Wednesday, 11 April 2018

WEDNESDAY, 11 APRIL 2018

WEDNESDAY, 11 APRIL 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Wales—National Assembly for Wales, Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs and Delegation

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Ms Lesley Griffiths, Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, and her delegation from the National Assembly for Wales, who are present in the gallery.

Business of the house

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In accordance with the decision made by the Business Committee yesterday, I seek leave for the notice of motion for the appointment of the Controller and Auditor-General to be set down as Government order of the day No. 1 tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. It will be. We come now to oral—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You missed it. There was objection to that.

SPEAKER: Oh, there was objection? Sorry, I thought it was the unanimous decision of the Business Committee, including the member’s colleagues, yesterday.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No.

SPEAKER: It wasn’t? Well—[Interruption] Order! Any member has the right to object, notwithstanding it being the unanimous decision of the Business Committee yesterday. [Interruption] Order!

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Government Actions and Policies

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s policies and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: On what date did she conclude that things were going so badly for the Government that the only option was to manufacture a crisis that standards of public service delivery really don’t reflect?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, that was before the election, when the last Government was in, and I saw the deficits they were leaving.

Hon Simon Bridges: When will she stop blaming the former Government and use the healthy finances that she—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Simon Bridges: —has been left to get on with delivering the many promises that she campaigned on?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When I stop learning about issues like Middlemore Hospital and Dunedin Hospital, where they periodically cancel surgeries because there’s water in the operating theatres. We did anticipate this issue; we absolutely did. We knew there was a deficit in health spending, and district health boards are now confirming that it could be to the tune of $200 million. That is why we said no to the tax cuts. That is why we put aside an operating allowance of $2.6 billion, when the last Government put away $1.7 billion, and we’re putting more away for capital. We knew that problems existed, and we have a plan for them.

Hon Simon Bridges: How can her Government justify no new money for nurses when, amongst other things, she’s thrown $2.8 billion at a fees freeze for students?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of that question. That’s a negotiation that’s currently under way. The idea that there’s no new money for that negotiation is just a fallacy.

SPEAKER: And I possibly should have ruled it out because there was an assertion in the question which I’ve certainly not seen the evidence for.

Hon Simon Bridges: How will her Government pay for the tram down Dominion Road when the focus groups start telling her that hitting regional New Zealand with higher fuel taxes isn’t an acceptable way of funding it?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to rephrase the question. The Prime Minister does not have responsibility for those groups.

Hon Simon Bridges: How will her Government pay for a tram down Dominion Road when it’s quite clear that regional New Zealand rejects having to pay for it with higher fuel taxes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is why we are not asking regional New Zealand to pay for it; we’ve asked Aucklanders to pay for it. We were very explicit before the election that Auckland’s transport issues were significant. They suffered from neglect. We did make the decision around a regional fuel tax to reinvest, and there’s acceptance from Aucklanders that that is what’s required. When it comes to the regions, I think they’ll be pleased to see that, instead of spending 25 percent of that fund on roads they don’t use, we’ll be doubling the money going into regional roads and increasing the number into local roads.

Hon Simon Bridges: When she gets back from her friendly town hall meeting with Justin Trudeau in London next week—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member will start his question with a question and will not have any irony in it, or he will start losing them.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will she front to the people of Levin and tell them why they probably won’t get their expressway when she gets back from her town hall meeting with Justin Trudeau in London next week?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Is the member willing to attend the meeting with me, because the circumstances under which Ōtaki is being considered are the same today as they were before. The New Zealand Transport Agency is still making route selection. It’s then up to them to consult on that with the public, and so it’s still ongoing. Yes, there is a new Government policy statement in place, but all we’re asking them to consider is cost-benefit analysis, and who could argue with that?

Hon Simon Bridges: How’s Phil Twyford getting on with building all those new houses?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Much better than the last Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: How will it work to have an acting Prime Minister when the actual Prime Minister is still in the country?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There is precedent for this; it’s not new. If anyone has an illness or needs, for any purpose, to have an acting Prime Minister in place, then there is Cabinet guidance to deal with that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she concerned that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s (NZIER) quarterly survey of business opinion, released yesterday, has found that business confidence “dropped sharply in the wake of the new Labour-led Government taking office”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will well know that the most important indicator is business confidence in activity for themselves, because that is what then tells us the way that growth is going, and the member will well know֫ that, on average, we’re looking at a healthy 3 percent. We will continue to work on boosting business confidence, but in terms of economic indicators, they’re all healthy.

SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made two out of order interjections during that reply. She will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Paula Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister intend to adopt a local council’s ruling this morning that all dangerous dogs will be muzzled?

SPEAKER: I’m accepting the Deputy Prime Minister’s word that there was such a ruling made this morning. If there was, like all of these other matters, it is a responsibility of the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: On the basis that that decision was made by Christchurch Council, I recommend the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t go there.

SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Simon Bridges: What’s the Prime Minister’s response to Liam Dann’s commentary today that poor business confidence is partly due to “lingering dissatisfaction with the election result and policies of the new government”, and ANZ, which highlighted an “uncertain policy environment” as a real cause for concern?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The uncertainty, I would argue, is created, unfortunately, more often by the Opposition than anything else. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely acknowledge that in the past we’ve had similar situations. The last time I’ve seen this kind of pattern—

Hon David Bennett: Yeah, last time Labour was in.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It was indeed, when Labour produced the strongest continuous economic growth since World War II, some of the lowest unemployment in the OECD, and got net core Crown debt near to zero. So if those are indications of a healthy economy, then that’s where we should all be aspiring to be.

Hon Simon Bridges: What then is her response to—

SPEAKER: Order! Start again.

Hon Simon Bridges: What is her response to the NZIER, which yesterday said, “Employment law changes announced by the new Government, including the abolition of the 90-day trial period for new employees, are likely to have contributed to all the pessimism.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, I would reject that. Everyone will have their own perspective on those policies, but ultimately, what we reached, collaboratively, was a compromise across our three parties when it came to 90 days, one which took into account the view of small businesses, but, ultimately, my expectation is that, as we continue to see growth improve, wages increase, and a healthy economy, we’ll see that optimism increase.

Budget Policy Statement—Capital Allowances and Health Funding

2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What does the Government’s Budget Policy Statement (BPS) say about capital allowances, and how does it compare with previous periods?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Capital allowances represent the amount a Government is setting aside for future targeted investments and capital infrastructure that the Government is responsible for, like hospitals and classrooms. The Budget Policy Statement shows a forecast capital allowance of $3.4 billion in Budget 2018, another $3.4 billion in Budget 2019, and $3.1 billion in Budget 2020, over the three years totalling $9.9 billion of new capital investments to be made by this Government. The previous forecast for capital allowances over these three years was contained in Budget 2017, showing a forecast of $2 billion for Budget 2018, and then $2.5 billion for each of 2019 and 2020, totalling $7 billion.

Kiritapu Allan: Why do the Government’s capital allowances need to be larger than in previous periods?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Capital pressures have built up consistently over the past years. I have been advised that one of the key drivers of these capital pressures was the policy settings of the previous Government, notably operating expenditure constraints. What that means in practice is that the underfunding of operating costs has meant that money that would have been allocated to capital expenditure has had to be used for the day-to-day running of our public services. This is particularly evident in the health sector, where work by the Ministry of Health reveals that District Health Boards would require $14 billion of capital expenditure spread over the next 10 years, with nearly $10 billion of that being new capital from the Crown.

Kiritapu Allan: What commitment will the Government make to increase investment in health?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government is committed to making necessary and important investments in our public services. We have a plan that includes increased funding for health, starting in Budget 2018 and continuing over a sustained period of time. This isn’t just about big numbers on a spreadsheet; it’s about New Zealanders who should be able to access our public healthcare system without fear of being treated in hospitals with sewerage leaking in the walls or water pipes bursting and flooding wards. It will take more than one Budget to make up for nine years of neglect, but one of our top priorities as a Government is a health system that delivers to New Zealanders the levels of care they expect and deserve.

Housing—Unitec Development

3. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What discussions has he had with the Member of Parliament for Mt Albert in relation to the proposed Unitec development for up to 4,000 houses?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I have had many discussions with the Prime Minister about both the Unitec development and our—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I’m going to ask the member now to address the question, which is not the question that he started addressing.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have had many discussions with the member for Mt Albert about both the Unitec development and our work to build affordable homes for Kiwi families. The member for Mt Albert has relayed to me how excited her constituents are about this investment in their community.

Hon Judith Collins: How does he anticipate addressing the concerns raised by the member of Parliament for Mt Albert, who has said, in relation to the Unitec development, “There are questions around what kind of urban design will that project have, will it have an effect on traffic; will it overflow our schools …”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There is much discussion going on about what kind of urban design we’re going to have, and it’s going to be a very high quality of urban design. Our Government is going to invest in the infrastructure and amenities that the new community at Unitec needs, because this Government believes that when population grows, you invest in the infrastructure to support that population.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that the member for Mt Albert has been continually supportive of the proposal at Unitec but, under its first iteration, when the member was in Opposition, raised the fact that, at that time, the Ministry of Education seemed unwilling to make sure that there was—

SPEAKER: Order! This Minister has no responsibility for what the member for Mt Albert said when she was in Opposition.

Hon Judith Collins: When he announced that there would be now up to 4,000 houses built on the Unitec site, had he considered the concerns of the MP for Mt Albert regarding the effect on traffic and local school capabilities?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I consider those concerns every day.

Hon Judith Collins: How would he address the reported concerns, and published concerns, of the MP for Mt Albert by increasing the number of homes built on the site from 2,600 to now almost 4,000 separate homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’re going to address those concerns by bringing the best of urban design to bear and investing in the infrastructure, open spaces, amenities, schools, and all the things that strong communities need.

Hon Judith Collins: I seek leave to table a document which is available on a pay basis but is unavailable to some members of Parliament. It is called “Chasing Labour votes in Middle Auckland” and it is—

SPEAKER: Describe the source of the document.

Hon Judith Collins: It’s a Politik document.

SPEAKER: Well, I am going to put it, but I think I know what the response is going to be.

Hon Grant Robertson: It’s available to all of us for free.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Grant Robertson: It’s available to all of us for free.

Hon Member: No, it’s not.

Hon Grant Robertson: The Parliamentary Library has a subscription.

SPEAKER: The Parliamentary Library might have a subscription but it is a paid thing. I know that most members get it. I think the member has probably just cut Mr Harman’s income, because some members have subscribed to it otherwise. But I am, in this case, going to put it to the House. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? [Interruption] There appears to be none.

Hon Tracey Martin: Actually, there was.

SPEAKER: There was? OK. Can I just ask people, when they’re objecting, on both sides, to do it in a forceful and confident manner.

Transport Infrastructure—Local and Regional Roading and Prime Minister’s Answers to Oral Questions

4. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: How much is funding increasing by, in dollar terms, for the Local Road Improvements and Regional Improvements activity classes for the first three years of the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Local road improvements increase to $1.03 billion over three years, from Government policy statement (GPS) 2015’s funding of $720 million. That is an increase of $310 million over the next three years, or 43 percent. Regional improvements increase under the draft GPS to $530 million over three years, from GPS 2015’s funding of $270 million. That is an increase of $260 million over the next three years, or nearly double.

Jami-Lee Ross: Was the Prime Minister accurate when she said in question time yesterday that over the three-year period, quote, “regional and local road improvements increase by $1.2 billion.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

Jami-Lee Ross: How can he say that local and regional improvements have increased by $1.2 billion when he just told us that those categories increased by $310 million and $260 million, which combined does not come to $1.2 billion?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Prime Minister was including local roading improvements as well, and local road maintenance.

Jami-Lee Ross: I’ll ask again. How can he say that the Prime Minister is accurate with her $1.2 billion figure when the figures he just gave us add up to $570 million?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The figures include local road maintenance, local road improvements, and regional improvements.

Jami-Lee Ross: Will he be advising the Prime Minister that her answer in the House yesterday was inaccurate and she should perhaps consider correcting it?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I will not be.

Irrigation—Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd and Provincial Growth Fund

5. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What assurances can he give the provinces in the wake of the announcement to the wind-down of public funding through Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd for large-scale irrigation?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): The provinces deserve assurances, and I, as their first citizen, wish them to be heartened by the fact that we understand how important water is. As we move through the transition economy, we don’t want economies that are not futureproofed, but, at the same time, we don’t want to acquiesce with the historical pattern of water degradation.

Mark Patterson: What role will the provincial growth fund play in terms of water and the growth of our provinces?

Hon SHANE JONES: All allocations via the provincial growth fund meet a very sturdy test. Anything below $20 million requires the sign-off of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport, the Minister for the Environment, and my good self. To that end, environmentally robust sustainable water storage initiatives and water management—the road to the provincial growth fund for such matters is not unlike a primrose path.

Mark Patterson: Is the irrigation announcement an example of the Government turning its back on the regions?

Hon SHANE JONES: I stand as the champion of the provinces to strongly refute—refute—that allegation. We are committed not only to growing jobs in the provinces, enabling the transition to take place that moves us away from historic disrupted industries, but, on a regular basis, with suitable partnerships either by dint of grant, equity, or other arrangements, continue to spread the fiscal elixir. Thank you very much.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he told a Rotorua audience last week, do not delay in applying to the fund because “Politicians live in time cycles and there are 29-odd months to the next election.”, did he accept that some people would see that as confirmation that this is a political fund?

Hon SHANE JONES: I think most people would see that as the reflection of someone who believes in democracy and someone who is telling the civic leaders of the Bay of Plenty, “Do not wait aimlessly in line, as you suffered under the last regime.”—lots of rhetoric, no mahi.

Hon Nathan Guy: Has the Minister seen Mark Patterson’s comments in the local Southland paper, in his recent column, where he said that irrigation equals more cows and more pollution; and how would the Minister respond to those comments from one of his caucus members?

Hon SHANE JONES: As a lad who was born on a farm, as someone who grew up milking cows, the inevitability of more water in an indiscriminate fashion down in the South Island has led to not only more cows but a gross degradation of water in some areas, which is why the Hurunui irrigation scheme was hopelessly divided between people who wanted it and people who did not want it.

Attorney-General—New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Vetting of Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

6. Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Attorney-General: Does he stand by all his statements and actions regarding New Zealand Bill of Rights vetting?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Does he accept that his responsibility as Attorney-General in vetting the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was as senior law officer of the Crown, not a Minister; and, if so, how can he possibly have concluded that political proportionality is more important than freedom of speech and association protected under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, and in the same way in which the Solicitors-General, in 1999 and 2005, under the then process, reached the same conclusion.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: When vetting the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, did he obtain advice from the Attorneys-General of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe, on any Bill of Rights - consistent interpretations they may have adopted regarding their own laws which allow a party leader to dismiss an MP?

SPEAKER: No, before the member answers, I’m just going to consider whether—I just want to check that there are Attorneys-General in those countries in a similar form. I’m sure that the member will be able to assure me.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Yeah, well, so far as I am aware, the answer is yes.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I did not, but I am aware that Japan and Portugal have similar laws, and I do remain of the view that as important as freedom of expression and association are, preserving the balance of representation in accordance with the wishes of the electorate is sufficiently strong democratic purpose to justify the limitations.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen the Human Rights Review Tribunal decision of 26 March, the last, and the scathing comments they had to do with the former Attorney-General and the way he behaved? It’s all here.

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Human Rights Review Tribunal is a step away from New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vettings on the part of this Attorney-General. I’m ruling the question out.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Why doesn’t he simply follow the example of his immediate predecessor, who always stood up to his ministerial colleagues and issued section 7 reports where necessary, rather than allowing political considerations and the needs of Mr Peters to trump the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There are two points I’d make in response to that. The first is that on occasions where determinations such as this are finely balanced as to whether a section 7 report should be provided, I’m advised by officials that it’s the judgment of the Attorney-General that is required, which the prior Attorney-General exercised when dealing with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Secondly, I would also note that when his Government abolished Environment Canterbury in 2010—now close to a decade—it was that member’s independent judgment that that was proportionate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A supplementary question—the Rt Hon Winston Peters—a point—sorry.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Very serious issue of misrepresentation—I had no role in vetting the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member I think is experienced enough to know that if he disagrees with an answer, disagreeing by way of point of order is not appropriate. The member may, if he wishes, at the end of the question, seek the leave of the House for a personal explanation to set the record straight, and if the member really wants to, I suggest that he take that approach.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Speaking to the point of order, if I can assist, I didn’t mean to—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It wasn’t a point of order, obviously.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, no, I’m happy to—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member wants to sort out his position, I think he has to seek the leave to correct his answer.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to make it clear that the Attorney-General delegated it to someone else. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to the Attorney-General making such a statement? Right, well—have we finished?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I just make that point: the Attorney-General delegated—

SPEAKER: No, no, no. The member did not get leave to do it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I thought I’d been granted leave. Sorry, sir.

SPEAKER: No. Well, I will take the member’s word, but I am saying that he is an experienced enough member to know that he needs to be called for something like that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen the legal cases surrounding the 26 March hearing which described the former Attorney-General’s behaviour with respect to rationale and reasoning for the decision as being non-existent?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ve already ruled that question out of order, so why was it allowed to be asked at such length?

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

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order—and I say to the right honourable gentleman that I much prefer him doing it this way than from his seat.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What—the objections, you mean?

SPEAKER: For you, speaking to the point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The difference between the first question and the second question related not to the tribunal but to the surrounding court cases, which would make the Attorney-General relevant in that situation.

SPEAKER: And unless I’m convinced that there’s a matter of vetting involved, then I’m not going to allow the question. Are there any further supplementaries?

Irrigation—Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd

7. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes.

Hon Nathan Guy: How does the Minister justify winding down support for some irrigation projects without even meeting or consulting Crown Irrigation officials ever since becoming Minister?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Officials from my office have been in regular contact with Crown Irrigation Ltd. They never sought to have a meeting with myself as Minister, and I have been in a number of meetings where I have met and spoken informally with officials from Crown—

Hon Nathan Guy: Oh!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —Irrigation Investment Ltd.

Hon Nathan Guy: Does the Minister consider Hunter Downs being offered an investment term sheet to be a legal or moral obligation for the Crown to continue to back this scheme?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: A judgment call was made on where—

Hon Nathan Guy: Ah!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —there were obligations from the Crown—

Hon Nathan Guy: Yep.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —to irrigation schemes that were—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m just going to ask Mr Guy—there’s a very serious matter and I want to hear it without his constant loud interjections through his open mike.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Starting again.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Judgments were made on which irrigation schemes had progressed far enough to warrant ongoing Government support. In announcing our policy, we had always said we would honour existing agreements. These irrigation schemes were at different levels of commitment. The judgment was that term sheets signed by the two schemes plus the scheme that was under construction were worthy of ongoing Government support. Hunter Downs was not at that stage. I believe that the scheme will proceed regardless of Government’s decision in this area.

Early Childhood Education—Funding

8. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How have the funding challenges for the early childhood education sector that he acknowledged to the House yesterday impacted upon ECE services?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you. Early childhood education (ECE) is a sector under strain. Education Review Office reports have highlighted significant issues, including the number of reviews that have uncovered significant concerns to warrant another review within a year doubling within two years, and the percentage of reviews resulting in gold-star standard being achieved dropping from 14 percent to 11 percent. The early childhood sector has done an amazing job of trying to maintain quality, given a near decade of funding freezes, but it’s clear that quality will be seriously compromised if that freeze continues.

Jo Luxton: What reliable information does the Government hold on the impact that lower funding for ECE has had on fees paid by New Zealand parents for their kids’ ECE?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It would be fair to say that data held by the Ministry of Education is limited. A survey from 2013, which was released in 2015, shows that fees for parents have increased, most significantly in the kindergarten sector. The survey was repeated in 2015 but was never analysed and never published and, mysteriously, the survey was not subsequently repeated.

Jo Luxton: What advice has he seen about the funding pressures in early childhood education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve seen advice from kindergarten head teacher Virginia Oakley, who said that, “Some services have got rid of qualified teachers, replaced them with unqualified staff that are cheaper to pay for and we’ve had to cut maintenance for our buildings …”. I’ve also seen advice from Peter Reynolds, the chief executive of the Early Childhood Council, who said that, “The average childcare service is losing around about $105,000 since 2011 by our calculation … it’s not a rosy picture for childcare centres.”

Children—Children’s Convention Monitoring Group Report and Implementation of Building Blocks

9. Hon ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Children: What work does she have under way in her portfolio?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Oranga Tamariki, the Ministry for Children, as a team and together, we have a large body of work under way, which includes continuing our social worker recruitment drive, developing new ways to recruit kin carers by working in partnership with iwi and our Pasifika community, piloting a 24/7 caregiver support and inquiry line and improving inductions for caregivers, increasing the number of safe and loving places available for children when home isn’t working, and including specific placements for high- and complex-needs children and for children in crisis. We’ve rolled out a practice framework for all social workers, and we’ll be evaluating this framework. We are also developing new trauma-informed practice guidelines for front-line staff. We now have more than 70 percent of our contract funding, and in multiple-year contracts we are working with partners, including iwi and NGOs, to build and commission stronger services for children. We are working with iwi to enable them to lead family group conferences. We are working to implement the new legislative changes, including care standards, information sharing, transition to independence, and the increase in age for both—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to stop. This is an Opposition question, it is a very broad question, and it is an area that most members of the House think is important. I’m going to ask members on my left to stop their interjecting, and I’m going to ask members on my right to stop encouraging them. Complete the answer.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Do you want me to start from the beginning?

SPEAKER: No.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: So, picking up where I left off, we are working to implement the new legislative changes including care standards, information sharing, transition to independence, and the increase in age for both care and protection in youth justice children and young people. We are testing a remand option investigation tool that helps agencies provide better information to the Youth Court. We are working with the Pasifika panel to develop the Pasifika strategy around practice, placements, and partnerships. We are also working, between my role in Minister for Children and Associate Minister of Education, around the support for children with high learning needs that are often also Oranga Tamariki children, and, as Minister for Children, I am also co-lead of the child well-being strategy. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Which of the 10 building blocks in the Children’s Convention Monitoring Group report released today does she intend to implement?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: We have, actually, with the child well-being strategy, started to implement, or will be implementing, one of the major building blocks that has been required of this Government after the last 25 years of being a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC). This Government is also committed to making major progress on children’s well-being and reducing child poverty; our Child Poverty Reduction Bill addresses this. We have also established a royal commission to investigate historic abuse and violence towards children in State care, and our Families Package will bump up the incomes of many families. We want New Zealand to be the best place in the world to be a child and we take our commitment to UNCROC seriously.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Does that include recommendation No. 5, which says in 5.1, to “Develop a child rights and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)-compliant data infrastructure that generates high quality disaggregated data which is used to inform policies, legislation, and practices.”?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: This Government is actually working in a large area around how Government departments use, monitor, collect, and interact with each other around the use of data. We are breaking down silos for the betterment of our children.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: How disappointed is she that, to date, there has been no work in progressing the social investment agency under this new Government which is vital to implementing recommendation No. 5?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I think that’s a matter of perspective as to whether there’s only one way to implement that particular goal, but I would say I am disappointed that after nine years, this Government in only five months has probably done more for our children.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: How does she expect to handle the increase in the number of children and young people in care and protection without implementing recommendation No. 5 and also recommendation No. 6, which focuses on budgeting?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The member suggests, and has questioned, that we are not addressing those recommendations. We just may not be addressing them in the way he may want us to do so.

Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, Minister—Carol Hirschfeld, Commonwealth Games, and Radio New Zealand

10. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Yes, in the context that they were made and taken.

Melissa Lee: Why did she not disclose the full nature of a meeting with Carol Hirschfeld when Richard Griffin asked her, back on 28 February, whether “there is anything she is concerned about or would like to raise in relation to the select committee meeting”?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I have given an account of that meeting to this House.

Melissa Lee: Why did she not at any point make contact with the chair of the economic development select committee, the clerk of the committee, the Clerk of the House, or the Speaker to inform them that they may have been misled by Radio New Zealand (RNZ)?

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A Minister is not responsible for contacting the chair of a select committee, or the Speaker or the Clerk or any of the others who have been contacted, if somebody else has supplied false information to a select committee. That is a matter for the person or the organisation that has supplied false information. It is not a matter that the Minister has ministerial responsibility for.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s an interesting comment from the Leader of the House, except in this case the organisation was, effectively, misrepresenting the Minister. So for a Minister to say that it’s not their responsibility, or they have no responsibility for correcting their own department’s misrepresentation of them is a complete obfuscation of political responsibility.

SPEAKER: All right. I accept that, in fact, no member has responsibility for informing a select committee that they’ve been told something in error by a third person. That is not a direct responsibility, either ministerial or otherwise. There is still a question, though—it is still a possibility that a Minister could have chosen to take that action, and I’m taking this question as why the Minister chose not to do so.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: My office made contact with RNZ on two occasions to correct—to inform them that the information provided at select committee was incorrect.

Melissa Lee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was why she did not actually contact the clerk of the committee, the chairman of the committee, the Clerk of the House, or the Speaker, not RNZ.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I am going to ask the Minister to address that question, with just the minor correction that we’ll deal with “clerks”, not “clurks”, thank you.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I believed it was appropriate that my office contacted RNZ on two occasions.

Melissa Lee: In the interests of openness and transparency, will she ask Richard Griffin to release the voice mail she left on his phone; if not, why not?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: That’s a matter for Mr Griffin and the select committee.

Melissa Lee: Does she believe that taxpayers received value for money from having the broadcasting Minister attend the Commonwealth Games, given the criticism of the coverage of gold medal events following her attendance?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Thanks for that question. I visited the Commonwealth Games to gain a hands-on insight into how a mega sports event is broadcast across multiple platforms. I visited the International Broadcast Centre to see first-hand the operations of games broadcasters, including TVNZ, Channel 7, and BBC Sport. That trip also provided the opportunity to meet with key portfolio stakeholders, including discussions with TVNZ’s leadership, a dinner with the CEOs of local New Zealand production companies, and a visit to Optus’ live showcase. I attended at the invitation—

SPEAKER: Order! I think we’re all convinced that the Minister was busy.

Melissa Lee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that the question was “Does she believe that the taxpayers received value for money?”

SPEAKER: And my view was that anyone who listened carefully got an answer from that.

Melissa Lee: Is she satisfied that the taxpayer is getting value for money out of TVNZ broadcast coverage of events when New Zealand has won gold, like in the lawn bowls, squash, and hammer throw?

SPEAKER: Order! That now gets to a straight editorial matter, for which there is not responsibility.

Health Services—Building Improvements and Funding Gap

11. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Health: What major capital projects are being progressed in health?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): We have inherited a long list of building problems that require attention. Among the immediate priorities is work on Middlemore’s Scott building and the rebuild of the Dunedin Hospital, where, because of asbestos, staff are having to recover patient records in hazmat suits. The upcoming Budget will include a significant injection of capital funding to tackle the most urgent issues and start addressing the under-investment of the last nine years.

Rino Tirikatene: Why is there such a backlog of building issues in health?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think it’s clear to New Zealanders that the public health service has been neglected over the last nine years in pursuit of surpluses and tax cuts—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. To give that sort of answer, he’s got to hang it on something he has responsibility for.

Rino Tirikatene: What planning is under way to avoid the mould, rot, and sewage issues experienced at Middlemore Hospital?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There are clear processes in place for district health boards to put forward capital projects for funding. However, I am concerned that there is no comprehensive assessment of the state of our health assets, and I have work under way to address this. We need a proper national asset management plan so we can make sure New Zealanders get treated in quality facilities and we don’t have to see, routinely, asbestos hazards signs up in our public hospitals. I have with me a photo of some recent visitors to Dunedin Hospital making their way past asbestos hazard signs, including the current and former Opposition health spokespersons.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the Minister prepared to release the advice on a $14 billion funding gap that he has mentioned today and that the Minister of Finance mentioned today and in his post-Cabinet press conference?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: [Holds up photograph] I will consider that.

SPEAKER: Order! Yes, and the member had finished using the visual aid and should not have used it again. For that reason, if Mr Woodhouse wants to have another question, he may.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Apart from Middlemore Hospital’s leaky buildings issue and the Dunedin Hospital situation, can the Minister name any other asset issues that were not previously made public by his or the previous Government?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have encountered many, many issues in my time as Minister. Just to name one, in Nelson/Marlborough, their buildings clearly need replacing with the fullness of time. There are plenty of buildings around the country, and we need to understand better and have a baseline so that we can have a comprehensive assessment. That’s why I’ve asked for a national asset management plan, because there is no comprehensive assessment of which buildings are at what standard, and that is an absolute shame and a sign of the neglect of the last nine years.

Building and Construction Industry—Fire Safety in New Buildings

12. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Can she confirm that there are no buildings under construction in New Zealand that have or are proposing to install aluminium composite panel cladding?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Day-to-day decisions on whether proposed building work complies with the building code are made by building consent authorities and held by territorial local authorities. I’m advised that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) does not hold this information.

Andrew Bayly: Isn’t fire safety in multi-storey buildings an important safety issue, following the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy in London last year; and, if so, why has she not suspended the use of aluminium composite panels?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Fire safety is indeed very important to this Government, but can I just say to the member that the circumstances around the Grenfell fire tragedy are very different to the New Zealand regulatory environment. So, unlike the UK, a building similar to Grenfell Tower constructed in New Zealand would have smoke detection, it would have a building-wide fire alarm, it would have an automatic sprinkler system, and an all-out evacuation plan. Grenfell Tower did not have all of these features.

Andrew Bayly: Why has she ignored the recommendations she received, as Minister, four months ago from expert fire engineer Dr Tony Enright to suspend the use and installation of aluminium composite panels on multi-storey buildings?

Hon JENNY SALESA: MBIE advice is that the report the member is referring to did not have sufficient supporting material to justify further action. Officials have sought an independent peer review, which is expected in the next few weeks.

Andrew Bayly: Why is she still refusing to even publish Dr Enright’s four-month-old report, so apartment and commercial property owners can read for themselves about the use of aluminium composite panels on their buildings?

