Wednesday, 5 May 2004

Wednesday, 5 May 2004

Wednesday, 5 May 2004

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Papua New Guinea—Minister of Defence

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that the Hon Kappa Yarka, Minister of Defence, Papua New Guinea, is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.

The Hon Kappa Yarka, accompanied by the Hon Mark Burton, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Speaker’s Rulings

Replies to Written Questions—Signatures

Mr SPEAKER: I was asked yesterday to consider the propriety of a Minister approving a hard copy of a reply to a written question rather than affixing an electronic signature personally. The Standing Orders Committee, when it first considered the system of electronic written questions in 2002, was concerned to ensure that members should take responsibility for questions that are lodged in their names. To this end, the sessional orders, agreed on 17 December 2002, required members and Ministers to sign questions and replies personally by way of an electronic signature.

In practice this requirement caused difficulty. Both members and Ministers wished to be able to put in place systems whereby they could entrust a staff member with affixing the electronic signature to a question or reply on their behalf. Accordingly, the Standing Orders Committee in its recent review unanimously decided to allow members and Ministers to delegate the electronic sign-off of questions and replies. Standing Order 366(3)(b), while requiring questions and replies to be signed, no longer requires members to affix an electronic signature to a question or a reply personally.

This change was made on the basis that the responsibility for the question or reply remains with the member. Any compromise of the integrity of the system that allowed a non-member to lodge a question or reply without the specific authorisation of the member or Minister would remain a contempt. But the way in which such authorisation is given is entirely a matter for each individual member or Minister. The Minister’s practice of authorising the affixing of an electronic signature by signing a hard copy of the reply is therefore perfectly proper.

Tabling of Documents

Spring Hill Corrections Facility

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections): I seek leave to table an amended breakdown of iwi expenditure relating to Spring Hill Corrections Facility, which was originally tabled on 23 March 2004. This amended breakdown is part of a report I released last month.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed?

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify for me whether the document is an amendment or correction of an answer? I am unclear as to what the Minister is asking us to do.

Mr SPEAKER: It was nothing to do with a question. It was to do with a document that was tabled.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National): Just as clarification, then, was the document that was tabled inaccurate in the first place, and is the Minister now tabling a corrected version?

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Hon Paul Swain to take a call.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections): It is not directly to do with the answer, but I said I would table a document, as part of the answer. I tabled the document. Further work was done, and new figures appeared. This amended table is part of the report I released recently.

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

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Foreshore and Seabed—Public Access

1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he agree with the Waitangi Tribunal when it said, in respect of the foreshore and seabed, that claimants and the Crown agree: that the public generally should have access to the foreshore and seabed except where this causes harm; that it should not be sold; and that customary rights in the foreshore and seabed exist and need to be recognised and protected?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I am aware of the section in the tribunal’s report that pointed out that there is some common ground between the Government’s policy and the position taken by the claimants. The Government’s view on the access issue is that it should be as of right.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is he confident that Māori agree that the Government’s proposals protect customary rights, when outside Parliament right now 20,000 sons and daughters and mokopuna of Dame Whina Cooper are protesting against this Government’s unjust legislation to extinguish customary title?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Dame Whina was a wonderful woman, but I doubt whether she had 20,000 mokopuna by herself. However, my estimate of the crowd would be somewhat lower than that. Clearly, there is considerable concern amongst Māori about some issues in this bill. I am sure that if they proceed through the select committee process, legitimate concerns can be addressed and will be well understood.

Dr Wayne Mapp: What is the potential cost to taxpayers of the claims for fee simple title over nearly 3,900 kilometres of coastline that are currently before the Māori Land Court, and which, of course, can now be subject to compensation under the Government’s foreshore and seabed bill?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The applications before the Māori Land Court are for customary land status. Fee simple title would flow from that potentially—[Interruption] If the member can understand that small point, there is progress after some months. However, what the bill provides for is not any application with regard to fee simple title at all. But in relation to territorial customary rights applications to the High Court, which would trigger redress, of course—[Interruption] Is the member suggesting that the removal of the capacity for recognition of those customary rights should be done without the capacity for redress? It is fascinating that the National Party is now arguing that any form of territorial rights be removed without any form of redress.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider very carefully the way Dr Cullen answered the latter part of that question. It seems to me he was asked a very straight and simple question that he then chose to overly complicate. He then took an opportunity, after a heckle from one of his own crew, to avoid answering at all. I wonder whether we might get a simple answer as to what it will cost to compensate Māori for the Government’s proposals over the seabed and foreshore.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That was not the question. The question was a different one. The question was based upon a false assumption.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to rule on the point of order. For a start there was a large number of interjections in the second person, which I presume related to me. They came mostly from the member’s side, and they were out of order. I do not mind some interjections during question time. I like to have a free flow. However, interjections have to be reasonable and in the right person. The Minister did address the question.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister agree that the most effective way to guarantee public access to the seabed and foreshore, as this bill does, is to ensure that it remains in Crown ownership—exactly as New Zealand First has been advocating now for some months?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly, I think that Crown ownership is the simplest legal procedure to ensure that—coupled, of course, with a statutory right of access. It is possible to have Crown ownership without a statutory right of access.

Rod Donald: How can the public of New Zealand be sure that Crown ownership will not lead to the foreshore and seabed being sold to overseas owners, when a simple majority in a future Parliament could overturn the no-sale provision? We all know that New Zealand Governments have the sorry history of selling off parts of the foreshore.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: This country’s constitution is founded upon the theory of parliamentary sovereignty—a matter I might discuss somewhat further in a coming special debate on a Monday in a couple of weeks’ or so time. The essence of parliamentary sovereignty is that no Parliament can bind its successor. The issue the member raises could be raised about almost anything else, including the Human Rights Act, the abolition of capital punishment, or the existence of the Green Party. But it need not worry—this Government is not going to abolish the Green Party.

Dail Jones: Can the Minister confirm that the main way to ensure New Zealand ownership of the public foreshore and seabed is to support New Zealand First at the election, because it is our policy that such New Zealand - owned assets should not be sold to overseas interests—unlike the National Party, as indicated by the interjection just now.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and that interjection is the only interjection that member will make during the asking of questions.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member will understand that my preference would be that people will vote for the Labour Party to ensure continued public ownership of the foreshore and seabed. I shall see him on the hustings above or on the high-tide mark.

Metiria Turei: Why did the Government reject Green Party proposals—such as amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—when those amendments would have provided for a collective customary title where those rights still exist, as well as ensuring negotiated public access to the foreshore; and would that now provide a way out of the corner into which this Government has backed itself?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In fact, the Greens’ original position was that the foreshore and seabed should be held in the commons. This view subsequently underwent a somewhat strange change to “Māori collective customary title”. However, that would not be a sufficient protection, nor does it avoid the issues around confiscation, rights and redresses that the member seems to think, because there is a world of difference between that and what is now available under the Ngāti Apa decision. If the member had been meeting with Te Ope Mana a Tai, she would realise that one of the issues it was pursuing was the right of economic development on the foreshore and seabed.

Sue Bradford: Can the Minister name any other group in society, apart from Māori, who have had their property rights forcibly replaced by a weakened right of consultation; if not, is this not an example of racial discrimination against Māori?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Parliaments over a very long period of time in New Zealand have changed a number of property relationships and property issues—sometimes with and sometimes without consultation, sometimes with and sometimes without compensation. There is nothing unique about the processes being followed here, other than the care being taken for the better recognition and protection of customary rights and ancestral connection.

Metiria Turei: Does the Government believe in one rule of law for all; if so, in the interests of consistency, will it now be expropriating the property rights of non-Māori who own parts of the foreshore?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Nobody who has fee simple title to any part of the foreshore and seabed, however that arose, is having those property rights expropriated. The Government’s position is that it will seek to negotiate over time with any such owners. I want to place very clearly on the record that the notion that that is somehow racially based is nonsense. Some of those private titles are held by Māori.

Foreshore and Seabed—Legislation Negotiations

2. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is she negotiating with, or has she instructed any member of her Cabinet to negotiate with, any members of Parliament on any aspects of the seabed and foreshore legislation; if so, with whom are these negotiations taking place?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): No.

Dr Don Brash: Can the Prime Minister confirm media reports that the Government is prepared to horse-trade even greater concessions to Māori in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill in the hope of securing Ms Mahuta’s ongoing political support, and will she tell the House what further concessions are under discussion?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What I can confirm is that a bill was tabled in this House on 8 April and that bill will be voted on in a first reading tomorrow.

Stephen Franks: Are the provisions for ancestral connection orders in the bill up for negotiation or modification by this House; if so, will the Prime Minister ensure they are confined to areas where the common law might have granted property rights, instead of blanketing almost the whole coast in feudal privileges to obstruct?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is familiar with the processes that a bill goes through in this House. I have already advised Dr Brash that a bill has been tabled. That bill will be voted on tomorrow. It will go to a select committee, and submissions will be made. The committee will consider and deliberate on the bill, and it will come back to the House.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: How does she ever expect to get cooperation from hapū and iwi on the Government’s ocean policy, the aquaculture legislation, and the marine reserves bill if the Government persists with this very unpopular legislation?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Government has a duty to govern for all New Zealanders and from the outset, when the Court of Appeal decision arose, the Government made it clear it would govern for all New Zealanders. That meant it upheld the birthright of every New Zealander to enjoy and have access to the coastal marine area, but the Government also said from the outset that it would respect the customary position of Māori.

Dr Don Brash: Why would Nanaia Mahuta have stated to TV3 yesterday that she believed there was still “room to move” on the—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is one of those questions where it seems immediately there cannot be responsibility by the Minister. Why would another member have said something about a matter for which the Prime Minister has responsibility?

Mr SPEAKER: I will listen to the question in its entirety, and then I will judge that. So far there is nothing yet that the Prime Minister has to answer. But if the member is going to tie that into something, then of course he will be able to do so. For my sake, anyway, could the member start the question again.

Dr Don Brash: Why would Nanaia Mahuta have stated to TV3 yesterday that she believed that there was still “room to move” on the seabed and foreshore legislation, if she had not received some indication from the Government that it was prepared to negotiate, and can the Prime Minister tell the House just what room to move the Government has under discussion?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would assume that Ms Mahuta, as a member of Parliament with 7½ years’ experience, was referring to the select committee process, during which everyone can make their views known. Dr Brash, as a member of very little experience who has probably never sat on a select committee, would not know that.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why does she not just walk down the steps and say to the thousands outside, Māori and Pākehā: “We hear your distress. Let’s put this on hold. Let’s sit around the table together, and work out a solution that will meet the needs of all New Zealanders”— [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Hide is to leave the Chamber. I warned people about interjecting. The member will start her question all over again.

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One presumes you also heard—because I heard it clearly, and I am not far from you—the senior Labour whip interject at the same time. She can put on whatever face she likes, but she certainly interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Did the member interject?

Jill Pettis: No.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s word will be accepted. Please restate the question.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the member, who I think may well be now engaging in one of those exercises that the Hon Ruth Dyson engages in, said that she did not interject because—

Mr SPEAKER: Come to the point of order.

Hon Roger Sowry: She called out, but in her mind perhaps it was not an interjection. Perhaps it was just something friendly she was shouting out.

Mr SPEAKER: I asked the member whether she had interjected, and she said “No.” Her word must be accepted. That is part of the rules of this House.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It really comes down to which member’s word you take, because a number of members on the Opposition side of the House heard the senior Government whip say in a loud voice: “Let’s all hold hands.” That was the interjection. It was a derogatory comment directed at Jeanette Fitzsimons, and I do not see how it could be seen as anything other than a heckle of at least the same magnitude as Mr Hide’s.

Mr SPEAKER: The member should know from the Standing Orders that members always accept the word of a member about that member’s action, and that is where that matter ends.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The problem now is that, in view of the fact that you have accepted one member’s word, you are now saying that the word of Mr Sowry, who has made a statement, and Mr Brownlee, who has also made a statement, is not to be accepted. There are a number of members in this House who will stand and say they did hear that statement by the senior Government whip. The fact is that we now enter into a real problem of whose word you take. In this case, you have decided to take the word of the Labour member against the word of National members.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have not. I am taking the word of the honourable member of whom I asked an explicit question. There is a way of proceeding in this House around that, and the member knows how to do it.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why does the Prime Minister not just walk down the steps, and say to those outside, Māori and Pākehā: “We hear your distress. Let us put this on hold and sit around the table together to design a solution that builds on our common ground and that meets the needs of all New Zealanders.”; would that not start the healing process, and give her enormous mana?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I suggest that to do what the member suggests would cause a great deal more distress to most people, who want to see the issue moved on. We hear the concern being expressed, but my message is that we must govern in the interests of all New Zealanders to get a fair balance, which is what we are striving for.

Stephen Franks: From the Prime Minister’s answers to the previous supplementary questions about the scope for change or negotiation, in which she said it was in the hands of House, are we to take it that she is acknowledging she no longer controls enough of a majority in the House to determine what those outcomes may be?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is familiar with parliamentary process. When bills come in and go to select committees, Governments—and, I hope, Oppositions—give those who make submissions the courtesy of listening to what they say.

Dr Don Brash: Can the Prime Minister confirm that her bold assertions that she has the numbers to pass this year’s Budget are based on the presumption that Mrs Turia and possibly Ms Mahuta will be out of Parliament contesting by-elections at that time; and can she tell the House when she will be able to identify a certain majority and deliver stable Government?

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of that question is out of order. I will allow the member to rephrase it, because it has nothing to do with the original question. Could the member rephrase the question, in light of the primary question that he asked at the start? [Interruption] I am asking only one member to ask the supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member clearly needs some time.

Mr SPEAKER: There are to be no interjections during a point of order. That point of order was a frivolous one.

Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems clear to me that the question is about the capacity of the Government to negotiate with members to seek support for legislation that it has before the House.

Mr SPEAKER: That is perfectly correct on the seabed legislation, but not on the Budget. This question is about the seabed legislation—that was specifically mentioned in the question. The member may wish to ask a supplementary question. I will allow him to do so.

Dr Don Brash: Let me try to rephrase the question. The Prime Minister has asserted that she has sufficient support to pass legislation in this House. How long does that seem likely to take place, and is she basing that on the assumption that Ms Mahuta and Mrs Turia will be out of the House contesting by-elections over the next several months?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My confidence is based on the absolute certainty that a clear majority of members of this House prefer a Labour-led Government.

New Zealand Superannuation—Rates

3. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received from other political parties that New Zealand superannuation will be retained at 65 percent of the average wage for a married couple, from the age of 65?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I sought an undertaking to this effect from all parties in 2002, when I asked whether they would sign up to the provisions of the New Zealand Superannuation Act. The National Party would not sign, and replied that its position “will be made clear in its public statements.”

Hon Mark Gosche: Has the Minister received any further reports enabling him to clarify National’s position?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, the Minister does have responsibility for parties’ views under the New Zealand Superannuation Act. He can answer that question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Leader of the Opposition is on record that National will review the age of eligibility—if not in 5 years, then almost certainly in 10 or 15 years. In my long experience on this issue, “review” has never meant an improvement in the situation.

Dr Don Brash: Is the Minister aware of the National Party’s clearly stated superannuation policy involving a commitment to no change—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I would ask the right honourable Prime Minister to stand, withdraw, and apologise for that interjection.

Rt Hon Helen Clark: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Dr Don Brash: Is the Minister aware of the National Party’s clearly stated superannuation policy involving a commitment to no change in the age of eligibility, no surcharge or means test, and no change to the relationship between New Zealand superannuation and the average wage for 2020 for all New Zealand citizens; and does he acknowledge that one of his own colleagues—John Tamihere—is on the record saying that “universal superannuation is not sustainable” indefinitely?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The fact the member asked the second part of that question casts some doubt about what he meant by the first part of it. I am aware that what the member just said bears a remarkable similarity to the National Party’s 1990 election policy on superannuation, which was followed by an increase in the surcharge, a lifting of the age, and a reduction in the level of payment.

Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, the first part of my question required a simple yes or no answer and in no sense could the Minister be construed as having answered that question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Speaker—[Interruption] Many are called, but few are chosen. Speaking to the point of order, I point out that the answer I gave was an elaboration of the first part of the question, which was that I am aware of certain statements made by the member. If he wants me to elaborate further, the conclusion is that anybody under the age of 50 should be very, very scared indeed about a National-led Government.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I wish to seek leave. I note that every single question asked by Government members yesterday and today has been about National policy, as if we are the Government, so I seek leave of the House for the Opposition to sit on the Government benches so we can answer these questions.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. As one who has sat on both sides of the House, I know what the feeling is on both sides.

Peter Brown: Can I take it from the Minister’s response that he is determined that superannuation will remain at 65 percent at age 65 and be universally paid out, and that there is no chance he will consider increasing the percentage in the next Budget?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. The Government is committed to maintaining the relativity band between 65 and 72.5 percent of the ordinary average-time weekly wage. The priorities in the Budget will be for low to middle income earners. To the couple on the front page of the Sunday Star-Times all I can say is: “Hang on, help is on its way.”

Employment Relations Law Reform Bill—Review

4. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Labour: Is he contemplating any changes to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill given the public interest in its outcome; if so, in what areas?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour): I am meeting with employer and employee groups to discuss the issues arising from the bill. I will consider any changes that the select committee recommends in due course.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that many people in this country—business people and employees—are quite happy with the current Act; therefore, will he tell the House, if he is aware of that, where the pressure is coming from to make such significant changes as this bill does?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, I am aware that a number of people are happy with the current Act, which is somewhat at odds with what a number of those same people said when the Employment Relations Bill was initially introduced. I heard at that time that some people were saying that growth would go down. Actually, it went up. The same people also said that unemployment would go up. It went down. As a result, I say that predictions often do not turn out to be true.

Dianne Yates: With whom has the Minister met to discuss the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I have met with Business New Zealand on a number of occasions, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions on a number of occasions, the Business Roundtable, and some of New Zealand’s major employers. I will continue to meet with other groups, while the select committee hears submissions, to obtain the best range of perspectives on the bill.

Hon Roger Sowry: Noting that the Minister has not met, according to his last answer, with the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern), has he been advised, therefore, of the unanimous vote of 230 businesses in Auckland in favour of a resolution that “rejects the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill and asks that it be referred for genuine good faith tri-partite consultation between Government, employers, non-union employees and unions, in accordance with the spirit of being a member of the ILO.”; if he has heard of that resolution, what action, if any, does he intend to take?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I suspect that organisation will tell me those things tomorrow, when I meet with it in Auckland.

Paul Adams: Will the Minister contemplate changes to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill in light of the incorrect claim in the explanatory note that compliance costs to business are likely to be relatively insignificant, yet anyone who takes on a new business or contract will face increased costs when the liability of the old workers is factored into the price?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I am sure there will be changes to the bill. That is the nature of select committee processes. Of course, compliance costs are some of the issues that I understand the select committee is looking into.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister acknowledge that one of the main aims of the bill is to provide collective contracts for more employees, and that the simplest way of achieving that is to remove the union monopoly that is in the current legislation?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Certainly, one of the aims of the bill is to promote good workplace relations. It is certainly the aim of the Employment Relations Act to promote collectives. How those are to be achieved are the issues that I understand the select committee—of which the member is part—is considering at the moment.

Paraparaumu Airport—Sale

5. DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he received on the sale of Paraparaumu Airport?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport): I have received the report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee into the privatisation of the airport by the previous National Government in 1995. The report identified a long list of errors, failures, and contradictions. It is an indictment on the Government of the day, and an even sloppier process than the privatisation of the railways.

Darren Hughes: What failures in Government processes around the sale does the committee’s report identify?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Heaps of them, but the two worst are that, first, the objectives of the sale were never a condition of the sale—almost unbelievably—and, second, that it was sold for a song.

Peter Brown: When can the House expect the formal Government response to this inquiry; will it be quicker than the shipping review, which, thus far, has taken only 4 years?

Hon PETE HODGSON: My understanding of the Standing Orders is that the Government ought to respond within 90 days. We are in day 2.

Question No. 6 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): My question is directed to the Minister of Māori Affairs, who may be better placed to answer the question later in the afternoon when he returns from other parliamentary duties. I therefore seek leave to have the question held over.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the Government can transfer questions to other Ministers, but in this case it seems that the question is so personal to the Minister that it would be quite ridiculous for anyone else to be able to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: Then the member does not ask it. That is the only other alternative, and that has occurred while I have been in the Chair and while my predecessors have been in the Chair.

GERRY BROWNLEE: All right, we will give it a go.

Foreshore and Seabed—Māori Affairs, Minister

6. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his reported comment that he will leave Parliament if the foreshore and seabed legislation does not work out the way he wants for Māori; if not, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education), on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: This legislation will deliver the best possible deal for Māori.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister of Māori Affairs agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that the hīkoi marchers are “haters and wreckers”; if so, why?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The Prime Minister did not state that all the hīkoi marchers were “wreckers” and “haters”, but amongst the leadership were people who have indicated that they want to wreck the sovereignty of New Zealand.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that the Government’s proposals behind the foreshore and seabed legislation put Māori “in a class different from, and inferior to, all other citizens”; if not, will he explain to the thousands of Māori and Pākehā outside the walls of this House today, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No. In answer to the second part of the question: “As I’m currently out there I can’t be in here to explain it.”

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. “As I can’t be here because I’m out there and I can’t explain.”! We cannot be treated to that sort of answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I was just contemplating that and getting some advice. That answer is out of order.

Gerry Brownlee: What exactly will the Minister be measuring to determine whether the foreshore and seabed legislation has worked the way he wants for Māori?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The Minister has already measured that, and he is convinced that we have legislation that will deliver the best possible deal for Māori given the make-up of this House.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is where we get into quite a bit of difficulty—that is, when the Government treats in such a cavalier fashion the right of the Opposition to question Ministers. The opening question asked the Minister whether he stood by his reported comments. Those comments indicated that he would leave Parliament if it did not work out. The comment has now been made on behalf of the Minister that he has already looked at it. It has not even come before the House yet, but he has decided that it is so good that it has worked anyway. It is quite unacceptable for the Hansard record to carry that sort of series of answers. It does not make sense in the first place, and it comes because the Government has made a decision not to have Parekura Horomia in the House today.

Mr SPEAKER: No, that last point is out of order. The other point is also out of order. I have no intention of asking Hansard to change what has been reported. I do not think the member would want that either.

Gerry Brownlee: No.

Mr SPEAKER: No, of course not. The answer stands. It addressed the question. I am not responsible for the quality of the answer.

Stephen Franks: Is the Minister aware of any discussion on the allocation of aquaculture areas as part of this or a further package; if so, when will he know what any aquaculture area deal will deliver, and the cost?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Aquaculture and foreshore issues are separate.

Public Trust—Enduring Powers of Attorney

7. LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) to the Minister responsible for the Public Trust: Is he satisfied the Public Trust exercises sufficient care in administering enduring power of attorney; if so, why?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister responsible for the Public Trust): Responsibility for the supervision, direction, and management of the affairs of the Public Trust rests with its board. Accordingly, I do not have, nor would I expect to be provided with, information on operational matters such as these. The Public Trust is required by its legislation, however, when managing and administering estates and in fulfilling any other fiduciary obligations, to act in an independent manner free from any direction or instruction from the Crown. The legislation governing enduring powers of attorney actually lies with the Minister of Justice, but I am willing to assist the member in any communications he wants to have with the Public Trust, if he wishes.

Larry Baldock: Is the Minister aware that the Public Trust has implemented the recommendations of the Law Commission report of April 2001 entitled Misuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney, which recommended that the Public Trust should seek independent legal advice before assisting to grant enduring power of attorney where the donor is over the age of 68 and married, and the person being granted enduring power of attorney is not the spouse?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: If the member wants a response from the chief executive and the board of the Public Trust as to what effect it has given to those recommendations, I am happy to assist, or he can write to the Public Trust directly.

Larry Baldock: I thank the Minister for his assistance. Will he give this House an assurance today, then, that he will look into the matter of the Public Trust’s management of the case of Mr Alefounder of Tauranga, an 89-year-old Alzheimer’s patient who was assisted to give power of attorney to Mrs Alefounder’s stepson without Mrs Alefounder being consulted, with the result of the Public Trust’s actions being that it has enabled her stepson to withdraw funds from the deceased’s account and leave Mrs Alefounder with a debt?

Mr SPEAKER: The question is a long one, but I will allow the Minister to comment briefly.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I reiterate that operational matters on individual estates are the affairs of the chief executive and the board of the Public Trust. If the member wishes to get a response from the Public Trust on a specific case like that, then I will assist him to do so, or he can write directly to the trust.

Larry Baldock: Is the Minister aware of Age Concern’s claims that 25 percent of all people who have granted enduring power of attorney, or who, like Mrs Alefounder, have seen their spouses grant enduring power of attorney, are being financially, emotionally, and materially abused, and that the Government review of this issue, to be released later this year, is happening too slowly; and will he give this House an undertaking that he will look into that and see that it is speeded up?

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a Public Trust issue, but the Minister can comment briefly on it if he wishes.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As I said, the legislation governing enduring powers of attorney is really the affair of the Minister of Justice, but I am also aware that my colleague the Minister for Senior Citizens is investigating aspects of elder abuse, including those that the member has outlined, and a report for recommendation and possible action will go to Cabinet and the Government in due course.

Taxation—Thresholds

8. Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT), on behalf of Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT), to the Minister of Finance: If the Government was to adjust the income tax thresholds to take into account the movement in inflation since the thresholds were fixed, what would the $38,000 and the $60,000 thresholds be adjusted to?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Based on a starting point of when the current thresholds came in, on 1 April 2000, to 1 April 2004, $42,900 and $66,100 respectively.

Hon Ken Shirley: Will the Minister then concede that Labour’s election promises contained in its glossy pamphlet headed “We will deliver”, with the airbrushed photograph of the Prime Minister, have now been broken—specifically, “No rise in income tax for the 95 per cent of taxpayers earning under $60,000”—and how many taxpayers now earn more than $60,000?

Mr SPEAKER: There are three questions there. The Minister can answer two of them.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, because, indeed, people’s incomes have increased under the Labour Government. The effect of any change on those people earning over $42,900 up to $60,000-odd would be $11.31 a week, and on those earning above $60,100, $18.35 a week. That would be the amount—the $11-odd—that the couple on the front page of the Sunday Star-Times would have got from indexation. Under the Government’s Budget package they will receive many times that amount of support.

Janet Mackey: Has the Minister received any advice on the cost and advisability of inflation-adjusting the income tax scales; if so, what did it say?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department reported on the issue in March of last year, and at that point the estimated cost was around $400 million—it will undoubtedly be considerably more now. They advised against indexation, saying that, given the complexities of changes to the tax scale and interactions with social policy, it was better to make large changes occasionally, taking account of all relevant factors, rather than making frequent small changes.

John Key: Does the Minister of Finance acknowledge that, on top of the $450 million of additional revenue brought in by bracket creep, his Government has increased the tax burden on all New Zealanders by more than $1 billion a year; if so, why will he not give all New Zealanders some tax relief in the Budget?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: One of the reasons is that most of his colleagues keep calling them increases in Government spending at the same time.

Dr Muriel Newman: In light of the fact that, through overtaxing New Zealanders, this Government is running a multibillion dollar surplus, what is the Minister’s response to the editorial in the Sunday Star-Times stating that the reason working families in New Zealand are struggling is that they are paying too much tax?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will yet again attempt to explain the difference between an operating surplus and a cash surplus. Let me assure the member that when the Budget is presented she will find some projections of cash deficits, but I do not intend to repeat some of my predecessors’ mistakes by borrowing large sums of money for current consumption so that future generations can live more poorly as they pay it off.

Gordon Copeland: Is he prepared to look further at indexation of the tax brackets on the basis of fairness, the resultant boost in family incomes, and the above-forecast surplus this year in the Government’s accounts of some $740 million?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will take the last question first. The above-forecast surplus is because of the above-forecast growth. If one spends an extra surplus as soon as growth is higher than forecast, one quickly ends up with what is called one-sided Keynesianism, and that leads down a very long road of increasing debt.

Housing—Affordability

9. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What is the Government doing to ensure New Zealanders have access to decent and affordable housing?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing): Since 1999 the Government has committed an extra $2 billion through Housing New Zealand for the provision of decent and affordable housing in New Zealand.

Last week I released a discussion document to help inform a 10-year New Zealand housing strategy. We also launched 37 refurbished houses in Auckland under the programme for Auckland housing. Since 1999 we have increased the number of State houses by 4,000, with 4,000 more planned; reinstated income-related rents for 56,000 low-income households; and invested in help for low and modest families to buy their own home.

Moana Mackey: What alternatives are being proposed to this Government’s approach of investment in decent, affordable housing?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In stark contrast to the record I have just outlined, we have proposals for the selling of State houses to the highest bidder, as was done in the 1990s when 13,000 were sold—a paltry 20 percent going to the tenants in them. We have proposals for time limits on social housing so a house will never be a home, and a return to market rents, even though they were leading the cost of houses upwards. Those proposals come from both David Carter and Wayne Mapp of the National Party.

Hon David Carter: Is the Minister concerned that his Government’s housing policy has seen tenancy turnover in State houses decrease from 33 percent to 15 percent in the last 3 years, and does he believe it appropriate for State houses to be occupied by families with incomes in excess of $100,000 a year, net of tax; if not, why?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer to the first part of the question is no. What the Government wants to see is people stabilise in their homes. For example, we had such turnover that local schools were in some cases threatened with closure because they could never guarantee what their roll would be from day to day, because of National’s housing policy. The answer to the second part of the question is that we do try to ensure that as people reach a level of income where they might like to buy a house, they can buy one. For example, the mortgage insurance scheme is targeted heavily at those tenants who can move from a State house, buy their own house, and move into the private market. That was not done by the National Government in the 1990s.

Brent Catchpole: Is Housing New Zealand Corporation building new housing stock or is it simply buying housing stock from the private sector, therefore reducing that stock available to people in New Zealand and thereby making it impossible for people in need of housing to get into housing?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Since 1999 the Government has built 4,000 new houses, and it is currently in the process of building another 4,000 new houses. In the Budget we will make projections of more new houses. We are building new houses.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister clarify some of his answers? How many families are on the State housing waiting list now, and how many does he expect to be on the waiting list in a year’s time?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There are currently about 12,000 people on waiting lists all over New Zealand, which is just a little fewer than the 13,000 houses the National Party Government sold.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did ask how many the Minister expects to be on the list in a year’s time.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can speculate if he wishes. He is not forced to.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It would be difficult to make a projection here today, but, of course, what the Government wants to do is ensure that we have enough housing stock to meet the needs of all people who cannot afford to pay a market rent or to buy their own house.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister noted the difficulties that first home owners are now suffering in purchasing their first home as a result of such policies as immigration and an increase in the market price of houses; if he has noticed that, is he going to announce—or will he consider—a policy that allows people to purchase their State home so that they may finally get a home of their own?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I have noticed that it is difficult to get a first home buyer into a house because of house prices. No, we do not intend to introduce policies where people will buy their own State home, for the exact reason that was asked over here: we want to increase State housing stock, not reduce it.

