I am just asking how, with regard to the particular table that is in the bill, we are also going to get that clear information to the very people who need to try to understand the road map of how these decisions are going to be made.

Whether it has been clarified here in the Committee is one thing, but I am particularly concerned, then, if this is a new provision, about how we are then going to ensure that there is reasonable and equitable access for whānau land owners regardless of whether they are part of a large block and shareholding collective or smaller blocks, or any whānau land owners who may have less ability to access the specialist knowledge that it is going to take to get through these.

And then, picking up on Part 3, clause 52 and what other colleagues in the House have said about, I think, clause 52—“Minor cannot vote on decisions and is not counted as participating owner”—and, yes, it goes down to say that those under 18 years of age “may participate in a meeting of owners about any decision relating to the land; but (b) cannot vote on the decision.” I think the Minister was clarifying that, in those cases, a kaiwhakamarumaru then acts as your vote. I think that is my understanding, but what I also wondered about, and it may be very unlikely to happen but it got me thinking, was whether there would ever be a situation when there is a collective group of under-18-year-old landowners where you may end up with only kaiwhakamarumaru participating in those decisions for them? And I understand that it is unlikely, but I was more interested in a legal back-stop about that particular situation or any other situation where we end up with kaiwhakamarumaru being the principal decision makers and vote makers. So those were just two of the main questions that I had in this particular part of Part 3, actually, because Part 3 is quite a lengthy part as well. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this chance to have a call on Part 3. Can I please first just extend my condolences to a former Minister of Parliament who buried her husband today, Steve Chadwick, and to the rangatira, John: haere atu rā, moe mai rā!

[Farewell and rest there!]

Can I, just by way of reminding this Committee—this is a very complex bill. It is over 400 pages long. It is the first piece of legislation that we have seen in this House for 24 years, and I want to thank the Minister for responding to questions that we have put up previously when we debated Part 3. But I just want to go on record that the motion to reopen Part 2 was because we had a new concept in that part that we did not get to debate, and that was the whenua tāpui. I will just leave that there because it is important that we give this bill due scrutiny because of the comprehensiveness and simply because the Minister has made some changes since it left the select committee. And this is the only place we get to properly scrutinise those changes.

Part 3 is made up of three subparts. The first subpart is about ownership and decision making, the second part is around whānau trusts, and the third subpart is about the kaiwhakamarumaru. I am not going to repeat what other people have said because I think they have clearly touched on the threshold decision-making framework and I want to acknowledge the Minister in terms of the second-chance provision, which is clause 51B. He made it really clear what it does not cover. I read it differently in the bill, particularly if I draw the Minister’s attention to clause 51B(5), where it says: “The decision is valid only if the court, on application, makes an order of confirmation that—(b) the court is satisfied that the decision will assist the owners to retain, control, occupy, or develop their land for the benefit of present and future owners.” And I do want to acknowledge what the Minister said the legislation did not cover, but I read that and it tells me that it actually covers a lot of those things, particularly long-term leases that he said it did not cover. So it would be good to really clarify what second-chance decision-making does and does not cover, because that is not how the bill is laid out.

If I turn to subpart 2, under whānau trusts, I guess the biggest issue in considering this particular part is the absence of any detail around the Māori Land Service, and the reason why I say that is because in this particular subpart of Part 3 it makes references under whānau trust. For example, it says in clause 63 that whānau trusts must apply to the chief executive (CE), which is the CE of the Māori Land Service, to have their trust entered on the Māori land register as soon as possible. That is clause 63. So we are getting introduced to a person in charge of a service that we have no detail on—all landowners have no detail on. The question I have for the Minister around this particular provision in clause 63 is: who pays for the registration? And that is a question that many whānau trusts who have to re-register—because that is how I read it; if you have already got a whānau trust, you have to go and apply to the CE of the Māori Land Service to make sure that the details of your whānau trust are registered in the Māori land register as soon as possible, as it is spelt out in clause 64. So then the question, obviously, is: is this a free service or is it a paid service? Some detail on that would be helpful.