Hon JENNY SALESA: The report that the member is referring to is currently being peer reviewed. But can I also state that we are very confident that the appropriate fair and robust process is currently being followed. Suspending code mark certificates without adequate evidence would have a considerable consequence, and so MBIE is going through the right process. We’re making sure that this report the member’s referring to is peer reviewed.

Questions to Members

Radio New Zealand—Annual Review 2016/17

1. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee: Has the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Select Committee had any further discussions about the briefing from Radio New Zealand Ltd about the 2016/17 annual review?

JONATHAN YOUNG (Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee): Yes, the item of business was on the agenda in today’s extraordinary meeting held by the committee.

Melissa Lee: What was the primary purpose of this morning’s meeting?

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s not responsible for that. It’s not a matter of responsibility for the chair of the committee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Who sets the agenda for the meetings? Do members of Parliament now not do that, and it’s entirely up to the clerks to decide what we talk about?

SPEAKER: The calling of the meeting is the responsibility of the chair. The requesting of a person or a paper is the responsibility of the chair. The examination of a witness is the responsibility of the chair. What actually happens within a meeting before it’s reported back, when it is not public—for him to report that would be a breach of privilege, and I’m not going to let him do it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The question was: what was the purpose? How can that be something that should be withheld from the public?

SPEAKER: We have had a system, for much longer than either of us has been here, of the consideration parts—and this was not a public hearing of the committee—that business which occurs in that phase, not being available for the public until the committee reports. I’m not going to help the member design a system which allows or encourages—because the member, of course, would himself be responsible—the member to breach the confidentiality of the committee.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

You can’t claim success about a surplus if you haven’t paid the bills, and that is the legacy of the last nine years. We wouldn’t ever do it at home. You could make your bank balance look fantastic if you didn’t pay the rates, if you didn’t pay your power bill, if you didn’t fix the washing machine. Your bank balance could grow, so that’s exactly what the previous Government has done, and we have seen the impact of that in so many areas.

We have seen the impact in health, and we know on this side of the House that if you underfund the health sector by $2.4 billion over nine years, that’s going to have some effect. It’s going to see leaking hospitals. It’s going to see sewage in the walls of our hospitals. It’s going to see frustrated health professionals, who we owe an awful lot to in New Zealand—the professionals who work in our health system, who have been stretched beyond belief by that underfunding. But you know what? Simon Bridges—do you know what he calls those issues? He says they’re an accounting issue. Simon Bridges says that sewage in the walls of our hospitals is an accounting issue. Well, you know what they say about accountants, with due respect to them: accountants know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, and that is the legacy of the previous Government.

We’ve also seen that in Christchurch, with the blowout in Earthquake Commission repairs. Gerry Brownlee called that “an unquantified liability”. It’s a little bit like going to the doctor and being told that you won’t be able to run a marathon tomorrow. Yep, it’s unquantified, but you kind of know what it is, don’t you. Christchurch knows all about a quantified liability—it’s called Gerry Brownlee. That’s what they know about.

We can see it right across all of the social sector. In early childhood education (ECE), we heard from Chris Hipkins today about ECE centres losing $105,000 since 2011, of parents being asked to pay more and more—the cost of basic public services shifting on to parents because the previous Government wasn’t prepared to invest the money that they needed to.

On this side of the House, we have a very different set of priorities. That party wanted to manufacture a surplus and give tax cuts that favoured the wealthy. On this side of the House, we want to invest in critical public services that New Zealanders deserve. We want to give every New Zealander a fair shot at success, and we have a plan to do that.

Much of what has been discussed this week we already knew, but there’s no way that a bland set of Government accounts can show just how badly rundown our public services are. The $2.4 billion underfunding of health will take time to turn around, but we have a plan to do it: a six-year plan to invest in health. We knew about the education gap and we will reinvest in education. In our mini-Budget, we have already reversed those tax cuts. We have a Families Package that will deliver, on average, $75 per week to 385,000 families. We made sure that there was room for an investment in our future, and that means making sure that we invest in giving people the skills that they will need for tomorrow—the ability to train and retrain.

It means restarting contributions to the Superannuation Fund. We hear about the great economic management on the other side of the House, and they didn’t put one cent into the Superannuation Fund from 2009 onwards. This side of the House is proud that we are investing in a future that is sustainable for all New Zealanders.

In the Budget in May, we will begin to address the social and infrastructure deficits that have been left to us by the previous Government. Our priorities are around health and education and housing and giving New Zealanders the public services that they have come to rely on in the past and that we will rebuild again. I have said it once and I will say it many times again: it will take more than one Budget to undo nine years of neglect. But on this side of the House we have a determination that we will invest in the future of New Zealanders. We have the allowances in the Budget to do that, and we balance those with being fiscally responsible. This is a Government that is committed to making sure that every New Zealander enjoys prosperity and success, unlike the previous Government, who were prepared to sit there like accountants, feeling good about the numbers on their spreadsheets but failing entirely to deliver to New Zealanders. That now changes.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Well, there you have it: Grant Robertson is more red-faced and moving faster than the last time he was in a hot yoga class, spinning. Because that’s exactly what you just heard from him—it’s from a confused Government that is still surprised that they’re in Government. They’re doing what they did every day in Opposition, which is to manufacture a crisis. But the difference here is Grant Robertson has stood before this House today and he has started to rewrite history. Well, the thing that Mr Robertson can’t get over is that he’s now in charge, and he needs to step up and stop making excuses and actually show some leadership—and he might share that with the Prime Minister.

Because, you see, the reality is starting to sink in. They promised everything during the election campaign, and now they cannot deliver. That’s why they’re resetting expectations. That’s why they’re starting to spin. That’s why we’re starting to see fake news all over the place.

Today, you’re going to hear from some of our spokespeople who were Ministers, who actually know what was going on, and who are actually the authority here about the record of the last Government. They’re going to peel back the covers of the rewriting of history that we just heard.

Jacinda Ardern stood on the platform in front of the television and she said she would be a different type of Prime Minister. I’ll give her this: she is already, after six months. She’s taken a new Government of six months and she’s turned it into one that looks like it’s been there for three terms. The reason for this is she can’t control Winston Peters, she is actually taking the Greens for granted, and Kiwis are starting to see the cracks. There are distractions everywhere, and Grant Robertson is trying to fix them.

So what have we seen over the last five weeks? This Government has just had five weeks of terrible news where they’ve been off message, just six months in. We had the Russian debacle, where we’re still waiting for the Foreign Minister to actually say it was the Russians. We had the Labour study camp issue. We had Clare Curran, who’s the gift that keeps on giving for everybody but the Prime Minister and her leadership. Then we have Jenny Marcroft and Tracey Martin, who were threatening a local MP over local problems—and, actually, they’ve been avoiding the media every single day. We had, last week, a decision that the Greens like, that every single New Zealander is going to have to pay at least $15 extra each time they fill up their pumps, just so Aucklanders cannot use a tram. You’ve got Shane Jones threatening commercial entities. And then, last week, we had a new MP, Paul Eagle, who’s either swearing at a panel beater or a constituent, but either one of those actually doesn’t work.

You see, there is no crisis other than leadership in Government. Grant Robertson realised they’ve overpromised, they’ve already spent it all, and now there’s none left. You see, they gave Shane Jones $3 billion during the negotiations to form the Government—a regional slush fund. They’ve just delivered $2.8 billion so that students can study for free in their first year, and the universities and others are saying there are no extra students coming. You’ve got Winston Peters, who said there’s a lot more money coming for Pacific aid, and then you’ve got the Greens, who have made the Government rip $5 billion out of the regions for those Auckland trams.

So when they say there’s a crisis, it’s because there’s no money left and Grant Robertson can’t deliver on those promises. There will be nothing for the teachers or the nurses or the midwives or the others they promised before the election, because they just didn’t think that they were going to be in charge. So Grant Robertson’s spinning as fast as he can. He’s dampening down expectations. It just won’t wash and it won’t stick.

Nikki Kaye, today, will speak about the great record that we have in education, where we went from $8 billion to $11 billion a year—an increase—and great results for Kiwis up and down the country, young New Zealanders who now have a better chance. In health—an extra $5 billion a year in spending, 50,000 more operations per year, 800,000 children are getting free doctors visits. That was a hard-working Government.

What I want to say is that a competent Government deals with issues when they come up. This Government needs to stop making excuses, stop manufacturing crises, stop spinning, stop lowering expectations, and just do their job.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Thank you very much. We have seen the polls. I want to make it very clear to the National Party that all the bombast in the world and all the effort without essence doesn’t cut it any more. Their leader’s in trouble. That speech from Todd McClay was probably an audition for a future challenge very soon.

Can I just say, I picked up a tribunal report from the Human Rights Review Tribunal on 26 March and, I’ll tell you what, it’s an absolute disgrace. They found, of all people, Kim Dotcom to be a sincere and honest witness—traits which were not common when it came to the Government and their senior law officer. It’s all in this report. It’s a disgrace.

Chris Penk: You’re a disgrace.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s no use junior shouting out there—nobody gives a rat’s derrière about what you think.

We know from court decisions that illegal activities were used to assist attempts at extraditing Mr Kim Dotcom. Astoundingly, though, activities were coordinated and sanctioned by the former Attorney-General, Mr Finlayson, the man who poses as the Blackstone of the Antipodes.

There was a raid, you remember, on 20 January 2012, and later that year, Justice Winkelmann found that the warrants used were invalid. This proved to be just the first of a series of poorly orchestrated examples of Government malfeasance. Time and again under the National Party they demonstrated malice and an incompetence in those raids, and they couldn’t even handle the fallout after it. Now, in 2015, Attorney-General Finlayson accepted a transfer for Mr Dotcom’s request for information—

Hon Maggie Barry: Not true.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —ostensibly pursuant to a Privacy Act. Here comes the gardener who’s now the lawyer—ostensibly pursuant to the Privacy Act 1993.

Hon Maggie Barry: Say it outside the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m saying it anywhere.

Hon Maggie Barry: Say it outside.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ll say it outside. I’ve got the report. It’s from a QC, not some junior weedeater. As expressed by the Human Rights Review Tribunal, this is what they say—

SPEAKER: No. I am going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw that description of the member.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw that description. The rationale, they said, of the Attorney-General was non-existent. So what was the real reason? Mr Finlayson, as a law officer representing the Crown, was the person responsible for litigation with Mr Dotcom. Thus, as discerned by the Human Rights Review Tribunal, Mr Finlayson’s motivations were likely—and listen to these words—“for the purpose of coordinating the response to the request with the Crown’s litigation strategy.” So he had a duplicitous purpose from the word go. This dodgy governance is unbecoming of an Attorney-General, the Crown’s chief law officer, and, as stated by the tribunal, “Sight must not be lost of the principle that those who seek to uphold the law must themselves obey it.” It appears the most basic constitutional duties were not followed. It’s unacceptable behaviour. It was blatant, and he got found out very badly.

You know something? This is the same member of Parliament and Attorney-General who, when he got a bill in front of him saying we should move the age from 10 years to 25 years to qualify, gave a certificate saying it was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Chris Penk: You can’t fill out your own forms correctly.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And then he stood, and then, junior—then, junior—he stood by while that member and others campaigned on 20 years. So if 25 years was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, how come 20 years wasn’t?

Chris Penk: You can’t fill out your own forms.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There you go—he’s marvellous. I can see why they got you. Obviously all the rest of the sheep were busy. Everyone might as well have got—see, shouting like that, that’s so typical of these neo-liberal twits they bring in in a certain political party.

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I didn’t use his name.

SPEAKER: Order! I know, but members might be neo-liberal, but they’re honourable members and not twits.

Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was going to wait until the Rt Hon Winston Peters had resumed his seat so as not to interrupt, but you yourself have interrupted. The member we’re talking about has shouted out on three occasions around dishonesty, suggesting dishonesty of a member of this House. That is unparliamentary language.

Chris Penk: I pointed out that the member who was speaking had not correctly filled out his own forms, so shouldn’t be casting aspersions on others’ ability. It was nothing to do with dishonesty. The people of New Zealand may regard him as dishonest, but that was not something that I was saying in the House today.

Hon Tracey Martin: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Order! No, no. The member has misused the point of order process.

Chris Penk: She has?

SPEAKER: No, the member has misused the point of order process, which has a much higher standard than the debating standard, to make an allegation against a member, one which those of us who know the record and have followed it—and if the member had followed it, he would have known that his allegation was incorrect. But in any case, whether or not he knew it was incorrect, he misused the point of order process and will withdraw and apologise.

Chris Penk: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you be requiring that member to withdraw and apologise for having used the word “twit”?

SPEAKER: I have dealt with that matter—

Hon Shane Jones: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: —already, and if it wasn’t for the support and advice of Mr Jones there might have been more serious consequences for bringing up a matter after the Speaker had dealt with it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Finlayson is a man who famously commanded his staff not to use the Oxford comma, and I suggest that he focus on developing an ethical compass before he starts dabbling in intricacies of grammar. In the case that he will return to practice as he leaves this Parliament by the end of this year, retaking a university legal ethics course should be a prerequisite, rather than posing around here as someone who knew the law when this report is a damning indictment of his misbehaviour in the highest office that this Parliament has where law officers are concerned. It was an abject disgrace, and he should be apologising to this House.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to speak in this general debate. If that speech from Winston Peters wasn’t an example of a distracted Government focused on conspiracy theories, attacking the backbench instead of talking about the issues that matter to New Zealand, I don’t know what was. This is a Government that was an accidental Government and already, within six months, is engaging in spin because they don’t have an agenda and because they promised far too much.

Let me take my colleague Mr Hipkins—or shall I call him “Trumpkins”—engaging in fake news. The facts are under our Government the education budget went from $8 billion to $11 billion. In early childhood education (ECE) it doubled—it went from $900 million to $1.8 billion. And school property—does Mr Hipkins remember the fact that when we came in, we had no idea of the state of school property or of condition assessments across every school in New Zealand? The Auditor-General report shows that. We then went and invested a third more. We went from $3 billion to $5 billion. That member can start to release lists like unusable buildings, but until he provides the detail he is just engaging in spin.

But let’s talk about the other issues that we know that this Government is focused on, and what they say and what it actually means. Here are my top five Labour lines of spin. The first one: “It’s not a tax; it’s an excise.” You try and tell the families in west Auckland that it doesn’t mean increased costs for them. You try and tell families in South Auckland that their food isn’t going to go up. Tell the people of Great Barrier Island, who have $3 at the moment for their fuel, that that doesn’t mean increases.

Then we heard about the billion trees: “We are going to plant a billion trees—but, actually, we haven’t planted any, because it’s winter. It’s winter, so we haven’t planted any trees yet. And half of them are going to be delivered by the private sector.”

“We’re going to deliver 100,000 houses—but, actually, we haven’t built any houses yet. And half of them are going to be delivered by the private sector.”

“We had the numbers for the Speaker.”—we had the numbers for the Speaker. On the first vote of this Parliament, to show their amateurishness, their inability to run this joint, we saw them fail on that first vote. And what did they do? They then handed us most of the chairs of our select committees and numbers of select committee places.

Again, this Government is totally focused on spin. They don’t have an agenda. They realise that they promised far too much, and they have now got Treasury and a whole lot of public servants—we know; they talk to us, also—in Wellington saying to them that you promised too much—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon NIKKI KAYE: —that the Government promised too much. The numbers don’t add up, so what they’re having to do is engage in spin. They’re having to create fake news. They’re having to rewrite history. They’re having to ignore the fact that we had the Canterbury earthquakes, ignore the fact that we had a decade of deficits, ignore the fact that we increased the education budget every single year that we’ve been in office, and create these stories to make up for the fact that they have to manage expectations in the Budget, that they can’t deliver on their promises.

It’s a Government of broken promises. It’s a Government of spin. If you wanted to leave yourself with one final line which, again, many New Zealanders are saying, “What are going to be the costs to my family as a result of this Government?”—because we know that they are looking at increasing taxes across the board. They said there would be no new taxes, but the reality is that when they said no new taxes, what they actually meant is no new additional taxes. The reality is that they are going to increase a range of existing taxes that are going to hurt people in their back pockets.

We’ve heard, in terms of business confidence, that business confidence is slumping. What businesses are saying in Auckland Central and Waiheke and other parts of New Zealand is that between the minimum wage going up, between the 90-day trial period going for businesses with over 20 employees, and the additional costs in terms of fuel, people can’t cope. So this Government has to front up, deal with the problems, accept that they overpromised, and stop spinning to New Zealanders, because they deserve better.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I had a whole speech written out, but I’ve just thrown that out the door after listening to that speech. Can I just go to what the last speaker, Nikki Kaye, referred to, and that was a reference to five political spin lines from this side. Well, if that member wants to play that game, let’s play it back. Five political spin lines from that side—very easy to identify, just from the two speakers that have already stood in this debate today.

Let’s start with number one that they like to spin, and they’ve been spinning in this House already, that we’re an accidental Government—an accidental Government. Clearly, the Opposition has still not worked out how MMP works. People did not go to the polling booths and accidentally forget to tick National. This is not an accident. We did not accidentally get the majority of votes. The public is not silly. They knew who they were voting for. They were voting for change, Nikki Kaye—that’s what they were voting for. They’ve got that change. They’re not thinking it’s an accident. It’s exactly what the majority of New Zealanders asked for, and that, Nikki Kaye, is how MMP works.

Number two political spin line: fake news. This side of the House is spreading fake news! Trumpeting the fake news line! Well, it’s not fake news. Everything we come to this House with is based on evidence. Fortunately, we have more access to information now that we are in Government, and so, actually, the picture looks bleaker than what we could have even imagined when we were in Opposition. Fortunately, though, we’re ready, because it’s not an accident that we’re in Government. We are prepared. We’ve had nine years to think about this. We’ve got policies ready to go. But the reality is we’ve got a lot of fixing up to do first because, unlike what the Opposition is saying—which is their third political spin line, where they’re saying there is no crisis—actually, everyone in New Zealand is increasingly seeing the fact that there are crises in far too many areas; in fact, more than what they had originally thought.

Don’t tell us on this side of the House, or the general public, that sewage going through the walls of Middlemore Hospital is not a crisis, don’t tell us on this side of the House that homeless New Zealanders and a lack of housing for New Zealanders is not a crisis, and please don’t try and tell us on this side of the House that the fact that we have an overwhelming number of children still living in poverty is not a crisis. The Opposition needs to own up to the fact that they did nothing to address these issues, and that’s why we’re at crisis point now. Fortunately, it’s not an accident that we’re in Government, and we are ready to fix these situations. They are our reality.

The fourth political spin line that I want to throw out there is that we’ve overpromised. Well, actually, there’s no such thing, because we put on paper what we could do. We have fiscal responsibility guidelines that all of the political parties that are in Government now agreed to. We didn’t do the irresponsible thing that that side of the House was proposing when they were in Government, which was offering up $400 million of tax cuts to the top 10 percent of income earners in this country. In fact, we’re doing the responsible thing and we are re-diverting that money to where the need is: health, housing, and education—areas that were incredibly underfunded by the previous Government.

We can see that by the fact that we have situations—which that previous education Minister should take some responsibility for—where we have schools falling down around us, or we have schools that don’t have the capacity to take the population of children that live in those areas, because not enough of an investment was made where it should’ve been. Instead, we had the previous Government trying to offer $400 million of tax cuts to the top 10 percent of income earners in this country.

The fifth political spin line that they are still rolling out, that they tried to roll out to win the election—before the 2017 election—is that we are the tax demons that the public should be worried about. Well, actually, it’s not the case at all. There is nothing that has been proposed by this side of the House in the last five months, nor will there be moving forward, that we did not put on the table before we went into that election. It’s about honesty. It’s about being honest with the public.

There have been nine years of neglect—and that’s the truth—under the previous Government. Thank goodness we are here. Thank goodness we have a plan. Thank goodness we are in a place to fix this.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): The member has cleared something up. They’re not the tax demons; they’re the excise demons, because that’s what they’re calling it now. Apparently, it matters to the Government. Well, as Nikki Kaye said, it certainly doesn’t matter to the people of Auckland, who have to pay 25c a litre more for their fuel—and wait, it’s coming to a region near everybody—because that’s what the Government wants to change. But it’s not tax; it’s an excise.

I want to start by stating that the issues at Middlemore Hospital are very concerning. But any doubt that the Government was manufacturing a crisis to cover the panic that they have over the promises was removed emphatically by the Prime Minister in question time today when, in answer to a question about why she didn’t use the very healthy surpluses left by the previous Government, it was because, apparently, of Middlemore Hospital and Dunedin Hospital.

Well, here’s the thing. We know about Dunedin Hospital, because the previous Government committed unambiguously to a $1.4 billion rebuild. If it’s a crisis, it’s a crisis entirely of the Government’s making, because they chose to put that money back into the Government’s balance sheet by—and Mr Peters will be very interested in this—borrowing from overseas banks, instead of using the very good equity interests that were coming from people like the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund, iwi, and others. ACC, potentially, could have invested in Dunedin Hospital as part of a public-private partnership. Their crisis is entirely of their own making, because they decided that that was ideologically flawed. But the only quantum of the extra money that we’ve now heard—and I think it’s highly exaggerated, but even if it wasn’t—is $200 million for Middlemore Hospital.

Now, they campaigned on adding $8 billion more into the health sector alone than a National Government would have over the next four years—$8 billion. They’ve got it in their fiscal responsibility statement. They know how they’re going to spend it, and, apparently, new revelations so far totalling $200 million are completely upsetting the applecart. I want to know, actually, what this extra $10 billion of capital spending is. So I asked the Minister, who is a member of what they purport to be the most open and transparent Government in parliamentary history, whether he will release the details of the advice given to him and the Minister of Finance, and the answer was “We’ll consider it.”—we’ll consider it. Apparently, there’s a crisis, they’ve got advice, but they don’t want to release the information.

So I asked: give us one example—one example—of something that was unexpected, and the answer was Nelson Hospital. Well, newsflash for the Government: we knew about Nelson Hospital, because we asked for the work to be done. There are serious seismic issues at Nelson Hospital, and they need to be remedied—hardly unexpected, hardly a crisis. That’s what Governments do. They replace things, they invest in things, and they fix things—and we did. Waikato Hospital, Wellington Regional Hospital, Burwood Hospital, and Christchurch Hospital were all rebuilt in the term of the previous Government as part of the multibillion-dollar investment in the asset stock that we made and the $5 billion extra—more than that, actually—that we put in to Vote Health for operational spending.

And what did we get out of it? Did we get the crisis that they’ve just manufactured? No, we got 50,000 more surgeries. We got no gurneys in the emergency departments. We got no cancer patients being flown to Australia. We got record levels of immunisation rates. We got 323,000 homes insulated under Warm Up New Zealand. We got results and, apparently, that’s a crisis.

Well, I suggest that it’s a manufactured crisis, and I’ll stand very proudly on that record. The Government needs to understand that when one is managing a nearly $17 billion vote in health, there will be issues like Middlemore Hospital. There will be things to deal with on a day-to-day basis, but that is not an excuse to repudiate the promises that they made to the nurses, to the midwives, to the allied health professionals, to the doctors, but most of all to the patients, that they would do something better. Because I can see what comes after a manufactured crisis. It’s those other two words we’re going to hear a lot of over the next few months: broken promises.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So I just sat and listened through Michael Woodhouse’s debate speech about all the hospitals that the previous Government—his Government—apparently fixed and ran so that they are functional. What else are we here for if it is not to ensure that our hospitals are running and functional? So all of the hospitals that are running and functional in this country—and they know this, and that’s why they’re spinning off the list of the hospitals that are running and functional—cannot ever take away from the sewage and mould in Middlemore Hospital in South Auckland, in my community, where I gave birth to my babies, where my community families go to to be healed, to be cared for.

So that’s why they know this. That’s why they’re spending this debate time talking about how they managed to keep some hospitals afloat—

SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member. Interjections are meant to be rare, reasonable, and, preferably, funny, not a constant, mindless barrage, Mr King.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: It’s all right. I wasn’t listening to him anyway.

So it is indicative that this previous Government are very aware of the mess that they have caused, and it is exactly what I am thinking about in my first general debate speech as the newly elected co-leader for the party—the particular crises that we have facing us, and the reason why it is going to be so important that we turn our country in a new direction, because the one that the nine years of the previous National Government put us on has resulted in and has worsened the very crises of inequality, climate change, and environmental degradation. They are the result of a flawed and broken economic system which concentrates the wealth and power into the hands of the few, while everyone else is left scrambling for the rest of the crumbs.

Having grown up in South Auckland and in the country communities of my whakapapa in the North and on the East Coast, I saw first-hand the devastating effect that the economic model that is currently operating had on those communities, including intergenerational poverty and the tragic and lasting effect of suffering and suicide in our regions also and in our urban centres. That is the impact that we are feeling here.

And that was the worsened situation, that very economic model that the previous Government pushed hard and drove hard and ended up in worsening impacts for people every day, to the point where in Aotearoa right now, two men—just two men—own more wealth than the 30 percent who are the poorest, the lowest-income New Zealanders in this country. That’s totally unacceptable in this country and it is also not sustainable. It is not economically sustainable. It is not morally sustainable. Half the nation’s wealth is concentrated into the hands of the richest 10 percent, and the whole other half of the nation’s wealth is fought over by the rest of the 90 percent.

We are losing our indigenous biodiversity at an alarming rate. We’ve got to understand the connections. We have got the highest rates of homelessness, child poverty, domestic violence, suicide among young people, and incarceration in the developed world. This is unacceptable, and what we need to do here in Parliament is turn our faces to the streets. We never do that. We hardly ever do that in this place. We need to turn our faces to the streets and be honest about the struggles and the challenges that New Zealanders, up and down our country, are facing.

It is in our confidence and supply agreement with Labour that the Green Party committed to working towards a transformational Government that would truly address the systemic causes of those crises of climate change, inequality, and environmental degradation. That’s why I’m proud to stand as co-leader, to be working with my Labour and New Zealand First colleagues towards that transformation, alongside my co-leader James Shaw. It is particularly exciting that between the two of us we are able to reach a broad cross-section of New Zealanders in this work—in this work of exciting New Zealanders that there is a way that we can be different, that we can change the direction that we have been heading in, so that all of our children can grow up in livable cities with enough to be able to live dignified lives with their families—where we can swim in our rivers and not even have to think about the safety of the water that is coming from our taps.

This is what we have set out to do. This is what inspired me to put my hat in the ring to become the co-leader of the Green Party. This is what I’m proud of working towards with the Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): There has been a not so subtle change in tune from this Government of late, because the tune of relentless positivity has been swapped out for something far more downbeat: relentless excuse-making. In less than six months, we see a vulnerable Government who are desperately trying to cover up their own shortcomings by lashing out, by deflecting attention away from problems of their own making, by turning to the classic but totally predictable manoeuvre of negative trash talk and manufacturing of crises. It was completely predictable because it’s a problem that they find themselves in of their own making: their massive over-promises to their support partners, their raising of expectations, their utterly ridiculous spend of $2.8 billion on free tertiary education, and their billion-dollar per year slush fund to Mr Jones. And despite finding themselves $700 million better off because of the fantastic economy that we delivered them, they simply have to dampen down the expectations of the public of their upcoming Budget because they simply can’t deliver on their promises.

Over the last nine years in the National Government, New Zealand developed into somewhat of a global star. When our leaders went on tour they were lauded for our rock star economy—our ability to raise social spending, to raise infrastructure spending, and to spread the tax burden more fairly, all while paying down debt. New Zealand’s record under our stewardship of nine years is not just a great record; it is a greatest hits record: 10,000 jobs created every month, putting unemployment well under 5 percent by the time we left office; 60,000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent households, the first time a Government has raised benefits in over 40 years; an education budget that went from $8 billion to $11 billion, with 85 percent of 18-year-olds now achieving NCEA level 2; early childhood education participation at 97 percent; $5 billion invested into school property; and the health budget increased to $17 billion, with 11 percent per head of population increase in funding, with 50,000 more operations per year, 800,000 children under 13 receiving free healthcare, with 97 percent of our children immunised, and with 6,900 more doctors and nurses. Hit after hit after hit single, and through it all, we brought back the fans. In 2007, a 747-load of people were leaving this country every week for better opportunities, and now they’re coming home because the opportunities are here.

In a shock move prior to the election, Labour took a break from their inherent negativity to swap out their grumpy old leader for a house DJ to play a hit they called “Relentless Positivity”. Well, to be fair, no one saw it coming, and on the back of this they cobbled together a line-up including a veteran one-man band on his farewell tour, playing the greatest hits from the 1970s, to act as producer, and an experimental, new-age, alt-indie, somewhat implosive act who almost missed the tour bus to play support. “Relentless Positivity” did OK. People got on board—well, 35 percent of people got on board—and now this new Government, they rode this wave of success with this somewhat short-lived single. They smiled. They enjoyed the sun on their backs. People were buying what they were selling. They were confident. They felt they had the wind at their backs. Their shoulders were back. Their heads were held high. Their posture was great—because if there is one thing that this Labour Government is good at, it’s posturing.

We can see from the formulation of this second album already, named “Relentless Posturing”, featuring the emo single “But you had nine years”. Well, while we had a greatest hits album of hit single after hit single, all they have is something that is sounding more like a broken record of complaining, working groups, broken promises, and raising taxes. This is an album that this country will pay for over and over again. So their second album is already looking like a flop. They’re sounding like a very different group because this PM’s bandmates are all playing from a different playbook. I don’t think they’re going to be getting much airtime on Radio New Zealand, but perhaps a tour in Russia may go down quite well. It turns out that this new Government is very much a one-term wonder.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): I would like to, first of all, thank my cheery friend Erica Stanford on the other side of the House there. We recently took a trip over to the United States of America together on a political exchange, and what we did was that we went around and we saw one of the most impoverished neighbourhoods that they have in America. There were people lining the streets. They had no homes but also they had no hope, and, unfortunately, we have communities like that here in New Zealand. Unless we do something really real to turn it around, we will be going down the same track that that Government had been on for the last nine years, which was allowing the homelessness to happen, allowing the lack of hope to continue, and growing a problem instead of facing up to the problem and trying to do something about it.