Tertiary Education Commission—Student Enrolments

10. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): Does he think the Tertiary Education Commission has done a good job of ensuring that “student enrolments are concentrated in areas of high performance and high strategic relevance.”, as he said it would in February 2003?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): The Tertiary Education Commission has made steady progress since its establishment in January 2003. To fund strategically, it has needed to get charters and profiles in place. Charters have been completed, and profiles will be able to be used from the academic year 2005. We have already seen strategic funding decisions in the Private Training Establishments Strategic Priorities Fund. We have seen it in aviation; we have seen it in the area of industry training, and in apprenticeships. Clearly, a strategic approach to tertiary education funding is the way to go, and I understand that every party in the House agrees with that.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware there have been substantial increases in enrolments in community education courses that have no qualification and no assessment, and is he aware that the Tairāwhiti Polytechnic enrolled 47,000 people in community education, which is more than the population of Gisborne; that the Christchurch Polytechnic enrolled—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Some people are very, very lucky that I am generous today—very lucky indeed. The member will start that question all over again, and no one from his own side had better comment.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware of the strong growth in enrolments in community education where there is no assessment and no qualification, and is he aware that the Tairāwhiti Polytechnic enrolled 47,400 people last year in community education, which is more than the population of Gisborne; that the Christchurch Polytechnic enrolled 96,600 people in its community education programmes, which is almost 1 in 3 of all Christchurch residents, and that overall last year almost 1 in 9 New Zealanders were enrolled by polytechs in community education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer to the first part of the question is yes, I am aware. In answer to the second part of the question, that is one of the reasons we have moved to limit spending in the area of $5.1 million. In answer to the implicit part of the third part of the question, I would say it is lucky we have a Labour Government, because we have the tools to do this—unlike the National Government, which did nothing.

Jill Pettis: How do the funding rules now in place already differ from those put in place by the National-led Government in 1998?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We have moved away from National’s hands-off model of funding tertiary education. Providers can no longer include computers and other sweeteners in their student loan purposes. The student loan scheme can no longer be used for overseas travel, unless it has been specifically approved. Providers can no longer set whatever fee they like. Private training establishments funding has been capped and the capital component removed. The funding of the Performance-based Research Fund means that research is now an accountable area of funding. Restrictions on growth to limit them to 15 percent in 1 year have been put in place, and we have capped aviation training. In other words, we now have the ability to handle our funding in the tertiary area strategically. In answer to Mr Power’s question about the student loan, I understand that Lockwood Smith was out the other day saying what a wonderful scheme it was.

Deborah Coddington: Does he think that the Tertiary Education Commission has done a good job when, under his watch, it has given out more than $111 million in a year to Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, which under the auspices of waka-building courses has spent $2 million on a state-of-the-art catamaran with double caterpillar diesel engines, which is sitting up in Auckland at the maritime museum waiting to take students for rides?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think that during the period of the last year—the Tertiary Education Commission was established January 2003—it has made very good progress. It will ensure that this country has a strategic investment in tertiary education. I repeat, I do not know of anybody in the House who disagrees with that.

Marc Alexander: Why does the Minister think that the Tertiary Education Commission has ensured that student enrolments are concentrated in areas of high performance and strategic relevance when there is no specific budgeting for the number of equivalent full-time students, leading to the blowout in funding for community education courses, and when equivalent full-time student funding is calculated without taking into account the actual cost of running the courses?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not want to repeat two of the answers I have already outlined during question time, because the member obviously was not listening to those. In summary, the commission has been going for about a year. It needs two key tools—charters and profiles—to be able to fund directly what is happening in a university or any other tertiary institution. Both of those tools are either developed in the case of the charters, or are about to be developed in the case of the profiles. In the second area I outlined during other answers to questions, I pointed out how many areas already have strategic funds. Industry training, Modern Apprenticeships, private training, etc. already have strategic priority funding.

Hon Bill English: Just what strategic tools did the Minister use to make sure that community education funding rose from $13 million in 2000 to $105 million last year, and enrolments in community education rose from 85,000 in 2000 to 465,000 last year, when these courses are, as he has said himself, of dubious quality?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member knows, 5.1 funding for community and adult education was introduced by the National Government in 1991. When we noticed that this fund was growing to such a large extent last year, we took the opportunity to, firstly, change it. We can change it only from academic year to academic year, so we moved immediately to do that. But I say to the member that adult community education is a tradition in this country that has gone back for a good 100 years. We have funded informal community kinds of education as the first step into tertiary education. We will continue to do that into the future, because we have the ability to do it. We will do it within a capped fund and it will be more strategically focused.

Marc Alexander: Does the Minister support the comments of the departing head of the Tertiary Education Commission, Dr Andrew West, that student enrolments and vocational training should be encouraged, and that universities should take in only the academically most able; if so, will he consider raising the requirements for university entrance in light of the move towards a performance-based funding model and away from the current emphasis of “bums on seats”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The whole point of the reforms is to move away from what the National Party used to call “bums on seats”. Universities set their own entrance standards. That is why they exist—to set their own entrance standards. As to whether I agree with Dr West’s parting comments, those are comments I myself have made—that we need to ensure that young New Zealanders make a choice. It means that they understand fully it is as good to go through industry training as it is to take on a polytechnic course or some other kind of full-time institutional study.

Hon Bill English: Given that the Minister has spent 5 years now talking about steering the tertiary sector, why is the end result of all that talk that the lowest-value courses in community education have grown vastly more than any other type of course, including the growth in trade education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Growth in areas like Modern Apprenticeships, for example, has gone from zero to 7,000 at the present time. So growth rates in areas like industry training, which have gone from 86,000 to 150,000 at the end of what we are doing at the current time, will be a 100 percent increase in funding. I think this Government has ensured that what we are doing is making best use of our tertiary education funding—unlike the shameless policy followed by that previous National Government, which simply funded bums on seats.

Industry New Zealand and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—Grants

11. Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) to the Minister for Industry and Regional Development: What grants, including assistance for regional partnerships programmes, have been allocated by Industry New Zealand and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise since 1 January 2003?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development): Since 1 January 2003 New Zealand’s trade development agency—New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—has approved 802 grants, including 47 under the Regional Partnerships Programme, for a total investment of $42 million.

Hon Matt Robson: Why does the Labour-Progressive coalition Government use taxpayers’ money for these grants, instead of just letting the marketplace alone determine the fate of regional and industry sectors?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: This Labour-Progressive coalition Government knows that the benefits of business development flow across the whole economy benefiting more than just individual companies or individual projects. By getting in behind these business opportunities we are encouraging them to do more in the interests of supporting the wider economy than they otherwise may have done. We believe that Governments have a responsibility to play a strong role as a partner for industry and regional development, and that our role includes clearing impediments to development as well as supporting innovative and successful companies to embrace market opportunities that arise.

Tim Barnett: Can the Minister give some practical examples of how taxpayers get value for money from grants made since January 2003?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I will just give a couple of brief examples from the Waikato—a Government stronghold. Earlier this year I had the privilege of opening the Waikato Innovation Park, a world-class centre for live sciences, which benefited from the Regional Partnerships Programme. That park represents a collaborative approach involving the Government, research and educational institutions, Tainui, and business representatives. The same is true for the second example—New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. It has worked alongside Pacific Aerospace Corporation for a number of years, introducing them to potential buyers in a variety of markets, including the United States, South America, Europe, South-east Asia, and the Middle East. The company is now looking at the potential to gain export orders in excess of $440 million over the next 10 years to benefit this country’s trade account. Those examples are among those that we on this side of the House are extraordinarily proud of, and they stand in stark contrast to the sterile approach of the previous National Government.

Mr SPEAKER: The answer was too long.

Competitiveness Yearbook—New Zealand Ranking

12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister for the Environment, noting that the just-released International Institute for Management Development World Competitiveness Yearbook 2004 ranks New Zealand number 60, out of 60 economies, for its environmental laws and compliance hindering the competitiveness of business?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes. I note that New Zealand also ranked bottom on that indicator in 1999, suggesting that the business community, which is asked to rank New Zealand on that indicator, did not like the Resource Management Act any better under a National Government than it does under a Labour Government.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Prime Minister tell Parliament on 12 April this year that the Resource Management Act was being reviewed, when in response to written questions since then, her Ministers have said there are no terms of reference, timetable, structure, or process for the review of that Act; and given the strategic importance of that Act for the energy supply sector, for roading improvements, and for business growth, does she not think New Zealand deserves better than a Government that, 4 years after rejecting National’s Resource Management Amendment Bill, continues to ignore the problems the Act is causing?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Ministry for the Environment has continued to work on improvements that may be made to the Resource Management Act, and Cabinet is currently considering what the process may be for bringing that to some finality. It is hard to see how New Zealand’s ranking on the environment indicator that the member is so interested in could possibly be improved by an announcement the National Party is slipping out at 4 o’clock today that it is to dump the nuclear-free policy.

Dail Jones: Does it not follow from the first answer given by the Prime Minister that neither Labour nor National is capable of bringing in adequate amendments to the Resource Management Act to assist in economic development, so it should be left to another party like New Zealand First to be given the opportunity in Government to do so, and to improve economic development in this country? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: There are interjections from both sides of the House, which is out of order. But the question itself is out of order, because the Minister has no responsibility in that particular area.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question began with the response given by the Prime Minister, when she referred to the Resource Management Act. She said that neither the 2004 review nor the 1999 review had shown that New Zealand’s status had changed in any way. My question was: does that not prove that both Labour and National have failed in so far as economic development is concerned under the Resource Management Act? I was using her own answer.

Mr SPEAKER: That is all very well, but she cannot then be asked about New Zealand First policy. It is New Zealand First that can be asked about its policy at a general election.

Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Prime Minister share the expressed view of her Minister for the Environment, the Hon Marian Hobbs, who described the Resource Management Act as “beautifully written and beautifully crafted”; if she does not share that view, what will she do in terms of making some amendments?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: An Act like the Resource Management Act will be kept under review. The previous Government had amendments proposed, and this Government has passed an amendment law. We are looking at what future improvements there may be. But what we will not do is to destroy New Zealand’s environmental reputation by abandoning the nuclear-free policy, and I note that the brave National Party is slipping that out under the cover of the hīkoi.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you explain to the House why, when my colleagues have introduced matters that are irrelevant in questions, you immediately stomp on them, but when the Prime Minister does so, you do not do a thing?

Mr SPEAKER: I object to that comment. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I have not finished my ruling. Please be seated. I say to the member that he overdoes things all the time, and gets himself into considerable trouble as a result. As far as I am concerned, I like to give members the opportunity to make their answers, and occasionally a political comment comes up. Now, if I were to ban all political comments—and there have been some very good ones made by the member’s own colleagues; I did not rule them out of order at all—then question time would be a very easy session indeed for me to run, as Speaker. I like to think there is a reasonable flow, and that is the way I deal with it.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question to the Prime Minister was very clear: does she agree with a statement from her Minister, who said that the Resource Management Act was “beautifully written and beautifully crafted”? Members did not have a reply to that. The Prime Minister went off and talked about another party’s policy, which is out of order, and did not attempt to address the question I put to her.

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the Prime Minister’s answer did address the question. The second part of the answer was out of order. A comment was made at the end of the answer and, as I said before, if members want me to be much tougher and to rule out all those comments, I am very happy to do so. That would make matters very easy for me.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to record the National Opposition’s concern at the tone that you have just used to remonstrate with Dr Nick Smith. We think it was unreasonable, and, given that the Prime Minister was being deliberately provocative and had been for some time, it was quite unfair.

Mr SPEAKER: I will say this to the member: I think perhaps I am in the wrong here. I want to apologise to Dr Nick Smith. I think I did make a mistake in being a bit tough in that regard.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why, noting yesterday’s report that ranks New Zealand at the bottom—60th out of 60—on environmental regulation, is the Prime Minister’s Government introducing legislation tomorrow to amend the Resource Management Act through the foreshore and seabed legislation, which, according to its own commentary, states that the compliance costs for 2,500 annual coastal permits under the Resource Management Act will increase, and is it her concern that being 60th out of 60 is not bad enough?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Resource Management Act, passed in the beginning of the 1990s, made matters concerning Māori matters of national importance under the Act, and the amendments that are in the foreshore and seabed legislation are entirely in line with that spirit. It is fair to say that New Zealand’s ranking overall on the survey the member is quoting from is actually two places higher than it was in 1999 under a National Government.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that the Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, has said that the Resource Management Act is “beautifully written and beautifully crafted”, but that her new Associate Minister for the Environment has said: “It is convoluted and difficult”, can she advise the House which of her Ministers represents the Government’s policy with regard to the Resource Management Act?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I assume that all those who voted for that legislation in 1991 thought it was well written and well drafted. However, as time goes on Governments want to look at how such Acts work in operation, so amendments have come forward, and more amendments will come forward, to that Act.

General Debates

General Debates

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. If ever there was a week when the death knell began to sound for the Helen Clark Labour-led Government, this was it. This was the week when the bell started to toll. One Minister went overboard, one member is teetering on the brink of following her, one Minister went to sleep at an inappropriate time and failed to sign a trade agreement, and the Prime Minister herself told Māori that she would much rather talk with sheep than with them. This was a week when the posse came to town to put the heat on the Māori members of this House. Ten thousand people are standing out there, wanting those Māori members to listen to their concerns, and they are not being taken account of one iota.

I cannot help asking whether the Prime Minister still feels that she is simply a victim of her own success. What a week it has been for the Labour Government, and what a week it has been for New Zealand. For the first time in many months, the smell of an election—the smell of a change of Government—is well and truly in the nostrils of the voting populace. Earlier in the week, the Government narrowly survived a confidence vote.

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, and I will certainly not take this off his time. There is too much loud conversation. Members can have that outside. If members have select committees to go to, they can. I will give the member an extra half a minute.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Those murmurings were the nervous chatterings of the members who are about to lose their seats—the nervous chatterings of Martin Gallagher, who may as well go and pack up his bags right now, and the nervous chatterings of Stevie Chadwick, who wonders about the great experience she will have to leave behind. There is David Parker, sitting up the back, the man who will be first to go. We understand that he is already casting his CV around the south of the South Island, hoping to pick up where he left off in 1999.

Earlier this week the Government survived a confidence vote narrowly and only because United Future, the party that came to this Parliament to protect family values, decided to retain in office the party that has done the most to damage family values in this country. I say to United Future that, along with Labour, it will pay the price for that foolish mistake. I ask Parliament why the Prime Minister has not gone down to talk to those in the hīkoi who have assembled out the front. The National Party has made it very clear. We will not vote for this legislation, but for very different reasons from the reasons of those who are standing on the forecourt today. So there is no need for us to talk to them, but Helen Clark should have done a lot of explaining to those people.

I ask Labour members of Parliament how they can expect to survive when they are doing something that their people are so patently opposed to. I ask Labour members of Parliament why there is so much confusion about this bill. I can empathise quite strongly with everybody who is standing on that forecourt protesting right now. I can empathise because, like a lot of New Zealanders, we think we are losing something. Māori think they are losing something, and so do the rest of the population.

The Government has the problem that although Māori will be able to claim ancestral connection to the coastline of this country, non-Māori cannot. So we have fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth generation New Zealanders who are not Māori, and who, apparently—according to this law, when it is passed—can never feel the same affinity for the land, or love of the whenua, as someone who can claim some Māori whakapapa. If the Labour Party needs to know why people are so upset over this, then it needs to get in touch with that very point. It is not possible for any Government to survive if it sets out to divide and marginalise.