Again, in subpart 2, whānau trusts—if I draw the Minister’s attention down to clause 71(3) where we talk about who gets what after termination. So in this particular provision, Minister, it talks about the terminating of a whānau trust, where it says that once a whānau trust is terminated, it goes back to the original owner—well, that makes sense—if they are dead, according to their will; if dead and there is no will then equal shares go to all living beneficiaries. But in subclause (b), it says if there are no living beneficiaries, if an original owner has died and they have not left a will, then the land—

NUK KORAKO (National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Members: Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, We have been considering this part for about 2 hours now. We have had well over 20 calls. I think we are able to make a decision.

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 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 his name to clause 71C 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 3 be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 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 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Dispositions of Māori freehold land and other land

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that Part 4 be agreed to. It is debate on clauses 96 to 153 and schedules 2 and 4.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora anō tātou katoa. Part 4 of the bill, as I have been explaining in previous speeches—I will try to lay that out first so as to give members a good kick-start into it and the key parts, from my perspective, about the bill. This one here sets out the proposed regime for dispositions in dealing with Māori land. This part ensures that retention and protection are the core features of the Māori land regime and it continues to regulate transactions where retention may be placed at risk.

An important part of this bill is that there is a robust framework and a stricter set of requirements before owners can offer Māori freehold land for sale. At present, Māori freehold land can be sold with 75 percent support from shareholders. Not only do we have the current regime being retained, but, in fact, the bill makes it harder, if not close to impossible, to sell some land, depending on the outcome of the discussions of those owners. The threshold can be lifted up to 100 percent from 75 percent, and, therefore, basically, as I say, alienation of Māori land would pretty much not be able to be achieved.

The bill continues to protect the right of those with a tikanga-based association, and, of course, tikanga has been given a fair thrashing in terms of interpretation throughout this debate. Those who do have a tikanga-based association with the land will have the first right to acquire it in any sale, and that strengthens, again, the process for the retention of land. Unlike 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 and its place has been given some consideration in this legislation, while the Māori Land Court will continue to have a role to ensure these protection mechanisms are complied with. I have talked about that in Part 3 of the bill. The court will also be able to prevent people from partitioning or changing the status of their land to get around and circumvent some of these protections. In response to the submissions, the bill now provides the straight oversight role for the court over whether Māori freehold land status can be removed and whether partitions will assist owners of Māori freehold land to retain, occupy, or develop their land.

The Māori Land Court does indeed have a significant role, in particular, in improving applications to amalgamate land, such as ensuring that the allocation of the beneficial interest is fair and equitable to all owners. The court will also be required to confirm applications to exchange a parcel of Māori freehold land for another piece of land, if that is the wish. In such cases, if the other piece of land is not already Māori freehold land, it will automatically acquire that status following the exchange.

Part 4 of the bill ensures that governance bodies will not be able to permanently alienate freehold land without either an agreement or, in the case of a land rationalisation, an order from the Māori Land Court allowing the change of status. The bill enables owners to determine which other transactions require governance bodies to obtain their specific agreement.

There has been a lot said in respect of any possibility of alienating Māori land. I have said it, and I will say it again: the thresholds have not been changed, but they can be strengthened by the decision-making process made by those people who own the land. They can shift the thresholds up to 100 percent, absolutely guaranteeing no more alienation of Māori land. So to those who say that this is another land grab, I am sorry but it is not. These protective mechanisms reinforce the principle of taonga tuku iho and will ensure that Māori land will be retained for the benefit of future generations.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you for the introductory comments made by Minister Flavell in relation to Part 4, “Dispositions of Māori freehold land and other land”. I thought I might just make some reference to the submitters who made some submissions on this particular clause, clause 96, in terms of the definition of “preferred entity”. The Minister has alluded to Marise Lant and, of course, Professor Richard Boast from Kensington Swan, again, where he talks about the use of tikanga in determining association with land. He makes a really good point around whether this view could arguably alienate urban Māori who may not have a strong tikanga relationship with their whenua but, no less, have a whakapapa relationship to the land. I am sure my colleague Peeni Henare will have something to say to expand on that.