So, to my friend over there on the Opposition benches, I say cheer up, my friend, because Labour is here and we are going to sort things out. And we’re going to do such a good job in our first term that we will be elected to a second term, and maybe even a third term as well. So you’d best get comfortable over there on the Opposition benches.

I echo the sentiments of our Minister of Finance when he said that it was easy for the previous Government to run a surplus because they didn’t pay the bills. They didn’t pay the bills. So, unfortunately, when they talk about all of the promises that we’ve made, yes, we have made promises, but, no, we didn’t realise that we would have to take 10 steps back to be able to get to what we need, and that’s exactly what’s gone and happened.

Slowly, the wheels have started falling off the National Party bus—that’s right. What’s happened is that the bright blue that we’ve seen for the last nine years has started to become a very, very dull grey, and that’s something that we’re going to step up to. Labour are here. We’re in a coalition Government with our friends over here in New Zealand First and also our friends over here in the Green Party, and we are here to help solve some of the social problems that this previous Government has absolutely neglected.

The previous speaker also talked about education, and she was talking about how much of a mistake it was that Labour stumped up for free post-secondary education in the first year for those people that are going on to do vocational training, or even go to university as well. Now I know she doesn’t fully believe that because, in fact, we went to university together, and she was just as much of a fighter for rights—

SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask—when I stand up, the member resumes his seat. Members cannot say that members do not believe what they say in the House—all right—for very obvious reasons, because when you make that accusation, you are making an accusation which is much more serious. If a member has said something that they do not believe, then they are misleading the House, or even lying.

TAMATI COFFEY: Thank you for that clarification. What I meant to say was that our tertiary policy is sound. There are plenty of ex-student politicians in this House right now that believe in the prospect of young people going on to further themselves—and their families—to be game-changers by accessing higher education. That was what I was getting at.

Let’s talk about housing, because, as I travel around—and I’ve done quite a bit of travelling in the six months that I’ve been in this job—what I hear, time and time again, is the issue of housing and how much the last Government dropped the ball completely on housing. So as I travel around the rohe of the Waiariki, which includes Tauranga—which is absolutely bursting at the seams and in real need of some solutions—then I feel sorry for them because, unfortunately, they weren’t served well by the last Government. They spent a lot of money on a very big road, and that was good, but all these years later, and after that big investment, Tauranga is still gridlocked. In fact, if we don’t start sorting out the transport woes of Tauranga, very soon they’re going to be the Auckland—the gridlocked Auckland—of the future. So we, as a Government, have to step in there, and I’m glad that we’ve got initiatives on the table to make sure that we’re looking after some of our local roads and also looking after the safety of our people on our roads, as well.

I also want to just talk about some of the work that we are getting on with, right? It’s not been easy, but we in our select committee have been sitting there talking about how we’re going to make sure that if you’re a New Zealand citizen and you want to buy a New Zealand house, you have the right to. We have been committed to banning overseas speculators, and that’s not been an easy task. We have had to sit there and go through submission after submission, but we’ve come to a very good point where we’re ready to, very soon, report back to the House about that one goal of banning overseas speculators, and the reason that we want to do that is so that we can create opportunities for New Zealanders to get themselves on the property ladder.

We’re hoping that we can create opportunities for getting more State houses into New Zealand and to also help to fix up the homelessness problem, which has become terrible in my electorate. As those members are not able to stand here and say this in the House, I’m going to stand here and say it: we are going to fix this problem together. Ka pai.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, I think we had a revelation from the previous speaker, Tamati Coffey. We now understand why there’s a manufactured crisis, because we’ve learnt the name of the new tagline for the Budget that’s coming up: the “10-step-back Budget”. I think that’s a fantastic name, and it actually explains why we’ve got these manufactured crises and this fake news coming out. It’s quite astounding, really, when you consider that it’s just recently been announced that a half-billion-dollar tax windfall has come up, because the economy is doing extremely well, mainly through the tail of the management of the National Government, and companies pay more tax when the economy is doing well.

There’s half a billion dollars more available for the Budget that Labour have been working on than when they started, so there’s a considerable amount more money to spend than they think or than they realise or will admit. I think that’s quite interesting. When we’re talking about the education budget, as has been pointed out already, under National it went from $8 billion per annum up to $11 billion—a significant increase in education funding through that period.

Also set aside was $4.85 billion dollars for infrastructure funding in the education sector. That’s a phenomenal amount of money. And actually the Auditor-General last year was quoted as saying that under the time of the National Government, management of school property strengthened significantly, yet the rhetoric we’re hearing from the other side doesn’t match up to that at all. In fact, the Minister said the other day that $200 million of school buildings are not fit for purpose. Well, according to the ministry, a school building has a life of 50 years—50 years—so you would expect, given the number of school buildings around the country, that they will roll out of their lifespan during that time and that would be a regular occurrence.

I can tell them about some school buildings in particular. In the Marlborough colleges, where there has just been announced the $63 million co-location of those colleges, Marlborough Boys’ College and Marlborough Girls’ College, on to one site, the Minister has put that on hold.

Erica Stanford: No.

STUART SMITH: He’s going to do a review. Yes, he has. I know, it’s unbelievable. He’s put it on hold. He’s going to do a review and it’s going to take five weeks and then he’s going to consult the community. Well, the community’s already been consulted. A plan was made and the overwhelming public view was to relocate two schools on to one new site for better education outcomes for those students.

Marlborough Boys’ College was originally Marlborough College, built in 1920. To put that in context, there are two stairwells in the old part of the school because in those days they had a stairwell for the boys and a stairwell for the girls. I mean, that’s strange, but that’s the way they did it. In 1963, they shifted and built another school because they’d outgrown the property, and put the girls’ college on the other side of town. Why they put the boys on one side and girls on the other, who knows, but that’s what they did. And now we have the girls’ college—a much newer school, but it has leaky buildings. Leaky buildings. We know about this; we planned for it. In Marlborough Boys’ College we have earthquake issues and plumbing that is outdated and will cost a fortune to fix. Also, it doesn’t have the flexibility to put modern learning environments in, if that is the case. So it would be a waste of time to fix those schools, so the right education outcome was to build two schools on one site, giving the opportunity for more flexible outcomes, so that—particularly in the arts and languages—you can offer more choices for students, because it wouldn’t really be viable to do otherwise because of the small number of students on that site.

They are also looking at putting in a tertiary aspect. This year, Marlborough boys’ and girls’ colleges have a school of wine that they’ve started, which will take students through level 2 and level 3 NCEA, getting all the credits that they need but with a focus on wine. So, for example, their literacy credits are gained through doing geography on the geography of wine.

So I’m calling on the Minister to actually man up and do his job. When you’re a Minister of the Crown, you are there to make decisions and move things forward. The community expects an outcome. They don’t want to be left hanging, they don’t want another review—there’s already a decision been made. They’re only in this position because they have a philosophical hatred of public-private partnerships and they’re going to pay for it themselves, and now they’ve found out a massive hole that they were warned would be in their budget. They were warned well ahead of time, and now they’re back-pedalling and trying to find a way out of it. So, Mr Hipkins, man up and do your job.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. Well, my colleague David Clark used to say “Nine long years” but he actually should have said “Nine long years of neglect and underfunding by the then National Government.” Neglect—what is neglect? It’s a failure to care properly for something. What neglect has been highlighted recently? The neglect of Middlemore Hospital—the neglect of the assets of Counties Manukau District Health Board.

It’s a shame that I had to hear about the Stachybotrys, the black mould that is in KidzFirst, from the media. I think it’s absolutely abhorrent that the last Government did not know that there were seven buildings within the asset management of Counties Manukau District Health Board that were not fit for purpose. I think it’s absolutely outrageous that the Ministry of Health and the previous Minister can say that they had no idea these issues existed. How can you deliver health services when your hospitals are compromised and when, actually, the state of the asset where we deliver our services can hurt, if not kill, our people?

So I was absolutely horrified to get a ring from Phil Pennington—and I want to acknowledge him and Radio New Zealand, actually, for following through and finding out that this black mould existed in my buildings, my facilities, as a member of Parliament in South Auckland. He asked me: am I happy that these things have happened? Am I happy? Of course I’m not happy. None of us should be happy that our district health board (DHB) assets are so not fit for purpose that patients, including children and including people at surgical wards and the burns units, have been in a building that if one of those walls was exposed, they would be at risk.

You go to hospital to get better; you do not go to hospital to get sick, and I think that typifies the lack of investment by the last Government in the health sector. Congratulations to my colleague the Hon Grant Robertson, who progressively and consistently highlighted the underfunding in the health sector.

Why has this happened? Because those DHBs’ chairs, boards, and members were held accountable by the Minister for returning surpluses, and so they neglected to repair and maintain those buildings because they chose to deliver services to people. Now, we all know that people are the most important, so the fact that our DHBs chose to focus the money they got from the Government on delivering services is something that we should applaud. But, at the same time, there were obviously barriers, and that National Government, through their Minister of Health, didn’t enable those DHB board representatives to communicate—based on what they’ve told us—that they had problems with an asset that was not fit for purpose. It’s an absolute scandal, and I think, over a period of time, we will know when the Ministry of Health told their Minister about what was happening.

I also want to focus on the issue of homelessness. I went to a forum earlier this week hosted by a group called LinkPeople, who are part of the Housing First initiative. LinkPeople have been working with homeless people living on the streets. We have this misconception that homeless people like living on the streets. Well, can I tell people, they don’t. Homeless people want homes. Homeless people want to be treated with respect and dignity. When you work alongside people who are living on our streets, talk to them, and find out the circumstances that have driven them to be on the streets—what you need is a responsive housing sector delivered through Housing New Zealand that can provide those houses to our most vulnerable New Zealanders.

At this morning tea the other day, I was with Shiloh and Lewis. Shiloh and Lewis have been living on the streets for seven months. They’ve engaged proactively with Housing First. They’ve been to the Ministry of Social Development. They’ve wanted a house and been patient. They got notified that they had a house—fantastic news. But there’s over 30 other homeless people in Manurewa and over 250 families in Manurewa waiting for a house to be built, and that’s the neglect of this National Government in not taking responsibility for providing houses to those most in need.

I, again, think that if we want to measure the success of a Government, it’s whether or not they can house every single New Zealander who’s in a vulnerable situation. Kia ora.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I’m very pleased to round off this general debate today for the National caucus, and what we’ve heard is a party, or, actually, a combination of parties, that started with big promises that have now moved into backing down on their promises and have quickly moved into broken promises. So what do they do? They manufacture a crisis to distract the New Zealand public from their lack of action, their lack of ability to govern New Zealand, and that’s exactly what’s happened.

One of the things I guess they’ve realised in the last six months is that it takes more than talk to lead a country. It takes more than talk to respond to whatever challenges come a Government’s way. I’m interested in the member that spoke before me, Louisa Wall. If she was the member of Parliament responsible in the area of Middlemore Hospital, why didn’t anyone at Middlemore raise it with her? And, if she did know, why is it only coming to the attention of this Parliament in the last month? That would be a question I would ask.

One of the other comments that was made by an earlier speaker was about delivering for New Zealanders. Well, actually, that speaker suggested that the last Government focused on the top 10 percent, so I want to focus my time on what our Government did for low and middle income New Zealanders. One of the first things that that Government did when they came into office was to scrap the pay equity legislation which would have increased incomes for lowly paid women workers. We delivered $2 billion for women on low incomes. They scrapped it.

The other thing that members opposite have wanted you to focus on, or wanted the public to focus on, is anything other than what the Government did for low and middle income New Zealanders. So I want to go through some of those things, because that side just wants to leave some fake news out, whether it’s in education, where we actually increased early childhood funding—

Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know I may be making a fool of myself up here, but I’m struggling to understand how one of our members was told that they can’t suggest or imply that one member is making something up, and then in this House it’s OK, it seems, to accuse the Labour side of giving fake news. The connotations of fake news are pretty serious.

SPEAKER: OK, the member can resume his seat. I’m listening carefully to the member. She’s skirting up to the line, but not going over it like members did on this side.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Mr Speaker, thank you.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: One’s true; the other’s not.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It’s interesting. They want facts—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —so I’ll give them facts.

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. Mr Brownlee, you are well aware that you don’t comment on my rulings from your seat after I’ve made them. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So in the areas of income, what’s important is the delivery of new jobs. We delivered 180 a day—10,000 new jobs a month—which provides families with incomes. Reducing the number of people who live on benefits—60,000 fewer children are living in benefit-dependent homes.

So what does that side do for low-income families? Oh, they don’t give them the winter energy payment—“Oh no, no, we won’t give it to them. They don’t deserve that.”—whereas if it had been a National Government, they would have got to have kept more of what they earned.

What else do they do? Oh, they’re not going to put any taxes in—definitely not before they go back to the 2020 election. What’s one of the first things they do? Increase the petrol tax. Who does that hit the hardest? Some of the low-income families that you purport to represent—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —and you hit them hard.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Sorry, Mr Speaker—that the Government purports to represent.

This side of the House increased benefits for the first time in 43 years. I’m sorry if that side of the House don’t like to hear the truth of the results that this side of the House delivered for low and middle income families, whether it was free GP visits, whether it was focusing on rheumatic fever, whether it’s lifting educational achievement and increasing early childhood education participation, whether it was reducing the number of youth crime across the country, or whether it was reducing the number of victims of crime—38,000 fewer victims of crime—and reducing the number of assaults on children.

But what that Government is priming this country for are cuts, and I want to give the House one example: the rescue helicopters in Rotorua and Taupō. That Government is proposing to cut a vital, vital service because they’ve finally figured out they haven’t got enough money to deliver the big promises that they started off with. So they’re just getting the territory right to cut services and to cut programmes, and it’s a myth that that side of the House is delivering.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In accordance with a decision of the Business Committee and following further conversation with the shadow Leader of the House, I seek leave for the notice of motion for the appointment of the Controller and Auditor-General to be set down as Government order of the day No. 1 tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. It will be so set down.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 10 April on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

Justice Sector (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. I remind members that this is the debate on the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises as reported on by select committees. The time remaining in this debate is three hours and 56 minutes. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating the question that the reports of the committees relevant to the justice sector be noted. The Hon Ruth Dyson moved that progress be reported, and the call is now available to her or any other member.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Oh, thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the justice—I don’t want to say Estimates. It’s not the Estimates; it’s the annual review. Look, we had a very interesting conversation with the Commissioner of Police at the Justice Committee, and I do just want to canvass for the House the conversations we had and the discussions we had in that select committee. One of the issues this Government is going to confront is the issue of the cost of the extra 1,800 police, and I see the Minister of Police in the chair there.

It’s fair to say the cost estimates of this grand promise of an extra 1,800 police—you know, almost a thousand extra police on top of what the previous National Government promised in Budget 2017—are going to be expensive. It’s particularly apposite, I think, in light of the scaremongering we’ve heard from Government members in the last few days and in the last few hours about how there is no money and the cost to social services and to the State sector is so vast.

Well, we had the Prime Minister, in October last year, talking about the cost of an extra 1,800 police being about $100 million. The same day, interestingly, she also said it would be $80 million, and, of course, we’ve also had an estimate from the Prime Minister of $40 million. Now, that’s all down at the bottom end of the scale. You could make, I think, legitimate criticism about how it’s a bit strange to have three different estimates all for the same number of police officers, but it’s certainly down at the bottom end of the scale. But what we heard in the select committee was that the actual cost is going to be far higher than that—at least $250 million; possibly, I would venture to suggest, probably nearer the $300 million over the next three years. So let’s wait and see where we come. The police Minister has been noticeable by his reticence to give any numbers whatsoever. We’ll wait and see. We’ll have to wait till the Budget.

The second issue I want to canvass is the very important issue of standards, because we had an interesting conversation with the police commissioner where he assured the Justice Committee that standards in the police will be maintained. That’s what he said. He said to us that standards will remain high—they will remain high—and they will be maintained.

But what we see is standards already changing. The physical appraisal test—it’s easier to pass. They don’t have to have a swimming certificate any more. My fear is that the Government’s desire to meet their very, very ambitious goal of 1,800 extra police, sworn officers, over the next three years—my worry is that that will lead to a diminution in standards, and that will be to the detriment of the public of New Zealand.

So I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but I am very concerned it will happen, just because of that political pressure they’re going to come under. I mean, this is a promise—it’s a commitment—in the Labour - New Zealand First coalition agreement. It’s a very, very significant commitment, and my worry is that those standards will be lowered, to the detriment of the safety of the New Zealand public. And we canvassed that in the annual review hearing with the police commissioner.

The other issue I want to cover is, of course, the issue of Better Public Services, because we haven’t heard a lot about Better Public Services from the new Government in recent weeks and months, and I think there’s a very good reason for that. It is that they are embarrassed by their popgun decision, basically, to abolish the Better Public Services targets that the previous Government had set in place. If I was a Minister in the Government, I would be embarrassed by that as well, because it was actually just simple spite. It was very churlish of the Prime Minister to say, “We’re getting rid of these Better Public Services targets—we’ll have our own ones, but we’re just going to get rid of the previous Government’s ones.”

Hon Maggie Barry: That’s not very positive.

CHRIS BISHOP: And I just want to quote to the House—exactly; not very positive, my colleague Maggie Barry says—what I asked the police commissioner and what he said. I said to him, “Why are targets important?”, and this is what he said: “Because they drive performance. The right targets drive the right performance.” He’s exactly right, and that’s why the police have their own nine targets, that the Government, to their credit, is keeping in place—so far.

So my question, really, for the Government and for the Minister and for the House is: if the police commissioner himself says that the right targets drive the right performance, why would you want to get rid of a target like having 10,000 fewer serious crimes by 2021? Who could possibly object to having that as a target? This wasn’t just whipped up willy-nilly; this was a target set by the Government, in consultation with the police—one that is achievable and realistic, and, of course, once you set that target in place, the police and the officials driving it put in place the systems and the plans and the mechanisms to get to that target. So why, if the police themselves back these targets and back setting performance targets in place for their own organisation, would you want to have a Prime Minister who stands up and, on a whim, in response to a question, gets rid of Better Public Services targets? I think it’s disgraceful, Mr Chair.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you for the call, Mr Chair. Well, what an absolute hospital pass of a hand grenade that this Government got within the justice sector. We have got an outrageously high prisoner number—outrageously high prisoner number—and climbing, and climbing. What we’ve heard from Mr Bishop just now is an example about perhaps why that’s occurred. He talked about the cost of the extra 1,800 police, and what’s been brought up, at least this week, is highlighting how the National Party always knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing—the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

You know, we heard Matt King last night, when he was speaking on this sector as well, and, apparently, the police force are all hunky-dory—they’re all happy. He spent five minutes patting them on the back saying how hard working they are—because they are—but what he didn’t recognise was how much harder they’ve had to work under the National Government just to get their heads above water. How can the police force be happy and hunky-dory when we’ve got stats like this?

Riddle me this, Mr King—riddle me this. From 2012 to 2017, there’s been a net loss of 16 sworn police officers—a net loss. At the same time, over that same period, there’s been an increase of 400,000 in the New Zealand population. Negative—

Matt King: Fake news.

DARROCH BALL: Oh, it’s fake news—there was a member that said, “Fake news.” I can table this document if he wants. That’s just sworn police officers, but that member knows, being an ex-police officer, that there’s non-sworn police officers—the backroom people, right? So if you add them all up, the total police number, including the sworn and non-sworn, was 12,109 in 2012. That went down, by the time it got to 2017, by 269 in total. That’s the level of underfunding, which has been quite the topic this week and, I’m guessing, since the election, really, when this Government has looked at the books and looked at the infrastructure, but especially over the last couple of weeks—the total underfunding of basic services in this country.

Now, one thing that John Key promised when he came in, in 2008, was to ensure that the police numbers didn’t go down below the ratio of 1:500 sworn police officers per number of people. That was 498 in 2012, and it’s gone skyrocketing to 542—1:542—in 2017. That’s the highest it’s been—the highest it’s been. But, according to the National Party, who’ve been taking speeches on this justice sector, it’s been hunky-dory. It’s been fine! The justice system is fine! Oh, and what did we hear as well? Crime’s down, apparently. Crime’s down! The youth justice system is working quite well!

If crime was down, why have we got overflowing prisons? Think about it in a very logical sense. Why would we have to be spending an extra billion dollars on another prison if the crime was down?

Matt King: It is.

DARROCH BALL: See, this is the fake news. They just don’t get it. They just don’t get it. They just can’t understand the basic equation. How can it be down if the prison numbers are going up—skyrocketing?

The other thing that Mr Bishop was talking about was Better Public Services targets. Well, I’m pretty certain that he has forgotten that just recently, when the National Party was in Government, they got rid of a certain Better Public Services target because they didn’t achieve it—because they didn’t achieve it. The target I’m referring to is the target to reduce reoffending. Was that the one that we were talking about, Minister? The target to reduce reoffending by 25 percent—the National Party, when in Government, didn’t even achieve 5 percent. They didn’t even achieve a 5 percent reoffending reduction.

What did the National Party want to do? What did the National Party want to do? We just got lectured by that member, Mr Bishop, who said, “Why would anyone want to get rid of targets? Why would anyone want to get rid of Better Public Services targets?” So National didn’t readjust the target or explain why they couldn’t and say, “Let’s put more resources in.” They got rid of it. They just got rid of it.

National also had a target to reduce violent offending. What happened with violent offending? It went skyrocketing. It went up. So what happened to those targets, Mr Bishop? You got rid of them. The National Government, in the last year, has underfunded this sector.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Chair. The thing that amazes me at the moment is that I’m waiting for a Government member to stand up and tell us what you’re doing. Actually be positive; be aspirational. Tell us what you’re doing, because all I’m hearing at the moment—all of you, you’re acting like the Opposition; not like the Government.

If I can, firstly, acknowledge that it’s good to have the Minister of Police here in the debating chamber and also—

Hon Todd McClay: Rather than in the gym.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s right. And can I acknowledge Greg O’Connor too, who sits on the Justice Committee and, of course, has got a big background in terms of public service with our police service and with our association.

I want to just very quickly raise an issue. Mr Ball just got up and made a huge issue about—his last point that he was trying to drive home was around the prison population. And yet, a fortnight ago, he voted down a bill that was in this Parliament that would have actually stopped people and helped prevent people from going back into prison.

Darroch Ball: No, it wouldn’t have.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, it would have; yes it would have. Let me explain the bill to you. The bill was quite simply this: anyone that’s been convicted and, as part of their sentencing, they’ve got the opportunity to do community service—right? So they go out and they’ve got an opportunity to put something back into the community, and they’re collecting a Government payment of some sort, and they refuse, after three warnings, to turn up and actually engage in their community service, then they can start to have some of that taxpayer-funded payment reduced—right?

Now, the reason for that was to give them another chance and stop them going back into the prison system. So what did Mr Ball do? What did Mr Ball do to try and support that bill and stop people going back into the prison system—the one that he just stood up and made a big deal about? How do we stop people going back into prison? What did he do? He voted the bill down. He wouldn’t support it. So don’t stand up there preaching to us and lecturing us, Mr Ball, that you’re worried about the numbers in our corrections system when you didn’t support a bill that actually would have stopped those numbers from growing. You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

There’s one issue that I do want to raise, and that Mr Bishop raised, while I’ve got the Minister of Police here and while Greg’s in the debating chamber also. This is a genuine concern. The 1,800 new police officers—that’s great. We’ve invested heavily in technology. We recognise that technology is working and our front-line staff, especially, have been huge beneficiaries of that. It’s actually got front-line police officers out of the police stations and back out on the roads and in amongst the public, where the people like to see them and where they do their best work. So that’s great. Chris has highlighted the issues around the funding. I’d like someone—I know that Greg’s probably going to take a call—to stand and actually tell us what the real funding for this policy is going to be.

The other really important issue that he raises is around standards, and this is one that I personally am very worried about. It is the lowering of standards. He raised just one simple standard that may be removed and that’s the requirement to be a proficient swimmer or to be confident in the water. In my experience, in the history of the police service, a lot of the bravery awards that have been handed out relate specifically, normally, to police officers turning up to a scene where a vehicle has gone into a river and the occupants are trapped, or someone, for whatever reason, has got into difficulty in a rip. Police officers will often respond to that. They’re the first responders, they’re the first ones there, and they have to have a basic ability to be able to actually enter the water and recover and bring that person back to safety.

If we’re talking about starting to remove standards and remove those requirements, I’m going to be the first one to stand up and say that I’m deeply concerned about that. If Greg’s taking a call, then I’d like you to talk to that and give us some comfort around the fact that there’s not going to be a reduction in standards—they are important—and how much the policy is actually going to cost. These are fundamentally very important things.

I just want to very quickly acknowledge the staff in the justice sector. It’s huge—70 percent of them are front-line workers. They do a tremendous job. I know this through personal experience when I was the Associate Minister of Justice. We were having these terrible dairy robberies and assaults. We went out and did public meetings, and I felt fully supported with officials—as high as the deputy secretary—in those meetings, to hear what the genuine concerns were and then to develop a very robust set of policies and how we were going to address those.

I am going to run out of time, but I was going to talk about our young serious offenders policy that we rolled out just before the last election. It was going to take some serious steps towards addressing what was a serious issue overall. Youth crime has reduced. But we did have those 150 young people that were committing top-end violent-type crimes. We had a very good policy in place to deal with that. I’d like to know whereabouts that’s going. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I feel very privileged to say that I’m the Minister of Police—one of the best police services in the world, one of the least-corrupt police services in the world.

We love coalition politics, because, under the Labour - New Zealand First coalition agreement, we have promised to deliver 1,800 more police into our communities. Let me know where this has come from—let me know where this has come from. It’s from a whole lot of conversations that Darroch Ball, New Zealand First MPs, and Labour MPs have had in our communities with people who are concerned about law and order in our neighbourhoods, in our communities. We decided we needed to do something about this.

Let me tell you something about the New Zealand police force and the latest workplace survey. Over 80 percent of the men and women who serve in our service said that they were totally committed to the New Zealand police service and they value and love the communities they serve. But over 60 percent of those men and women who filled out the survey said that they experience undue workplace stress and that they weren’t delivering on the promises they were making to their communities.

In a nutshell, what we’ve got is some very committed men and women who value the job, value the communities, but just know they’re not resourced to do the job that needs to be done. This is why Labour and New Zealand First have said, “We’ve got to deal with this.” So we are putting more police on the streets in our communities than has ever been done before—about 20 percent more police into our neighbourhoods. This is the biggest increase in the history of the New Zealand Police.

Let me tell you a couple of things about the New Zealand Police. They have a Prevention First operating model. It is absolutely fantastic. It is a sea change to the way that they do things out there. They’re about preventing crime. Mr Bishop, the target you talk about—a reduction in serious crime—still exists. It is still there. We are not removing that whatsoever. What we are doing is we’re going out there. We’re working with our communities to prevent crime. The last thing the police want to do is put people in jail. What they do want to be doing is working with our communities, with the agencies, making sure that people don’t end up in jail. There are some fantastic programmes that our police service is running to ensure this happens.

Let me tell you a couple of things about our police service as well. In the last 10 years, they have implemented 47 specific recommendations for change. There has been a sea change in the culture of New Zealand’s police service. Mr Bishop is worried about the new recruits coming through. I can assure him that I have been to all but one graduation since I have been the Minister, and the new recruits are first class. In fact, the number of people we’re getting into the service who have university degrees, who have worked overseas, and who have wide experience has increased substantially. One thing that we’re working incredibly hard on is ensuring that our police service represents the diverse communities that it serves.

Last year, we celebrated 75 years of women in the police. Now, we’re not where we want to be—ideally, we want to be at 50 percent—but the New Zealand police service is working incredibly hard to get those figures up. This is an organisation which, I believe, is incredibly well run. The commissioner has a vision for where the New Zealand Police wants to be, and we buy into it 100 percent. I am forever grateful, and I think, as New Zealanders, we should be grateful for the men and women who are out there doing the sorts of jobs that we wouldn’t want to do.

Last year, there were 27,000 general mental health call outs that the police had to respond to. There were 20,300 attempted suicide events that they had to attend; so they’ve changed the programme. In the past, they had three hours on how to deal with mental health; now, in the Police College, there are 50 hours on how to deal with mental health call outs. This is a service that’s responding to the needs of our community. Last year, $300 million worth of assets were restrained, $168 million forfeited. Last year, the New Zealand police service dismantled 10 significant transnational crime groups operating in New Zealand and preying on our communities.

The last thing I would like to say is that we are rolling out 1,800 police because we think this is the right thing to do and it needs to be done. Mr Bishop talked about the cost; well, this is coming in the Budget, but let me tell you that we believe the New Zealand Police service disrupted about $1.6 billion worth of harm in our communities. So when the member says, “How much does it cost?”, I say, “Not enough.”

MATT KING (National—Northland): It’s a pleasure to take a second call on this. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Stuart Nash. I’m actually quite heartened to hear some of his language about the police, being an ex-police officer. I think he’s going to be almost as good as the Hon Judith Collins in the role. He talks about having an extra 1,800 police, and I hope—I hope and I pray—that that’s what’s going to happen. During the election campaign, they promised 1,800, and the language has changed now to “strive towards”. I really do hope that that’s the number they get to.

I want to talk about what Darroch Ball talked about earlier. Previously, I talked about the police in a good light because I wanted to acknowledge them, much like Stuart Nash did, and the good job that they do. I never put forward that they were doing a brilliant job; I’m just saying that they don’t get the acknowledgment, and I was praising them because that’s what I felt was the right thing to do.

So the language has changed, and it’s now “strive towards”. I see that’s in the document. Well, what’s going to happen when you get 1,800 new police—you actually have to have 3,000 new recruits to account for the natural attrition, and 3,000 new recruits is one hell of an ask over three or four years, whichever Government’s in.

If you talk about funding and resourcing, they’ve got to have vehicles, they’ve got to have radios, they’ve got to have laptops—they’ve got to have everything that comes; it’s not just a bum on a seat. So there’s a hell of a lot of cost. I make no apologies, on our side, for looking at the dollars and actually being realistic about how much it’s going to cost. It’s going to cost a lot more than what you’re allowing for.