The sad thing is that this Government is saying to the vast majority of New Zealanders that any connection people thought they had to the coastline around this country cannot be recognised in any way, at all. But the Government is telling Māori New Zealanders to go along to the Māori Land Court, and, under their tikanga, explain their connection and have it recognised, and that a bundle of rights will flow from that; compensation will flow from that. Those who have no connection, and cannot have a connection, will be required to compensate those who have. That is a recipe for ongoing treaty grievance, and that will be the legacy of this outgoing Labour Government. Labour members may sit over there chewing their lollies now, trying to ignore the seriousness of the situation, but Helen Clark will be remembered as the Prime Minister who split this country down the middle.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I do not think that any debate can take place in the House today without members acknowledging the events taking place on the forecourt of Parliament. For the many thousands of people who are there, the issue is obviously the foreshore and the seabed of New Zealand. I want to say to those people that we respect their point of view, we have listened closely to their point of view, but we do not agree with their point of view. The task of this Government is to govern on behalf of all New Zealanders, and that means guaranteeing that the foreshore and the seabed are there for all New Zealanders. It means access for all New Zealanders. It means Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed. It means that existing customary rights and ancestral connections are recognised and protected.

Our approach to governing this country is to provide a basis for all people to move forward together. We are a bicultural nation. Tangata whenua are the first people of this land. They signed a treaty agreement with the Crown. Today we are beginning the 21st century as a diverse and diversifying society. This Government recognises those differences but wants to lay a foundation for us going forward together. We are all New Zealanders and our future together will depend on all of us making a contribution to the 21st century. In the last 4 years we have made huge strides. In 1999, when this Government came into power, people will recall that we inherited a divided country—a country that was not performing economically and that was in the midst of major social breakdown. Many, many people said that the personal isolation that they found after 9 years of not living in a society where people felt they could and should care for each other was such that they wanted to see a change in direction.

In the last 4 years this Government has committed itself to doing basic things that bring people together. Our education policies are ensuring that people get early childhood education as a right. Our school policies mean they get extra education as a right. Our tertiary education policies have seen more people in tertiary education than ever before in the history of this country. Today we have more New Zealanders employed than ever in the history of this country. Some time this year the two-millionth New Zealander will find a job and start contributing economically to this country. We have the lowest rate of unemployment in 16 years.

We have services being rebuilt in every key area. Mrs King has seen her primary health organisations deliver primary health care into the community at a price people can afford, thereby guaranteeing that on the front line of our communities people are being made healthy because they can get access to health care. We have strengthened families. We have tried to work with United Future on ensuring we have a Families Commission. We are ensuring adequate incomes into those households. We have begun to rebuild the housing stock of this country.

In all of this we have sought to take all of New Zealand with us because we know that when all our talents are engaged in the project of building a better future, our lives will be better, and so will the future of this country. For Māori, this has meant a renaissance. For those who say that this has not mattered, I say it has. We have halved unemployment for Māori. We just have to go to a young Māori businesswomen’s award ceremony to see the huge number of young Māori women getting started in their own businesses. In art, sport, business, academic life—everywhere now—we are beginning to see the fruits of Māori exploding into a 21st century that will be good for them and good for this country.

Perhaps we are at a watershed. We have begun to lay the foundations for a way forward for all New Zealand. Yes, we know there is an issue over the foreshore and seabed, but what is at stake here today is bigger than that. It is bigger in the sense that we are laying foundations for social, economic, cultural, and environmental development that give us all a future. Let us go forward together.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): I think this is the first time I have spoken in a Wednesday debate—

Simon Power: It’s a pleasure.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: The National Party tells me it is a pleasure to listen. I am pleased the member is saying that; it makes me feel very warm and fuzzy all over. But I simply cannot remain silent and sit here and listen when a party that is trying to attain power at any cost poisons the relationship between the two peoples of this country.

I grew up in a family that was colour-blind, and in a community that was colour-blind—a community where each person was recognised and valued for what he or she could give to this country. I think the reason that is making the people who are marching and protesting outside rise up as they are is not just the issue of the foreshore and seabed but also that Māori, following the speech made by the leader of the National Party, feel threatened. They feel that non-Māori are poisoning the air against them. That is very sad, because I believe they feel they are being treated like the Jews were treated at the beginning of Nazi Germany. We cannot blame a whole race of people for the actions of a few. That is understood, and that is the way we think democracy should work.

Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I have been reflecting on that comment. I think the member had better assure me he was not referring to any member of this House with the comments he was just making.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: No, I was not referring to a member of this House.

Mr SPEAKER: OK. Please continue.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: The last thing we want to see in this country is race riots. I am concerned that, with the inflammatory language that is becoming more and more commonplace in Parliament, that is exactly the road we are going down. I do not believe it is right to stir up one race against another. I am anticipating that some people will say New Zealand First has said some things about Treaty of Waitangi gravy trains, and things like that, but we never spoke—and will never speak—about the Māori race. We talk about the institutions of Parliament and its departments, and we talk about the people who run those; we do not talk about the race of Māori people, which we respect.

From time to time, John Tamihere in the Labour Party speaks of a country where, in a number of years, the Pākehā New Zealander will be outnumbered by those with olive skin. We welcome that. The only issue we take with Mr John Tamihere when he says that is that he says it as some kind of threat. It is not a threat—and I might say I look forward to future generations of New Zealanders having skin that is somewhat more olive than mine is at the present time. That would be lovely, and it would be the New Zealand of the future. It is a New Zealand we want to see.

The legislation regarding the foreshore and seabed, which New Zealand First is promoting and will support, is legislation that respects the rights of Māori, non-Māori, and, most important of all, future generations of New Zealanders.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): In just half an hour’s time, under the cover of the hīkoi, the National Party will release the long-awaited Creech report on the nuclear ships ban. It is no coincidence that it is being released today. That is the policy the National Party least wanted to release, and we will not learn much from what it states. I have not seen the report, but I suspect it will state something like: “We’ll repeal the legislation but we’ll keep the ban.” Yeah, right! Absolutely!

That has as much credibility as the National Party’s track record when it was last in Opposition in 1990 and said it would repeal the surtax. What did it do? It kept the surtax, it lifted the age of retirement and it reduced the payment. Then there was Lockwood Smith, who said he would repeal student fees. What did he do? He increased student fees. He promised to resign if he did not repeal them, but no, he did not do that. Of course he did not do that.

Let us look at Dr Brash’s credibility on this issue. On Sunday, Dr Brash stated that he had made no personal decision on where he believed National should go with the policy. Yeah, right! I know that statement is not true, because I know that Don Brash, who will not tell New Zealand what his policy is, will tell an American delegation. What did he say to the American delegation? He said: “If National were Government, we’d repeal the ban by lunchtime.” That is what he said. I defy one member of the National Party to say that that is not true. I challenge Don Brash to stand up and deny that statement. If we look at what Don Brash said in the paper today, we will see that when he was asked why he had two different stories and what he had said to the American congressional delegation, he said he could not recall what he said and that he considered the conversation private. I remember Jenny Shipley not seeming able to recall a conversation. He said the conversation was private.

A private agenda is a secret agenda, and we should have no doubt that the secret agenda on this issue is that the National Party if ever given the reins of Government will, against two-thirds of opinion in New Zealand, repeal the nuclear-free New Zealand policy. What it has confessed to is just as bad. Don Brash, cornered on the Holmes programme, admitted he would have sent troops to Iraq as part of the invasion. Eighty percent of New Zealanders are against that, but Don Brash and Lockwood Smith are for it. Why are they for it, against all common sense and ethics? They are for it because both those National members have said there is an economic benefit for New Zealand in doing that. How about that? They would put the lives of young New Zealand service personnel at risk in the hope—not the reality or the expectation—that they would get some economic benefit. That has not been done since the early 1960s, when Keith Holyoake admitted he sent troops to Vietnam for a better dairy deal out of the United States. That is the politics of bankruptcy, and New Zealand will not have a bar of it.

If Dr Brash has misled the public over the nuclear ban, is he misleading the public over other policies? He says, for example, that he will not lower the tax rate on high-income earners. That is what he says now. He has spent an entire career as Governor of the Reserve Bank promising to do just that. What do members believe—Don Brash the mealy-mouthed politician, Leader of the Opposition, trying to curry favour, or what he said over 9 years as the Governor of the Reserve Bank? He also said that he would not touch superannuation for people over 50. But what he is saying to every 35 to 50-year-old is that those people will spend the rest of their tax career paying tax for a benefit they will never get. But I do believe his admission that he will repeal the 4 weeks’ holiday legislation passed by this Government.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): It is the arrogance and the ranting and raving of Ministers like Mr Maharey and Mr Goff that will destroy this Government. Those Ministers stand in the House today and argue that things are going well for the Government, seemingly oblivious to the fact that 10,000 angry New Zealanders are on the steps of Parliament today. In response to Mr Doug Woolerton’s comments, there can be no doubt that the speech delivered by Don Brash, as leader of the Opposition, at Ōrewa, was a watershed speech. Of that there can be no doubt. Don Brash raised in that speech a number of issues of concern to most New Zealanders. He raised those issues when other New Zealanders had become too scared to.

Today I want to know what happened to the Prime Minister, who only a few months ago claimed in this House that she was fast becoming a victim of her own popularity and competence. Where was that Prime Minister today when 10,000 New Zealanders wanted to deliver a message to her? She was cowering in her office, too scared—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows he cannot say that. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. Where was the Prime Minister when she was not prepared to meet those people today? What has happened to that popular and confident Prime Minister, who now looks as if she will remain Prime Minister only by calling on the help of Winston Peters and 12 other members of Parliament whom no New Zealanders know? The Government is in trouble. It is terminal. In a few weeks’ time, it is due to deliver a Budget. Even yesterday, Helen Clark had difficulty in assuring the media that she would have the numbers to deliver that Budget—a Budget that is important for the Government, because it is one in which it will recklessly spend a $6 billion surplus of taxpayer money in a desperate attempt to buy votes from middle New Zealand. We had that clear statement from Michael Cullen today.

I ask how anybody can now trust the Prime Minister, who, in dealing with Tariana Turia last Monday, cajoled her to lie in the back seat of the Prime Minister’s car, then took the opportunity to have her office phone the media to make sure they got shots of Tariana Turia doing that. That is how Tariana Turia was treated by the Prime Minister, and it is little wonder that she has decided she does not want to remain a member of the Labour caucus.

The question that now needs to be asked is: what about all the other Māori members of Parliament, some of whom may well have attended the hīkoi today? Will they now be loyal to their constituents out on the steps of Parliament, or will they blindly support the Government on the seabed and foreshore legislation? Dover Samuels, who is trying to interject, should take a call. The public of New Zealand deserves to know whether we now have a Government with the numbers.

Hon John Tamihere: You’ve made some bad speeches, but this is the worst.

Hon DAVID CARTER: John Tamihere says that it has. He appears to be far more sure than the Prime Minister was yesterday. The Prime Minister can run from this issue, but she cannot hide. She can run from the by-election with Tariana Turia and she can be prepared not to defend her policy, but at the end of the day the voters of New Zealand will have the chance to vote on this policy. We know darn well that what Labour politicians have said to Māori is totally different from what has been said to the general public. That message will come out in the select committee process.

I conclude by reminding New Zealanders that when the Budget is delivered in this House in 3 weeks’ time, it may throw some money to middle - income New Zealand. That money is owned by the taxpayers of this country.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): It would be remiss of any member not to refer to the group of people who are outside today. I want to acknowledge their presence, acknowledge that people have very strong views on a piece of legislation, acknowledge that the Government has some way to go in helping people understand what is in that legislation, and also acknowledge that one of the important things we must do as a nation is to keep on acknowledging the different traditions and what is important to New Zealanders. That is what makes this country a great country—the fact that we can, while agreeing to differ, give to the traditions—

Gerry Brownlee: It’s too late.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is not too late to acknowledge the traditions of different backgrounds. It might be a bit of a problem for Gerry Brownlee.

Where is the puppet? Why was the puppet not allowed to speak today? Was he on a long string? Richard said he was not allowed to come to the House today.

Mr SPEAKER: I will not have reference to members; otherwise anybody can refer to anybody. The Minister was obviously referring to a member of the House. He will change to another tack.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will change to another tack. I predict that the next National Party theme song at the general election will be Sandie Shaw’s “Puppet on a String”. What we have heard from National Party members is that Richard Long—on television—claimed to be the one pulling the strings, and the one who makes the mouth work is Murray McCully. When Murray McCully is not in the House, the mouth cannot work. Sometimes he cannot even stand up by himself. It just frightens me that we have such a self-acknowledged problem.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is one of those interesting speeches that start to test the bounds of what is acceptable in Parliament. I notice that earlier in the afternoon it was quite unacceptable for a member on this side to make, I think, a fairly factual statement suggesting that the Prime Minister was cowering in her office and not prepared to speak to the hīkoi. You quite rightly intervened and said that a member cannot say that the Prime Minister is a coward. We accept that we are not able to put that comment out there. However, we now have a member suggesting that another member of this House somehow has nothing to say unless someone gives him the words to say, which is quite untrue, and does not engage in any activity or action unless he is directed by someone else. That is quite unacceptable.

Mr SPEAKER: What is unacceptable is any suggestion that a member is being influenced by a member who is not a member of this House. That part of the Minister’s speech was out of order. I now warn him. I do not want to have to terminate his speech, but he had better change tack.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is clear, therefore, for the purposes of what is said in this House that the strings are being pulled by Murray McCully. He is being influenced in the House by Murray McCully, because the string is not long enough. The long string does not reach to the House; the short-string puppet is the one that Mr McCully runs.

I want to say, though, that people will remember today. People will remember the National Party, and the fact that the National Party did not have the courage of its convictions to abandon its nuclear policy in an open and transparent way. It is hiding under the skirts of Hone Harawira; that is what it is doing—hiding under Hone’s jacket. I do not know what is going on down there. I am not sure about relationships, but why can the National Party not have the courage of its convictions? It has had the report for months. National Party members know what they will be doing. They know that they want to trade bodies for beef.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for Mr Mallard to say that the National Party does not have the courage of its convictions, when it has been ruled out of order for the National Party to say that the Prime Minister lacks courage and has spent the afternoon hiding in her office, not wanting to speak to the hīkoi protesters?

Mr SPEAKER: Courage of convictions has been allowed many times. To assume that a member does not have courage is out of order. I think the member was unduly breaking up the Minister’s speech on that occasion.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask you to address the nature of the comments made in the point of order, the restatement of out-of-order comments by way of point of order, and whether that is acceptable to you?

Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not. There will be fewer people in this Chamber very shortly.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I want to go back to the essential point of this debate. Why would a party want to trade young New Zealanders’ bodies for beef? That was the approach that was rejected by New Zealanders in the 1970s. Why would that party want to abandon the nuclear policy that has been so roundly supported? I say to the National Party that it is about time it discovered some principles. It is about time it started to care about the standard of living for New Zealanders. It is also about time that the National Party had someone as leader in the House who knows when to stand up and when to sit down, and not have someone to pull the strings to do so.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): We have a leadership crisis in our country. What nation’s leader of a modern democracy with any self-respect could possibly say in public, and with a straight face, that she prefers the company of sheep to that of her constituents? What nation’s leader could accuse thousands of her constituents, those who have supported her and her party for nearly half a century, who have welcomed and awhi-ed her on to their marae, of being “haters and wreckers”? That comment was made by someone who knows in her heart that what she is doing is wrong. New Zealanders are ashamed to have those comments made in their name.

Outside the walls of the House today we have thousands of people on Parliament grounds. Those people are from all walks of life—young, elderly, Māori, and Pākehā. They have travelled hundreds of kilometres from both ends of the country to be here today. They are here to legitimately demonstrate their absolute opposition to the confiscation of land and abrogation of customary rights perpetrated by the Prime Minister and the Labour Government in their foreshore and seabed legislation. They are here to protest the utter contempt shown to them by this Labour Government and the other political parties that support this legislative confiscation, because the foreshore legislation is fundamentally wrong. It is legislation that discriminates on the basis of race, as it applies only to foreshore and seabed areas that may belong to Māori as customary land. And, of course, we know that customary land is a form of title that only Māori can have under the law. The legislation overturns internationally recognised common law, and breaches our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as well as international human rights conventions. This legislation is unjust and utterly unnecessary.