There are some questions in this part, particularly around clause 96(2), where there is this introduction of a “representative entity”, and I would be really keen to hear from the Minister on clause 96(2)(b) where it talks about disposal of land to “a representative entity for the land for disposition”. I ask whether he could give some examples of what he means by a representative entity. Clearly, this bill was talking about defining preferred recipients, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee on extending that definition to include “children, grandchildren, and other descendants” of Māori owners. There has been some work at the select committee, and I want to acknowledge the Minister for signing and extending the definition of “preferred recipients”. Of course, we also talk about the preferred entities, so there is a question around explaining what a representative entity is, because it is not clear.

In Part 9, where we talk about the dispute over preferred recipient entities, Part 9 does not actually cover this. It makes reference in this Part 4 that if there is a dispute or whether it goes to a preferred recipient or a preferred entity, in the bill it says it is covered under Part 9, but when I read Part 9, I actually could not see how that is going to be sorted out in terms of who gets the say when it comes down to whether it goes to a recipient or whether it goes to the entity. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that.

Also, in clause 97, there is the provision there that the kaiwhakahaere can dispose of land if permitted. If we remember, the kaiwhakahaere is appointed by the chief executive of the Māori Land Service, obviously supported by the Māori Land Court. But, Minister, I just wanted to make sure what protection mechanisms there were around the kaiwhakahaere in clause 97 in terms of disposing of land, if permitted.

Then we go on to the court appointing the kaiwhakahaere and who can be eligible, in clause 189, and that is just ensuring that there is some consistency around who can be a kaiwhakahaere. Who is eligible? That is the question, and it does not clearly state that in this particular clause.

The other concerns I have with this—obviously, it is going to be, when it comes to disposal, a big issue for landowners around the process. Again, I will draw that comment I made around how, without having the Māori Land Service, we do not know the actual process that it will follow. Perhaps the Minister could give some clarity around that. I am sure other members on this side will have some contribution around Part 4 and disposal. It is a very important part of this bill. We need clarity to safeguard all Māori land interests, wherever it comes and however it comes, to ensure that the land is not lost, that they are clearly on the preferred list—and how they get on the preferred list if they are not on it—and whether the recipients trump the entities or the entities trump the recipients. It is not clear under this particular part. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I just have a very specific question. I was very encouraged by the Minister’s introduction to Part 4, where he wanted to give assurances that it is going to be harder to sell now; that the threshold, currently at 75 percent for those decisions—our disposition of land—can actually be taken to 100 percent. I am just trying to find out the process for how that is done. For me, it begs the question—sure, that can be done, but will there be any specific whānau land owners who, even though it can be done, are at a disadvantage, and that leaves the onus far too much on whānau land owners having to be more proactive about that than when it should actually be the case. It is just a question about how that is done.

I was encouraged to hear that freehold land cannot be gifted to anyone who does not have a tikanga Māori connection. I hear that, but then we go to—I am happy to be corrected—clause 100, which is the “Sale of parcel in ordinary cases”. Clause 100(1) says: “This section specifies the only way in which a parcel of Māori freehold land may ordinarily be sold”—and then it refers to another section. It goes down to clause 100(2), which says: “The sale must be (a) to a preferred recipient”—fine. I am following that that goes back to that list, which I think included ascendants, children, grandchildren, and then grandparents, parents, and also whānau—yes, sure. But then I am a little confused about clause 100(2)(c), which says the sale must be “to any other person, under an agreement (i) that is made by tender or auction after a preferential tender process for the land ends without a qualifying tender; and (ii) that is on terms at least as favourable to the seller …”.