I remember, as a hard-working detective in Kaikohe, in the mid-2000s, under a Labour Government, I had a stack of serious crime files on my desk. There were four detectives in our office and we had one car with 180,000 kilometres on the clock.

Chris Bishop: And a few king-hits.

MATT KING: Ha! Talk about under-resourcing; we were begging for resources—four qualified detectives doing their best, in one car. You’ve got to have bums on seats, but you’ve got to have the resourcing to go with it. So, like I say, I hope the Hon Stuart Nash delivers on his promise; I really do. I genuinely believe that.

In terms of lowering standards, I see the physical competence test has changed, in that if you’re weak in one area and you’re strong in another, they can carry across, like carrying across credits. That is a lowering of standards by another name; it absolutely is. You don’t get to choose, when you’re chasing an offender, whether you’ve got to climb a fence or swim through a river. You don’t get to say, “Oh well, I’m good at one but I can’t do the other.” You’ve got to do it all. So, like I say, I hope that they get where they want to. I also recall that just having a bum on a seat—it needs the back up of resourcing, but I would have forgone a pay rise in my day to have an extra one or two people to share the load. So 1,800 police—I wish you all the best.

Now, I’d like to acknowledge the men and women that work in the New Zealand Police. They do a great job. It’s a hard job, and I say to them that as long as I’m in Parliament, they have a friend in this House. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start by acknowledging my two ex-colleagues here, the Hon Mark Mitchell and Matt King. It’s interesting listening to them, and, gentlemen, I do share your concerns around the way that the crime rate has gone and where we are now. But I can assure you that you did join the police many years ago—I’m sorry, Mr Chair; the honourable gentlemen did join the police many years ago. I will ask you to remember that when you did join, those who went before you said, “You’re not as good as we were.” That tends to be a generational refrain. I suspect that when those two gentlemen joined, police officers had to be 5 foot 8 and couldn’t wear glasses, and there were about 2 percent female in the job. So, to those gentlemen, I can absolutely reassure them that times have changed, and they will continue to change—in the same way that the types of activities that the police carry out also need to change.

Also, one of the speakers previously mentioned Better Public Services and how, applied, they were some sort of panacea—that the whole Government service was going to be a better place; cure everything, perhaps, from the common cold to the latest disease to come out of the Third World. However, those Better Public Services actually became cheaper public services.

Just to give an example of how they did fail, in choosing Better Public Services and very specific targets, often—and I found it in the police—it’s about a five-year lead in. You can get a strategy in place and things are working well, and often when you change strategies, when you change emphasis, it’s about five years before you really start to see the results of those changes.

A very good example of that is methamphetamine in gangs. Through the period of about 2008 to 2011, at a time when all the emphasis was going on to areas where the surveys were showing the public were most concerned, what wasn’t coming up was gangs and methamphetamine. Now, the police officers in those situations, whether it be the district commanders, right down to the police on the ground, knew that they had a major burgeoning problem with gangs and methamphetamine. There was a methamphetamine strategy introduced, which did have some effect in the early days, but, ultimately—and as I, in my previous position, went around the countryside, I was being regaled, being lobbied hard, by district commanders and area commanders saying, “We’ve got to get the right to police our gangs, because if we don’t, they are going to grow out of control.” But, again, because those gangs weren’t showing up as a problem in the surveys, the work wasn’t being done. In fact, I can tell you now that there were people being told they weren’t to police, they weren’t to do search warrants on methamphetamine; they were to leave the gangs alone. The emphases were in other areas, and we are now paying the price for that.

As we sat through the Government departments—and I have to say that, as a new member, it was pleasing to see the emphasis and the examination we can put our Government departments through—I think anyone who’s worried about where their taxpayers’ money goes should see the hard work that’s done by these organisations, particularly emphasising or focusing on the area of corrections and on police. It was summed up, I think, as we spoke to the Department of Corrections, who talked about, and I can quote: “Prisoners with gang connections are nearly twice as likely to reoffend as those without gang affiliations. In 2016-17, gang-affiliated prisoners made up about one third of the prison population but were responsible for two thirds of the prison assaults. Gang levels in prison have nearly doubled in the last decade. Corrections strategy is spreading the gang population around the prison so no clusters occur.”

So there’s a clear problem of gangs in prisons. Also, when we talked to the New Zealand Police, the commissioner pointed out the very clear problem that gangs—current, home grown—are exacerbated by the returning prisoners from Australia. We now have a situation where over half the people in prisons are either gang or gang associates.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): The annual review reports for the Ministry of Justice, Department of Corrections, and New Zealand Police make for sobering reading. This is an expensive sector. It’s an expensive sector to fail in. It’s expensive in real terms—in terms of harm to victims, to their whānau, and to communities, and in the broader harm to our society of having crime on the rise, having more and more of our population locked up in prison—and it’s also expensive in terms of the bottom line.

This round of annual reviews confirms, sadly, that New Zealand continues to imprison people at record rates, while doing that does nothing to reduce crime—in fact, it does the opposite. So we have learnt that spending billions of dollars imprisoning, essentially, people from certain demographics—Māori and Pasifika young men—convictions have gone up for serious crime. Convictions for serious violence and sexual offending have gone up by 5 percent. Convictions for illicit drug offending have gone up by 15 percent—and we know that that’s in the most serious types of drug offending. We know that, in terms of offending relating to the supply, manufacture, or importation of methamphetamine, those types of offences are about to overtake the prevalence of cannabis-type offences in our justice system. No wonder our courts are overburdened and hardly functioning. Offences relating to robbery and theft are up by 11 percent, and, incredibly, offences relating to weapons are up by an astounding 20 percent.

We keep hearing that the justice policy under the previous nine years was somehow effective, but the numbers are there in black and white in these annual reviews. The backlogs are up. Prison numbers are up. Nine years of policies being adopted to make politicians look tough whilst we knew that they were making our communities less safe and costing us billions of dollars that we could have invested in policies that we knew could have reduced crime—that was callous. It’s unacceptable.

It’s also horrifying to note that whilst we were imprisoning record numbers of people and crime was on the rise, National contracted Serco, a multinational corporation, to run some of our busiest prisons. At Mt Eden prison, this resulted—and most people will remember this, because New Zealand was horrified. That correctional facility saw the rise of things like fight clubs, contraband, and corruption. That contract had to be terminated—a failure. But we’re still under a 25-year contract for Auckland South Corrections Facility with Serco.

Those types of problems didn’t exist at this kind of level in New Zealand before that so-called public-private agreement to privatise our prisons—let’s call a spade a spade. Our prisons are now at capacity, and, incredibly, this report, in this previous period, shows that some 49 percent of people that we imprison are going to be imprisoned again within the next five years after their release—horrifying. That means—as anyone who’s been at the front lines of our justice system, like I’ve been, and anyone who’s working in corrections, knows—our prisons no longer have the staffing capacity or resource to provide proper rehabilitative programmes for the people that we do detain.

We don’t have programmes sufficient to provide drug and alcohol treatment, mental health care, anger management treatment, or literacy programmes. So people aren’t getting paroled, because they can’t do their courses, and we’re holding them for longer, but then we’re releasing them without actually helping them to be rehabilitated, fit to join society, at a low-risk of reoffending. That is ineffective, and it is a failure, and these reports show it.

So, instead of actually providing for services out in the community that we know actually stop crime, like mental health care before people offend, like drug and alcohol treatment before people reoffending, that Government—[Time expired]

Reports relevant to the Justice Sector noted.

Māori, Other Populations, and Cultural Sector

RINO TIRIKATENE (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I’m very pleased to open up the speeches speaking on the Māori sector for the annual review of 2016-17, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. We conducted three reviews which are automatically referred to us from Crown entities, which are Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Taura Whiri i te Re Māori, and Te Māngai Pāho, but we embarked on a bit of a wider approach this year.

In light of the fact of the recent passing of Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori / Māori Language Act, we wanted to conduct equivalent reviews of other entities that are now operating in the Te Reo Māori space. So we had a briefing from Te Mātāwai, which is an independent statutory entity created under that Act. As well we also invited in Te Whakaruruhau o Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori, which is the Māori broadcasting radio station network. This was the first time that they had an opportunity to come before our committee.

Unfortunately, we weren’t able to conduct a review of Māori Television, as we understand that their annual report hasn’t been tabled in the House yet, but we will definitely follow that up expeditiously when that happens.

I really want to just focus, primarily, on Te Puni Kōkiri as it is the lead agency for the Crown in terms of being responsible for Māori policy and on advising on the Crown - Māori relationship. Can I acknowledge the new Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and I must commend her for the leadership that she’s shown since taking on this important portfolio to provide some sound leadership over what is a very vast and broad area.

If we just look at the vote for Te Puni Kōkiri, I guess one of the main matters that came to our attention was the increase in non-departmental expenditure—a whole bunch of programmes that have been delegated or given to Te Puni Kōkiri as a result of the previous administration. These non-departmental programmes can range anything from Māori housing, to suicide prevention, to ICT, to Whānau Ora. It’s such a broad landscape that Te Puni Kōkiri is charged with producing, delivering upon the appropriations which are given to them.

One of the matters that came to our attention was the use of contractors. Te Puni Kōkiri spends 37 percent of its expenditure on contractors. We just found that astounding. It was an increase from $5 million the year prior, to over $11 million in the year which we’re reviewing. That is a huge increase on contractors, but also we could understand the rationale, given the diversity and the range of all of these new programmes which were given to Te Puni Kōkiri. They had to upskill very quickly and devise how they were going to deliver on them. But, certainly, that is one area that we, as a committee, would hope to see an improvement upon, so we could see, I guess, Te Puni Kōkiri settle down—settle into, you know, its core business; settle into delivering consistently across the regions, with some certainty across those very important areas of housing and of Māori development in general, as well as its other responsibilities.

So there is so much that Te Puni Kōkiri is charged with. By and large they’re doing a good job, but I’m excited that under the leadership of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta there will be an increased sense of focus and direction for Te Puni Kōkiri. That’s already being evidenced not only through the Hon Nanaia Mahuta but through her Associate Ministers as well, with the Hon Peeni Henare, and right across this Government. So there is a lot of work going on in the Māori development space, and I believe some fine-tuning does need to happen. I believe that will be taking place under the direction of the new Minister, and I’m very pleased to be able to commend this section. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Kaiwhakahaere. Can I first of all start by acknowledging the previous speaker, Rino Tirikatene, our new chair of the Māori Affairs Committee? It’s nice to see that it’s stayed under the Ngāi Tahu watch, anyway. I’d also acknowledge the new Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and also Minister Peeni Henare.

I just want to pick up on one point that the previous speaker actually covered, which is that there are actually a number of new innovations and projects that have been undertaken by Te Puni Kōkiri. I think that, if you look at that, reflect back to the extra funding, actually, that was given back in 2016-17 for that year, it went up, actually, by 23 percent—so from $184 million to $226 million. That was actually new money that was given to support those new programmes. I think the other part of it, too, in what the previous speaker was talking about is that there were actually some real concerns back in that 2015-16 financial year, and under that review there were things like risk management, contract management, performance reporting, and also employee severance payments and all of that. I think the report that we got back from the auditor was the fact that it had improved immensely. I just want to acknowledge those things that I’ve just said, because that was on the National Government watch, and those were the things that we actually put in place.

I think moving forward, though, particularly on one other important bill—it was a major bill during our time in Government—and that was, as you said, Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori / Māori Language Bill. The actual journey, the hīkoi, of that, is, I think, really continuing on, but I think there’s just one thing that we need to actually raise a flag on, and that is the fact that we did actually have Te Maihi Māori, Te Mātāwai, in there, actually talking about the really important things that they were doing. They were already up and running, but I think what we should be, actually, also flagging is that we still haven’t got Te Maihi Karauna part of that strategy up and running yet. I believe it’s coming out shortly. But, you know, these two need to work in Kota hitaka. They need to work in unison. So I think it’s important that we flag that, and hopefully that is actually going to happen.

Look, finally, there was, as you say, Te Māngai Pāho, which actually came to our committee. I think one of the things I want to talk about is Māori broadcasting. One thing, particularly, when you look at Māori broadcasting—when it comes under Vote Māori Development, there’s the administration of Māori broadcasting, Māori television, and Māori radio broadcasting, with appropriations in the last review of about $112 million. But one thing is that Māori media platforms are really one of the few avenues that Māori have to communicate their views. National acknowledges that kaupapa that Māori don’t speak in one voice. It’s actually multiple types of voices needing multiple platforms.

What I’m greatly concerned about is that Māori are being used as scapegoats now because of the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media’s train wreck at the moment, which is actually through lack of openness. We’ve already seen no Māori put on the public media funding ministerial advisory group. We’ve already seen our own Māori broadcaster, Carol Hirschfeld, sacrificed because of the broadcasting Minister’s lack of openness and transparency. I struggle to believe, though, that Te Puni Kōkiri and the Minister for Māori Development would have agreed to either of these two outcomes for Māori. I think the important thing, looking forward, is we need clarification, because we know that in that whole thing about the Labour manifesto originally—$38 million promised each year to public broadcasting. There it is, and yet we’ve got no Māori actually sitting on that advisory group. That there is a travesty, and that is something that we actually need to address. The fact is this broadcasting Minister is actually working to the detriment of Māori, and that’s one thing that we actually need to address, because, at the end of the day, there may be one single platform.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I am pleased to take a call in this appropriations debate, and there are a number of things that have been mentioned that I will want to comment on. Firstly, if we start with the last contribution, from Nuk Korako, on the issue of Māori broadcasting, let’s be very clear: the Minister for Māori Development is responsible for Māori broadcasting, which, by and large, relates to Te Māngai Pāho and Māori Television (Māori TV). But here’s the thing: we are now at a point where Māori TV themselves recognise that they have to move significantly in the way that they deliver on their broadcasting aspiration in the Māori space to move from a terrestrial platform to a digital platform.

Now, the conversation that has to be had firstly, prior to any consideration of public broadcasting, is: how is Māori TV as an entity reorienting its strategy to be able to look towards the future? That was the first priority, and I believe, as the new Minister coming into this portfolio, that focusing and supporting Māori TV on that vision for the future was a worthwhile thing to do, albeit recognising that this Government has ambitious plans in the public broadcasting space. But why that’s important is that if there’s going to end up being a greater focus within the Māori broadcasting sector on Reo revitalisation, then it is easy to track across in the public broadcasting space what the relationship will be.

My colleague Rino Tirikatene, the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, pointed to the concerns that the select committee had in relation to the issue of the amount of funding spent on contractors. That is not ideal for a Government department, and, in fact, that doesn’t build the capability and expertise of a ministry like Te Puni Kōkiri. It contracts out the responsibility in key areas, like policy development, somewhere else. We will see a shift under this Government, because we believe in the integrity of a Māori development ministry that retains capability and is able to contribute to other key areas of policy development where we are lifting outcomes for Māori.

The other thing, in relation to the comments with regard to Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, is it is true: prior to becoming the Government, coalition parties and confidence and supply parties of this coalition Government did not see the benefit of investing, for example, in the Māori Land Service. Prior to confirming legislative reform, it made no sense. A huge amount of funding had been spent in that space when the Government knew that there was no political mandate to support the legislative reform. We continue to be concerned about this. We signalled clearly prior to Christmas that we would drop the proposed legislative reforms and reorient the focus to support Māori land owners, but let’s be very clear. As the select committee knew when they looked at the appropriations, funding in the area of the Māori Land Service was significant, without tying down the political reality of whether or not there was support for the direction that the previous Government, of which that member of the Opposition was a part, were going down.

The point on Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori / Māori Language Bill—yes, it is true that the Maihi Māori was established. In fact, it was established prior to the election—very early. Around this House, everybody agreed that Te Whare Mauri Ora, as a way of working to deliver on the Reo revitalisation, was a way of doing something differently. But the Maihi Karauna was delayed even before we became the Government. So let’s call a spade a spade and say that the delay was not a result of our new Government actually wanting to ensure that we had a Maihi Karauna which could work with the Maihi Māori; there was a delay before I even became the Minister.

I am encouraged by the work that has been undertaken by the relevant entities: Te Taura Whiri, Māori Television, Te Māngai Pāho, Te Puni Kōkiri, and other relevant Government agencies, who have pulled together a draft Maihi Karauna for us to be able to confirm. We want it to be workable. We want it to work. I look forward to members of the Opposition actually endorsing the Maihi Karauna so that we can deliver on its real intent, which is to lift the utilisation of Te Reo for all people in Aotearoa so that we can move forward. I also look forward to the reorientation of the way in which Te Puni Kōkiri will support Māori development.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Thank you, sir. I was going to say something about the report on the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, but the cultural sector is in such an excellent condition after nine years of a National Government—six of which I was the Minister—I didn’t want to spend five minutes simply praising myself. So what I thought I would do is focus instead on Te Puni Kōkiri and this unbelievably missed opportunity of the development of the Māori Land Service. Of the many things this Government has done since they assumed office toward the end of October, the most stupid, the most wasteful, the most disappointing thing they have done was ditch the reforms of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.

This was a massive project, and they were opposing it for purely political reasons, even though the Labour Party, in their manifesto over a number of elections, promised to reform Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The 1993 Act is not fit for purpose, and the development of a new piece of legislation, and within it the development of the Māori Land Service, was so pro whānau, hapū, and iwi, and that opportunity has been lost.

This National Opposition—and I’m sure I speak on behalf of the temporarily absent Māori Party—would say that the work done on the Māori Land Service was an important concomitant of the reform of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. As envisaged by the architects of the legislation, the Māori Land Service would serve three functions. First, it would provide top-quality registration services for Māori land, and why shouldn’t Māori have exactly the same 21st century registration system that general land has? Why should they have to put up with this antediluvian nonsense that happens under the 1993 legislation? So that was the first point.

The second point was a dispute resolution service so that whānau who had difficulties could get speedy and inexpensive justice through a system governed by the Māori Land Service that would facilitate mediation and, as I say, the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of disputes, because the current system is simply not working. It takes months to get before the court, and many people just can’t be bothered going to court because the system is so run down. The kinds of reforms that we were proposing for the Māori Land Court were introduced in the general court system in 1984. So it’s simply unbelievable that these sorts of reforms, which were overdue, couldn’t proceed.

The third aspect of the Māori Land Service was the development of a land advisory system so that people were able to get advice to develop their land. It’s one of the tragedies of New Zealand that 11 percent of the North Island is governed by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and 80 percent of that land is undeveloped or underdeveloped. There are massive problems with landlocked land. I recall a fellow from Mōkai Pātea who came and saw me and said he tried to get access to his land, which is landlocked, and the farmer said, “You’re more than welcome to walk in any time you want.”, and he said, “Well, actually, I need vehicular access.”, and he was told to go and see a taxidermist.

These are the kinds of issues that need to be grappled with. Treaty settlements, at the end of the day, will probably be worth about $3 billion to $4 billion in 2018 dollars, but if the nettle had been grasped on this particular issue, it is worth billions and billions of dollars to Māori. So it’s a massive disappointment that all the good work that was done on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, all the thinking, the hard work, and policy thinking that had been done on the Māori Land Service, has gone up in smoke.

I’m very fond of the Minister in the chair, Nanaia Mahuta, but I have to say she made an egregious error, and I largely blame the Minister of Customs, Meka Whaitiri, who I think had some rather unsavoury people who were persuading her to this point of view. But at the end of the day, the opposition to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reforms was largely political.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana. Tuatahi māku e tukuna atu i ngā mihi ki a koe e te pāpā, e Te Ururoa kua hoki mai koe ki Te Korokoro o Te Parata nāu i hoki mai ki tō whare, otirā ki a tātou i Te Whare e whakakāhui nei ki runga i ngā kaupapa nui o te wā.

[Good afternoon, Mr Chairman. May I firstly acknowledge your presence, Te Ururoa. You have returned to Te Korokoro o Te Parata, you have returned to this House where we are gathered to address important matters of the day.]

I would much rather have heard from the speaker who just resumed his seat, Chris Finlayson, around arts, culture, and heritage. However, it is left to me to address many of the issues that he raised in his contribution and, of course, make some comments of my own with regard to the performance of Te Puni Kōkiri. In order to do so, and to do it with great effect—and, if we are true about the Maihi Karauna being able to lead Te Reo Māori alongside Te Māihi Māori in Te Whare Mauri Ora, to make sure that Te Reo Māori revitalisation is taken seriously—I’m going to do the rest of my speech in Te Reo Māori.

Kāti ake rā, ka kite atu ahau i tētahi o ngā āhuatanga kei roto i tēnei rīpoata e pā ana ki te kaupapa e ngākaunuitia ana e tātou Te Iwi Māori, otirā, tātou te motu whānui. Ko taua kaupapa e kōrerohia ake nei, arā ko te kaupapa o Whānau Ora. Tā te mea ko au te Minita mō te take mō te kaupapa o Whānau Ora, ka kite atu ahau i ngā mahi nunui i oti i ngā kaimahi o Te Puni Kōkiri ki roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei. I āia tonu nei ka kite atu ahau i te tini o ngā tari Kāwanatanga, i te tini o ngā hapori e tiro mai ana ki tēnei kaupapa—arā ko Whānau Ora.

Tā te mea e kaha tautoko ana au i te kaupapa nei, ko te mate kē ki a au, i āia nei nā ko te hiahia o ngā tari Kāwanatanga nā ko te tāhae i te kaupapa nei; ki te rāwekeweke i te kaupapa nei; ko tāku e kite atu ai ki roto i te rīpoata, ko te kaha o Te Puni Kōkiri ki te ū tonu ki ngā uarā e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira o Te Whānau Ora; nō reira e mihi atu ana au ki ngā kaimahi o Te Puni Kōkiri.

E mōhio ana koe e Te Heamana i āia tonu nei e whakahaerehia ana mātou o Te Kāwanatanga i tētahi mahi arohaehae i tēnei kaupapa o Whānau Ora. Ko te take o te mahi arohaehae i te kaupapa, ko te whakapakari ake i te kaupapa o Whānau Ora kia kite atu kei hea ngā kōhao kei roto i te kaupapa nei, me te hiahia kia whakapakari ake mō te oranga o te whānau te take. Nō reira i ngā rangi kua pahure ake nei i mea, i whakaae mai Te Kāwanatanga, arā ko ngā kāhui Minita, ki te mahi arohaehae i tēnei kaupapa o Whānau Ora; ko te hiahia kia tukuna atu te poari arohaehae i ā rātou mahi; nā runga i te rangimārie me te hiahia kia kite atu i te mahi motuhake me te tū motuhake o te rōpū arohaehae i taua kaupapa o Whānau Ora.

Aa kāti ka waiho nā atu te kaupapa o Whānau Ora ki te taha mō te wā nei, ko te kaupapa i āia nei nā ki a au nei nā, ko Te Reo Māori. I rongo atu ahau i roto i ngā totohe a Te Whare o te pō nei ko ētahi o ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki Te Maihi Karauna me Te Maihi Māori. E mihi atu ana ahau ki a Te Puni Kōkiri e tautoko atu ana i Te Mātāwai i a rātou e huri haere ana ki te motu whānui me te kawe ake i tēnei kaupapa o Te Reo Māori. I āia tonu nei nā ko te mahi nunui kei mua i te aroaro o Te Puni Kōkiri me tēnei Whare kia piki anō te ora, kia piki anō te kaha o Te Reo Māori ki roto i ngā hapori, ki roto i ngā tari Kāwanatanga, ki roto hoki anō i ngā kāinga me ngā whānau puta noa. Mā Te Kāwanatanga tētahi mahi uaua—ehara i te mea hei tohutohu i Te Iwi Māori, kahore, engari ko te mahi nunui ko te tautoko ake i Te Maihi Māori e whakahaerehia nei e ō tātou Iwi Māori puta noa i te motu whānui.

Kāti ki roto i ngā hēkona whakamutunga ki a au nei, he nui ngā mahi i oti i a Te Puni Kōkiri, ki roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei. Ko te manako, me te īnoi, kia tau tonu mai te kaha o Te Atua ki runga i Te Minita hou e kawea nei ngā kaupapa o Te Ao Māori, kia kaua e āta wāwāhi nei i ngā kaupapa whai aronga, whai oranga anō hoki mō Te Iwi Māori kahore, engari kia ū tonu Te Puni Kōkiri me tō tātou Minita ki ngā take motuhake e pā ana ki a tātou Te Iwi Māori. Kāti ki konei e Te Heamana, ka nui tēnei māku, tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Indeed, I note amongst matters in this report a subject that is dear to the hearts of the Māori people, and indeed to our nation. That subject is Whānau Ora. In my role as Minister for Whānau Ora, I am aware of the enormous amount of work that has been undertaken by the staff of Te Puni Kōkiri in recent years. I note that currently this initiative is under close scrutiny by various Government departments and community groups—that is, Whānau Ora.

Because I am an avid supporter of this initiative, the actual problem to me is that there are Government departments that would like to abscond with this initiative and to tamper with it; what I glean from this report is the determination of Te Puni Kōkiri to remain faithful to the values pertaining to this important initiative of Whānau Ora. Therefore, I salute the staff of Te Puni Kōkiri.

You will be aware, Mr Chairman, that the Government is currently arranging to undertake a review of Whānau Ora. The reason that this review is being undertaken is to identify any areas for improvement and to strengthen the initiative for the betterment of families. Therefore, just recently, this Government—that is to say, Cabinet—has agreed that the panel for the review of Whānau Ora should proceed; we say that in the spirit of helpfulness and hope that the independent work and independent standing of the review panel of the Whānau Ora initiative will be apparent.

Let me set aside the subject of Whānau Ora for the time being and turn instead to the matter of the Māori language. I have heard the evening debates, which canvassed opinions regarding the Maihi Karauna and the Maihi Māori. Once again I congratulate Te Puni Kōkiri, which supported Te Mātāwai in their peregrinations around the country to inform people about this Māori language initiative. A great deal of work remains to be done now by Te Puni Kōkiri and by this House to ensure the health and strength of the Māori language in communities, in Government departments, and indeed in homes and within families throughout the land. The Government has a difficult task—not to instruct Māori, no indeed; the real work is to support the Maihi Māori, which is managed by Māori tribes across the nation.

Therefore, in the few seconds remaining to me, I do acknowledge Te Puni Kōkiri for their many accomplishments in recent years. I hope, indeed I pray, that the Almighty will bestow strength on our new Minister who bears the responsibility of matters Māori, that initiatives of great benefit to the Māori people are not diminished, but instead that they are strengthened and developed by Te Puni Kōkiri and our Minister. That brings my contribution to an end, Mr Chairman; greetings to you, greetings to us all.]

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Chair. Great to be able to take a few minutes to talk on the reviews that we sat through in the Māori Affairs Committee. I just want to acknowledge the chair. I don’t sit on that committee any more. I was there for a few months but have now moved on to the Environment Committee, but the time that I did have there, I was impressed with the chairmanship of Rino and also just the general approach that all members had in debating and discussing and reflecting on the ambition of Māori and what is the appropriate policy response to assist in that ambition.

I do want to add my voice in support of my colleague Chris Finlayson, who I thought gave a very robust account of the lost opportunity that we all reflected on in the committee, particularly when we had Te Puni Kōkiri in front of us and asked them to reflect on the significant work that had been under way through the review period to establish the Māori Land Service that was envisaged as being necessary when Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill was passed. The Minister for Māori Development, when she stood up earlier and made her contribution, suggested that that was inappropriate from a policy perspective, that that work would go concurrently as we worked through the finer details of Te Ture Whenua. I fundamentally disagree with that approach.

It is too pedestrian to hold a view that as you are progressing a particular policy initiative the ministry that will be accountable for giving life to that when it passes should sit on their hands and wait for it to pass and then begin the planning to make sure that it gets operationalised. It might reflect the way this Government does business—as in pedestrian, and we’ll do a lot of working groups, and eventually we’ll come round to finalising a policy, and then hoping that it finds its way through to being operationalised—but it doesn’t reflect the way the National Government, with its support parties, ran the Government. We had a particular view that Te Ture Whenua would be a fantastic benefit to Māori and, particularly, release the productive potential of that land, which so much of it—as Chris Finlayson was so articulate in outlining—currently lies relatively dormant from a productive perspective. That’s why we wanted it to proceed, and I think putting money aside and getting the business of the Māori Land Service up and running concurrently were entirely defendable.

I think it is worth it, sir—oh, madam, sorry; the Chair’s changed in the meantime—to just repeat those three key reasons why we saw this as being critical: (1) top-quality registration, (2) a dispute resolution service, and (3) development of a land advisory system. Huge lost opportunity and one that we think will be a blight on this Government. It is much easier to destroy momentum than actually build it up, and that will now be the test for those on the other side who have accountability for delivering against this aspiration.

The chair, Rino Tirikatene, earlier referenced the fact that, as a committee, we heard from a number of agencies that are involved in ensuring that the Māori language is promoted and used by greater numbers. In particular, we had the Māori broadcasting radio network. They turned up and spoke at one of the committee sessions that I was at. I was particularly struck by the efforts that that organisation, or that network of radio stations, are applying themselves to, to ensure that at a community level, at a grassroots level, at a whānau level, this avenue, in terms of iwi radio, is actually meeting their needs and that people are actually engaging with it.

I spoke to them about the example that I saw in my area of Tauranga. I was at the Rā Whakangahau, the kapa haka festival. Moana Radio was there, with the incredible opportunity that their presence provided to showcase phenomenal Māori talent in our local area and actually enable, through Moana Radio, the opportunity for people who weren’t able to be there to participate. I think this is an area that should continue to have focus and resources, and I look forward to when the Government puts their money behind it, because there’s a whole lot of support for that to happen. It’ll be interesting to see whether that makes one of the 55,000 Budget requests that are currently being considered. Thank you.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I just want make a few remarks—firstly, that this debate is about the 2016-2017 appropriations, so, by necessity, we’ve got to look back to that year and what the previous Government did whilst they had the reins of power.

The second point I want to make is that whoever it was that decided we should theme these debates around particular themes, I want to acknowledge and thank them, because having the theme of Māori and Pasifika and other populations and cultures is actually a really great opportunity for this committee to start debating issues that pertain to particular sectors of our society who, by and large, have not received the full benefits of the economy that the previous Government used to talk about.