Throughout the debate over this legislation, Māori have repeatedly argued that the concerns of the Government are entirely resolvable by good-faith discussion and negotiation. The Waitangi Tribunal also clearly identified areas of common interest that could form the basis of a good-faith discussion. I went to almost all the hui on the foreshore legislation, and heard at hui after hui the offers of Māori to sit down and work through cooperatively with the Government to come to a solution that everyone could live with. But instead of taking up the offer at least to try to work through the issues, the Government chose to resort to the patronising attitude of our colonial past, to legalise illegitimate policy, to alienate thousands of Māori and Pākehā, to extinguish legal rights, to confiscate land, and to put our foreshore and seabed at serious risk of future alienation and environmental degradation.

Under the bill, the foreshore and seabed are more vulnerable to sale than ever before. There is no provision to enhance or promote the sustainable management of the foreshore. The failed, abusive process up to this point weakens any future prospects of cooperative development of marine reserves and coastal protection initiatives. On top of that, Māori are treated as second-class citizens to whom the fundamental principles of justice do not apply.

The Green Party supports those Māori and Pākehā who have gathered today at Parliament and in their local communities around the country to oppose this legislation. We agree that there is no excuse for this raupatu, and that there are viable alternatives that are just. We agree that this country needs a solution, premised on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that respects the needs of the whole community and the integrity of Tangaroa for his own sake. All it would take is a simple and respectful acknowledgment from this country’s leader. So I implore Helen Clark to go outside and meet her constituents, to go outside and meet with the people who have supported her and her party for decades, to go outside and say: “We didn’t get this right this time round. Let’s put it on hold, come together, and work out a solution.”

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs): Mr Speaker, e aroha ana ki a koe e te rangatira, te whakaruruhau i a mātau. Ā, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou mō ngā iwi whānui i waho mō te Pāremata. He aroha ki a koutou i waho. Mōhio ki a koutou e te iwi whānui e tū ake au mō te mema Māori kei te tautoko te Rōpū Reipā, ā, pai koinā. Nō reira, kaua e wareware ki a mātou te tīpuna ratou, ā, takoto tonu, takoto tonu, ā takoto tonu.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Mr Speaker, I sympathise with you, the one with whom we seek refuge. I extend a huge greeting in respect of the huge number outside of Parliament. The public must understand that I am actually getting up for the Māori member who is supporting the Labour Party, and that is that. However, we will not be forgetting them, the ancestors. Lie there, rest there, and continue to rest there.]

I want to address a number of things about leadership this afternoon, in light of the fact that the Māori members did meet with the hīkoi. We are the ones who go out on to the forecourt to meet with our people. In no circumstances will we ever allow our Prime Minister, our leader, to face off with our people in light of those circumstances, and the mana of the members Māori ill behoves us ever to place our leader at risk or in difficulty. Never again will we place her at risk or in difficulty from people who have already indicated that it is good for the Prime Minister to get the bash.

Gerry Brownlee: Stop putting a gloss on it.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Mr Brownlee interjects. Ms Turei advises this House that the Prime Minister should go out into that situation. I think not. In no circumstances should a leader and a Prime Minister of this nation ever be subjected to that form of risk—to be spat on, as people were doing out there today.

If that is what Mr Brownlee wants, where was he? Where was he, as the National Party spokesperson on Māori? He was hiding up here with a telescope. That is where he was. He sits over on that side of the Chamber, interjecting all sorts of idiotic comments over to this side of the House, but he does not have the mana to go out there and front. He does not have the mana, after the Don Brash attack on Māori people. Māori people are out there in large numbers, not against this party or this Government but against a Parliament that year in and year out has continued to use the portal of the ability to go out into our communities to disavow our rights and to have a go at us as a people. The people—large numbers of them—are out there to protest against Parliament per se. My aunties, cousins, nephews, and nieces who are out there still like and respect me, thank the Lord, but they have come down here to send a message to Parliament that they count, that they have some dignity and humility, and that there is integrity and credibility in our communities.

Don Brash chooses to continue to deny that with a type of attack that has been carefully crafted by the National Party to fester race relation problems in this country. That is the problem. I make an impassioned plea to the National Party today that it is about time we started to build bridges. It is about time we started to see some leadership in this country. It is about time for those things when my boy comes home after listening to a Don Brash retort that my degree in law, earned earnestly at Auckland University, is a lesser degree, and that I am more incompetent, only because I am a Māori. When the debate shifts to that level and that extent, is it any wonder that Māori people have a sense of angst and frustration? Is it any wonder that they come together outside here to have a say on an issue that has brought them together, the foreshore and seabed?

Is Hone Harawira right or is Don Brash right? Well, I think both of them are wrong. We have said it in this House today and we will say it tomorrow. Huge pressures have come on Māori members—the stress, the duress, and the threats—but we will see them off, because the legislation that this Government will table and speak on tomorrow is one of the greatest pieces of work, in terms of knitting this nation together, that we will ever see. When the debate goes out into my communities we will see the truth—not the passion, not the emotion—of what we are endeavouring to do here, which is weave our nation together, rather than dividing it merely so that National can get control of $40,000 million. It is about money not mana, for the National Party.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): That was one of the most confused speeches I have heard that member make in recent times. He started off by saying what wonderful, warm people were out on the forecourt—“We are with you. We are with you. My feelings, my thoughts, are with you.” He then went on to say how dreadful they were; that they would spit on people, punch them, and give them the bash. He said they were rotten, shocking, and evil. I am not sure which of those categories they are in, and I would like Mr Tamihere to stay and tell me, because he put them in both. He said that they were wonderful, warm, caring people, then that they were dreadful people who would spit on others and give them the bash.

He is also trying to get stuck into our leader. I want to tell people, because this my first time in the general debate since the last election—

Ron Mark: Where have you been?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I have not been anywhere, but I have to say I have never been more proud in my political life than to serve in the party under a leader like Don Brash, and I will tell members why. I think his Ōrewa speech was one of the best pieces of work I have ever seen. Why? It was not because it was racist, as is coming from the other side; it was quite the opposite. It was the most non-racist speech one could get. What Don Brash said—and I want to know what was wrong with it, because no one seems to want to address the substance—is that he does not want any one group in our society getting special or favourable treatment based on race. That is what he said. Members should read the speech: he does not want any one group in our society getting special treatment based on race, and I agree with him.

But I want to say something else about this current Labour Government, because history has an enormously wonderful ability to repeat itself. There are no members here, if I look around this House, who have been through these events—excluding yourself, Mr Speaker, but I will not bring you into the debate—so I will tell them about it. In 1987, when I came here, the members of the Labour Government of 1984-87 were absolutely unstoppable. One could not lay a glove on them. No matter what we threw at them during the 1987 election, it just bounced off. The juggernaut rolled on and they actually won seats from the Opposition in the 1987 election. They won New Plymouth, they won Manawatu, and they won Birkenhead from the Opposition. But guess what happened? Within no time at all it had all turned to custard, and I mean big custard; I mean big, lumpy, chunky, oozy custard, to the point that they could not stop it. There was a stench around the second term that no one could have predicted during the first term. They were the absolute love doyens of the political world for the first term, and by the second 3 years no one wanted to be part of it. Several Labour members said that they wished they were not around. One of the members said to me one day: “I just wish I wasn’t around. I wish the ship would sink. It’s a mess.” And it got worse. Even Trevor Mallard has just tripped over at the thought of what it used to be like between 1987 and 1991. Well, they slung out Lange and in came Sir Geoffrey Palmer. That did not work. They slung him out and brought Mike Moore in, and daily it went down.

I want to tell members that that same stench is creeping in around this Government now. We see Tariana Turia bailing out—for what reason? We are going to a by-election, but I am not quite sure why.

I have to tell members on the other side that I found the process of this foreshore and seabed policy offensive. I saw the Government say that it needed to go out and consult on it, then set up a series of publicly funded hui where Government members spoke with Māori about it. Well, where was the publicly funded meeting in Howick and Pakuranga for my constituents to have their say? Where was it? It did not exist. Eighty-seven percent of the border of my electorate—Pakuranga—is water. Did we get one public consultation from the Government? We got not a mutter, not a murmur, not a jot. But Māori were allowed to have consultations—paid for—at hui all around the place. In fact, I understand there was one somewhere out near Whitford or Maraetai, where again the Government tipped in money. But there were none where my people are. If that is not racist I do not know what is. If one is going to consult, one should consult with everybody.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): What we have here, I think, is an incredible amount of hot air blowing from one side of the Chamber to the other. If we could harness that hot air, we would solve all our energy problems for the next 100 years. The one thing that seems to be missing is a bit of constructive bringing together of both sides of the House to try to find an actual solution. Everybody is eager to point fingers at everybody else, but nobody wants to sit down and figure out how to proceed on the foreshore and seabed debate. It is an issue that is dividing this country like no other in the recent past. It is something that pits one New Zealander against another, and I think a lot of it is totally and utterly unnecessary. At the end of the day we have to put ourselves forth as New Zealanders first.

In America, for example, people think of themselves as being Irish American, Dutch American, or whatever it might be. New Zealand has to move in that direction. New Zealanders need to be proud of their heritage, and not lose the culture that shapes them. We need that—it is part of the cultural atmosphere of what New Zealand really is, but we also need to promote a sense of identity and nationhood. The fact that we are New Zealanders ought to be the primary focus, not the fact that we have one colour of skin or another. We should not instil a sense of prejudice in this country by passing legislation that pits one New Zealander against another. To have a group of individuals go from this country—Māori and non-Māori alike—and spill blood in its defence, and then come back and have this kind of warring on both sides of the House is utterly crazy and disruptive.

I heard the words of John Tamihere earlier, and I agree with him. No Prime Minister should be at the mercy of a situation like the hīkoi outside. At the same time, the Prime Minister of this country ought to at least invite some of the leaders of that hīkoi up to her office and sit down and have a dialogue that is constructive—one that recognises their right to voice their concerns, whether or not she agrees with them.

What we have had in the past is both Labour and National fighting against each other over this very issue. The speech at Ōrewa has certainly highlighted a number of things, and the first one is this: New Zealanders are sick and tired of being pitted against each other simply on the basis of race. There is only one race and that is the human kind, and we have to put aside all other divisions and see our common humanity and common goals for the future of this country.

I think that National is trying to exploit a problem that is happening under the administration of Labour. Let it not be misunderstood—had this issue come up under a National administration, it would be facing exactly the same kinds of problems that Labour is now facing. Rather than poke a finger in Labour’s eye, National should be prepared to sit down with Labour and be constructive. The reason for that is pure and simple: what we do not need is a solution pushed by Labour that will then be rescinded by the next National Government. We need resilience in how we decide this issue should be faced.

The point is that National must be forthcoming with its solutions and not just point out a hierarchy of problems. The responsible thing to do would be to let Labour and National sit down together and fix this problem. If we were at war with another country, there would be a great deal of unanimity across this House as to what we should do. This is no different. This is a war within our country. It is a war between the different factions of our people. We cannot allow this division to take over and strangle the sense of community and brotherhood that has been a hallmark of this nation. To pit Māori against non-Māori is an absolute disgrace.

What I want to see from both National and Labour is them taking the opportunity to sit down and advance solutions that the minor parties can come in behind and support, help, and craft along with them. Legislation of this sort should not be done by one of the larger parties in conjunction with only one of the smaller parties. That will not result in stability or resilience. We need both sides to put their heads together and be constructive.

RON MARK (NZ First): I have to say that I actually came into the House to talk about ongoing debacles in the Department of Corrections, but on the back of the debate here today, that speech is off to one side. I am going to address some of the comments I simply cannot ignore from the now virtually totally absent National Party—the comments about the wonderful, bumbling Don Brash, raised by Gerry Brownlee—that Don Brash is a man who brought a message to New Zealand that everyone else was afraid to bring.

Well, sorry, the message was on the back of a 10-year-old speech delivered by Jim Bolger. What astounds me is that the media did not see that when it happened. The message was on the back of New Zealand First policies and speeches that have been made for 14 years by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He started making those comments and expressing those concerns when he was a member of the National Party, and he was ignored. This is the very confused, bumbling Don Brash who, in the words of Jane Clifton, came into Parliament and made a right prat of himself yesterday, and regretfully made a prat of the whole Opposition, because he stands there as the Leader of the Opposition.

It was on my mind to stand up and, if it was within procedure, to move a motion of no confidence in the Leader of the Opposition. This is a man people need to judge very carefully. He says he is opposed to MMP, and then in the next breath says he is going to be No. 1 on the National Party list because he sees himself as an MP whose constituency is the whole of New Zealand.

How can a man who says he is opposed to MMP—that MMP should not exist, and does not deliver to this country the type of governance he believes in—then turn round and have any credibility at all when he refuses to stand in a constituency seat and demands and takes No. 1 on the list in his own party? Excuse me, but there is a credibility issue there—and excuse me, why has that not been discussed in the media and put to Mr Brash when he has been asked on other occasions to front up and answer questions about some of his rather confusing statements?

Excuse me, but Mr Brash has to accept that a lot of what we have seen outside this Chamber today is not so much a demonstration against the foreshore policy but a general expression of angst and dissatisfaction over race relations in this country in respect of the things he is promoting. Yes, he is against policies that have race privilege factors to them, but this is the same man who said he is happy with the Fisheries Act. Excuse me, but the Fisheries Act establishes taiapure and gives customary rights to Māori. This man says he is comfortable with that.

One of the great statements from Tariana Turia is that she acknowledges the good work done by National: the establishment of kōhanga reo, the establishment of the Māori health providers, and the establishment of education opportunities based on race, which were set in place by National. Our very confused Leader of the Opposition sits over there and says he is opposed to that, but he has not thought about it, and does not quite have a policy on which to go to the future.

Look at Mr Carter, who stood here and made a wonderful speech. Mr Carter and Mr Smith are clearly confused. Mr Carter has actively campaigned against the freedom-to-roam proposition put up by the Government. He does not want people tramping across private property to get to the lakes, the rivers, the estuaries, the streams, and the creeks, but Nick Smith objects to private property owners stopping access to an estuary by people who have crossed their land.

Why? Because they are Māori. He gets wonderful coverage all over the country about Māori stopping access to an estuary, but no one points out the fact that his colleague David Carter and the National Party have been campaigning for months against freedom to roam, against access to private property. Where is the consistency in that? Should we be surprised when Māori out there are saying: “This we don’t understand.” This is targeted at Māori, because Māori are the easy vote grab.

We are in a situation right now where under the National Party it is OK to say that Māori men bash their wives, but it is not OK to say that Asians are lousy drivers. There is a serious credibility issue there.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy): As the general debate winds up, I turn the attention of the House back to the issue of asset sales, previous asset sales, and upcoming asset sales if ever the members of the National Party were to regain the Treasury benches. If ever they did, we know that Kiwibank would be on the block. It has been getting 400 new customers a day for the last several years, but that is not enough—they want to hock it off. People are joining Kiwibank at least in part because it is the only widely available New Zealand – owned bank that they can join. But Don Brash would sell it; there is no doubt about that. He would sell New Zealand Post. He has said so. His spokesperson on broadcasting has said that TVNZ will be on the block.

I want to know what the National Party is going to do about our energy assets. I want to know whether National members would put Genesis Power on the block, just as they put Contact Energy on the block when they were last in Government. Many New Zealanders do not know, because of the name changes, that the company called Genesis Power is owned by the taxpayer, as are the companies called Mighty River Power and Meridian Energy. Those are State-owned enterprises. Contact Energy alone is derived from the State and was privatised in the 1990s. All the rest of the electricity generating companies are in State ownership, and under this Government will stay in State ownership. Would the National Party privatise Transpower; the people who own the pylons, the people who own the transmission system from one end of the country to the other? “Oh, no!”, one might say, “No Government would be stupid enough to do that.” Well, people should consult history, because the National members sold the railroads.