I want to make sure that, sure, there are preferred recipients, but this is not a complete stop and restriction, and is not saying that it cannot be sold to anyone else. What I am reading in clause 100 is that, yes, first up are preferred recipients, but if that does not happen for whatever reason it can then be sold on. I would just like some clarity, because the Minister wants to assure everybody that Part 4 does actually protect against land status change and partitioning and disposition sale, particularly for Māori freehold land. I am seeing that it can still be put over to any other person. So I would just like some clarity on that. Thank you.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Mr Chair, thank you very much for this opportunity. In the vein of my two colleagues who have just spoken, Meka Whaitiri and Marama Davidson, I do want to speak about the disposition of land made by owners or a governance body. Clause 97(3) is the one I want to refer to, and it says: “However, this section does not prevent—(a) a kaiwhakahaere from disposing of land on behalf of the owners if permitted under [the appointment of the kaiwhakahaere]”.

In another contribution on this bill, I raised the process of appointment of a kaiwhakahaere and some of the obligations of a kaiwhakahaere. That kaiwhakahaere is not obliged to engage with the owners; also, that kaiwhakahaere is court-appointed—court-appointed. In this particular part of the bill, clause 97(3)(a)—“However, this section does not prevent—(a) a kaiwhakahaere from disposing of land on behalf of the owners if permitted under [the appointment of the kaiwhakahaere]”—I understand that it says there “on behalf of the owners”, but in the role of the kaiwhakahaere, as I read it in the definition, they are not required to act, as it says here, on behalf of the owners if permitted under the appointment. Call it technical, call it what you like, but I would like to hear some definition around that, because we are actually talking about the importance of holding on to that particular land.

The next clause I want to talk to in Part 4 is clause 100, “Sale of parcel in ordinary cases”—namely, new subclause (3A). It says there “For a governance body’s decision to offer land for sale,” then it goes down and says: “see clause 13 of Schedule 4,”. I flick over to clause 13 of schedule 4, and this once again brings me, in part, to my contribution on Part 3 of this particular bill, where it talks about waiting. It says here in schedule 4, clause 13(3): “The decisions for which a minimum level of owner agreement is required are—”, and it has two columns there. The right-hand column says “Minimum level of owner agreement”, and “The agreement of owners who together hold a 75% or more share in the land”, and the one under that says: “The agreement of owners who together hold more than a 50% share in the land”.

I have not been an administrator for Māori land trusts across the country, but I have been an administrator for a fair amount of land trusts and rōpū whakahaere, if you like, and I have witnessed exactly how the weighting of shares per contribution into the particular trust can be problematic here. Let us take, for example—once again, my tuakana Pita Paraone knows this very well—the share allocation across the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust. Of the 10 owners of the largest share amongst 4,000 beneficiaries—is this rule suggesting that those 10 owners can actually make the decision for disposition of this land? Because that is my understanding of that.

The disproportionate weighting—I am not too sure exactly what the formula is, but when our whānau gave their land, the formula was given so that X number of shares went to those people who committed their lands to that trust. We have seen it happen in the past. Whether it is by good planning or just by coincidence that those whānau happened to collate all of their shares in one trust, or whether or not that particular individual landowner is still alive to this day—are we suggesting then that that small number can make the decision on behalf of so many?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Which clause?

PEENI HENARE: I was referring to clause—I had it here—100. Sorry, it was clause 100. Sorry, I was having a moan about something else here.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It was sounding like a really good speech on Part 3.

PEENI HENARE: No, it was a direct reference to clause 100, “Sale of parcel in ordinary cases”. In clause 100(3A), it says there: “For a governance body’s decision to offer land for sale, see clause 13 of schedule 4,”. So I turned over to clause 13 of schedule 4, and in the right-hand column it reads: “The agreement of owners who together hold a 75% or more share in the land”, and “The agreement of owners who together hold more than a 50% share in the land”.

I have experienced this first-hand as an administrator of Māori land, whereby if five out of the 10 largest shareholders come together for a cup of tea at the junction cafe in Kawakawa before heading to the AGM or to a particular special general meeting for the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust—if five of those 10 major shareholders come together, then, according to the formula “The agreement of owners who together hold more than a 50% share in the land”, they can actually decide the fate of the 4,000 beneficiaries. That is grossly unfair to me. It does not make any sense. I am, sadly, not one of the 10 large shareholders in this particular block, but I am a shareholder none the less. Other whānau will find themselves in this situation.