I draw attention to the previous speaker, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and the remarks blaming my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri about the dumping of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill and his desire that that bill should have continued. The fact of the matter is that the fact that the Māori Party is no longer in this House is strong evidence—is strong evidence—that Māori, by and large, as represented by Meka, did not believe that that bill was going to benefit Māori in the long run, particularly when it pertains to land. That was about land reform and not necessarily for this discussion about how Māori as a group in Aotearoa New Zealand would benefit.

I want to say that in my travels around the Pacific region, but, from time to time, elsewhere, those overseas opportunities bring to home the fact that in no other country is there Māori other than Aotearoa New Zealand. That is something that this country needs to really be proud of, and we need to continue whatever work this Government is now embarking on. It is work that this House needs to back and get behind, because for the last nine years of the previous Government, we’ve found—and all I’ve got to do is pick up this paper and look at Māori life expectancy: low. Unemployment: low. Prison population: low. Homeownership: low.

When I heard one of the Opposition members talk about how this Government was using Māori as a scapegoat, I just find that offensive, because the previous Government had nine long years in power and nothing has improved, or very little has improved, when it comes to the social and economic well-being of Māori generally.

Following that, close behind, is the Pacific population. I know that the Pacific population—according to the Social Services and Community Committee’s report that’s tabled for discussion, it acknowledges that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples is the single ministry that is charged with providing direction and leadership to the rest of the Government departments. But we found that in the last year the continuation of low housing ownership continued under that Government to the point where homeownership for Pacific peoples is at about 16 percent. Now, once upon a time, in the 1970s it was close to 40 percent. But in the last decade very little was improved, and I can quote a number of figures in terms of unemployment figures, in terms of life expectancy, and in terms of income levels. That’s the legacy of that particular Government: that for Māori and Pacific very little was improved. I would challenge that previous Government to hold up the evidence of their last nine years, in particular the last year, to show that there has been some improvement. If members of this committee were to get down, on the streets, and talk to the people in South Auckland, talk to the people in Porirua, talk to people in Christchurch, you would find by and large the feeling amongst the Māori population and the Pacific population is that the previous Government neglected them. The previous Government was so bloody focused on—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order!

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: They were so focused on tax cuts that they didn’t recognise the value of Māori and Pasifika peoples.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, to start with, I just want to say to that previous speaker, Aupito William Sio, that’s not how Māori feel about the previous Government, the National-led Government. That is not how Māori feel about them. Māori know that it’s been through the National-led Government that so many Treaty bills have actually gone through this House. So I refute the words of that previous speaker, the Minister, speaking in a supposedly authoritarian way about what Māori think about the previous National-led Government. It’s a load of rubbish. So I refute that, what he said.

The previous speaker talked about these speeches being around the 2016-2017 annual reviews, and I get that. Unfortunately, for that Minister, the previous Minister that sat in the chair where he is now actually opened the way. She was the one, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who talked about dropping legislative reform, which was Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, and looking at other things around what the Government is going to do over supporting landowners as Māori land owners. So as soon as she said that, she opened the way.

When the Minister for Whānau Ora got up and started speaking about some of the things that he is doing in the Whānau Ora space, he too opened up the ability for us to be able to include those in our speeches. So I don’t think that we should be limited to the annual review as such, when the Ministers in the chair actually open up the avenue for us to speak on broader-based topics—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! That’s a very useful discussion, but I will ask you to come back to the annual review, thank you.

JO HAYES: Yeah, I’m going to do that very shortly, Madam Chair. I just wanted to get my point across.

I just want to focus on, under the Māori development portfolio, the Whānau Ora section of Māori development. We all know it’s been a very great success for the Māori Party. This was their policy, and with the partnership with National they managed to get this particular policy through, and it has gone on, and thousands and thousands of whānau, both Māori and Pacific Island, have actually benefited from Whānau Ora within the Whānau Ora space.

As soon as the Government changed, one of the first questions I wanted to ask the new Minister was: what was his plan for Whānau Ora? So I’ve had to wait over 150 days to actually get that response from him. I’m really pleased that the Minister has been able to appoint a group of reviewers for the Whānau Ora review—a promise that the Labour Party had in their manifesto in 2014 and again in 2017, but it was more around the terms of reference, of what was that review going to look like. However, I want to congratulate the Minister. He’s managed to put an all-women review panel in there, which does beggar belief as, as you know, whānau is not just about women. We must have some men in there too, because that’s what makes up a wholesome whānau, male and female. So a couple of things around that: where are the men positioned in Whānau Ora?

The next area I want to talk about is when he spoke about—and in the annual review it talked about that some of the Government agencies that are picking up Whānau Ora. And it’s really great. We know about what the police are doing. They’ve got a very strong process in implementing Whānau Ora right across their ranks and right across all their police stations, and that’s really good, because they have to deal with Māori at the coalface. They’re on the streets. They are the ones that are brought in for all incidents and they must understand where Māori and Pasifika are actually coming from, when it comes to Whānau Ora and the way that they think within that whole sphere of whānau and hapū and whanaungatanga and their cultural beliefs.

The other area which I also want to talk about, which the Minister alluded to as part of the other ministries, is the Māori strategy He Korowai Oranga. He Korowai Oranga was brought in, in 2000. It is not a new thing. It’s always been with the Ministry of Health, based under Whānau Ora from the Hon Tariana Turia. I just want to say that that will keep on growing. What we need actually—I want to see into the future, as He Korowai Oranga goes across all of the Government agencies eventually. I don’t know if that’s going to happen over this review. We don’t know what’s going to happen in the review.

So, in closing, all I ask into the future around Whānau Ora is that that Government try and get it right. Because, on this side, I’ll be watching and I will be putting in my two cents’ worth around Whānau Ora and where it should go to. So, without any further ado, I will be ending my contribution. Kia ora.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Ethnic Communities): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to acknowledge the honourable Minister for Pacific Peoples, the Hon Aupatu William Sio. I agree with what he had to say.

In terms of what Jo Hayes, the speaker that has just taken her seat, said, one of the legacies of the previous National Government is the fact that so many of our Māori families, so many of our Māori whānau, now are homeless. They don’t even have a roof over their heads. It is actually something that the previous National Government should be ashamed of. The fact that we have the highest rate of homelessness in the OECD today and so many of our Māori whānau do not have a roof over their heads is definitely not something that I would be proud of, but that happened under the last National Government over the last nine years.

I am speaking today on behalf of the ethnic communities. The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) in terms of its annual review—when you look at the report, at page 276, it states that one of the responsibilities of DIA is “informing, resourcing and advising communities, including working to ensure that ethnic communities develop and maintain a positive sense of belonging to New Zealand;”. It is essential that we support our ethnic communities to develop a sense of belonging, a sense of inclusion, and social cohesion, and that we help to empower and to ensure that they actively and fully participate in our New Zealand society. One of the ways that the Office of Ethnic Communities does this is by supporting a wide range of parliamentary and community events that promote inclusion and social cohesion.

But just looking overall at Aotearoa New Zealand, a couple of the questions I have are these. Do we live in an inclusive society? Is our society as inclusive as it should be?

Let me give you a couple of examples, and I take this from Manukau East, from Papatoetoe. One of the things I asked the MP that I replaced, Ross Robertson, when he was still the MP for Manukau East—when he first came in he was representing Papatoetoe. I wanted to see what the population of Papatoetoe looked like, and what he told me was that 27 years prior—because he was an MP for 27 years—80 percent of Papatoetoe were Pākehā and 20 percent were ethnic minority, but within less than 30 years, that had flipped. Now, 80 percent of Papatoetoe are ethnic minority and 20 percent are Pākehā.

I’ll give you another example of this question: do we live in an inclusive society? When we look at our schools, some of our schools in South Auckland are 90 percent to 100 percent Māori, Pacific, and ethnic minorities, but when you look across the other side of Auckland, over at North Shore, there are schools over there that are the other way round—90 to 100 percent Pākehā. So then the question is: do we live in a society where we live next door to each other and where different ethnicities are inclusive in how we live, and do our children all attend the same schools, regardless of our ethnicities, regardless of our socio-economic status, and regardless of the area that we live in? I think that the answer to that is, unfortunately, in the negative.

One of the things that the Office of Ethnic Communities does—and it is covered in page 280 of the report—is it builds stronger, more resilient communities, and one of the ways it does this is via the Ethnic Communities Development Fund that the Office of Ethnic Communities administers, via the DIA. I’ll give you a few examples of how this fund is utilised. Over in Canterbury, with the Canterbury Community Trust, they have a cultural radio for Sri Lankan, for Vietnamese, and for Persian communities in Canterbury, and they do this because they would like to increase social cohesion.

Another example of how this fund is utilised is the Tangata Tiriti - Treaty People Project in Auckland, where members of the ethnic communities applied to DIA, and they were funded because they wanted ethnic communities to understand the Treaty better. They wanted to promote and celebrate the Treaty of Waitangi. They wanted to have a more inclusive way of looking at the Treaty.

Last, but not the least, they also focus on leadership development for ethnic communities. Thank you so much for this opportunity to talk about the work of the ethnic communities department. Thanks.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee, as I speak for the first time as a first-term MP on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

I speak from the perspective of a member sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee. So I acknowledge my colleague across the Chamber, Rino Tirikatene, as our chairman. I share with members of this committee that there is a very collegial approach that we do take as members sitting around the table on the Māori Affairs Committee, but, in regard to that collegiality too, that doesn’t mean to say we dispense with scrutiny, as is necessary and required from the perspective that we speak from and to.

So speaking for the first time as a first-term MP, I’ve been surveying the landscape, the language- and the legislative-scape, the people- and personalities-scape, and appropriating all that is necessary to contribute in a purposeful, meaningful way. So “to appropriate”—what does that mean? The definition is “A devotion to a special purpose.”, and, in speaking to this bill this afternoon, it’s the devotion of the appropriation of funds for the specific purpose of those matters that have come before the Māori Affairs Committee around the annual reviews.

My colleague our chairman of the committee has referenced that the reviews that have come before the committee are from Te Puni Kōkiri, from Te Māngai Pāho, which is the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency, and from the Māori Language Commission, which is Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. Further to that—although they’ve not yet been formally tabled but have been the subject of discussion—is the recently formed, under the Māori Language Act 2016, Te Mātāwai, and also the Māori radio network—that is, Te Whakaruruhau o Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori.

Now, I share with the committee something of particular interest that I draw from in the papers that have been tabled, and I would invite everybody, if not now but in time, to turn to page 542, where Te Māngai Pāho, in terms of their review—that is, the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency—their particular task is one that involves supporting projects that aim to change society’s attitudes towards Te Reo Māori. Te Reo Māori is an official language of this land, and also we hear it spoken with regularity within the House. So the challenge that I put to my colleagues here, as members of Parliament, is that we not just leave this as a responsibility of Te Māngai Pāho; we embrace that, also, as responsible citizens of Aotearoa and in our leadership roles as members of Parliament.

The other part that Te Māngai Pāho talks about is to foster the correct pronunciation of Māori words and focus on funding initiatives aimed at improving the fluency of competent speakers of Te Reo Māori. I just share with the committee that, as a woman who stands tall with the name “Harete Hipango”, that was given to me by my whānau, I’ve lived a lifetime of mispronunciation. So, again, I just invite members of this House, if we could give emphasis to the courtesy that’s extended to each other.

So coming back to the annual review, if I may—I’m mindful time has gone by very quickly—and the scrutiny that’s within that. My colleagues have spoken about Te Puni Kōkiri and the particular responsibility around the Māori Land Service. I just share around the formulation of the Māori Language Strategy, Maihi Karauna, that’s been spoken about. We’re still awaiting the delivery of that. I heard the honourable Minister Nanaia Mahuta speak about the fact that these things do take time. But I just stress and emphasise the importance that this House and the Government gave to other policies in pushing through legislation. So let’s give some priority to this. This is an official language of our nation. Let’s not just leave it to Te Puni Kōkiri. Te Puni Kōkiri is charged with the responsibility in terms of advising other Government agencies and policies. We also can take on that level of influence.

There’s so much that’s been covered in the annual reviews and just skirting over them does not diminish in any way the significance of what is within these documents that we have. I turn to the fact that the Māori Language Commission tasked with Te Puni Kōkiri has the responsibility in charging the development of the Māori Language Strategy. We are still awaiting that. I heard the honourable Minister Sepuloni in the House earlier this afternoon in the general debate saying that policies have been ready to go. I’m afraid that’s not the case in terms of this Māori Language Strategy. So I put that there as a challenge. We’ve been awaiting this at Māori Affairs Committee. We still await it. Let’s get it moving.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Madam Chair, I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Māori, Other Populations, and Cultural Sector of the Appropriation Bill. Previous speakers tended to focus on Māori affairs. Of course, I’m not expert in that area; as an ethnic Chinese I intend to focus on other populations, particularly the Chinese community.

In New Zealand we have over 200 ethnic groups. We speak over 150 languages. So this is a genuinely multicultural society and the Chinese community is one of the largest ethnic communities in New Zealand. According to the 2013 census, there were 170,000 ethnic Chinese in New Zealand. Of course, today our community is much bigger. Now, every year, the Parliament will celebrate the Chinese New Year. It has been so for 16 years, and the Government also partially funded Auckland’s Chinese Lantern Festival celebrations. That has been so for 19 years and that celebration has become one of the largest Chinese Lantern Festival celebrations outside of China. Auckland Harbour Bridge this year was lit to mark the lantern festival for the very first time. Of course, many other cities in New Zealand are also celebrating the Chinese New Year and the lantern festival.

Cultural diversity is particularly important to us because cultural diversity enriches our society, it strengthens our relations with other countries, and it attracts talented, high-quality immigrants from other countries. So it is important for us to continue to cherish our cultural diversity in New Zealand, and our Government agencies have been working very hard to facilitate and to encourage the public sector to accommodate cultural diversity in New Zealand. Many agencies provide language services to our communities. For example, we have Language Line. We provide services with over 40 languages, and many ethnic community people use Language Line to do their business, to communicate with the Government or Government agencies.

Also, the internal affairs department each year will provide funding for various sorts of ethnic community events. I understand we have about half a million dollars, which is not big funding, however, it does help. I have come across many ethnic community leaders and they appreciate the funding from the Government. Although the funding can be very small—for example, $1,000—a little bit of funding really does a lot for these ethnic community associations. So we, hopefully, in the future will be able to have more funding to support our community affairs and community events. Statistics New Zealand in this year’s census have recruited a large number of volunteers and staff from different ethnic groups. They have also prepared printed material in different languages to help our communities. These services are crucial for New Zealand because we are such a diverse society.

Last year, during the campaign, the National Party had a plan to teach second languages in primary schools, which would actually facilitate cultural diversity in New Zealand. We were planning to invest heavily in this area. But, unfortunately, of course, in the end we did not come back into power and, therefore, that policy was abolished.

Having said that, I genuinely believe living in New Zealand is very fortunate for ethnic minority people. As I said, as a Chinese in New Zealand, we have one of the largest ethnic communities in New Zealand. We have seen the cultural diversity, we have seen the Government’s support for multiculturalism, and we have seen the growth of communities, not only Chinese but also many other ethnic groups.

These ethnic communities are very helpful to our economic growth because cultural diversity means we’ll be able to communicate with other countries through business, so that we can have economic relations. For that reason, we’ll continue to support our communities. We’ll continue to encourage multiculturalism.

Reports relevant to the Māori, Other Populations and Cultural Sector noted.

Primary Sector

Hon DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee): Thank you very much. The primary sector is the key driver for the New Zealand economy, and it is crucial for New Zealand, going forward, that our primary sector actually delivers the investment and economic returns to our country going forward. We have seen in the last few months an attack on agriculture in the primary sector that has been expected with the change of Government, but the ferocity of it and the depth of it is something that is more than the sector would have expected.

It started with the changes around the dairy industry: the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act—the DIRA legislation—that should have just been a simple formality in this Parliament. But it turned into an opportunity for the Green Party to take over New Zealand First and the Labour Party and to do a—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I do need to remind the chair of the Primary Production Committee that his contribution must be about the report back from the select committee. Thank you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes. The select committee, in its report, has looked at the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), and part of that is the changes that will come about in the dairy industry. The Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor, would be able to explain exactly why there have been those changes in the dairy sector, which will now look at areas such as land use change, environmental issues, and stocking rates, which is something that is extremely important to that industry going forward, when it could have been just a renewal of those DIRA provisions.

We have also seen the changes in MPI—a major change in the structure of that organisation—and with the breakup of MPI into four units, that really takes away some of the strength of that institution that has been known as the big support for the New Zealand primary sector. There have been a large number of staff that have left as a result of that change. We are seeing now what four separate units will mean for the primary sector, and that will be less development and less support for that sector.

When we look at that change, there’s also the Primary Growth Partnership, which is the research arm of investment into research and development. That is, essentially, being raided as well by this Government to pay for its promises in other areas, especially in the changes that you’re seeing in MPI.

There have also been major changes in the irrigation sector, with the removal of support for irrigation projects throughout New Zealand, which will be detrimental to the future of New Zealand’s primary sector. That may have a moral and legal obligation on the Government to fulfil some of those projects that have now been removed from the list that will be supported.

We also saw in mānuka honey a definition that was put to the Parliament in December that, because of legal action, was changed, and that definition should have been made on the basis of what is actually in the interests of the industry and not legal action.

So those are some of the things that have been happening in the primary sector that distinguish us from other parts of the parliamentary process that you’ve seen in the last few months, where there has been an attack on the processes involved.

I just want to also pay tribute to my good friend and colleague who will be speaking soon in this House, and I see there are a large number of members in support of him from his electorate and also from parliamentary leaders of the past that have come to support the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman. Jonathan Coleman and I came into Parliament at the same time, and over that period of time he has been a great friend to us all and a great support to the National Party and to the people of Northcote. We just want to record, before your speech here today, our support, our thanks, and our gratitude for everything you’ve done for the National Party and for being such a good friend and supporter as well. I know that the health sector will be strongly rewarded by your leadership and your desire to make a difference in that area going forward, and we wish you all the best in your next endeavours in this area. We wish Sandra and the family—I presume you’re here, up there—all the best as well. It’s a great deal of time that you’ve had to put in, in support of Jonathan’s career in this parliamentary process, and everybody in this House will support you in the next steps. Thank you.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Madam Chair, thank you. It’s a great pleasure to get up here and speak on the review of the Primary Production Committee. Despite the dire outlook that was portrayed by David Bennett, the previous speaker—it seems to belie the latest Rabobank survey that showed farming confidence had increased 15 percent from the last survey, surging under this new Government. Of course, I note that the one issue that wasn’t raised in that previous contribution was the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak. Of course, it’s a very serious situation for all those farmers involved, and our hearts go out to them.

I listened to an extraordinary speech in the House a week or two back, when the previous Minister, Nathan Guy, got up and in an address in the House attempted to eviscerate the current Minister, in complete denial of the fact that this outbreak happened under his watch.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m very sorry to interrupt the member. According to a determination by the Business Committee, I will now report progress, and we can sit again presently.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): One of the things I’ve often been asked is, “Why on earth would anyone want to go from being a doctor to becoming a politician?”, and, indeed, there’ve been one or two occasions over the years—and, in fact, some in more recent times—when I’ve asked myself that very same question. But despite my job coming with a permanent open invitation to go on Radio New Zealand Checkpoint, and notwithstanding the maligned motives that some less generous citizens might attribute to politicians, the fact is that it is a very real and rare privilege to serve in this place, to represent one’s community, and to be allowed into the lives of a wide range of New Zealanders as they experience the best and worst of what life has to offer in this country. That is also because if it’s possible to get into Government and make it to the Cabinet table, there is the chance to effect real change to improve the lives of our fellow New Zealanders. That is the reason why we all come to this place, regardless of our political views.

Twelve years, six months, and 29 days as a member of the New Zealand House of Representatives is a career probably longer than most but shorter than many. I’ve felt honoured to serve as the member of Parliament for Northcote, with nine years as a Minister of the Crown. I’m extremely thankful for the opportunities that I’ve had over that period. When I look back on that time, there’ve been some incredible political and life experiences, but, above all, I’ve gone to work every single day determined to make a positive contribution for my electorate and for our country. I was aware that each day I spent in this place was because I’d been sent here by the people of Northcote, and for that I will be for ever grateful.

Some leave this place under duress, some too early, and some too late. For me, now is the right time, and I’m looking forward to the future and to the new challenges ahead. There’s so much to fit into a valedictory, but, having listened to a few over time, the best have a bit of reflection, maybe a little advice, a little bit of philosophy, a whole lot of thanks, and, believe it or not, not too much politics.

I was lucky enough to secure the nomination to contest the Northcote electorate for the 2005 election. My time as a candidate was pretty eventful, with an intense campaign of doorknocking, human hoardings, and pub canvassing. It culminated in winning the seat from the sitting Labour member, which, of course, was a massive achievement for the whole Northcote team. That turned out to be a defining point in my political as well as personal life, as Sandra and I moved into the electorate and built our family life there. And Northcote is now well and truly home. I’ve been fortunate enough to represent an electorate within which the previous five generations of my family have all lived since 1846, and that has meant a huge amount to me over my career. I believe it’s a pretty rare thing, especially for an urban seat.

That first term as an MP pretty much determines your future in this place, both in the electorate and in this Chamber. I was lucky enough to be part of a health team run by the inscrutable Tony Ryall. He was prepared to share the opportunities around, especially at question time. That certainly enabled me to build a bit of a profile, clashing with the then Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, who would scream across the Chamber in response to naive questions from a young backbencher, which was a bit of a win as far as I was concerned. Yes, I felt like screaming at times as Minister of Health, but I never actually did it. Anyway, the point is that politics does not have to be a zero-sum game. It’s often described as being that, but sharing the opportunities with colleagues, especially junior colleagues, is an approach I’ve tried to follow. Yep, there was the odd career-threatening moment in that first term, but I survived to become part of the three-term National-led Government that swept to power in 2008.

I’ve been extremely fortunate to spend nine of my 12 years here as a Minister. My ministerial career kicked off with a short phone call monologue from the new Prime Minister, who had already had to wade through party negotiations and discussions with multiple colleagues. By the time he got to me, he wasn’t about to enter into any debate. He just said, “You’re doing immigration, broadcasting, associate health, and associate tourism. I’m the Minister of Tourism so you’ll be doing all the work. Catch you Monday.”

John Key was a great guy to work for. Ministers agreed priorities with him, and, if he had confidence in an individual, he just let them get on with it. He was, of course, arguably the most talented politician we’ll see in our lifetime, and to serve as part of that Government was at times a “Pinch yourself to make sure it’s not a dream” type of experience.

He could also be pretty forgiving. As his erstwhile attending physician, I was with him when as Prime Minister he tripped heavily on the stage stairs while running up to give a speech at Chinese New Year celebrations in 2009. Returning to the seat beside me, he commented that his arm was a bit sore. I advised him of a treatment plan with which members of my family are very familiar—namely take a couple of Panadol, forget about it, and all would be well. However, it seems the Prime Minister did not actually follow this advice, because the next day he rang to inform me that his arm was actually broken in two places. Anyway, I already had my Cabinet warrant so that was that.

Being the Cabinet doctor certainly gave an interesting insight into the constitutions of various colleagues, several of whom seemed to think I had an unending appetite for graphic descriptions of their symptoms. Let’s just say there seemed to be a lot of very serious man flu running around.

Bill English made a remarkable contribution to New Zealand politics, and it was great working with him across my time as a Minister. Of course, his time as the Prime Minister was all too short, but he made a massive intellectual contribution both to the National Party and also to New Zealand politics.

I’ve never been that keen on being dictated to, and that is aligned with my political philosophy—namely that while it’s up to the Government of the day to draw up the boundaries of the playing field, if you like, it’s important to then allow New Zealanders to get on with it because they, not the Government, are the best people to determine how they live their lives, spend their money, and raise their children. And that’s what has always attracted me to the National Party’s philosophy. In line with this, on conscience issues that result in massive societal change, my instinct has always been that the people should decide, not the Parliament. While, thankfully, our politics in New Zealand is not as polarised as in some jurisdictions, it’s still important to note that philosophical differences are certainly there. While the votes are in the centre, political parties have to be able to mark out clear territory on the electoral spectrum in order to survive.

I came to politics through a background in medicine and business, and I believe that it was the former that stood me in greater stead, because politics, in the end, is about understanding people—it’s about listening, it’s about dealing with the full range of human nature and emotion, and it’s about making decisions and charting a course of action when sometimes there is no right or wrong, obvious answer. Medicine also gave me daily contact with New Zealanders of every type and background imaginable.

My time working as a doctor in South Auckland remained a long-term private reference point as we sat around the Cabinet table taking policy decisions. Ten dollars to see the doctor was a lot of money for many of my patients, and I never forgot that. Later on, when faced with really tough issues like cancer patients seeking funding for lifesaving drugs, I was able to reflect on my bedside experiences.

But there’s no blueprint for being a Minister of the Crown apart from a little-known and, I suspect, little-read tome entitled How to be a Minister by the late Gerald Kaufman, an English MP—and I suggest some members of the new Government get hold of a copy pretty quickly. Considering its somewhat limited audience, the author probably didn’t make a lot of money from book royalties. I withdrew it in my first week as a Minister and had it on continuous loan from the Parliamentary Library for quite some time, by which time I think two colleagues had actually been dismissed from the Cabinet. I felt a bit bad that my long-term loan of the library’s only copy may have deprived them of career-saving advice.

Basically, though, new Ministers have to make their own way and it’s very much a sink or swim environment. A Minister has to have a few very clear big-picture priorities if they wish to achieve anything. Understanding details is important, but it’s the agenda that counts.

My ministerial career started in immigration, which I soon discovered makes one a very popular guest at ethnic events. Some of the representations to my office were slightly unconventional, including one which arrived accompanied by a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label whisky, which, needless to say, left the office in the custody of the owner. Right from the start, I focused on attracting migrants with the skills and capital to make a contribution to New Zealand, including a highly successful business migration programme and the introduction of the Silver Fern Job Search Visa to attract promising qualified young people who are likely to make a long-term contribution. We also drove the reconfiguration of the Immigration New Zealand network, aligning the footprint to important markets across the globe while moving processes online and eliminating as much bureaucracy as possible. It’s my view that New Zealand must continue to position as an outward-looking, internationally engaged, open economy, and immigration is central to that.

However, that term wasn’t always totally rosy. One night in September 2010, Peter Dunne offered me the generous opportunity of reading for him a bill on tax, entitled the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. Unfortunately, he sent me down with a copy of a speech he’d given two years ago, on the Taxation (International Taxation, Life Insurance, and Remedial Matters) Bill. Tell me if you can tell the difference. In fact, no one in the Parliament could, until about minute seven or eight, when Stuart Nash suddenly realised there was something eerily familiar about the words that were being uttered. But in the end, of course, the bill passed its reading and, as far as I can see, hasn’t been repealed yet.

My period as Minister of Defence was extremely interesting and satisfying, and there was a lot going on. The New Zealand Defence Force had three large missions in Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste, all of which we withdrew from over those years. At the same time, there was a major review of defence capabilities required to deliver on New Zealand defence policy. We were also engaging with the US on defence matters after a considerable hiatus, and, all in all, this was a period of major change.

I came away from my time in that portfolio with a deep respect for the men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force. I’ve never met a group of people more dedicated to the service of their country and with greater pride in their vocation.

There were many poignant experiences, including three visits to Afghanistan, returning the veterans to El Alamein and Monte Cassino, and speaking at the Gallipoli Dawn Service on Anzac Day 2013. But there was none more intense and emotional than travelling the length of New Zealand twice in the space of 10 days to visit the parents and close family of young men and women who had been killed in the service of our country in Afghanistan literally two days before.

One of the things I’m absolutely proudest of—and you wouldn’t have read much about it in the news at the time—was getting the families of those killed and wounded in Afghanistan and Timor-Leste into this Chamber for the dedication of new plaques commemorating those deployments, and those are there, above the entrance to the Chamber. I know that recognition made a huge difference to those people.

To maintain an active, engaged New Zealand Defence Force, operations are absolutely crucial. In that regard, present and future Governments need to think carefully about how they will maintain the important strategic capability that is the New Zealand SAS.

My biggest message on defence, though, is that despite what the sceptics might think, New Zealand’s contribution really does count and has a huge flow-on effect in terms of our overall standing with like-minded nations. I know it definitely helped reopen doors in Washington over the last 10 years.

As stimulating as defence might be, health is actually a much more dangerous portfolio for any Minister. It’s on the front line of politics, and I was delighted to take up the challenge for my final three years as a Minister. It’s certainly a great way to boost your profile, up to a certain point—in fact, even beyond the point you’ve announced your retirement. It’s a portfolio where there is always more to do. Every day in my office, the overriding priority was to continue to increase and improve access to clinical services for all New Zealanders. I’m not pretending the system is perfect, and there will always be pressures in health for any Government. But some critics do the country a disservice by their portrayal of the New Zealand health system.

We delivered results, and the figures tell the story: increased access to surgery, increasing numbers of specialist appointments, decreased waiting times for cancer treatment, vastly improved immunisation rates, and more doctors and nurses. There was also $3 billion of new health facilities the length of New Zealand and a $5 billion lift to the health budget—fully funding population growth and inflation over our time in Government.

Perhaps the biggest single initiative I was involved in delivering was the $2 billion pay settlement for some of the most deserving people in New Zealand—the 55,000 care and support workers, and, of course, most of those people are women. I know it made a huge difference to them and their families. If the new Government, in the end of their time, can have matched our record of delivery, they will be doing very well indeed.

Apart from the focus on clinical results, my big-picture drive was on a new New Zealand Health Strategy, which lays out the blueprint for a sustainable health system. That was delivered, and its implementation will now set up the system for New Zealand for decades to come. The National Government also laid the foundations for an electronic health record, and that will make a patient’s key health information available through the system. It is the only way we’re ultimately going to unlock productivity in healthcare, and I sincerely hope that this is work that the current Government will prioritise.