The National members did not just sell the rolling stock when their thirst for ideology needed to be slaked back in the 1990s. They did not sell just the rolling stock. It was as though they were selling a truck company and the roads besides. They sold the railroads, and the end result of that was that we had an asset rundown in the 1990s. We had competitors priced off the track. Chaos was created in Auckland because nobody could get access to the suburban railroads. The track was not available to other people, and we let public transport run into disarray. This Government, because of some lucky timing and some good negotiation, managed to buy the track back for a dollar. None the less, that meant that the rail monopoly was broken. That means we can now have other people who are involved with the track aspect. Because the Government has bought back the tracks, it does mean we can now have some double tracking in Auckland. We can now have reinvestment in track. That sale of the railroads was a privatisation from hell.

The National Party has already said it wants to hock off airports. We should look at National’s history to see whether it did so before. We should ask ourselves what caused the original collapse of the National – New Zealand First coalition of 1997, 1998, and 1999. We should ask ourselves what happened in 1998 that caused that Government to fall to bits. Was it the privatisation of Wellington Airport? It most certainly was. If we look at what happened yesterday we see a review of the sale in 1995 of another airport, Paraparaumu Airport, before the New Zealand First Party formed part of the coalition Government. If we look hard at that sale, we find that it is full of errors. So said the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee yesterday. It said that an objective of the sale was to maintain the airport, but that it was not a condition of sale to maintain the airport. Can members believe that? The National members were to sell it to people who had an interest in an airport. Well, for goodness’ sake! At the price they got, less than one-half of the unencumbered valuation, one would have expected them to have people who were not only interested in maintaining an airport but who were committed to it, and were not shortening the runway and hocking off bits of real estate within months of the sale, for half the price they paid for the whole thing—none of that. But, no, that Government decided it had an ideology to move on sales. It needed to slake the thirst for that ideology, so it sold Paraparaumu Airport in the most extraordinary circumstances. The select committee found that, despite evidence that the airport was of strategic and national importance, it was sold without legal impediment to its sale.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill

Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee

Debate resumed from 24 March.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the House take note of the report. Just before I put the vote, I understand that there has been a request to have leave taken for a split party vote to occur. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. The question is that the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. Those in favour say Aye, to the contrary No. Neither side has it. I shall ask the Clerk to call each party to declare its numbers.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 17; New Zealand National 17; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand National 10; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2.

Question not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill do proceed.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 18; New Zealand National 17; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand National 10; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2.

Bill discharged.

Bills

Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): I move, That the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In some ways this debate is redundant, because we now have legislation providing for 4 weeks’ leave. That legislation came in through a Government bill, and it is a landmark step for New Zealand in bringing us into line with many countries that are our trading competitors, whose workers have received 4 weeks for many, many years now. Four weeks’ annual leave is also a landmark in that it recognises the contribution of our lower-paid workers who have not had 4 weeks, when others in their workplaces have. The workers who were deprived of 4 weeks’ annual leave were largely women, and many of them were Māori, Pacific Island, and young workers. All sectors of our community have faced large pressures, but did not have that extra week’s leave for the rest and recreation they require and were entitled to. Those workers I have pointed out also contribute to our productivity, and deserve to have that recognised.

Four weeks’ annual leave is also an important step in that it brings back into focus in our community the fact that those who have the lower incomes in our society are often those who are least valued. In our society those with celebrity status receive an income well above what they actually contribute to society. We have a society, unfortunately, where the “most important and well-known” person in a company structure can receive a salary far beyond what he or she should get. So 4 weeks’ leave is a step towards equality, as well as a recognition that at the base of our society we have our most productive people.

But it was not an easy step to get there. This particular member’s bill, which I put in on behalf of the Progressive party, was really the catalyst for finally having a Government bill. I have in front of me a number of press statements that record the early steps in the struggle to bring 4 weeks’ leave to the most vulnerable sectors of our society. The first one in front of me was on 23 January 2002, where the Evening Post stated that Labour had rejected longer holidays. I do not say that to show disdain for my Labour colleagues, but to point out that that was a long time ago. If 1 week is a long time in politics, certainly 4 years is, and that was when there was a party called the Alliance, which I vaguely remember as well, that put a proposal for 4 weeks’ leave forward. But in the next Parliament the Progressives took that through, put it in the form of a member’s bill, and brought it to this Parliament. When we first got to Parliament there were our two votes and the Greens’ votes, which gave us 11, and arithmetic will tell members that in a Parliament of 120, we did not quite have a majority.

The first position of our colleagues in Labour was a more conservative one: to say that they would bring in 4 weeks’ leave in the following term after the next election, but that they did not believe that the time was right to bring in 4 weeks at that time. However, the community as a whole, the lower-paid workers, and, in particular, the union movement mobilised arguments that persuaded the Labour Party that the proposal should at least go to a select committee, and to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it did go. At that select committee other parties gave consideration to the arguments put forward. In particular, New Zealand First, after hearing the arguments of proponents for 4 weeks’ leave and weighing them up, gave support to 4 weeks’ leave, so that we could work towards having a majority in this Parliament. Labour also followed in the select committee in giving support to 4 weeks’ leave.

What does 4 week’s leave mean for New Zealand? First, as I said, it means that we have joined the rest of the world. We have joined the countries that long before now have recognised that 4 weeks’ leave is the due of all, not just of a privileged group in society. Secondly, it has meant that it is a firm commitment to strengthening families. During this whole debate it was interesting to see the party called United Future, which came into Parliament saying that families were its first concern, adamantly oppose this step that brings such a contribution to families, in terms of them being able to have that extra time with the whole family together. It has also meant that there will be a boost to our economy, because the experience of our trading competitors in Australia, in the OECD countries, and in Europe is that 4 weeks’ leave actually contributes particularly to certain parts of the economy, such as the do-it-yourself sector, the leisure industry, and recreational parts of the economy, and that then flows through to the rest of the economy.

We have a situation, then, where progressive legislation with a small “p”, put in by the Progressive party with a big “P”, has now come to be part of our legislative framework.

Peter Brown: I’m a bit worried about you and this P.

Hon MATT ROBSON: Not P in the sense that Peter Brown has quite rightly reminded me is not a good word to use. We do have an anti-drug campaign, and I recognise that. Having achieved this step, we can use it also as a reminder that there are a number of other key steps that this Parliament should be taking to support our people and to make sure we get the work-life balance right. In the coming Budget the community will see that the Government as a whole—Progressive and Labour—is putting forward a total package to move New Zealand forward, so that we have a society that does not have the pressures that make it hard for families to be healthy and to be able to contribute fully to society.

I particularly congratulate the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union on the work it did to achieve 4 weeks’ leave. Union people threw themselves wholeheartedly into the campaign. They worked with the Progressive party and with the Council of Trade Unions to put out more than 100,000 postcards. Those cards were distributed throughout communities, and were sent back to this Parliament. Many of them were presented as part of the campaign for 4 weeks’ leave. Furthermore, there were many, many unknown heroes—people in ordinary jobs in communities—who got hold of those postcards and distributed them in shopping centres, schools, and community groups, and ensured that they came back to this Parliament.

Unions and community groups visited members of Parliament, and made sure they knew people’s views about 4 weeks’ leave.

We have reached a stage where this member’s bill is redundant, except in one sense. Four weeks’ leave is coming, but it is coming on 1 April 2007. My original bill proposed—and it is still in the bill—that as soon as it was passed, we would be able to bring 4 weeks’ leave to the country. I put forward an amendment to the Holidays Bill that came before this Parliament, and sought to introduce 4 weeks’ leave on 1 April 2005. That did not get majority support in this House, so it did not become law. I still say that it is not beyond our ability at some stage, if we think 4 weeks’ leave can come in earlier than 2007, to do that for workers. Although it is not required by the law, I am reliably informed that many companies are now taking steps towards providing 4 weeks’ leave well before the due date of 1 April 2007. The achievement of the legislation and those moves are a further step towards social and economic equality for all our people in New Zealand.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): What a load of nonsense and tripe that was! The only thing the member said that was of any value was that he is reliably informed that companies are preparing themselves for the 4 weeks’ leave provision right now. Well, they are, because they are determined that their payroll costs on an annual basis will be the same with the 4 weeks’ leave as they are now, as a percentage of total costs. So they have between now and 2007 to reduce either the number of people they employ or the amount they pay them, in order to keep the costs the same.

The worker gets nothing out of this. The trade-off is lower wage rounds now for an extra week’s holiday in 2007. That is absolute nonsense and trickery on the workers of this country. In fact, if the member had cared to be at the select committee last week, he would have heard employer after employer—the people paying the wages, the people with their capital at risk, the people with the home mortgaged to the business—tell us that 4 weeks’ leave was another cost they would have to make adjustments for in their businesses, and that it was another drain on their competitiveness. Did the member sit there and listen to that? No. Does he care about that? No. But he can stand in the House and claim victory for this bill when this bill is not going anywhere.

This bill will be discharged. We should not be wasting the House’s time on it. National totally opposed this bill at its introduction. We are pleased to see that it will be discharged. The member’s idea has not become law. Labour has kind of pulled a little bit of trickery on him by saying it will do something some time out in the future, giving the market time to adjust. But the only people who lose are workers. Their hourly rates will not go up as they thought they were going to go up, because the employers will do the trade-off around the 4 weeks’ leave.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): I take this opportunity to contribute to this debate and acknowledge Matt Robson’s introducing of this member’s bill, which basically formed the substance of the Government introducing its own bill. Having said that, I do think it is also necessary to acknowledge the select committee members who dealt with the submissions. To Helen Duncan the chair, and Mark Gosche who took over, and the members of the committee, I extend my thanks for their support during that time.

The provision for 4 weeks’ leave will come into effect on 1 April 2007. That is a commitment that Labour has undertaken to achieve, and we certainly look forward to the opportunity for those workers to have that extra time to socialise with their families. After all, the intention and principle of introducing such legislation is to improve quality time for workers and their families. I do think it is timely that we are looking at introducing such disciplines, because at the end of the day it is important that we acknowledge family and having that opportunity to socialise. We are in an environment that is moving towards 7 days’ trading, and obviously with both parents now having to work, that quality time is restricted. So I think this bill is a welcome beginning to introducing an opportunity for families to encourage and share each other’s company.

The bill also separates out the confusion surrounding sick leave and bereavement leave. I know that in my previous occupation, particularly with bereavement leave, there was substantial confusion about when workers had the opportunity to take such leave, and if they did qualify to take such leave, how many days leave they were entitled to. So I think this bill gives some clarity and reduces that confusion. Also, regarding sick leave, we were looking at extending that leave from 3 days to 5 days, but I think we have found a balance that is acceptable not only to workers but also to employers. It was appropriate that, through some of the submitters who raised these issues, we accommodated those changes as we progressed.

I recall that the unions ran an extensive campaign to ensure that their issues were being recognised. I recall the postcards, and I also want to acknowledge the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and the Service and Food Workers Union for their contribution in campaigning and ensuring that they are more than happy with the outcome of this bill.

The 4 weeks’ annual leave provision is also important if New Zealand is to compete internationally and attract and retain skilled people. It will put the nation on par with Australia, which has had 4 weeks’ annual holidays for 30 years, and with the United Kingdom, which introduced 4 weeks’ leave in April 1999. I thank the House for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I support the direction in which we are going.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Who are we talking about? Who does the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill affect? Basically, it affects low-paid and casual workers, and I am disappointed that the National Party wants to confine those people—forever, it seems—to 3 weeks’ leave a year.

People employed casually get an additional 6 percent surcharge on their wages at the end of the week. New Zealand First says that that is not good enough. We accept that the Government has seen fit to support 4 weeks’ annual leave coming in in 2007, but what about now? Where is this compassionate Government that cares for the working person and the employee? Why does it not do something now? Harry Duynhoven knows I am right. We should be giving 4 weeks’ holiday to casual and low-paid people now. I know that the National Party and ACT will scream out, saying: “What about the poor old employer—the guy who has to pay for it?”. The Government has billions of dollars sitting in its little cash box. It could give a small rebate to employers affected by this bill, if it brings it in now. It is no good Government members sitting over there muttering that those people are not entitled to it. They are the lowest-paid people in the country and, in my view and in the view of my parliamentary colleagues, they are entitled to 4 weeks’ holiday a year. For casual employees, that would mean the 6 percent would go up to 8 percent. It is just a book entry—a few more dollars that could easily be compensated for by giving some tax concessions. [Interruption] I think the National Party disagrees with that?

Ron Mark: Tax cuts.

PETER BROWN: Tax cuts?

Ron Mark: It does. It disagrees with tax cuts.

PETER BROWN: The National Party disagrees with tax cuts. Very easily and straightforwardly, tax concessions could be paid to employers who grant 4 weeks’ leave now—or very shortly after this bill, if it should be passed—to low-paid and casual workers.

That is our challenge to the Government and to the Hon Matt Robson. Mr Robson should convince his colleagues that this bill is worth some tax concessions, and he will get the support of 13 votes from New Zealand First. If he cannot convince his own colleagues, then he is failing miserably in looking after the low-paid people in the workforce. That is not new to Labour, to the Greens, or to the Hon Matt Robson—who was a member of the Alliance—because they voted against the amendments we proposed to the Employment Relations Bill that gave a little bit of hope to casual and low-paid workers. So it will not be new for them to vote it down.

The challenge New Zealand First puts to Labour—the so-called workingman’s party—and to the Hon Matt Robson is that they should give some tax concessions to employers who would be affected by an extra week’s leave for their staff, and we will support them. And they should do something that is fair and generous—but not overly generous, I might add—to low-paid people. We will give them a helping hand. That is my challenge to this Government. It should do something for low-paid working people and for casual workers. It should not sit there and make hollow noises.

I conclude by reinforcing that New Zealand First supports the concept of 4 weeks’ leave for everybody. We know it will cost employers more, and National outlined exactly why; but we believe that could be easily compensated for by tax concessions for employers who are affected. Our challenge is to the Government to do just that—to do something for the low-paid working people in this country, and do it now.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): Although the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Bill under discussion this afternoon is about to disappear into the parliamentary ether, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Matt Robson on his persistence in pushing the issue of 4 weeks’ leave through all the processes and on achieving his original goal, even though workers will have to wait an unconscionably long time for that to happen.

Just before Christmas last year, members passed the Holidays Bill into law, ensuring that from April 2007 New Zealand will finally catch up with the modern world in enabling all workers to have a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave per year as of right. Although this could not have happened without the support of the Labour Party and the Green Party, I do not know that we would have got there at all, in terms of this term of Parliament anyway, without the impetus of Matt Robson’s member’s bill. I also know that the Progressive party and the Greens, along with many union people, share a disappointment that the commencement date for the 4-week minimum is so far off. However, at least we were able to get this far, and I think one of the most critical things for voters to remember at the next election is that it is entirely possible that National would repeal this bill, should it come to power in 2005.

I do not know how many National MPs, party members, and supporters are themselves subject to the confines of a mere 3 weeks’ holiday per year, but they seem to be happy enough to accept that a large percentage of the workforce should have to put up with it in the interests of keeping some business interests happy. Like every other party in Parliament these days, some National members have a lot to say at times about the importance of family life, bringing up children well, and parents taking more responsibility for the babies they bring into the world. We can all agree on that, but when it comes to things like how we can create a more reasonable and family-friendly balance between work and life at home with the kids, it is a whole different story. These days, with so many parents both out at work and a societal norm that says even single mothers and fathers should get back into the paid workforce as soon as possible, it is even more important that all workers get that extra week’s leave as a bare minimum needed for rest, recuperation, and time to be with partners and children.