I repeat the point: I am not too sure what the formula was to give the weighting to that particular shareholding. Was it on amount of acreage or hectares given into administration by the trust? Or was it because that land was particularly better at growing the particular forest or pine or whatever it might be that the administration decided to work the land for? Or was it whether or not their particular parcel of land was better than somebody else’s, who perhaps had a bit of swamp on their land? Those are all questions that I have, because the Minister for Māori Development mentioned how this particular bill will strengthen the mechanisms to protect Māori land. It does not seem to do that, to me, just simply looking at schedule 4, clause 13. That is a serious question that I have, and I hope the Minister can give some clarification on that one.

Just in closing my contribution on this particular part, I would want to go back to the role of kaiwhakahaere as described under clause 97, “Disposition of land made by owner or governance body”. Clause 97(3)(a) reads: “a kaiwhakahaere from disposing of land on behalf of the owners if permitted under [the appointment of the kaiwhakahaere]”. I want to get back to this point: the kaiwhakahaere is court-appointed; the kaihwhakahaere is not obliged to engage with whānau in the decision making over that particular land. That does not sound like tikanga to me. That does not sound like a process that will allow whānau to be fully informed and engaged in a very important decision—the disposition of land made by owner or governance body—given that the kaiwhakahaere is appointed by the court. They are appointed by the court.

In conclusion, I just wanted to add one of the other parts on kaitiaki eligibility. The bill does say that a kaitiaki can only be eligible if they have not been convicted of a particular offence in the past 5 years. That is a huge concern to me because, I can tell you, a lot of the poor land administration that took place with particular land administration organisations actually happened over the past 30 years. To think that we are going to hahu, or exhume, some of these particular leaders of administration blocks from 20 or 30 years ago to all of a sudden become eligible for kaitiaki purposes or kaitiaki status on current land blocks, is of concern to me. Thank you very much.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I just want to respond to the previous speaker, Peeni Henare, particularly around clause 100, which is the “Sale of parcel in ordinary cases”. This particular clause actually specifies that “the only way in which a parcel of Māori freehold land may ordinarily be sold …”—and I think this is one of the main issues—“(2) The sale must be—(b) to a preferred recipient or preferred entity …” or if a preferential tender process ends without a qualifying tender, to any other person on terms determined by the process.

In this one here, the decision to offer the land for sale must be agreed by the governance body. If there is not a governance body, well, then, the owners who together hold a 75 percent or more share in the land—75 percent or more share in the land—the sale requires an order confirmation from the Māori Land Court.

I think this is the essence, actually, of this particular clause. I think the other part of it is that there is an amendment to this clause via Supplementary Order Paper 279. It covers the area of the terminology used in this clause, which has been changed. So I think the retention of the freehold for the sale of Māori land is considered a proper safeguard. That is what this was about. It was about the safeguard, especially as it has been strengthened by enabling owners to raise but not lower the threshold. I think, listening to Mr Henare, that it was actually about those thresholds. So this one here is actually about enabling owners to raise but not lower the threshold when they have a governance body—to 100 percent, actually, if they wish. So I think that that is an important part of that one.

If the owners of a whole parcel of Māori freehold land decide to offer the land for sale, they will be required to give a right of first refusal—so an RFR—to preferred recipients, and a right of second refusal to a preferred entity. Just to explain, that clause 100, I think, actually covers—

Peeni Henare: But, still, 50 percent share can decide.