There were other portfolios too: State services, where I was Minister at a time of the biggest reform of the Public Service in a generation—important, but it certainly seemed like work—and sport, where we linked participation to better health outcomes while continuing to drive high performance results—important, but it certainly did not seem like work.

There’s so many people to thank for the past 14 years, first as a candidate and then as a member of Parliament. To colleagues across the House, it’s been a pleasure, mostly, to work with you over the years. To Wayne Mapp, to Nathan Guy, to Judith Collins, to Gerry Brownlee, to Maggie Barry, to Simon O’Connor, to David Bennett, and to Sam Lotu-Iiga, thank you for your friendship. We all need people we can talk to in this place, and I had that, and I’m thankful for it.

To Simon Bridges, National Party leader, and the rest of the National team here in Parliament, thank you for your support, especially since my announcement but over many years before that. Simon, I wish you and the rest of the National team all the best. You will make a great Prime Minister, and you are supported by a very talented caucus.

I had fantastic people around me during my career here in Wellington: my senior private secretary of nine years, Melissa Turner; Oliver Thurston; Nicky Grant; James Watson; Martyn Watterson; Stephen Parker; Angela Kenealy; Michael Johnson; Kirsty Taylor-Doig; “J2”—Jonathan Franklin—and Margaret Lawry. Former Nelson under-21s full back and political soothsayer Peter McCardle became a close friend and mentor, and I thank you, Peter, for all the excellent advice, some of which I even took.

Thank you to the huge number of Public Service secondees and various officials with whom I worked over my career. I always placed the emphasis on building a team in my office over those nine years, and we had a huge amount of fun, as well as working long hours with great intensity.

Electorate teams are special, and I had a wonderful electorate agent for a decade, Anne Lyttelton—utterly loyal, a great friend, and, best of all, she never failed over the years to take the bait when I’ve rung the office impersonating various demanding constituents. Gavin Cook, you’ve given 43 fantastic years of service to the electorate committee, and you’re like a close uncle to me. Colin and Helen Hartwell, you’ve been with me from day one, and I thank you for all the times we’ve had over many years. We will still all catch up.

To electorate chairs Callum Dixon, Jason Shoebridge, Kevin Klein, and Alex Foan, thank you so much for all your work, support, and loyalty. To Angela Hare, Karen Meldrum, Valerie Taylor, Adrian Mowatt-Wison, John Palmer, Geoff Parry, Paul Lochore, Martin Cooper, John and Elly McFetridge, and Julie Fenning; to Peter Kiely; to Alastair Bell, Margaret Voyce, and the Ellis family; to Martin Gummer; and to Tim Hurdle—thanks for the tremendous part you’ve all played along the way.

One of the toughest parts of being a member of Parliament—a long-term member in an electorate—is the people you lose along the way. I want to remember the late Bob Mitchell and the late Bill Plunkett—sterling guys, who left a big hole to fill.

To former Birkenhead and Northcote MPs Sir Jim McLay and Ian Revell, I’m absolutely thrilled that you’re here today. You’ve been staunch supporters over many years—my whole career—and I thank you.

To the National Party, to presidents Judy Kirk and Peter Goodfellow, thank you for the opportunities of the last 12½ years.

To the people of the Northcote electorate, representing you has been the greatest privilege. You were so loyal in your support over five elections, and I thank you. I’ve been truly moved by the reaction to my resignation, and it has meant everything to me. Being an electorate MP is not a job; it’s a whole life. I feel privileged to have lived it for nearly 13 years.

Northcote is not an electorate I ever took for granted, but it will reward sheer hard work with loyalty. I wish the new National candidate and the team all the best in the upcoming by-election.

To personal friends, many of them from well outside politics, including the Northcote Book Club—thank you for your support and forbearance over the years. It’s going to be great, actually, now to be able to see a lot more people than I have been able to for quite some time in some of my favourite haunts, like the Northcote rugby club, the Northcote Tennis Club, and the Northcote Tavern. I’ll be able to spend quite a bit more time there, although hopefully not too much time in the tavern. But it will be good to be back home much more often.

To the wider Coleman and Keaney families, thank you for being there at a personal level. To my mother, Pat, and her husband, Jack, thanks for everything, over more than just these last 13 years. To Kaye, Richard, and Matthew and families; to Judy, my mother-in-law, thank you. And I honour the memory of my late father, Ron, a Northcote boy. He would have been amazed to see how it’s all turned out.

Above all, to Madison and Jack, you’ve had a taste of the political life and are just two awesome kids who have grown up thinking it’s normal to see Dad on TV. Jack, you were born when I was a Minister and you’re now 10, so, you know, that’s a long time. I know you don’t like being mentioned too much, but your name is in the Hansard now. Madison, you are the same. You’ve been a fantastic inspiration to me over many years, and it’s now great to see where you’re going and where the next stage, when you move off to intermediate school next year, will take you. Actually, Jack is eight; Madison is ten. I’ve spent so much away from home! I knew he was shaking his head for a reason, and he’s pointing his finger.

Anyway, to Sandra, who never liked being known as the Mayor of Rotorua’s daughter and had a very healthy sense of perspective on being the MP’s wife, this has been a long and important and fun chapter for us, but I couldn’t have started that chapter, I couldn’t have moved through it, and I certainly couldn’t have successfully finished it without you—thank you. I still can’t believe I didn’t tell you I was contacting the National Party about being a candidate, but I guess that’s a while ago now. You’ve been with me every step of the way since that time, and you’ve seen and done it all, from delivering pamphlets to emotional support. Yes, I am in debt to you big time.

Finally, to distil political advice into succinct verse, look no further than a poem by an old white guy called Rudyard Kipling called “If”, which he wrote as advice to his son. I’m not going to recite it in its entirety, but it’s worth the read for any politician—or, actually, for anyone at all.

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with kings—nor lose the common touch;

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours in the Earth and everything that’s in it,

And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Thank you, and kia ora. It’s been a pleasure to serve.

[Applause]

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

Primary Sector (continued)

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to be able to take a call on this Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill with the theme being the primary sector. It’s been an interesting process for me, being a new member of the Primary Production Committee. Having all the different entities come and present to us their annual reports was really quite an interesting exercise. We had various entities present to us. We had the Ministry for Primary Industries, Quotable Value New Zealand Ltd, Animal Control Products Ltd, AsureQuality Ltd, Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd, Land Information New Zealand, and Landcorp Farming, so we were quite a busy committee with all of our annual reports that we had presented to us.

I think it would be fair to say that the committee has worked well during this process. There was definitely some robust questioning of some of these entities. They were certainly put through their paces, shall we say, at times, and I think that taxpayers can be assured that this committee has been thorough in its review of these entities.

In particular, I want to focus on the Ministry for Primary Industries’ annual review, and the reason for that is Mycoplasma bovis is something that came up quite a lot during this review. I feel that because this is something that is quite relevant to the area where I live down in Ashburton, that’s something I wanted to talk about in particular.

Mycoplasma bovis—I think this just about has to be one of the most devastating diseases to hit our primary sector for many, many, many years. We know that it’s a bacteria that can cause serious conditions in cattle—mastitis, pneumonia, arthritis, late-term pregnancy loss—and it doesn’t respond to any treatment. It was July 2017 when Mycoplasma bovis was first found in cattle in Ōāmaru, and we now know that approximately 22,300 animals will be culled as a result of this. This is devastating—absolutely devastating—for farmers all round New Zealand, but in particular Southland and Canterbury. I can’t even begin to fathom as to how it has come to the point where we’ve had to cull over 20,000 animals. Clearly, someone has been asleep at the wheel and has been too slow to limit cattle movement.

I’ve got a family that has contacted me, a young family. They sent me an email, and I just want to read a wee part from their email. It says, “The last three months have propelled us to an all-time low in our farming career. Having struggled through two difficult financial seasons, we’d begun to finally progress with real satisfaction, only to be dealt this unfortunate blow. It is extremely hard to explain how difficult this has been for our family, our business partners, and our staff.” This is a story—and one of many, I’m sure—that many farmers who have experienced this Mycoplasma outbreak can relate to.

I think that the ball has really been dropped here, and I think it’s a lot to do with our National Animal Identification and Tracing system, and certain farmers complying but some not. We can probably look to trace Mycoplasma bovis back to some of the discrepancies there.

But we are lucky, actually, now that we have a Minister that is ready to make those hard decisions, and he has made those hard decisions about culling the animals and still working towards eradication as opposed to just managing it at this point. I just think that we’re very lucky now that we have a new Government that is ready to take action on these extremely dire situations where we have biosecurity incursions, and I really hope that we don’t have to be faced with something like this any time soon. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’ll just take the opportunity to make a comment or two or three on what is, effectively, the review process of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and all the agencies. I’d like to acknowledge the Primary Production Committee and all the work they’ve done. I’d like to acknowledge the people who might be watching this out there in rural land. And, actually, it’s not conventional but I want to acknowledge—my little daughter said she might watch Parliament, which is a true commitment for someone of 10 years of age, but anyway. There are people who are out there and they are interested in what is happening to the sectors that drive the vast majority of export income for this country. It is a huge a role for the select committee to oversee the process that takes place through the financial year.

We had the first speech, unfortunately, I have to say, from Mr Bennett, who spoke about the future issues—indeed, things I’ll be happy to talk about next year as we move forward under the new Government. But, actually, looking back, I acknowledge the member of the committee Jo Luxton, who raised what has obviously been one of the biggest challenges facing the incoming Government. Indeed, it was notified in July of last year, under the previous Government, under the period of review, and that was the discovery of Mycoplasma bovis. It has significant financial implications for everyone through the farming sector, including Government at the top, and this Government has already had to commit tens of millions of dollars to the process of trying to round up and eradicate this disease.

Can I say that it possibly went back so far as 2015, and through this process—I have to just challenge Ms Luxton with one of her assertions. We don’t know the source of the farm, and the farm that it was first discovered on may not be the source of the infection. I have to acknowledge that and to apologise, because I think those farmers have been unfairly blamed for what might be an infection from another source. I think it is unfair, and I’ll acknowledge that publicly: there has been some confusion.

There are two sources, possibly—there were thought to be—and now maybe one. We’re not quite sure. We’re going to round that up and, hopefully, identify that accurately. But in the meantime, we’ve been trying to track animals that have spread out all through New Zealand. We should have been able to actually identify and track all of those movements under NAIT—the National Animal Identification and Tracing system. It was introduced by the previous Government. It was subject to the best advice from around the world, and was supposed to have been the world’s best practice, but it has failed. I have to say that publicly. There’s a review document that should have been out for public disclosure and discussion probably over 12 months ago, but they sat on that report, and that’s been unfortunate.

Our inability to accurately identify all animal movements has meant it’s really, really difficult for us to have given some assurance to the tracking and tracing programme when we’ve been trying to nail down Mycoplasma bovis, and the report—that farmers and people in the agribusiness sector should read—puts out there about 40 recommendations on what we have to do to improve the NAIT system. It is really important we get that feedback so that when we do make the changes, as an incoming Government, they’re the right changes to give effect to the best animal identification and tracing system in the world. We need it if we are going to be the producers of the finest food, the safest food, in the world for consumers and customers who will be all around the world.

So let’s get it right. Let’s acknowledge the mistakes of the past and the fact that, I have to say, the previous Government wasn’t prepared to nail down and prosecute people who didn’t adhere to the system. That lax approach, I guess, has led to an attitude which has taken NAIT for granted and left us in the situation that we’re in now. We’ll move on from that, but it is one of perhaps the most significant things in review that we should acknowledge and then commit to change and improve, and we will do that as an incoming Government.

Back to Mycoplasma bovis—as I say, acknowledging perhaps some misunderstandings around one of the main farms where this was identified, but also acknowledging the challenges of those people who have been affected—about 50 farms at this point are under restricted notices or have had culling. It is a really, really difficult time for those farmers, and we want to acknowledge that and offer them the support, as we have been attempting to do.

In terms of the other areas of significance—others may raise that; I might want to make a few comments, but this is the most important area—[Bell rung] Very briefly, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you expecting another call?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yeah.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Just a very brief call, Mr Chairman, to say that this is the most import area of export growth and income generation. It is important that each and every one of the members on the committee do their bit, and I look forward to hearing from them as to what happened in the previous financial year. Learning from those mistakes, we can make the changes and get on and do better under this incoming Government. Kia ora.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to start out by saying that while I’m on the Primary Production Committee second time around, I wasn’t there for the review, unfortunately. But I have read the papers, and I am going to focus on Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd—what’s in the review and ongoing matters, as is allowed under the Standing Orders.

I am a little disappointed as to how it’s come out in the last few days, with Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd in the review quite clearly touching on what was within the coalition agreement around winding back irrigation investment. They didn’t at that stage know what was in store, and we now do know that, and they know that, and what’s come out is that, actually, the Minister didn’t contact Crown Irrigations Investments Ltd himself. The Minister is better than that, and I hope he reflects on that, because, while he may not be required to do it, it’s a common courtesy. Why he’s done that or why that didn’t happen, I don’t know, but I hope he reflects on that, because, as I said, he’s better than that.

I want to focus on two of the projects that have been cut as a result of this, and there were some quite erroneous things said today in the House by a member—from New Zealand First, I think it was—who spoke about the Hurunui Water Project. If he went down and cared to actually have a look at it, he would realise how far off the mark he was.

Those projects, like the Hurunui Water Project, for example—it’s not a cheap scheme by any means. It’ll be $1,000 a hectare or $10,000 a hectare—that’s a lot of money—to put in place. What Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd, the purpose of that, and what was reported on in the report, is—it funds overbuild. What that means is that instead of putting in a pipe this big, in the sure knowledge of knowing that it’ll need to be bigger later, they enable the pipe to be put in a little bit bigger. That saves money in the long run.

Irrigation schemes—having been involved in getting a community irrigation scheme, and, in fact, chairing it, from scratch to up and running—are in fact a real challenge. The challenge is getting over the funding hump—getting enough people on board to actually get the money up and get the scheme to a bankable stage. And people say, “Well, it should stand on its merits.” Well, they do in the end, but the ability to get there is quite fraught. If you look at the costs for consents for a large project compared to the costs for a small project, they are, in fact, about the same. So if you can get a group together and get the scheme up and running, then you will get there because of that—not you, Mr Chair, of course. Then the community will be able to get those schemes up and running, and, actually, it is an infrastructure that pays itself back.

The best example is the Waipara irrigation scheme, not far from the Hurunui Water Project, which was put in at $5.7 million. That’s what it cost to put in. That scheme, within 10 years, was returning that much money per annum in excise tax on the wine produced off that irrigation scheme. So that irrigation scheme would have paid back the cost of the irrigation scheme, the capital cost, year on year, in excise tax alone—not counting income tax, not counting GST, and not counting the return of the investment of those people and their annual returns and the money flowing through the community. We do know from studies that every dollar spent invested inside the gate returns $2 outside the gate—the farm gate.

So these schemes pay for themselves very quickly. These schemes provide a huge community benefit, and, in the case of the Hurunui Water Project, only 10 to 15 percent of the irrigated land would be either dairy or dairy support. So the scheme is well ahead of what would be expected otherwise.

So I’ll leave it at that, and I might come back later, but that’s a brief rundown and I do hope the Minister reflects, as I said. So thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to speak on this annual review debate for the primary sector. As a member of the Primary Production Committee, we definitely know how important our primary sectors are to regional New Zealand but also in terms of the export revenues that they generate for Aotearoa as well.

As we’ve heard in previous contributions, we reviewed a number of entities, from ministries through to statutory boards, through to State-owned enterprises and State-owned companies. So it was the full variety of different Crown entities that came under our purview.

Just touching on certain entities that we reviewed, I do want to focus on the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) first up. I want to acknowledge the Minister and also Martyn Dunne and the team at MPI, who gave us a thorough background into the work that has been going on—the extensive work that is going on—to combat the outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis. It was heartening to know that everything that can be thrown at it is being thrown at it. Now, of course, we can stand here in hindsight and say, “What happened? What went wrong? What were the failings in our biosecurity system?”, and I’m sure those questions will be answered in due course. But in terms of the immediate work that was going on right from the onset of that outbreak, I can only just give my commendation to MPI for the work that’s going on and is still going on, albeit now to quite a drastic culling stage. Again, we need to do all that we can to make sure that we eradicate that virus from our primary sector.

That also spans other incursions. We’ve got myrtle rust and we’ve got—I’m thinking of the oysters in Southland with Bonamia ostreae. It is a fact of life that our defences are always under attack and some nasties do get through our systems. I guess, hopefully, we can ensure that our Ministry for Primary Industries, and our whole biosecurity system, learn from these incursions and better bolster our defences to ensure that we can keep as many of them at bay. I know this is dear to Minister O’Connor, and I know that he’ll be—and is—working very hard to ensure that we strengthen those pā defences, as I like to say.

In my remaining time, I also want to cover a couple of other entities that we reviewed. One such one is Landcorp Farming. Now, I guess Landcorp Farming doesn’t really have that sort of sizzle or razzmatazz as other State-owned enterprises have. It has been doing it tough. It is in the primary sector. It has a range of a variety of farms right up and down the length and breadth of the country. It was disappointing that, yet again, whilst there was an operating profit, there were no dividends paid to the Crown. It has been, I think, some six years since a dividend has been paid, but there were other priorities, I guess, for that company on its balance sheet.

But I do look forward, and this came out of the discussions—Landcorp has been working for the past few years on developing a brand called Pāmu, and I’ve been asking in the past couple of reviews why haven’t they changed the name of Landcorp to Pāmu. If you are going to be going through a transformation and wanting to adopt all of these new brand names, I think they should go the full distance and make sure that that is effected. Again, names like Landcorp hearken back to the Rogernomics era of the 1980s, and certainly, I guess, if the company is intending to move with the times and to go through this transformation of being more focused on value-add, both on-farm and also through to market, the adoption of that name would be appropriate. I understand that discussions will be taking place with the relevant Ministers to give effect to that. So, yes, I do commend this debate thus far.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, it’s been an interesting period going through these annual reviews, as a first-time MP, and to sit on these for the first opportunity. It was really interesting to see the work that was being done in the different entities.

I’d just like to start with Crown Irrigation. There’s been a lot happening in this space and a lot of project work in the pipeline. In New Zealand we are particularly fortunate to be very wealthy in terms of our freshwater resource. Now, we utilise only about 3 percent of that resource on an annual basis, so there is massive opportunity for us to continue to capture some of that potential opportunity around enhancing the economic, the social, and the environmental benefits for our rural communities through irrigation projects. That was something that was highlighted to us through the annual review—the value, in particular, around some of the economic gains and the environmental aspects that can be enhanced.

Now, environmentally, there was a significant opportunity to improve the water quality and to maintain minimum flows, and some of those aspects were considered to be major drawcards for continuing with the irrigation projects that were on the cards. Of course, we’ve heard that the new Government is not continuing with these projects and is indeed looking to pull out of some of the projects that had already moved into various stages of discussion. Of course, there is an argument that says, “Hey, there was no legal obligation entered into.”, and that may well be the case, but we also need to consider what is the moral obligation upon us in this House to make and adhere to commitments that have been signalled well within the communities, especially where there has been significant investment already committed in good faith by members of those communities. That was something that was certainly raised with some concern from the Crown Irrigation perspective.

Of course, then there was uncertainty also around the potential to fund some of these projects through the regional development fund, and they classified some of the smaller projects that were currently on their work programme to be considered as localised projects which had been indicated as potentially being up for funding. So really what I’m getting to here is that there was a lot of uncertainty around these projects that were in the pipeline and whether or not they will indeed be continuing, and we’ve been told it is unlikely that they will be.

Moving on to the Ministry for Primary Industries, we had a range of different topics covered in that area and, again, some really interesting initiatives. There’s been a lot of work happening in that space, and primary industries is a passion of mine, so it was really fascinating to hear of some of the great work that has been done over a number of years now. Some of those areas—biosecurity is one that continues to be a constant challenge for New Zealand. We are lucky to be an island nation where we have no other land borders. That presents some challenges and requires a continued ongoing focus on biosecurity. There will always be risks to that, and we’ve seen those over time with the Queensland fruit fly, the brown marmorated stink bug, and, more recently, Mycoplasma bovis and myrtle rust as well.

So those challenges are something we need to fight back against and be prepared to manage when they arise. What was raised with us was there was a little bit of concern around the timing, the assets that are being put towards some of those now, and, most recently, of course, the most topical issue being Mycoplasma bovis. That has been a challenging situation to deal with, and I just want to acknowledge that for anyone involved in that, it must be a particularly difficult situation for them. But really we need a quick response. We need to have the best information we can at hand in managing that appropriately.

Of course, likewise with the stink bug incursions—and we’ve had some of these in the past. They’ve been dealt with and managed efficiently, and this time we had another incursion. There was concern that some of these stink bugs had travelled significant distances within our borders, and so this was really highlighting some of the challenges and the need to continue a focus with the new Government on biosecurity. I would encourage them to do just that.

Of course, we then had a reasonable discussion around dairy, the dairy industry, and where that’s going. Obviously, now we’re looking at a review of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act as well, which is pretty significant for this industry. It looks to incorporate aspects much wider than just dairy—for example, some of the environmental considerations. Are we going to see a stocking rate cap coming in? Are we going to see limits put in place? Is Fonterra going to be required to continue to pick up all milk from suppliers? That’s one where we see an ongoing focus around the environmental space, so that would be an area I would encourage prompt action on.

Of course, then we heard a bit about forestry and honey as well and the flip-flopping on some of those decisions more recently. So a lot of work happening in this space, Mr Chair.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, it’s my pleasure to take a call on this. Let me run through a couple of things that the last member has just talked about. But, first of all, let me say it’s an absolute pleasure to have a new Minister of Agriculture who understands how this country actually works. That last member actually highlighted—I don’t know if he did it on purpose, but he actually highlighted what was wrong with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), and it’s why we’ve made the changes we’ve made.

So I look through the review of MPI, OK, and what do I see? I see a whole lot of dairying. I see about two paragraphs on forestry. And where’s the fisheries? There is nothing in there on MPI about fisheries at all, which is why we have said we need to change things. We need to change the way things are done, which is why we split forestry out.

I see in the report it says that it’s business as usual. They’re planting 50 million trees for the 50,000 hectares that have been harvested. Well, it’s not about 50,000 hectares that have been harvested; we need to plant substantially more trees not only to meet our carbon liabilities but also the environment. In Hawke’s Bay alone—and the former Mayor of Hastings District Council will know this—we have identified 250,000 hectares in Hawke’s Bay alone that needs replanting. Ten million tonnes of sediment every year goes into Hawke’s Bay from land that is not suitable for farmland or that was cleared once upon the time. And MPI says it’s 50,000 hectares across the country—business as usual? The problem is there was no business. There was nothing.

I went to two forestry conferences during the election campaign—two forestry conferences—where all the industry leaders were, and at one forestry conference there was no one from MPI. At the second forestry conference there was two. There were more people from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the forestry conference than there were from MPI, which is why the Minister, in his wisdom, has said, “Let’s split out forestry, let’s split out fisheries, let’s split out food safety to make sure they get the attention that they deserve.” All credit to Minister Damien O’Connor, because he knows how the rural sector works, and that’s the irony, isn’t it? That’s the irony. They’re supposed to be the party of farmers, and yet they completely did over the primary industries sector.

And when I hear the member say, “Surely, there’s a moral obligation to build these dams”—surely there’s a moral obligation to take $100 million of taxpayer money and build the dams—well, my personal view is we’ve actually got a moral obligation to invest taxpayers’ money in a way that is going to add significant value. How about a hospital here? How about a hospital? How about our schools? How about our houses? How about our police officers? How about the things that are going to keep our communities safe, and health and well-being, instead of a dam?

Hawkes’ Bay’s a classic case. So we talked about building a dam. Crown Irrigation Investments was going to put some money into it, TrustPower walked away because the return was just terrible—they couldn’t make it work. So what we were going to do was ask ratepayers—150,000 ratepayers—to subsidise a capital gain for 150 farmers. Now, I tend to agree with the Minister of Agriculture when he said that if it can work off its own bat, then absolutely—we are not a party that is against water storage, for goodness’ sake! In fact, we’re all for water storage if the farmers can make it work themselves. Why should we provide a whole lot of subsidy? Why should we provide subsidies when our hospitals are mouldy and our schools are falling down and we’re under-resourced in the police sector?

Tim van de Molen: Embarrassing.

Hon STUART NASH: That is totally embarrassing—totally embarrassing. You’re dead right, sir. You’re dead right. This is why, when I have a look at this—I read the report on the Overseas Investment Office. Goodness me—18 months ago they created an enforcement team. Why didn’t they do this nine years ago? We knew—we knew—there were foreign investors coming over here, making promises in order to get the consent to buy the land, and they were just not living up to the promises they had made. They were just not meeting the promises they were making. So they created an enforcement team 18 months ago. It’s a bit late. It’s a bit late.

Finally, what we’re going to do with the Overseas Investment Office is, first of all, resource it in a way that means it can make meaningful decisions and then ensure that people who come over here can meet the promises they make. I mean, thank goodness it’s a whole new chapter. Thank goodness this is the last time we’ll be reading about what happened under a National Government. Next time, there will be a whole lot of really good stories. I congratulate the Minister. It’s fantastic.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the committee report progress.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Bills

Privacy Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 10 April.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I start where I finished. We have learnt from the police that cybercrime investigations at the moment may be a specialised area but in the foreseeable future they will become a generalised area, because technology is a part of everyday life. Advances in technology, such as the social media platform, e-commerce, digital economy, and new ways of collecting, saving, storing, and distributing personal information bring with them a variety of issues and challenges concerning privacy. The proposed changes under this bill act on the recommendations of the Law Commission in 2011. The bill would grant significant powers to the Privacy Commissioner and strengthen the existing privacy regime by repealing and replacing the Privacy Act 1993.

The key changes in the Privacy Bill include mandatory reporting of privacy breaches, compliance notices—that is, the Privacy Commissioner will be able to issue compliance notices that require an agency to do something or stop doing something.

What is personal information, by the way? Personal information, according to the Privacy Commissioner, is any information about an individual, namely a living natural person, as long as that natural person can be identified.

Let me step outside this bill for a little while and talk about the issues covered in another bill. Last Tuesday, this House unanimously passed the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. There are two types of criminal records or checks: Case Management System (CMS) and Criminal and Traffic Convictions History records (CaTCH). In the case of CMS, it is where all data in relation to offences, including convictions that were subsequently quashed, will be stored. This is a data centre, a unified go-to place for all information in relation to court or criminal cases. For CaTCH, anyone who is eligible to have their criminal records expunged and successfully expunged will be able to have their criminal records wiped from the CaTCH system. In terms of both CMS and CaTCH, there will need to be a robust check and balance system to ensure that privacy concerning individuals will be protected and we do have such a robust system—for instance, regular checks or auditing.

The expungement legislation provides statutory requirements for the privacy concerning individuals to be protected. In a similar vein, the Privacy Bill creates a new criminal offence. It will be an offence to mislead an agency in a way that affects someone else’s information and to knowingly destroy documents containing personal information where a request has been made for it. Other measures under this bill include strengthening cross-border data-flowing protections. New Zealand agencies will be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that personal information disclosed overseas will be subject to acceptable privacy standards.

The bill also clarifies the application of New Zealand’s law when a New Zealand agency engages an overseas service provider. This is important. New Zealand is an export-orientated country and New Zealand is an active member of the international community in terms of international agreements and contracts. To maintain acceptable privacy standards will be very important—for instance, concerning international contracts, etc.

The Privacy Bill retains the existing Act’s 12 information privacy principles, or the so-called IPPs. At the core of the Privacy Act are those 12 information privacy principles that set out how agencies may collect, store, distribute, and disclose personal information. Of course, many rules have exceptions, as we are reminded by the Privacy Commissioner. We will need to read together with those exceptions to see how they relate to any particular circumstances.

The Privacy Bill repeals and replaces the Privacy Act 1993, as recommended by the Law Commission in its 2011 review of the primary Act. The Act has been in operation for 25 years. Over that time, the rise of the internet, digital economy, and e-commerce have transformed business and government. New technologies, such as the social media platform, e-commerce, and cloud storage have changed the way personal information may be collected, saved, stored, or distributed. This has created many benefits but together with the benefits has also created new challenges, and this bill seeks to address those issues.

This bill will better align New Zealand’s privacy law with international developments, including OECD and European Union guidelines.

While we’re debating this bill, Facebook’s CEO has just faced the United States Senate judicial and commerce committees, where legislators there are introducing similar changes aiming at protecting people from incidents like the Cambridge Analytica scandal. General consensus is that consumers deserve the opportunity to opt in to services that might mine and sell their data, not to find out their personal information has been exploited years later. We’re dealing with a reality. It is not only about Facebook. Other social media platforms such as Instagram, LinkedIn, or Twitter are a part of everyday life.

Everyone is dealing with some form of data, one way or the other. This is the era of big data. Voluntary standards are not enough. Legislative changes are necessary, and this is exactly what this bill seeks to achieve. I look forward to submissions. The already busy Justice Committee is fully gearing up for a new mission and new challenges. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s my great pleasure to take a call on this, the Privacy Bill. The key purpose of reforming the Act is to promote people’s confidence that their personal information is secure and will be treated properly. It’s very relevant, obviously, and today with—like the chairman of the Justice Committee, Raymond Huo, was saying—the free flow of information, and all the social media platforms. I’m well known to not really use the social media platforms necessarily like they should be.

Denise Lee : Yeah, should be.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s right. But the fact of the matter is that there’s always a huge risk that our personal information can get out and become available to people that we may not necessarily want to see or have that information.

I think the Facebook example is very good and relevant, because Mr Zuckerberg, who recently in the last 48 hours appeared in front of a United States Senate committee, stated that he had had to employ an extra 20,000 people to make sure that they were actually monitoring the content and the privacy provisions on Facebook. He had to acknowledge that although they had a very big disclaimer and legal statement when you sign up to Facebook, not many people actually read it, it’s all in legalese, and they probably wouldn’t understand exactly what it means anyway. So it highlights that there’s got to be a big focus on privacy and how we deal with it.