Establishing a long-term balance between work and the rest of one’s life is absolutely critical not just for employees themselves and their families but also for employers as well. A rested, sane person with a contented and fulfilled family life is on the whole a much more productive worker, I am sure, than someone who is exhausted, stressed out, and perhaps not enjoying the greatest of home lives. I believe, as even some employers do, that the direct costs of an extra week’s leave are more than offset by improvements in productivity and a better functioning labour market that encourages greater participation and equity. The large Auckland law firm Simpson Grierson carried out a survey on the Holidays Act in 1999 and discovered that more than 80 percent of employers surveyed gave their senior management staff more than 15 days’ annual leave, because the employers have “accepted the importance of holidays for staff welfare”. I do not understand how anyone could believe that the welfare of non-management staff might be less important than that of their seniors. Whether the job being undertaken is cleaning or nursing, accountancy or sewing, or anything else, the person undertaking the job is a human being, and it is high time that all workers were treated on an equitable basis with regard to such a fundamental matter.

I would like to finish by once again thanking both Matt Robson and the Labour Government for taking the big step forward of providing 4 weeks’ leave for all workers, which will be great in the long run, even if we do have to wait a ridiculous number of years before seeing it eventuate.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party. We oppose the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill. It is a bit of a farce, as we have already heard.

This situation is really interesting. One of the things one does when one comes into Parliament is hope to have a member’s bill drawn in the ballot, so that one can follow it through the process and, hopefully, get it enacted. Members work hard, we see the bill through a select committee, and we do all sorts of things. All members would think that one of the last things that a member in charge of such a bill should do is be here at the conclusion of its passage through the House. If a member really believed in the spirit of his or her bill, that member would be here to see it go through. I think it is very sad when we see a member’s bill go through the House and, obviously, the member in charge is not concerned enough to be present. It is a bit like a baby being left out in the cold or left on the bus.

It is also interesting to hear that New Zealand First is now competing with United Future to be the poodle of this Government, and that both parties would raise taxes. It was interesting to hear New Zealand First today finally admit that it would raise taxes if it came into Government, because that is what it would have to do to pay for all the things that it agrees with Labour should be put through.

In a way, we really have nothing to fear from this bill. We know that 4 weeks’ annual leave has already been put into the Holidays Act, with the proviso that it comes into effect on 1 April 2007. But a number of things are a real problem here. Firstly, it is not constitutionally sound for one Parliament to bind the next Parliament. That is the first error we have here. The second is that the Prime Minister went to the Business New Zealand conference and promised that under her Government there would be no 4 weeks’ annual leave provision. Then the Prime Minister was lobbied by the Council of Trade Unions. It is usual practice that the Council of Trade Unions writes legislation these days; if we look at the submissions it puts in, and at the legislation that comes out the other end, we see that it is the same, word for word. What do we do when we are between a rock and a hard place? We try to satisfy both elements.

Also, we do not have to worry about the 4 weeks’ leave provision because there will not be a Labour Government in April 2007. There will be a National Government, with the ACT party there to ensure that the National Government repeals this legislation. In a way, we could say that the Prime Minister did keep her promise when she went to the Business New Zealand conference and said that under her Government there would be no 4 weeks’ annual leave provision, because that is what will happen.

The ACT party says it is up to individual employers to decide how much leave their employees should have—4 weeks, 5 weeks, 6 weeks, or 8 weeks. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, the majority of employers—in fact, all the employers who came before the select committee—set out how they already give longer leave periods to their long-term staff or senior staff, not just to management. At Stagecoach, the majority of bus drivers already get 5 weeks’ annual leave.

One thing Peter Brown said that was correct was that if this Government really cared about low-paid workers, and was not just doing this as a sop to voters, it would have brought that provision in right now, instead of delaying it until April 2007.

Also, if the Government really cared about low-paid workers, it would have allowed through ACT’s recommendations to the select committee whereby people who were given 3 or 4 weeks’ leave would have the ability to trade one or two of those weeks for cash. We heard about factory workers who cannot enjoy their family life because they are so far into debt that they cannot take a holiday, and they cannot stay at home with their families because it causes enormous family stress. All that they would like is to be able to go to their employers and say they have all of this leave banked up, and can they please trade it for cash so that at least they can start managing their debts. No, they cannot.

It is not the role of any Government or the State to interfere in family life, until things go wrong, until laws are being breached, until people are being abused, or until contracts are being abused. It is not the role of the State to interfere with families and say that they should have a better work-life balance. That is the spirit of this legislation. The Government has gone into that most personal area and said that it does not agree with the way people organise their families and life, and that this is what it thinks people should do. That was the reasoning behind it not allowing low-paid workers—or any workers—to trade accumulated weeks of holiday for cash. This know-all, bossyboots Government has said that people should not have the money, and that they must have a holiday. It has condemned hundreds of thousands of families to misery because of that attitude. Why should workers not be able to trade leave for cash?

If the Government thinks 4 weeks’ leave is so good, why not make it 6 or 8 weeks? Why not allow just 4 weeks of work per year, and let the rest of the time be a holiday? The Government knows that is totally ridiculous, and if it knows that, it also knows that it is not up to the Government to dictate to employers how much leave they should give their staff.

The ACT party is pleased to see the demise of this bill, as it will be pleased to see the demise of this Labour Government come the next election, which we all suspect will be much earlier than the Government thinks.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future, which opposes this legislation. I have heard many speak in the House on this issue, and I ask Peter Brown who the working person is in this country. I do not think that this Government understands business, at all.

As I have said previously, when the Government refers to a worker—as I have heard many times in this nation—unfortunately, it is really referring to a person who is on the PAYE system. All self-employed people, including the 90 percent of our businesses that have fewer than 10 employees, are put into the same box as many large and significant businesses. Yet legislation such as this for 4 weeks’ annual holiday has been passed. When will the owner of a small business that has only two staff have his or her 4 weeks’ annual leave?

I learned early in life that many things that are OK in theory are not correct in reality. I started life as an apprentice carpenter and joiner, and I always remember my first job application being turned down because my marks in chemistry were not high. I could not see the significance of a chemistry mark to a carpenter, and, fortunately for myself, somebody else agreed and took me on. I went through and passed all my trade exams, because I was interested in the subject.

I find that with many things in the business legislation passed in this House, perhaps the theory is correct, but I have a major problem with the outworking of it. Let me give members another example I heard from a larger employer who employs 6,000 staff. Before the minimum wage was increased, employers had always believed in the concept of paying the adult wage to the youth workers they employed, because they were doing adult work. Therefore, they were generous employers. But because of the significant increase in the adult minimum wage—and we would all agree with the reasoning for that—the employers then had to take a significant number of their staff off the minimum wage and put them back on to youth rates. So what was intended to benefit workers was in fact a real negative in that situation.

We have failed to recognise the compulsory 4 weeks’ annual leave provision. Most of us in the House are of the age when we fully understand that there are seasons of life. When people are younger, bringing up a family, and trying to get established in a home, that is the season when they need to work long and hard. Those who do so reap the benefits of it later in life. From an employer’s perspective, he or she must now give their workers 4 weeks’ annual leave when this legislation comes into effect. Yet where is the responsibility on the worker to take that 4 weeks’ annual leave in order to spend time with family and friends, as I have heard expounded?

None of us would say there is anything wrong with that, but it is wrong if that is not the season of life they are in. Therefore that worker may well leave his or her place of employment and take up 4 weeks’ work in secondary employment. There is no refreshment and no time with family in that situation. That person may rather be working in his or her chosen profession but, no, that worker may be forced to work a secondary job. I have a concern for the employer who will receive that person back—theoretically after the 4 weeks’ holiday—and find that that worker is not refreshed but strained. Yet the employer has an incredible responsibility for the well-being of his or her own workers.

Things change and, as I said, how do we consider those who are currently contractors in the workforce? Those contractors may be in the blocklaying industry; they may be mechanics, or carpenters. They pay their 20 percent withholding tax and look after their own accident compensation levies. Are they workers? What happens to them? This is not fair legislation that treats all workers with equality, as Sue Bradford of the Greens was expounding. The type of business legislation that we see coming through from this Government is bringing division amongst workers. United Future does not believe in, nor support, that. There was a time when we had employers who were unfair and unreasonable, but I think time has moved on. This is a competitive world that we live in.

I commend the Government for the many things it has done to help with unemployment and all of those issues, because employers now have to compete for staff and offer conditions that people are prepared to work under. Likewise, those employers must compete in relation to the product they sell. They cannot just establish a price at which to sell an article—they must have people who are prepared to purchase that product.

I think this law will be counterproductive in terms of what it is trying to achieve. I have heard many times how life should be better for workers, but is the reality and practicality of it that people are better off today with regard to holidays? Are they refreshed, and do they have time for their families? If we were honest, we would have to say that the answer is no. I am pleased to see that the bill seeking to have New Zealand open for business 365 days a year, 24/7, failed. We cannot go through life without refreshment. A lot of the legislation and a lot of the hours we are working are counterproductive to good family relationships.

We pass much legislation in this House to try to deal with the 10 percent of people—whether workers, employers, or various industries—who do not play the game correctly. In any situation there will always be at least 10 percent who are ratbags. I would rather that we passed legislation that deals with the ratbags tremendously heavily and frees up the 90 percent of businesses and workers who want to get on to build a better New Zealand, who want to work together and have time with their friends and families. But as we continually legislate, we unfairly affect the 90 percent of people in this nation who want only to get on, have a good job, offer good jobs, and do a good job.

We must start to lift the bar and put in laws for that, but the clean-slate legislation is an abomination for that type of thing. We are encouraging people to lie, and we will never lift the standard in this nation until we start to deal with issues. At the end of the day it is not what people are qualified to do, it is the character that they operate from that will lift them high in this nation. United Future will not be supporting this bill.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): It is my pleasure to take part in this debate. I will firstly congratulate the member responsible—a very good constituent of the Maungakiekie electorate—the Hon Matt Robson, who will always vote for his local member, he tells me. He has put forward this very good bill—the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill. Many people in New Zealand quite often look to Parliament and see only the major parties, and too often underestimate the power of being a single MP in this place. In the case of Mr Robson—of course, he is part of the Government coalition, with the Hon Jim Anderton—from his position of relative weakness, in terms of his being only one person, he has managed to make a considerable contribution on behalf of working people by promoting this idea.

I am proud to be part of a Labour-led Government that has picked up on his idea and put it into law, with the difference being the date when it will become effective. With the Holidays Act having been passed recently, we now know that workers throughout New Zealand can look forward to having that extra week’s leave from 1 April 2007.

Maybe we need to recall the history, because it was not that many years ago that workers in New Zealand were required to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at the whim of their employer. The Employment Contracts Act—the nastiest legislation this House has seen in many a year—basically put people in the position where that was their lot.

So New Zealand has become a lot more used to the idea of that level of flexibility in the labour market, but it has its downsides as well as its upsides. One of the major downsides is the effect on workers and their families. I am somewhat surprised that United Future—a party that talks about family values—does not understand that family values are very much affected by the nature of the work that people do, their employment relationship, and the laws that govern that sort of thing. It is not easy for a significant number of workers to have a proper say in the days of the week that they work, the hours, whether they work night or day, and all that sort of thing.

Certainly, it is not possible for a lot of them to initiate bargaining for an extra week’s holiday from their employer. Why is that? Well, probably 80 to 90 percent of New Zealand workers work in small workplaces. They have the unique situation of working alongside their boss, and it is not always easy, even if the boss is a particularly nice person, to say: “I would like an extra week’s leave next year, please.” It is not as simple as that, so at times in history Governments, through this Parliament, have legislated for extra weeks’ leave, and again we have reached a historical point in this nation’s history where this Government, prompted by Matt Robson, has passed a law that will see that happen.

We know through the polls taken on this issue by the media that it has widespread support from workers and employers in this country who understand the needs of families and workers for workers to have some time off, because they do understand that the labour market is extremely flexible in this country. We are seen internationally as having a set of laws that assist business greatly—we are up there in the top three when those surveys are done. There has to be a consequence of that, and that is that people work day and night, 7 days a week, and that affects their families. So we looked to balance that with a law of this nature.

What would the National Party do? Well, we know what it will do if it ever gets a chance to be the Government again. It will take the workers’ holidays off them. That is the history that National has. We all remember that fellow called Max Bradford—he wanted workers to sell their holidays. He wanted to take them off them. The National Party has learnt nothing from that experience.

Hon Matt Robson: He’s on a permanent holiday now.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: The fact that Max Bradford has a permanent holiday from this place does not get through some people’s heads. That sort of unpopular nonsense leads to people being thrown out of this place, and thank goodness Mr Bradford is on an extended holiday. May he never return!

The National Party is also threatening at the moment to bring back “the Employment Contracts Act without the soft bits”, to quote the Hon Maurice Williamson. What does that mean? Well, basically, it will be like the flame-thrower and the hand grenade being used all at once. The Employment Contracts Act was seen by the civilised world as being abominable—only Chile, under the worst regime, had laws that came anywhere near it—and Mr Williamson has indicated that the National Party’s position is to bring it back but to make it harder on workers. So workers out there who might be looking forward to the extra week’s leave that this bill contemplates, and that this Government has legislated for, can imagine that National, if ever given the chance, would wipe the slate clean and take away from workers legitimate rights that they have worked for and earned.

So often in this place we forget the contribution that working people make to the growth in the economy. Did the growth in the economy that we are experiencing just happen by accident? Did it happen just because employers made it happen? No. Members should go and talk to the good employers. People like those from Fisher and Paykel, who appeared at a select committee last week, know the value of being a good employer, of having a productive workforce, of working with unions, and of saying they will share the profits with the workers fairly. That is the sort of employment relationship most New Zealanders want, and that is the sort of relationship this Government is prepared to legislate for, unlike members of the parties opposite, who basically see workers as some sort of enemy who have to be vanquished and put down, and have to have their rights expunged. That is what the National Party and Don Brash would do. So I am very proud of the record that this Government has.

The Holidays Act did other very good things. I met some workers from Skycity Casino in Auckland the other day. They had to work at Easter, and for the first time ever in their working history at that casino—hardly a place that is struggling to make money—they had earned extra for working at Easter. That is the sort of benefit that workers have got. Nobody in this House will stand up and say that Skycity could not afford to pay those workers a little bit more. That is a challenge I would put to Judith Collins, who knows all about overseas trips and casinos. We did not hear the casino saying that it would cost customers not $1 but $1.50 to play the slot machines on that day, because it was paying time and a half. I did not see that happening at the casino at Easter. No, it makes plenty of money out of those workers. For the first time, it had to recognise that those workers gave up Easter to be away from their families; this Government had said that they should be rewarded for that.

This bill is recognition of the contribution workers make to this country, to the economy, and to business—something the National Party is completely blind to. As I said, it thinks that workers are somehow not a part of the economy or a part of New Zealand, and should not be rewarded in any way. That is why the National Party will take workers’ holidays off them, if it ever gets the chance. That is why it will bring in the most repressive legislation it can think of.

The improvements to the minimum wage that the Government has seen come in, and the health and safety reform—which was needed because a significant number of workers were being maimed and killed in the workplace every week—are the sorts of things that this Government believes in, absolutely and to the full. So I congratulate the Hon Matt Robson. Any member of Parliament can get up and make a contribution through a member’s bill. We have seen the wisdom of Matt Robson’s views on the matter, adopted them as a Government, and put them into the law. The workers out there say that is great, and so do the vast majority of their employers.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): It is all very well, is it not, for someone to go out there and promote how great 4 weeks’ holiday will be for employees, but what it boils down to is that if we do not have any businesses, those people will not have any jobs. This bill actually penalises workers. It states that the Government will give workers 4 weeks’ holiday, but when the number of hours associated with that are multiplied out, we find that businesses will start to retrench, contract out, and cut overtime rates. We are a nation of small businesses. In fact, there are 297,000 small businesses in New Zealand employing fewer than 10 people each. We are a nation of small businesses, which employ just under 600,000 people. If we do not have viable small-business enterprises, and if we do not have investment in that part of society, then communities suffer.