NUK KORAKO: Yeah, but when you look at the threshold, particularly around the 75 percent—I just really wanted to stand to clarify that particular clause, that clause 100. It was discussed in, actually, quite a lot of detail when looking at this particular part of the bill. Kia ora.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I want to address new clause 140(4) in this Part 4, inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 279. I agree with the overall intent of this part around limiting as much as possible the disposition of Māori freehold land or Māori land interests, but I am concerned about an individual’s freehold interest in any Māori freehold land under new subclause (4)(b): “To avoid any doubt, the sales or gifts to which this section applies include … a sale under a power expressed or implied in a mortgage:”. Given the special importance of Māori land, and the fact that we want to encourage as much of the retention and also utilisation of that land as possible, I am concerned that those interests can be sold by way of mortgage or implied in a mortgage. I can just picture some unscrupulous lender accepting a mortgage over numerous freehold Māori interests of an individual, and then unbeknownst to that individual they have the right implied in that mortgage to be able to sell that interest. Sure, they can sell it to the actual classes of preferred folks they are obliged to sell to, but I would like to ask Minister Flavell why there is an implied right for a mortgagor to be able to sell the land. Surely it should be only if it is expressed in the mortgage—that should be the law; that should be the requirement. It should not be just an implied right for a mortgagee to be able to sell that particular interest of a certain individual.

I guess this gets back to the point whereby there is talk about renewing and revamping these laws and we are talking about tikanga, talking about those big lofty provisions in clauses 3 and 4, and yet so much of what the Minister has talked about tonight has been: “Oh, the general law says ‘Te mea, te mea (so on and so on, etc., etc.) this is how it is done’, and so we are following the general law.” Well, I thought this was about Māori land law. Regardless of what might be the general law in relation to mortgages given over Māori freehold interests, I believe, given the special importance of Māori freehold land interests, that there should not be an implied right in a mortgage.

If there is that right to sale, it should be expressed. So I just want to ask the Minister—and I do not think it is good enough to say: “Oh, but the general law provides that there is a right.” We are actually passing a law for Māori land. We should not worry about what the general law provides. This is why we are putting a Māori land law in place. Otherwise, what is the point of those big provisions in clauses 3 and 4 about the mana and the tino rangatiratanga—you know? It is meaningless. I would like the Minister to address that point, because I do not want to see any Māori land owner have to forgo their interests through some unscrupulous loan shark who has given them a loan, and then all of a sudden they find that all of their interests are gone.

The second point I would like to raise is in relation to the general provisions about dispositions. There is a lot of talk in these provisions about registrations on the title—what is in the Māori land register and what is to go into the land transfer register. All I would like to inquire about is how robust those systems are going to be, because I am only familiar with cases whereby the wishes of owners have been made in the court, and the Māori Land Court has made a decision in regard to those lands, but because those orders were not transmitted and noted or registered on the land transfer titles, they were of no—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Rino Tirakatene.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Those decisions made by the Māori Land Court were never, ever noted or registered on the land transfer title, so were of no effect. In many instances, Māori land has been lost through the fact that there was no information sharing or record of those decisions having been made in the Māori Land Court and never reflected on the title. So a purchaser of a title, without notice, is entitled to clear title. I know that that has happened on numerous occasions.

I would like to have some reassurance, and some comfort, that the records or the decisions that are being made, that are put into this Māori land register will indeed have close alignment with the land transfer system, because that has not been the case in the past. Those are the main points I would like to raise, and I hope the Minister might be able to address them. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I just want to carry on from what my colleague Mr Tirikatene was talking about, but I am not going to focus on clause 100, but rather on clause 97(3)(c). My concern is around that whole area of a mortgage. While I have not been able to sight it in the bill itself, is the Minister suggesting or implying that any mortgagee is required to follow the terms of the disposition of land interests as articulated in the bill? In other words, the owners, or the kaiwhakahaere on behalf of the owners, owes me money—they have not been able to meet the obligations of their mortgage—and so I have that right to dispose of that particular interest. Is the bill implying, in terms of the rules of disposition, that I, as the mortgagee, can only dispose of that interest in terms of the bill?

I think that is the whole issue we are talking about. I am quite surprised that shareholders—owners of Māori land—are able to mortgage their interest in such a way. If they can, and if they do not meet those obligations, then Māori land is up for sale. Fa’afetai.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The time has come for me to report progress, I suppose—to report something, anyway.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.