I know that during my time as Minister of Statistics, it was interesting because we gathered a lot of information, and as part of our social investment programme, it was important to be able to use data and to be able to analyse data. For Government agencies to do that effectively, they also have to be able to collect information from NGOs or partners outside of Government that they’re working with. But to do that, you have to have a high level of credibility and be able to prove that some of that information, which is going to be sensitive, you’re going to be able to anonymise it, so that you can actually remove any information that will identify the individual themselves, whereas still being able to keep the data that actually shows trends and allows Governments to make good decisions. This is an important part for any Government in terms of the decisions that they’re going to be making.

So just very quickly, the changes made in the bill, as set out in the explanatory note: there’s going to be “mandatory reporting of privacy breaches: … compliance notices: the Commissioner will be able to issue compliance notices that require an agency to do something, or stop doing something, in order to comply with privacy law.”—this is very important, and—“The Human Rights Review Tribunal will be able to enforce compliance notices and hear appeals.” So there’s some good checks and balances that are contained within this bill. “[N]ew criminal offences: it will be an offence to mislead an agency in a way that affects someone else’s information and to knowingly destroy documents containing personal information where a request has been made for it. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $10,000:”. It’s got to be good penalty; it’s got to be a decent fine to deter and stop that type of criminal offending. So I think this is a very, very good part of the bill.

Finally, “Commissioner making binding decisions on access requests: this reform will enable the Commissioner to make decisions on complaints relating to access to information, rather than the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Commissioner’s decision will be able to be appealed to the Tribunal:”. That, quite simply, is just streamlining the process and making sure that people get access to that service quickly, with, of course, the ability to still be able to take it to the Human Rights Review Tribunal if they need to, if they didn’t feel like there was a good outcome. So I’m very happy to have taken the call and stand in support of the Privacy Bill. Thank you.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): I rise in support of the Privacy Bill currently before the House, and before I dig down into the intricacies of the actual bill, I just want to share a story which highlights just how necessary a review of the Privacy Act actually is. It wasn’t too long ago that I returned home after work one day and my sister was on her laptop, and she was talking on the phone to somebody in a distant country. As I walked into the house and I saw this happening, I said to her, “What’s going on here?” She said somebody had contacted her and told her that she had something going on in her computer—it was infected—and that she had to enter her password in and a few login details and then go to a couple of specific sites, which she was trying to do to try and, obviously, get her computer back on the straight and narrow.

When I revealed to her that she could, potentially, have been scammed, she then told the person on the end of the line, “My brother says that you’re trying to scam me.”, to which the person said, “No, I’m not trying to scam you—your brother is lying. Keep doing what I’m telling you.”, at which I then grabbed the phone and hung up for her and then looked at her computer screen, only to find that there were screeds of files that were currently flashing up on the computer screen in front of her. I turned the computer off immediately, and we had to have a little sit-down conversation about privacy and about how passwords shouldn’t be given out, especially to people over the phone that you don’t really know.

So as I look over this Privacy Bill that’s before the House, realising that it’s been a long time since we first had this brought before the House—the Privacy Act 1993—I think it’s about time for a refresh. I support the provisions of this bill, and I support them on behalf of my family too.

Let’s talk through some of the key messages. First of all, this here is to protect people and, obviously, their privacy online, and that can’t be minimised, because with the amount of work that we do now online, there is a lot of our private information currently out there, and we are in a very different world to the world that we were in in 1993.

Now banks are encouraging you to do all of your transactions online. Branches are closing down around the country in favour of online banking. We put all of our details in, and it doesn’t take much to ask for your name, your address, your phone number, and your email. Generally, any site that you go to and think, “That’s a cool site.”, you type in your information, and that’s your information’s that’s then being, sometimes—as we’ve found out in the case of Facebook recently—shared all around the world with third parties that we don’t really know too much about. So any moves by this Government to actually change things in a modern context, the context that we’re living in today, is a very good thing.

Again, the key purpose of the reforms is to promote and protect people’s privacy and give them confidence that all of their information online is going to be secure and adequately protected. The Privacy Act, in its current form, has been with us for nearly 25 years, and, as I’ve said before, it is time for a bit of a change because of, obviously, social media, e-commerce websites that we sign up to, etc., etc.

Let’s talk about some of the provisions in the bill. First of all, as the previous speaker who’s now departed, Mark Mitchell, has identified, there is the mandatory reporting of privacy breaches. So if an agency knowingly has a breach of privacy, they then need to, under the provisions of this new bill, actually tell that there has been a privacy breach, and that’s a very new but a very informative change that will be going through. It’s a great provision in there, and there will be criminal offences if they don’t tell. So it will be an offence to mislead an agency in a way that affects somebody else’s information and to knowingly then destroy documents once you’ve been requested to provide that information. The penalty for that is $10,000. So it’s a hefty penalty but it’s a necessary penalty as we move into the new age.

There is also going to be a strengthening of cross-border data flows and the protections around that. That’s incredibly important as the World Wide Web knows no bounds, and when we enter information into a website here, inevitably it can often be related to an overseas agency. So that begs the question: what is an agency? I’m glad that the bill has drilled down into exactly what that is, because some people out there might not know. An agency is the name used for any entity that handles personal information. So an agency can be just one person or it can be persons in both the public and the private sector, but it doesn’t apply to people in their personal or domestic capacity and it also doesn’t include the Sovereign, the Governor-General, Parliament, courts, and tribunals exercising judicial functions. So any agency that knowingly misleads the public about any kind of breach of privacy will be dealt to and dealt to very strongly.

One of the other provisions in the bill is also to strengthen the Privacy Commissioner’s information-gathering power. Now, the commissioner’s existing investigation power is strengthened by allowing him or her to shorten the time frame within which an agency must comply and increasing the penalty for non-compliance. I’ve already referred to that, but in giving more strength to the Privacy Commissioner, that gives more strength to New Zealanders so that we know that the right thing will be done if there are any of these breaches. The commissioner is able to make binding decisions, and again this is a very commendable provision—binding decisions on access requests. That reform is going to enable the commissioner to make decisions on complaints relating to the access of information rather than the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The commissioner’s decisions will be able to be appealed to the tribunal as well.

All of these, when you put them together, are provisions that are going to make the information that New Zealanders store online a whole lot more sound, so that we can sleep at night, especially in light of what’s gone and happened with some very famous privacy breaches around the world. It will enable us to sleep a lot easier, knowing that our information isn’t being sent out and divvied up to third-party agencies.

The Privacy Commissioner, John Edwards, when this piece of legislation was put before the country, was the first one to pipe up, saying that he welcomed the introduction of the bill to maintain New Zealand’s strong track record of protecting the privacy interests of individuals. It’s nice to know that our Privacy Commissioner has that kind of strength of character to believe that here in New Zealand we’ve been doing a really good job so far and we need to continue to do that. He said that privacy law reform, and this particular bill, was overdue and had become an increasingly urgent issue since the Law Commission made the recommendation back in 2011.

At this point, I think it’s only appropriate to acknowledge that the actual petition was put in place by the Opposition, who were the Government at the time, but they did kick off the work for the Law Commission to put in the review to make the recommendations. It’s a bit of a pity that all these years later—that’s seven years now—we’ve had to step in and actually finish this off, but, as we all know, good things take time, and this bill is currently before the House and it seems to have agreement on both sides of the House too.

So I have only support for this bill and for the protections that have been put in the bill. I think that this is something that New Zealanders should also be jumping in and supporting, especially as we move from the first reading stage through the select committee process. Obviously, if anybody’s got any problems with this, or with any facets of this particular bill, then they need to involve themselves in that select committee process. But, as it stands, I have absolute confidence that this is going to help New Zealanders to sleep at night, knowing that their information that we know we’re sharing online is going to be a whole lot more protected than possibly it has been in the past and that there are going to be severe penalties for agencies that intentionally break that law. This bill actually compels them to come forward, compels them to notify the individuals concerned where there are breaches, and also puts in place a very hefty penalty, one of $10,000. As I say, it’s been nearly 25 years since this Act has been revised and I commend this bill to House. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House on 28 September 2018.

First, I want to acknowledge my colleague the MP for Rongotai, Paul Eagle, for agreeing for his member’s bill to be overtaken by this Government bill. He knew very quickly as he became an MP that this was something that this sector wanted, and he put the bill quickly into the ballot. So I appreciate the fact that we’re in a position to take over the bill and to do a little bit more.

We understand local government has a major role in enhancing the well-being of their communities. The decisions made by local government have an immediate impact on New Zealanders’ quality of life. In fact, when we think about the role and function councils play in our everyday lives, it’s far much more than roads, rates, and rubbish. Local government decisions affect the natural environment and neighbourhoods in which we live and work, and they impact on aspects of our health and safety in all sorts of ways. Local government plays a key role in supporting those quality-of-life outcomes that build a sense of belonging and well-being and happiness in our local and regional communities.

While there is a strong emphasis on good governance, strategic planning, and good decision-making, actually, the work that local government does is more than just about service delivery and asset management plans. The purpose statement in the Local Government Act at its introduction emphasised local government’s responsibility to make a broad contribution to promoting the well-being of their communities. It also emphasised that well-being should be considered holistically and that the social, economic, environmental, and cultural aspects of well-being need to be considered together, rather than separately. That purpose statement underlined the important role of local government in supporting individuals, whānau, and community outcomes to provide for their own future within their region.

This bill will provide clearer authority for local councils to shape their activities based on what their communities want. It shifts the balance of power back to local communities to decide with their councils what should be done for them, with them. It moves the focus from what councils can do to what they should do. It isn’t, and hasn’t ever been, the role of central government to tell councils what they should be doing for their communities. In fact, under this Government there will be a strong emphasis on working strategically together. We value that.

The bill reinstates community well-being into the purpose of local government. The four aspects of well-being—social, economic, environmental, and cultural—will be embedded into the fabric of the local government regulatory framework. They are referenced in a range of other Acts, from the Resource Management Act to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. Restoring community well-being will return certainty about the role local government plays and will be a welcome change to councils, who probably have wondered, “Why didn’t that happen sooner?”

Before reference to community well-being was removed from the Act in 2012, local authorities already made responsible financial decisions about the current and future needs of their community. The report of the Shand inquiry in 2007 and the report of the Auditor-General in 2012 confirmed this. The Government believes local government will continue to make the right decisions with and for their communities as we reinsert the well-beings back into the principal Act.

Local authorities have said that the change to remove well-beings from the Act in 2012 created uncertainty about the services that they provided. This has led to more complex compliance processes for councils, but no significant change in the services that they provide—in fact, service delivery expectations have increased.

Councils are accountable to their communities, not to central government. This bill will give local authorities the scope to develop the services their communities want in consultation with the people who use them.

The bill also removes the requirement for local authorities to have particular regard to a list of core services. Councils and their communities are best placed to determine which services they should be providing and the priority that should be given to each of them. These changes give local authorities more flexibility to respond to the needs of their communities. This approach, we believe, will empower local authorities, rather than instruct them about what they should be doing for their communities.

The bill restores local authorities’ powers to collect development contributions for the full range of community facilities, including libraries, swimming pools, and sportsgrounds. When we think about these services, we think about what actually creates community, and how much pleasure people get from actually having good community services and what it does for well-being.

When this ability to levy development contributions was taken out of legislation in 2014, it left ratepayers to pick up the full costs of meeting the increased demand generated by development. Many councils are struggling to keep up with costs of the growth in their communities while maintaining existing community infrastructure and service levels. A contribution from developers will provide a much-needed boost, and while it doesn’t address the full extent of funding and financing cost pressures, it’s a step in the right direction.

This bill will help councils by removing a barrier to growth. It will enable councils to shape the places and deliver the services communities want and need.

Finally, the bill resolves a technical issue that stands in the way of councils accessing transport infrastructure funding through the Housing Infrastructure Fund. The Housing Infrastructure Fund provides advanced funding to local authorities to accelerate the provision of infrastructure for new housing development. This framework allows councils to access funding through the National Land Transport Fund without it counting as a liability, allowing councils to borrow for other necessary infrastructure.

The Local Government Act includes a provision to prevent local authorities from requiring development contributions for projects that are funded from other sources, to prevent double-dipping. The Local Government Act already specifies that borrowing does not trigger these provisions, along with a number of other exceptions. Advance financial assistance from the New Zealand Transport Agency will eventually be repaid. This amendment will clarify that this advance financial assistance does not trigger the double-dipping provision.

The bill recognises that every council is different and that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Every council needs discretion and flexibility to decide in consultation with their community the nature and level of services they should provide. By doing this, councils will best meet local needs and preferences.

As I have said, this Government supports local government doing the best that it can alongside the people that they represent. It’s about local people making local decisions. Decisions about the services councils provide are best made by the people that receive these services, not central government.

These changes are supported by the local government sector. They’ve wanted to see them happen for a very long time. This bill represents our commitment as another step towards a collaborative partnership between central government and local government, and I commend the bill to the House.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the first reading here of the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. The primary objective of this bill is to redefine the purpose of local government so as to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities. These principles are referred to—and some would know them as—the four well-beings, and anyone who has experience with local government would know that up until 2012 the purpose of local government, as defined by legislation back then, was actually the promotion of these well-beings.

Amongst other things, this was changed under the last Government as part of their wider local government reform. So what this bill is doing here tonight is actually just undoing the work of the last National Government and going back to the old system. The issue with using these four well-beings is not about their intentions. And I say this deliberately. I can understand that the recognition of the four well-beings is important and that councils are likely to be supportive of the change, but the issue is that they appear to many people to be unfocused and untargeted. That’s the perception problem. So I urge the Government to seriously reconsider whether these changes tonight will actually lead to better results for local councils and the people that they represent instead of the system that we have, and I’m going to explain why.

What we have at the moment is a system that is, essentially, breaking down the purpose of local government into three major functions. One is providing local infrastructure, second is local public services, and the third is the performance of regulatory functions—so, very key and concise and very committed functions. They’re relatively simple, and it may seem to restrict councils at first glance from considering the wider issues or the services that do contribute to the general well-being of a community. However, we have seen that since these changes were made in 2012 there has not been a massive shift in the behaviour or the direction of local government bodies. These new directives back in 2012 have not been the handcuffs on councils that the Government is portraying them as.

So what the current definition actually does is keep councils grounded. It gives clarity as to what their core role is, what their core services should be and prioritising, and it gives them accountability to their ratepayers, who expect these services to be delivered to a high expectation. So if we lined up ratepayers tonight and asked for their opinions, where they’d land in regard to the purpose of local government, I’d say the words “core” and “cost-effective” would come to mind. So too do the words, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

I wasn’t around in 2012; I wasn’t a councillor then, either. But there seems to be a fascination with wording and terminology. I’ve been told that there were concerns by territorial local authorities over the years that there’d be consequences should they stray out of the 2012 definition, but to the best of my knowledge there have been no transgressions, no hiccups—in fact, it’s been business as usual for local government. So what is the problem that’s trying to be solved here?

The purpose of local government as proposed by this bill does have one glaring omission that I want to pay attention to, and that is the explicit removal of any reference to cost-effectiveness or value for money. The local government sector is responsible for such a massive sum of money that it’s quite often overlooked, and so I first want to give a proper context of the scale involved. In 2017, the combined national rates bill—the total paid by households and businesses up and down the country—was more than $5.5 billion in 2017. Local government has the obligation to the people that fund it to make sure that they use funds in the most cost-effective way.

The tax burden on families and businesses for council spending has increased at a rate close to four times the rate of inflation and now represents a massive 3 percent of New Zealand’s GDP. The national rates bill has more than doubled since 2002, going from $2.6 billion to $5.5 billion. That’s a 141 percent increase. Delivery of core services has a big price tag to it, and so the public of New Zealand should easily be able to see why the last Government was trying to get accountability in place.

Another key part of this bill that we’re opposing is the relaxing of requirements on how councils can use development contributions. Development contributions go to the council and, under the current system, must be used to pay for costs of infrastructure directly related to development: the waste-water system, roading networks, and other infrastructure that facilitates and contributes to a growing housing supply. What this bill does is turn the important funding tool, a levy on housing developers, and has them as contributors to community infrastructure: swimming pools, libraries, and museums. The bill will let councils pass on the costs of community assets to the housing developers, but in reality, it’s not going to be the developers that actually pay for these. All it’s going to do is drive up the cost of housing when these costs are passed on to the first-home buyer, the renters, and the entire housing market. So despite all the talk that we’ve heard from this Government about a housing crisis and KiwiBuild and about their grand plan to build thousands of affordable homes, they’ve put together a piece of legislation that will actively make the housing market more restrictive.

We are opposed to this bill, and I know from experience in the local government space that local government lives in an age of quite severe public scrutiny, and scrutiny of its processes, and it’s a difficult space for many councils. Auckland Council—and that’s where I was before I came to this role here—has, by its own admission, trust ratings that have plummeted. Independent surveys very much quantify that. So what local government does not need at this point in time is accusations that it’s getting away, the perception that it’s getting away, from core roles of providing local infrastructure, local public service, and local regulatory functions, and that if they do, the cost will end up being borne by the ratepayer. This is not what local government needs at this point in time.

So the Government should be very careful about messaging in the local government space right now. The regional fuel tax issue has gone down like a lead balloon, and the lending of weight to this kind of legislation will not win over ratepayers. For that reason, we are opposed to this bill, and we caution the Government for some very sensitive local government messaging at this point in time.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Look, having come to Parliament from—in fact, directly from—seven years in local government, it’s an honour to speak in support of the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill, which is being read in the House for the first time. I want to acknowledge the work of the hard-working Minister Nanaia Mahuta, her staff, the officials, and Local Government New Zealand, who helped bring this bill to the House this evening. It’s a piece of work that rights the wrongs and resets the relationship with local government and central government. I am especially pleased this evening because, as the Minister said, I was initially hoping to progress at least the four well-beings aspect of this bill as a member’s bill, but there is nothing better than having it as a Government bill to give it the urgency, and it shows that this Government is serious about empowering local government.

I want to kick off by reinforcing the comments of the Minister when she said that local government is very much more than just roads, rates, and rubbish. That sets the scene because it sends a clear message to councils that this Government values the role of local government and supports civic participation and community involvement in local democracy.

The bill amends the Local Government Act of 2002, and it’s being expressed in four different aspects. First of all, it restores the social, environmental, and cultural well-beings in addition to economic. That’s a point that I’ll come back to later in my speech, because that goes now into the purpose of local government. Secondly, it removes the requirement for councils to have particular regard to core services—what was core and what was non-core—and how they fared for their communities. Thirdly, it restores that power to collect development contributions for a range of community infrastructure, and the Minister talked about what that can be used for. Finally, there is the minor technical issue that stands in the way of councils accessing transport infrastructure funding from the Housing Infrastructure Fund.

I want to focus on the most critical issue with this bill, and that’s the reinstatement of community well-being into the purpose of local government. We heard from the Minister too that it shifts the power back to local communities to decide, with their councils, what should be done for them. Councils all over New Zealand are facing the challenges. We know what they are, but the challenges are based on the most cost-effective reference in the current purpose statement. That’s the issue.

We know that the four well-beings are already intrinsically woven into the local government regulatory framework—that’s not a problem—but this holistic approach gives much clearer authority for local councils to shape the activities based on what their communities require. It moves the focus on councils from what councils can do to what they should do. It means that they can reset their thinking from “Are we allowed to do this?” to “Should we do this?”, and that’s critical. As I said, having spent the last seven years in local government here in the capital city, at the Wellington City Council, having to deal with this scenario, it was a sinister scenario based on an ideologically driven approach by the previous Government—based solely on that economic imperative—and today, with the reinstatement of the well-beings now, we look at all four aspects of it.

Let me give you some examples just to demonstrate this. There’s nothing like something that’s really from the grassroots that’s happened. Let’s look at something from back in June 2013, when I went to a formal farewell of 27 council road workers, who had given more than 500 years of service between them. That was the departure of those staff from the council’s in-house works unit, marking decades of institutional knowledge lost and the end of council building its own roads for 130 years. Funnily enough, that unit, only 20 years earlier, was forced to set itself up as an in-house works unit because the National Government of the time, in 1990, forced it to contract its work out. Luckily, the capital city made a decision to say, “We’re the best in the business. We’re going to compete against the private sector and win our work back.” But I said at the time of that situation—to quote myself—“Some of these men have given their entire lives to [Wellington City]. They’ve earned their jobs and our respect. They deserve better from us.”

A month later, in July of that same year—in 2013—the Local Government Act said it was absolutely fine to outsource the work, and so they did, to an Australian company called Leighton, solely because it was cheaper. It didn’t matter that they had no local workforce, it didn’t matter that they had no trucks and no depot, and it didn’t matter that they had no record of delivering works in New Zealand. All that mattered was they were the cheapest. I can tell you, for the next two years, the new contractor drove around in trucks with “Henderson Rentals” on the side of them. They even changed their name when ratepayers got upset because service levels weren’t being met. Now they were called Ventia. They cobbled together a workforce, mostly temporary and mostly on the minimum wage, not to mention they had to endure the 90-day rule. But worst of all was that less than 2½ years into that contract, they walked off the job.

So 130 years of the council doing the work themselves was flawed by an Australian company who got a cheap contract off the capital city council, and then they walk off the job: they literally down tools and they’re gone. That’s what the current Local Government Act and the lack of not having four well-beings in that Act does. That happened right here in the city that you are sitting in tonight. When I questioned the CEO and said, “How can this be? How have we got to this? How have we sent 27 guys down the road who had 500 years’ worth of institutional knowledge?”, he said, “That’s the legislation that we have to work in.” Tonight, and by the end of this year, we will bring that scenario to an end and no longer will local councils across this country be endured with that sort of treatment to their workers and their people.

I also want to talk on a more positive note, and let’s look at what the change means to local authorities. What it does mean now, and I want to focus on the same council, is that they can introduce things like the living wage. If you want to pay those same workers that you’ve outsourced $20.55 an hour—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring me into it.

PAUL EAGLE: —they are welcome to do that. I certainly want to say that there will be councils all over New Zealand who now will be able to engage with their communities based on those four well-beings and be able to say, “This may not happen anywhere else in New Zealand but we, as a community, will proudly implement this or deliver that because that’s what our communities want.”, and that’s the spirit of what we’re doing this evening.

As I said, I’m really proud to speak on this bill. This bill puts the local back in to local government. I said in my opening paragraph that it resets the relationship with local government and central government. I’ve given an example there that you cannot dispute. You cannot dispute where the purpose of the current Act—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I might, but others might not.

PAUL EAGLE: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. That example there some may dispute at their peril, but, look, I certainly look forward to the bill going to the Governance and Administration Committee and being brought back to the House by the end of September, and, come Christmas time, the people of New Zealand, through their local councils, will be delivered one of the best Christmas presents that I believe most of them will ever get. I commend this bill to the House.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand to take a call on the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill, the first reading. Before I get under way, I just want to make it very clear I won’t be supporting the bill. I won’t be supporting the bill for a number of reasons. I just want to bring the House’s attention to the 2010 and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and the result of what happened, besides the deaths, to the horizontal infrastructure that traversed the whole of Christchurch city. During that time, the National-led Government’s amendment to the Local Government Act had not come into force. We were still working under the previous Local Government Act, which was about the four well-beings. If the four well-beings back then were so crash hot, then how come when those earthquakes happened in Christchurch the horizontal infrastructure was in such disrepair—something that the council should have been keeping their eye on—that they didn’t have any amount of funding to be able to help with repairing it?

Dr Duncan Webb: That’s an outrage. There was an earthquake. That’s an outrage.

JO HAYES: I know it’s an earthquake, but if the repairs and the maintenance had kept on over time then it would have minimised the impact of—yes, there would’ve been some damage but not as wide as what it was in those days. That was during the four well-beings.

I am very concerned about this bill because it does take the focus of local government away from what it is there for—to provide robust local infrastructure. We need that; we saw that post-earthquake. We’ve been talking about this over the last few years, about the local council. The Wellington one around the water pipes coming through—that’s infrastructure, that’s water pipes from the Hutt over here into Wellington. Should the four well-beings come in to effect, then what’s going to happen with that local infrastructure?

So it’s about local infrastructure and robust local infrastructure, which is what is currently there at the moment in the Local Government Act 2002. It is about local public services, and you need to have those services. I don’t know how those four well-beings would cover local infrastructure and the public services. We don’t want to be able to charge out levies for everything in communities like where I’m currently listed in Christchurch East. I don’t know whether people will be able to actually afford a levy, any levy in that area for building, or any other area. The local regulatory functions, as well, of the current council—those are the three key areas that the local council under the local government amendment legislation 2012 worked by. That’s why I do have concerns over these four well-beings.

I don’t know how places like Christchurch East are going to cope under the environmental side of the four well-beings. Yes, we have areas in Christchurch that are flooded. The Heathcote River, around there, there’s some big flooding areas, and currently, under the long-term plan and the consultation, the council are looking at putting some funding in there to mitigate some flooding. But on the other side, on the eastern side, there is also the estuary area that is crying out for some mitigation around erosion of the estuary edge and maybe the resurrection of a bund that goes further down into the South New Brighton area. I don’t know where in these four well-beings that will happen environmentally for the Southshore area.

Around the economic side now, if the council, kind of, dismissed the Southshore area—that has potential for new homes to be rebuilt there should the bund be re-established in that particular area. It’s a lovely area to build in, but, economically, maybe the council does not want that to happen. That’s why I have concerns around these four well-beings.

Also around the social side, the Guardians of Rāwhiti Domain are putting in a sensory playground. They have a plan there working alongside council. So council go in and chop some trees down, which is lovely, saying that the root system underneath is quite spongy and quite dangerous, so what do they do? They leave a great big trunk sitting outside and say, “Put a swing on it for children.” If the root system is growing on a spongy base then I don’t know whether that’s very social at all.

I do have concerns around this particular bill. I have concerns that these four well-beings will be so prominent that rates will go up and the ratepayers won’t get value for money. They will go begging for a lot of infrastructural issues that they face, and especially, as I said, in the electorate where I’m listed in, in Christchurch East, especially in the Southshore area and the South New Brighton area.

I stand here; I am concerned that this bill may end up coming in to Royal assent at the end of September this year. I’m concerned for the ratepayers and for the well-being of the people that live down in the Southshore area, South New Brighton area, and New Brighton area. I don’t see how it will actually grow any more confidence down there. They’re pretty shattered at the moment, but this is actually going to throw it all apart for them. So I don’t support the bill. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Zealand First local government spokesperson, the Hon Ron Mark, in support of the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. You know that the National Party is taking this bill very seriously when they bring out the hard hitters—Denise Lee and Joanne Hayes—to take the first two speeches. When Joanne Hayes takes less than five minutes to try and explain how good the legislation that the National Government put through in 2012 was and only complains about earthquake-affected Christchurch, and that’s it—that’s the only example in the second speech that was given about arguments why we shouldn’t be supporting this bill—you know we’re on the right track, in being in the Government on this side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I don’t need to know anything.

DARROCH BALL: We all know that we’re on the right track, being on this side in the Government. It is quite clear to me that just in the two speeches that we heard from the National Party, they’re just not listening to the ratepayers.

I’ve only really just picked up this bill today when the Hon Ron Mark couldn’t make it in to speak on this bill, because he was absolutely desperate to. I have looked just very quickly through the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and the bill itself, and it is quite clear that there is an absolute need and want from the ratepayers themselves and from the local authorities to get this changed and to put it back to where it was prior to 2012.

One of the things that did surprise me was the fact that the four well-beings were removed. When I dug a little deeper into what those well-beings were, it was actually about the entire purpose of local government. Having been in this House over the last four years, I understand what one of the most important things is in any piece of legislation, and it is the absolute purpose of the legislation. So for any decision maker or anyone that’s making decisions on behalf of someone else or managing, whether it be an organisation or a local authority, we all know that the most important part is the foundation, and that foundation for any decision-making process is the purpose and why one is doing what they’re doing.

So in order to dig a little bit deeper into when, why, and what for the National Party—and the then National Government, back in 2012—wanted to take out the well-being clauses—it was amazing to me, because the purpose of local government that we want to be reinstated is to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities. I just can’t see what’s so wrong with that. In fact, I think that is absolutely fundamental to the running of a community that has well-being as its focus. I suppose if the National Party doesn’t want a community to have well-being as a focus, then they would take it out, and I guess that’s what they did in 2012. The four of them are the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-beings of communities, and ensuring that local authorities take a sustainable development approach—a sustainable development approach.

When you look into the regulatory impact statement to have a look at a couple of the policy problems, it is clear to me that Denise Lee didn’t read the regulatory impact statement, because there are a couple of examples in there about how the current legislation as it’s written, or the current laws, is and has been a problem for local authorities. One of the things that she said was, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. There’s nothing wrong with it, whatsoever.”, but that’s not what I found in just a couple of minutes of reading the regulatory impact statement.

The overarching policy problem that this legislation is trying to amend is to, obviously, “restore reference to promoting the four aspects … This reflects a broad empowering approach to local government and enables local authorities to shift their focus to ‘should we do this?’ from ‘are we allowed to do this?’ ” If you just take a second to think about the fact that for the last five or six years, local authorities and local governments have been worried about whether they should do anything because they wouldn’t be allowed to do that because of legislation, that is entirely restrictive to any progressive local government. Obviously, it’s vitally important for any successful local government to be able to have the freedom and the boundaries to be able to put the well-being of the community at the heart of any of the decisions that they have.

Here’s a couple of examples that the RIS goes into. One of them is that “A number of local authorities that have considered paying their staff the living wage have faced challenges based on [that] purpose”. That’s one of the examples, and the reason why they haven’t challenged it is because it contradicts the “most cost-effective” elements of the legislation as it’s written now. At the moment, it states that there must be the most cost-effective manner or way that local government manages things, and that would restrict local government or a local authority being able to pay their staff a living wage.

It goes on: “Another consequence could be that ‘buy local’ policies [of the local government or local authority] whereby local authorities give some preference to local businesses could be challenged on similar grounds.” So when Denise Lee stands up and says in her first speech that there’s nothing wrong and that no one’s complaining and that all of the local authorities are happy, then perhaps she needs to read the regulatory impact statement.

So I said that I was a little bit surprised about the well-beings being removed from the legislation back in 2012, but what I wasn’t surprised to find out—if I was told correctly—was that Dr Nick Smith was the local government Minister at the time. That’s something I wasn’t surprised about, with this happening.

So, basically, what I read from the legislation, the intent of those changes in the legislation in 2012 was that the National Government wanted the councils—and we actually heard it again today, especially from Jo Hayes—to only focus on infrastructure, and on infrastructure only. Back in 2012, New Zealand First was in Parliament and we spoke on this bill. Andrew Williams actually spoke on this bill, and he was a former Mayor of North Shore City. He said something about those changes which was actually quite succinct and apt for those comments from Jo Hayes. He stated that “this latest reform”—back in 2012—“of the Local Government Act 2002 is basically taking the councils right back to where they were maybe 20 or 30 years ago, where they simply had a town clerk who fixed some potholes, did some footpaths, and maybe fixed up the roads and patched up the local hall. Well, the days of that have gone, and the days of local communities expecting much more from local councils are here.”

But, you see, New Zealand First took the approach back then in 2012—and we’re still taking it here—that expecting a council to only have a local clerk to fix up the potholes in the roads, fix the local hall, and fix the footpaths is a bad thing. It’s not a good thing. We need the local authorities to have the entire well-being of their local community at the heart of any decision making. But what Joanne Hayes was saying was that that was exactly what the National Party wanted—exactly what the National Party wanted. What she didn’t mention was that back then, all the submissions on the bill from the local authorities were against what the National Party were trying to do. They were against what the National Party were trying to do.

So why did the National Party do this in the first place? Because they were listening to the business communities. The business communities in the local communities, all they wanted—they complained about the rates that they were paying. They complained about where those rates were being spent, because they didn’t want them spent on arts and culture. They didn’t want them spent on anything else apart from economic development. And that’s who National listened to.

Well, New Zealand First, back then, made some promises, and so did the Labour Party, about listening to the local communities, about listening to those local authorities, and about ensuring that when we got into power, we would turn back the clock and bring this back into legislation. That’s exactly what we’re going to do. Thank you.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak on the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. We will oppose the bill, simply because the bill may well result in large, less efficient local governments.

The bill would enable local governments to promote four well-beings: social, economic, environmental, and cultural. It means that local governments would have broader and less well-defined responsibilities. That also means more staff, and may well mean higher rates. So this is why we believe that this bill has fundamental problems.

The money raised from taxpayers should be spent on well-defined projects. But these four well-beings can be loosely defined and hence can be used as excuses for local governments or local councils to spend money on ill-defined projects. That can be a waste of money.

Local governments need physical discipline, and this was a key focus of the previous National Government’s local government reforms. The reason why we believe local governments need to have physical discipline is because some local governments, some councils, are running high debts. They are not using their money efficiently and responsibly—as I said a couple of weeks ago at Auckland Council, because over the last four years the council’s spending on wages increased by $800 million, and, each year, the council now spends close to $900 million on salaries, on wages.

Maureen Pugh: How much?

Dr JIAN YANG: Almost $900 million. So that’s how much taxpayers’ money is being used to pay a big local government. They employ about 12,000 staff—12,000 staff—and among them, about 200 earn over $200,000 a year, and over 2,000 people earn over $100,000 a year. So this is a huge, huge salary and a huge local government. In comparison, Brisbane City Council—similar size population—has only 8,000 staff and only about 150 staff earning money over A$100,000. So this is a sharp difference.

Now, local councils need to deliver high-quality services. How to do that? We need to make sure they have well-defined responsibilities, and the core roles—the core roles—should be to provide local infrastructure, to provide local public services, and also they should focus on local regulatory functions. They should focus on all these areas at the least cost to households and businesses.

New Zealanders know how to use money, and therefore we should not randomly increase rates at local councils’ wish. We must make sure local councils really focus on their real job. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai.

Jamie Strange: Bring a bit of sense to it.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is my absolute pleasure to, in the words of one Jamie Strange, bring a little bit of sense to this debate. In response to what was just said by Dr Jian Yang, the previous speaker, about how we need to ensure that we are controlling rates, somehow, as central government—I’m not sure he quite understands the role of central government nor local government—the point that I’d really like to bring home to the House tonight, and, indeed, to all of the MPs, is who do we think we are? The reason that I ask that question is that what we’re debating at the moment is the mandate of local elected members.

So frequently in this place and in the political debate, as has raged throughout this past election, and, indeed, subsequent to it, with the formation of the Government and, obviously, the Opposition too, has been this attempt to drive a wedge between rural communities and urban communities, while all the while, us in this place—some politicians in here—are saying that they know best what kinds of outcomes these communities are looking for. What we’re saying on this side of the House, on the Government benches, is that we believe it should be up to those communities to decide what is best for them, and they do so, by way of local government. They elect these people to make decisions on their behalf. That is what a representative democracy is.

So this legislation, which the Green Party is very proud to support, does a number of things, but where the majority of the debate has centred has of course been on the four well-beings, with those four well-beings being social, economic, environmental, and cultural. The bill will seek to replace section 3(d), which currently reads: “provides for local authorities to play a broad role in meeting the current and future needs of their communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulator functions.”

What previous speakers such as the likes of Darroch Ball from New Zealand First have touched on is that what this really myopic focus on cost and spending without any of the values that, obviously, inform those decisions has resulted in is councils being criticised for attempting to pay the living wage and for attempting to pay their employees properly the amount it costs to live in these cities that we so frequently debate—the likes of Auckland and Wellington. For the sake of cost efficacy, these councils are currently constrained. But, again, I’d really like to drive home the point that they get their mandate by way of being elected in the very same way that we here in this House do. So do we think we know better? Do we really think that we know better than the people who are actively at the coalface and the grassroots, talking to their communities on a day-by-day basis? It’s incredibly prescriptive for us to think that we know better.

So, obviously, Denise Lee, a former councillor in Maungakiekie on Auckland Council, noted that our reversing this change implemented by the National Government to, indeed, remove the four well-beings was just a perception problem because the rolling back that the previous National Government did resulted in no major change in the way that councils operated. On that point, if the practice has continued despite the changes that the National Party sought to make, how out of touch is that? Seriously, how out of touch is it to think that we in this place know better and seek to prescribe what local communities should be doing? We make this massive change and, as a result, nothing happens—no change comes about. Surely, with the likes of Local Government New Zealand—a massive organisation that represents, in my understanding, by far the majority of the local councils around this country—heralding in this change, celebrating this change, and representing all of these local governments, how is it that the Opposition is seeking to block this change?

I would also like to speak to the point from Jo Hayes. She said that rates will go up. I’d really like to see some evidence of that, because there is, indeed, not one shred. As was mentioned by the speaker previous to myself, rates have gone up under the changes that the National Government made previously. So, again, these changes made by the previous Government did not do very much at all.

Another change that we are making to the Local Government Act is to remove section 11A. That requires local authorities to have particular regard to a contribution specified as core services. Again, the Green Party is proud to support this change because it is prescriptive and undermining of the mandates that local councils and their elected members have by way of being elected by their local communities.

It also restores local authority powers to collect development contributions for public amenities—as was noted by Minister Nanaia Mahuta—such as sportsgrounds, libraries, and swimming pools and for reserves from non-residential developments. The fourth change that it makes is in resolving a technical issue with development contributions that are stopping councils, currently, from accepting Housing Infrastructure Fund advances from the New Zealand Transport Agency to accelerate infrastructure for new development areas, which, surely, is something that we want to see.

So, in summation, I’d like to state—just really bringing it back to the issue of the four well-beings, which is absolutely the major point in contention tonight—that the change that we’re seeking to do here will provide “for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of their communities, taking a sustainable development approach.” I’m not sure how familiar my colleagues in the House are with the likes of sustainable development, but, broadly, what it actually means is investing money that is going to deliver long-term change that communities will accept. It won’t be rejected by those communities. It will be adopted and it will, obviously, absolutely necessarily align with their well-beings, with those being social, economic, environmental, and cultural. The Green Party commends this bill to the House.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m very pleased to speak to this Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill about the four well-beings—social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-beings.

Now, National opposes this bill, and we oppose it because it’s like going backwards. I was part of the first Local Government and Environment Committee, back in 2012, when we first heard the submissions on the 2012 bill, which changed the community well-beings and removed them. That change was, then, to reflect increasing concerns about rates that were going up. It was the fact that many councils were funding all sorts of fabulous projects from development contributions but many of the ratepayers were not convinced it was the right thing to do. We heard from them ad nauseam. Hundreds of them came to give submissions, and Mr Ball might be interested to know that it was not just the business community; it was ordinary Kiwis and, particularly, quite a lot of elderly Kiwis concerned about paying increasing rates on a fixed income.

There was also an ongoing concern about the affordability of housing, and the fact that some councils were using development levies to fund infrastructure that was nice to have—swimming pools, libraries, and those sorts of things—but that was delivering amenity to a much wider community than the one that was actually paying for it, and, of course, that was making it difficult for young people, particularly first-home owners, to get into their own home. There’s always a balance between what the community would like to have, in terms of amenity, and what they’re prepared to pay for, and in my time working in local government, there was one hard and fast rule: ratepayers—and taxpayers, actually—want the very best facilities but they don’t want to pay for them.

One of the problems that we have is often, in terms of community consultation, we ask people, when we’re considering a new project, “Would you like a new swimming pool?” And, of course, they say yes, but if you actually said to them, “Would you like a new swimming pool—and that will be $100 on your rates every year for the next 10 years?”, there might be a different answer.

I was actually wondering why the Government is actually bothering to do this—except for the fact, of course, that it was Mr Eagle’s member’s bill—because when you look at the regulatory impact statement about restoring the four well-beings, it says, and I quote from clause 36, “Our analysis is that the actual impact of the change[s] to the purpose of the local government on … decision-making, services and activities is likely to be low,”. It has to be a symbolic bill, rather than one that’s going to make a real difference.

I remember those consultations on the 2012 amendments. There was a great divergence in opinion about what local government should be spending ratepayers’ money on. We need to get the balance right this time. It’s fine for Minister Nanaia Mahuta to talk about how it moves the focus back on to community decision-making—everybody agrees with that; we don’t want to tell them how to spend their money—but there’s not uniform agreement of what the community can and wants to afford. Many ratepayers feel absolutely disenfranchised and helpless as expectations of the community increase and rates skyrocket—and, again, I refer back to elderly New Zealanders who are often on a fixed income.

Every ratepayer should be confident that the council is delivering good value for money in terms of rates, and that they can afford to continue to live in their homes in the future. They are happy to pay for the core roles of local government, but they want local government to be cost-effective, they want it to be efficient, and they want value for their rate money, and I absolutely support that. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well, I found that most disappointing—an MP who comes from Christchurch to be sitting there saying that local bodies should, fundamentally, stick to their knitting and should be worried about drains and roads. The fact of the matter is that councils around the country have been assiduously ignoring these reforms because they know that, in fact, it is their duty to look after ratepayers—all ratepayers, young and old. Of all places, Christchurch is one where that absolutely stands out.

If we think about these well-beings, we know economic well-being’s important, we know we’ve got to balance the books, and we know we’ve got to deliver those core functions. That goes without saying. But to suggest that cities and regions should stand by whilst their environment is degraded, whilst their social fabric is degraded, and whilst their cultural heritage is eroded, it beggars belief. I commend the Minister for putting things back as they should. This is fantastic. Going back is not a bad thing when we should have never left there.

If we look at what’s gone on in Christchurch over the past years, we look at what the city has done—and I commend Christchurch City Council for the innovative things they’ve done to support their communities, despite everything and despite the shackles placed on it by the Local Government Act. We think of projects like Greening the Rubble, Life in Vacant Spaces, and Gap Filler—groups of “hippies” making the place better, supported by things like the Christchurch City Council and the Canterbury District Health Board, because we know that health and wellness is critical to any city.

It’s no good having a city which has great roads and water if its people are broken, and that’s what this Christchurch City Council has been doing: things like the Mayor’s Welfare Fund, looking at vulnerable people and picking up the pieces where it has. The $10 million that this House knows is going to the refurbishment and restoration of the Christ Church Cathedral—how can that fit in to the narrow shackles of the Act that the National Government left us with? That would leave us impoverished—architecturally impoverished, our heritage would be impoverished, and our culture would be impoverished. That money is going back to restore our heritage. Heritage grants themselves—the preservation of our valuable buildings—don’t fit within the core objectives that that party would have us constrain our local bodies to.

The list is endless. The multicultural forum that is funded out of civic funds to ensure that our city is inclusive, that it’s culturally diverse, and that it’s welcoming—that is absolutely part of the cultural wellness. I am very pleased that the city council now doesn’t have to shirk and hide in the shadows; it can point to cultural wellness in saying, “We are mandated to spend this money”—on a multicultural forum, or on an international buskers’ festival for the arts, or on a biodiversity fund to ensure that our environments are protected and preserved for everyone into the future.

The other thing that’s important to note is that these wellnesses are not only just for now but they’re for the future. This is a forward-looking piece of legislation, a piece of legislation which would protect us.

It’s interesting that we heard the former member for Christchurch Central berating us for passing this, but look what Local Government New Zealand said. They are delighted—the local governments from around the country are delighted to see the introduction of this bill; they congratulate the Government. This is widely supported throughout the country—we know that—because cities have been strangled by the constraints put on local government previously.

It’s also interesting to note that many public health scholars have identified the role of city councils in improving public health and especially mental health. So we’ve got, for example, Dr Tara Kessaram, who in 2013 looked at these reforms. She noted, and I quote, “the shift towards a stronger economic focus, the challenge to local democratic participation, and the potential impact on wellbeing from the undervaluing of [the] local government’s role in affecting the wider determinants of health, may jeopardise the health, representation, and participation of the present and future generations of New Zealand society.” And you know what? That was prescient, because that’s exactly what happened.

Local bodies were unable to look after their people because the National Government said, “Look after your roads but don’t worry about your people. You can run down your people but keep your sewers going.” We know how important core services are, we know that we’ve got to keep our water clean and drinkable, but we’ve got to look after our people, too, and look after our environment so that not only now but in the future our cities will be fantastic places to live, and that’s what this does.

This Government has stopped thinking about one bottom line. We recognise that there’s a whole lot of measures that we’ve got to measure ourselves by, and I am very proud to be part of a Government that recognises social, environmental, and cultural well-being as well as economic well-being. I commend this bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It hasn’t happened to me very often in this House, but tonight I’ve had an epiphany. It just dawned on me. I’ve been reading the debate notes on this particular bill, and it’s just dawned on me, after listening to Mr Webb over there, what this bill is probably all about. He’s talked about the well-beings, but then he’s gone on to talk about local government providing social support, providing heritage support, and talking about health. This here is a divesting of the responsibility of central government and pushing it back down on to local government and the ratepayers.

Well, Mr Webb, I can tell you that the ratepayers will not thank you for that. That is the role of central government, and for someone who’s got such a tight budget coming into their first round of budgeting, I can see what the motivation is: you are trying to push all this back down on to the ratepayer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I’m not.

MAUREEN PUGH: I can recall back in—Mr Webb is attempting to push it back to the ratepayers, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I do recall back in 2002 the unsettling effect that the legislation had around the local government sector when the well-beings were first introduced by the Labour Party. It was unsettling because it meant that any active lobby group could justify any project under those headings of well-being, and it opened a huge can of worms. And the problem with these things, that are what we used to call in the local government sector the “nice-to-haves”, is that these lobby groups will lobby really hard to get their “nice-to-have” project, but then they’re usually the same people that will come along at annual plan time and complain about the rate increases. And these “nice-to-haves” are a very slow creep. You get a new project one year, you get another project the next year, but actually, the ongoing costs of these projects are continual, because someone has to maintain them; someone has to repair them.

Well, then, in 2012, the Local Government Act was amended and the well-beings were removed, and guess what? The sky didn’t fall in, and it didn’t stop the councils from doing the things that they needed to do. It didn’t stop them investing in libraries or pools or playgrounds or parks, but what it did do was refocus back on their core responsibilities. “Rats, roads, rubbish, and water”—that’s what we used to call it. What they want to know is when they turn on the tap, the water will run and it will be clean drinking-water. What they want to know is that when they put their bag out once a week, someone is going to come and pick it up and take it to a transfer station. What they want to know is that their roads, when they come out of their driveway, are going to be sealed and safe.

There’s one other point I would like to make about these particular well-beings. It is that when you’ve got a large council, these costs are spread across a large number of ratepayers, but I can understand that it is more palatable to make these changes for a Government that’s lost sight of the regions. And the small councils that are running and managing those small regions—they don’t have the same economies of scale, so those “nice-to-haves” actually do have a much higher impact per ratepayer. I can tell you that in Auckland, I believe that the average rates up there are about a thousand dollars. Well, in some of those regions it’s three times that amount. They can’t afford the added cost of these “nice-to-haves”.

This side of the House is opposed to this bill. We believe that local councils are the best managers of their money, and we do not support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call between Labour and ACT, and I call Ginny Andersen.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues Nanaia Mahuta and Paul Eagle for bringing this piece of legislation this far, and what a good bill it is. It’s a good bill because it acknowledges the importance of local and central government working together, and that is long overdue in New Zealand. If you ask any person when you are out on the streets—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t want to ask.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN: —about the issues that concern them, it is the issues that are affecting people on a day-to-day basis. It’s about having a home that’s warm and dry, about having transport that’s affordable and accessible, and it’s about having things like parks for children to play in—preferably those that have a public toilet, and even ones where mums and dads can get a coffee. Those are the types of things that people want in their home communities.

This piece of legislation restores the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of our communities, and it acknowledges the fact that it is people, not just things and roads and buildings, that connect us. It is those communities that we want local bodies to be taking control of when they wish to do so. I have some very good examples of how that operates where I come from in Hutt South. It empowers councils to be able to work with their communities and give them those things that are required. It reduces compliance exercises of councils having to identify how a particular activity meets the constrained statutory purpose that’s in the current legislation.

A good example that has already been mentioned tonight is the living wage. The Hutt City Council expressed a clear desire to pay its staff the living wage: 232 staff earned less than $20.20 an hour. That came to an annual cost of $560,000 a year. When the local living wage group lobbied and worked with councillors to make that change, the view that was taken was that special legal advice was sought, and once that legal advice was provided, it was put forward that only the most cost-effective option could be taken. As a result of that legal advice, the living wage was not able to be paid to those 232 people—those people who did some of the hardest jobs and were paid the least amount of people, on a daily basis; not earning $20 an hour.

I’m proud to see a piece of legislation put through from this House that will change the lives of people where I come from, and give a basic wage in an area that is long overdue. In that process, I would like to acknowledge local councillors who have lobbied hard for this change to take place: Campbell Barry, Josh Briggs, and local advocates such as Muriel Tūnoho, who have worked hard to represent those who don’t have a voice. I’m proud to see a piece of legislation where central and local government will be working together to give our communities the basics they need to get by.

The second area I would like to touch on is housing. We’ve got some exciting developments happening in Hutt South, particularly in Ēpuni, where we will have Housing New Zealand properties of social housing and KiwiBuild. Those areas are fantastic opportunities for our local council to be providing services to those people who need assistance. There is a strong appetite from our Hutt City Council to be able to do that. It’s great to see a piece of legislation that empowers local councils to be involved with new developments that central government is developing, and to be able to give people those services to make lives better, to give people the care and support they need to get on, get a job, pay their rent, and have a happy, well-balanced life. That is what this Government is about, and I am proud to see a piece of legislation that works from top down to the bottom to give everyone in New Zealand a fair go. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill—but it should be called the “Local Government (Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream) Amendment Bill”, because, like so much of what this Government gets up to, it is built on the myth that if only the intentions are good, the results will follow, and as this Government is going to find out, painfully over three years, the real world don’t work like that.

This bill takes the Local Government Act and changes it to take away the important features that stipulate what local government should be doing and says that local government can just do whatever it feels like. At the moment, the bill says that the purpose of local government is that local authorities should play a broad role in meeting the current and future needs of their communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions. Under the current Act, local government is given some actual tasks and responsibilities.

Under this bill—and it’s only four short pages, but it goes to the heart of what local government is supposed to do—it says that local government should “play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of their communities … taking a sustainable development approach.” What does that mean? Well, for local government, it means they can justify any activity they want at cost to ratepayers. That is why this is not the community well-being bill; it is the “Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream Local Government Bill”.

And it gets worse: we get on a few sections later and we, again, attack the purpose of local government. At the moment, the purpose of local government, according to the Local Government Act, is to “[meet] the current and future needs of … communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and [the] performance of regulatory functions.”, in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. Well, that’s not going to be there any more; that’s going to be gone. It’s going to say, “As long as the council thinks it’s doing the right thing, then that’s OK and forget cost-effectiveness for households and businesses.” This is rate increases telegraphed from Parliament, through your local council, coming to a town near you—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the people waiting at home who actually have to work hard, earn the money, and pay those rates.

And it gets worse: at the moment, the Local Government Act says that good quality services are “efficient; [are] effective … and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.” That’s gone completely. Efficiency, effectiveness—this Government is actively bringing a bill to the House to try and make sure that local government won’t be effective or efficient. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be hilarious. But it is serious, because I can tell the Government that people in the real world, such as the Epsom electorate, know that they want a local government that delivers those services which have no substitute in private markets, that central government doesn’t provide. They want their council to provide those things at the most efficient and effective cost possible.

It’s bad enough now, but once the last remaining restraints on local government, the last remaining requirements for local government to perform efficiently and effectively are proactively removed by this Government—would you believe it—then local government is going to have a field day at the ratepayers’ expense, and those real problems we have in Auckland, those real problems like raw sewage getting washed into the Waitematā and Manukau Harbours when it rains too much, those real problems like people that get sewage going down the creek at the back of their house in Remuera when it rains too much—those will remain unfixed. Those real problems like the shortage of infrastructure, those real problems like the lack of affordable housing for the next generation of New Zealanders—those will remain unfixed by local government, which, under this bill, no longer has to be efficient and effective.

Rather than solving the real problems at a cost-effective rate for ratepayers up and down this country, local government will be pursuing puppy dogs and ice cream, and that’s why the ACT Party opposes this bill.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak tonight on the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. I wanted to start by responding to some of the comments that have been made across the House tonight. The first one was Miss Chlöe Swarbrick from the Green Party. She mentioned during her address that she urged the Opposition MPs to listen to ratepayers—to listen to ratepayers. Well, actually, Miss Swarbrick, that’s exactly what we did when National were in Government. I think Nicky Wagner, when she was Minister, and certainly during her time before that as the local MP in Christchurch Central, listened to ratepayers at length, and that’s why we eventually passed the law in the way that we did in the last term.

I want to, I guess, caution some MPs across the other side—perhaps, like I am, new MPs—about listening to councils and thinking that is a proxy for talking to ratepayers. It’s not. Of course councils are going to have a view about what they want to spend money on, but, actually, it’s ratepayers who have to pay for it, not the councils.

I also wanted to touch on some comments made by Mr Paul Eagle. Now, as Paul mentioned, he was recently a Wellington City councillor and, in fact, wanted to bring this bill up as a member’s bill. I congratulate him for wanting to do that. But it does intrigue me, because I just wonder to myself: you know, did he get a phone call, perhaps, from Minister Nanaia Mahuta saying that she was going to be picking up the bill, perhaps right before he had that phone call with his local panel beater? The reason it does intrigue me, though, is in terms of the substance of the bill. The legislation at the moment says “to meet current … future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.” That is the legislation at the moment.

So my question for members opposite is: what in there do they disagree with? What in there do they disagree with? Actually, there’s a whole range of things that councils can do within that current framework. I look at my local area of Ashburton, where we’ve had the council fund things like a brand new art gallery, a brand new museum, they built a lake, and, more recently, they’ve put in a new swimming and sporting centre—those are all things that have been done without this legislation being in place.

So I ask members opposite: what problem is it they’re trying to fix? It brings me to the last sentence of that passage, which is “in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.” I think that is the thing that members opposite object to. They hate the idea of Government and local government being accountable for every dollar they spend. That’s the reason we oppose it, and that’s the reason I’ll vote against it tonight.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It’s an absolute privilege to be the last speaker on this Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill, and I will take a very short speech. I just want to acknowledge the leadership of Nanaia Mahuta. This bill reminds me of a whakataukī that says, “Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi”—as an old net withers, another is remade. Or you could say, “When an elder is no longer fit to lead, a healthier leader will take its place.”, and that’s what this bill is about.

I want to just remind the House, because I’ve got not very long to go: the purpose of this amendment is about amended section 3(d), inserted by clause 4—there are other purposes, but section 3(d) “provides for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of … communities, taking a sustainable development approach.” I want to end on well-being. Well-being is about being comfortable, being healthy, and happy, and all the people across the House, they spoke today—tonight, their speech was about taxpayers, about ratepayers. I put it to the members across the House: everybody that lives in a community contributes to paying tax, contributes to paying rates. It is about everybody, and therefore, I support this bill and I commend it to the House. Malo.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Bills

Local Electoral Matters Bill

First Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Electoral Matters Bill be now read a first time.

This bill amends the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Electoral Act 1993. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. Local government representation in local elections is a key component of our democratic system of government in New Zealand. Improving civic participation in local government is one of my key focus areas for the local government portfolio.

Effective local democracy requires ongoing engagement between citizens and communities with their local councils throughout the local authority planning and electoral cycles. However, the reality is that for many New Zealanders, filling out their ballot papers every three years is the main way that they seek to influence decision making in local government. It is, therefore, vital that we look for opportunities to ensure that voting in local elections is as easy and accessible as possible.

When the Local Electoral Act was enacted, it provided for the two most popular voting methods at the time: postal voting and polling booth voting. However, the legislation still envisaged and made provision for the possibility of other voting methods in the future, such as electronic online voting. We are now at the point where trialling alternative voting methods is important for the health of local elections. The changing make-up of New Zealand’s postal services creates increasing challenges for local authorities to deliver postal voting effectively and affordably. Innovation is required to adapt to changing times, and technology will certainly play its part. Also, there is the changing public expectation about how people want to engage with central government and local government in the democratic process.

The changes in this bill are a first step in a wider work programme to improve the operation and effectiveness of local elections. This work will be undertaken in partnership with the local government sector. The programme’s objectives focus on two imperatives: the ongoing need to support local democracy by ensuring all electors have a reasonable and an equal opportunity to vote in local elections, and the need to develop a sustainable platform for the efficient conduct of local elections into the future.

The bill has been developed in response to requests from local government representatives for legislative tools to support robust voting method trials. In particular, the local government sector representatives wish to proceed as soon as possible with a trial of online voting at local elections. I support this objective and have asked officials to work closely with the local government sector to advance this goal. The Government and the local government sector partners intend that the experience gained from the first trials of online voting will inform the wider work on improvements to the local electoral framework that I referred to earlier.

The New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers and Local Government New Zealand were consulted during the drafting of this bill to check its workability, and they support its proposals. This bill includes several small, but important, amendments to the local electoral framework to enable local electoral arrangements to adapt to changing circumstances. The bill will enable better design for trials of new voting methods such as online voting, and these changes will support work with the local government sector to develop alternative voting methods, so that local authorities have more choices to respond to how their constituents want to cast ballots in local elections.

Specifically, the bill will allow for enabling regulations, so that a voting method can be offered to a specified subset of electors at an election for the purposes of a trial. For example, a large local authority could offer online voting alongside postal voting to named categories of electors, such as overseas electors, disabled electors, or electors within a particular ward, or a combination of these. This provides a mechanism to limit the risks of trialling a new voting method in a very large council district such as Auckland.

The bill will clarify that electors’ age group information may be provided and used for the purposes of analysing participation in local elections. This change has two benefits. Firstly, it will allow for effective evaluation of future trials of new voting methods, using age group demographics. This analysis will inform further iterations and improvement of the design of the new method. Secondly, this change will ensure that any local authority can access this information at any time in order to improve its understanding of voter turnout and to support efforts to improve voter participation in that local authority area. Finally, the bill will allow the Electoral Commission to provide date of birth information it holds to local authorities where this is required for conducting a local election. This will allow date of birth information to be utilised in the design of a new voting method as a factor to authenticate electors’ identities.

Maintaining public confidence in the integrity of local government elections is a critical consideration in any innovation such as this. Providing additional authentication options to use when designing a trial of a new system provides a larger tool kit of options to support that confidence. Of course, adequate protections are needed so this information can only be accessed by local authorities when necessary, and to ensure it is securely managed. This bill requires that the enabling regulations for any new voting method that use date of birth information also prescribe measures to prevent unauthorised access or use of that information.

This bill is an important first step to ensuring we have an enduring framework for efficient and effective local elections that can adapt to changing circumstances in the use of technology, for example. The changes in this bill, together with the wider work programme to improve the effective operation of local elections, will support local democracy and increase participation, we hope, by ensuring all electors have a reasonable and equal opportunity to vote in local elections. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. National will be supporting this bill to select committee, but I have to say that I am underwhelmed by the minor nature of this bill. Any member of this House that seriously believes these couple of minor tinkers are going to make any substantive difference to the participation of electors in local body elections is on the wrong planet. It really does speak volumes that the Government is only six months into office, and the biggest local government change we’ve got is minor tinkering, as is proposed in this bill. You could hardly justify the expense of Parliament’s time for how minor these provisions are.

Now, listening to the waffle of the Minister, let me provide clarity for the House about what the bill does. The Local Electoral Act already allows for trials of online voting. The only change we’re making is that they can conduct it in a ward rather than district-wide. The only other change of any substance that’s being made is that the Electoral Commission is going to be able to provide councils and researchers with age-related group data around participation in votes. I hate to use the phrase, but “big deal!” Really? Is that the substance of what the Government’s going to do to improve that important local government sector, that uses up more than six billion bucks of public money for each year? “Is this it?”, I say to members opposite.

Now, we are quite open-minded about online voting. We should be open about the fact that, actually, in countries like Norway, where it has been trialled, they subsequently have not continued with it. It has not given the expectations of increased levels of participation and there have been real issues with the integrity of their voting system.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.