I want to take a look at the economics of this bill giving 4 weeks’ leave from 1 April 2007, because we cannot just look at the 4 weeks in isolation; we have to look at the bigger picture. At the moment, if I am employing somebody, that person wants to be paid for 2,080 hours a year. That is very straightforward. Forty hours a week times 52 weeks in the year is 2,080 hours. But we then have to consider and account for what is known in management terms as non-productive time. Currently, we have 11 statutory holidays. If we multiply that out by 8 hours, it is 88 hours. There are 5 sick leave days, which is 40 hours, and there are 3 weeks of annual leave—or 15 days—and if we multiply that out, it is 120 hours. When we add those together, the total is 248 hours. As an employee, I want to be paid for 2,080 hours, but as an employer, because of the provisions pertaining as at today, I lose 248 hours. I have only 1,832 hours of productive time available to my business for me to be able to earn a living, and to earn the revenue I need to keep my employees employed. If we divide that 1,832 hours by 40 hours a week, to get it down to a weekly basis, we find that out of 52 weeks a year there are 46 weeks available. That means the non-productive time currently taken up in statutory holidays, holidays, and sick leave provisions actually amounts to 6 weeks, not 3 weeks or 4 weeks.

Of course, the Holidays Act has been passed. If we look at the economics of this bill, we see that the situation gets worse. Under the Holidays Act, we find that the statutory holidays are still 11 days times 8 hours, or 88 hours, and that the sick leave provision of 5 days, or 40 hours, remains, but there is a new bereavement leave provision of 3 days plus another day for a close associate—that is 4 days times 8 hours, which is another 32 hours. And now the 3 weeks’ annual leave provision will be increased to 4 weeks. That is 20 days of 8 hours, or 160 hours, which is a total of 320 hours, so the 2,080 hours that an employee wants to be paid for comes down to 1,760. If we divide that by 40 hours per week, we see that only 44 weeks of productive time will be available to the employer to generate income.

Hon Mark Burton: We will have a happier workforce.

LINDSAY TISCH: We will not have a happy workforce if there are no jobs. It is as simple as that. That is the reality of being in business, which this Government does not appreciate. It thinks money grows on trees. It has never put any money into investment. Investment and growth in the economy come about because people are prepared to take a risk.

From 1 April 2007, there will actually be 8 weeks—if we take the 4 weeks’ annual leave plus the other days—of non-productive time that the employer has to fund. At the end of the day, who will pay? The employees will pay. Firms will retrench, they will contract work out, and that is currently happening. We will see a cut in overtime rates for those people. As for those firms that currently give employees 4 weeks’ leave, those employees will probably want 5 weeks. What about the firms that now give extra time for long-term service? What will happen to those? We will see an escalation, taking that into account.

This is anti-business legislation. The Government might think it is protecting the employees, but at the end of the day it is not. The Holidays Act is a complete farce. Along with the increases in accident compensation, the paid parental leave provisions, and the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill, which is before a select committee at the moment, it will just put the shackles on growth of the economy, and that is where small business fits in. There used to be a saying: “Don’t arrive in New Zealand at the weekend—you’ll find it closed.” I can tell members what will happen. A lot of businesses will think twice about being in operation here in New Zealand. They will vote with their feet and take their business off shore to Australia.

We all aim for growth in the economy and productivity, and that comes because people are prepared to take the risk and invest. When we have that, employees will share in the process; they will be the beneficiaries of growth in the economy. Employees will benefit once we lift living standards. At the moment, this bill does absolutely nothing to help employees. All that it does is state that they will be the first to have to take cuts. We should not have to legislate to protect employees, and to give employees an incentive to be there. Employers should say: “You come and work for me. I’ll create an environment where you’ve got opportunities.” That is how good businesses prosper. Employees can be the best investment that employers make in a business.

National will not support this bill. We have said that right through. We did not support the Holidays Act, and, certainly, we will not support this bill.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I am sure that if we look at the history books we will see that in the 19th century conservative parties here and in Britain would have consistently opposed any improvement in conditions for working people. The speeches we have heard today from the conservative parties in this Parliament point, in my view, to their moral bankruptcy in this area. I have a lot of time for my good mate and colleague Lindsay Tisch, whom we have just heard, but on this issue we are obviously very clearly diametrically opposed. I cannot believe that we have just heard a speech that talked about small business upping sticks and moving to Australia. Can someone on this side of the House who knows about this tell me how many weeks annual leave employees have in Australia?

Dianne Yates: Four!

MARTIN GALLAGHER: What was that? I could not hear Dianne Yates, the good member for Hamilton East?

Dianne Yates: 4 weeks!

MARTIN GALLAGHER: Four weeks! Is the Australian economy going down the gurgler? Can Dianne Yates help me on this?

Dianne Yates: No, it is not!

MARTIN GALLAGHER: It is not. In fact, over the last 15 to 20 years the Australian economy has had a very reasonable record. The Australian economy is extolled by the current Leader of the Opposition as a kind of a role model—a test case. Is that not a selective reference—taking only the bits we like and not talking about the Australian economy in terms of its very tight and, some would say, somewhat rigid labour legislation. I would not necessarily say that. We do not talk about the Australian economy and the fact that it has 4 weeks guaranteed annual leave. Do we hear members opposite attack the economies of the European Union, or the economy of the United Kingdom, which now has a higher per capita income than this country? How many weeks annual leave do people have in the United Kingdom? Can someone help me? I can tell the House. Since April 1999 the United Kingdom has had 4 weeks annual leave. The European Union has 4 weeks leave, as well.

I suspect, and I would wager, that back in 1944 when we got 2 weeks annual leave—I have not done the library research, I have to admit—the conservative forces in politics that formed into the National Party opposed it. I am sure that in the 1970s when the third Labour Government, under the leadership of Norman Kirk and Bill Rowling, proudly introduced 3 weeks annual leave those forces opposed it, as well. Did the economy fall over? Did the world collapse? No, it did not.

I am not allowed to use the “h” word in this Chamber—that is, hypocrisy. I am sorry; I withdraw it, as I am not allowed to use it. It is the height of the “h” word for members of Parliament, on their pay and salary conditions—and they work hard, I accept that—to oppose that provision, and to be so measly and miserly that out of 365 days of the year, they would deny working families 20 days annual leave, and would keep them at 15. I accept that there will be compliance costs for small business, and I respect that. That is one of the reasons that this legislation, in terms of the Government’s intention, is to phase in the 4 weeks minimum entitlement in 2007.

The other thing that we need to recognise in this Parliament is that a number of enterprises already have 4 weeks annual leave. Have their companies gone belly up? No, they have not. Has this country’s economy gone down the gurgler? No, it has not. In fact, a number of working people actually enjoy more than 4 weeks annual leave per year.

I want to compliment Matt Robson. He is an example of a good, hard-working MP. I also compliment his leader, Jim Anderton. This bill gives a minimum entitlement to working families. This is legislation for the battlers in this country—the mums and dads who work hard throughout the year and then want to help the netball and rugby teams and all of that, and whose lives are being compromised by the conditions that they face.

What is 4 weeks annual leave? Let us get real. What is so radical about 4 weeks annual leave? What is so ground shattering and so terribly economically destabilising about 4 weeks annual leave? Let us get this in perspective—20 days out of 365 days. Quite frankly, those parties that oppose it should be ashamed.

I have got a lot of time for United Future, and I listened with respect to some of the issues that the United Future member raised in his speech. A party that espouses being for the family—and I certainly respect a number of its policies that are very good for families, in my view—should have a deep think on this issue. I cannot quite work out—and I ask United Future members to tell me—how 4 weeks annual leave is anti-family.

The campaign that Matt Robson waged for 4 weeks annual leave is a very good example of what an individual crusading member of Parliament can do—how a crusading member of Parliament can make a difference in people’s lives. It is a really good example of the cooperation between the Progressive party and Labour in terms of how we have come together on this. I respect that Matt Robson is on record as wanting this Government to go somewhat faster on this issue. We have tried to get a middle way—a balanced course—and we have obviously come down for bringing in 4 weeks annual leave in 2007. The National Party’s opposition to 4 weeks annual leave covers—not very well—another agenda. I look forward to being on the campaign trail, because we will remind people up and down this country that the second part of the National Party’s agenda is to bring back the Employment Contracts Act.

John Carter: Really?

MARTIN GALLAGHER: Yes, really. Now, now. Has the member opposite not found that out? I am sure he knows that his party is going to bring back the Mark II version of the Employment Contracts Act, which will consistently and systematically roll back the conditions for working people in this country. Watch this space, folks! That is obviously the National Party’s real agenda.

Finally, in my closing moments, let me pay tribute to Matt Robson for his work in this area, and to my own Prime Minister and Government for being part of a reforming Government that will make life better for working New Zealanders. I am absolutely proud to be part of a Government that will bring in 4 weeks annual leave in 2007.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National): If anyone wants to be given a reason as to why the Labour Party is going down in the polls, now they have it. I know I am not meant to mention that, but I cannot help myself. One of the things that the member who has just sat down said was that we should allow workers to come into Parliament. Well, I agree. It would be great if members on the Government side of the House would let that happen, because then we would have some people here who actually knew what they were talking about. It would be wonderful if the Government had even just one worker who was prepared to get his or her hands dirty every now and again. Which one of the Government members has ever taken his shirt off, picked up a spade, and dug a ditch? Not one. Which one of them has ever run a business and knows about employing people? Can someone point to one person on the Government side of the House who ever employed anybody? Not one of them has.

Brian Connell: Jill Pettis with her shirt off!

JOHN CARTER: No! I ask Jill Pettis please not to do that! The thought of her with her shirt off, digging a drain, is too much. I am sorry—I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker. Bless my soul! This is terrible! I think I would rather vote for 4 weeks’ holiday than think about that!

Another thing the member who has just resumed his seat said was that the conservatives on the Opposition side of the House are morally bankrupt. I think those were the words he used. We could debate that, but the worry we have is that that lot over there on the Government benches are making people economically bankrupt. That is the problem. From an economic point of view, this country cannot stand the sort of social engineering they are foisting on it. Long term, the country will pay a huge, huge price for this sort of socialism. That is one of the reasons why the people in this country are starting to rebel against this Government. They do not like a whole package of things they are starting to see, and this bill is just one example amongst other legislation, such as the civil union bill, and the prostitution legislation. The public is starting to rebel against the Government for bringing those sorts of things into this place. Another thing has just popped into my mind about that member’s speech. It was not going particularly well; it was the sort of speech people wish they would never have had to hear. Halfway through, the speech became very bad, and the member started to compliment Matt Robson. From then on, it was all downhill. That was really bad stuff.

The reality with regard to this sort of bill is that if people deserve 4 weeks’, 5 weeks’, or 10 weeks’ holiday, then they can negotiate that with their employer—and people have done that. They are rewarded because they put in the effort to get the reward. That is what should happen in this country: people should be paid and compensated for putting in the effort. They should use their skills and abilities, and then get the reward. Can somebody on the Government side of the House tell me what is wrong with that? What is wrong with a person sitting down and saying he or she is actually worth a certain packet of money? What is wrong with doing that? People are quite capable of doing that, and in many of the places I have been involved in or visited in Northland, they do it. There are many people who are paid way above the norm. Their employers want to keep them, because they are worth keeping. Their employers do not want to have to go out and start employing and training new people. This sort of legislation, unfortunately, stops the ability to have good negotiation. In this country we should be encouraging people to sit down and negotiate recompense for their worth, but this Government is taking that principle away.

I will digress for just a minute and talk about what we anticipate will be in the Budget. The next Budget will endeavour to buy a whole lot of votes, by putting out more social welfare to middle - income New Zealanders. This Government is trying to turn the majority of New Zealanders into State dependants. When that happens—coupled with a whole lot of other socialist things that this Government is doing—then this country really will be on the way down, and New Zealanders do not like that. This legislation is an example of the sort of stuff we get from a second-term Labour Government. In its first term it sits there quietly, doing just a few things, because it wants to get elected again, and then in its second term we really start to see its real colours—and we are starting to see this Government’s true colours now. We are seeing them in all sorts of different ways. This bill is a classic example of the sort of stuff that finally will cost the Government the Treasury benches, because the people do not like it.

I have spoken to many employers, and I know that other members from right across the Opposition side of the House have also done so. The employers say that they do not want to have this legislation foisted on them, that they do not need it, that they are very happy to ensure that their workers are very adequately paid, and that they are very happy to see they get adequate holidays. They say that where their employees can show they have the proper skills and can earn the rewards, they will certainly be adequately paid and compensated. But this Government does not believe that employers can do that, or that the employee has the ability to negotiate with the employer. Therefore, what does the Government do? It actually forces 4 weeks’ leave on people, and it is wrong for a Government to do that. We have to ask ourselves this question: why has the Government stopped at 4 weeks? For all the reasons its members have given, we ask why, if it is good to have 4 weeks’ leave, they do not make it 5 weeks or 6 weeks. We have already heard them talk about other countries that give 5 or 6 weeks’ holiday. Is that where they are going? Is that the hidden agenda of the Labour Government? Next time round it will not stop at 4 weeks; it will be 5 or 6 weeks’ holiday that is foisted on businesses.

Businesses need to be awfully concerned about what this Government’s policies and motives may be. We know one thing for sure: unless we have strong businesses, and unless we have business that are productive, this country will not go anywhere, folks. We need to have strong businesses. This is a country of small businesses. Ninety-five percent of the people employed here are employed by businesses that have 10 employees or fewer, and those businesses need to be strong and vibrant. They need to be able to do well, so that the whole economy can prosper. When we have this sort of imposition—when this sort of compliance cost is put on businesses—it makes it more difficult for them to be the vibrant businesses we want. We have a fabulous country. New Zealand is a great country. Sadly, compared with our competitors in Australia, we are now 30 percent behind—I think $250 a week, on average. Less comes into the workers’ pockets now. Why? The reason is that this sort of dopey legislation becomes a barrier to productivity and opportunity.

I say to this House, to this Government, and to this country that we cannot stand that sort of idiocy in this country. We need to make sure that we give everybody—business people, workers, and the whole lot—the opportunity to get ahead, and this sort of legislation does not help us to do that.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): I freely admit that this short, 2-minute speech that I am going to give is a matter of self-indulgence, because of the years that we spent in Opposition just waiting for the day that we could talk about legislation like this. I know it is a peculiarity of how Parliament works that we will vote against the progress of this bill, but that is purely and simply because its provisions have already come into force as part of a Government bill. The full part of that legislation will come into effect in 2007. But this is a great day for us, and a great day for the workers.

It is very clear from some of the things that the National Party members have said during this debate that they have never ever got dirt under their fingernails. I tell Mr Carter that, yes, I may not have dug a ditch in my professional career, but I most certainly have performed manual tasks.

Unlike the National Party members over there on the Opposition benches, manual labour is not a Spaniard to me, though it clearly is to them. Some of the National Party people have made naive statements about workers being able to freely negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. It is obvious that it is a very, very long time since any of them have had to go into the boss’s office and ask to be paid additional salary each week. There is an employer in my electorate who is very closely associated with the National Party, and one of the employees—a long-term employee—went to negotiate with that employer for an additional 1 week’s holiday. That employer, closely associated with the National Party, said no, the person would have to work for the employer for 10 years before the person would get 4 weeks’ holiday, and there was the door if the employee did not like that, because there were plenty of others who would take that job. That is a statement that we have talked about for years and years, and I want to tell the National Party that that attitude still prevails out there in the workforce. That conversation took place just this year.

I also want to remind National Party members that as we get into the election campaign next year, they will be talking about how important it is for the family to have time to spend together. All National’s fundamentalism will come out in attitudes about the importance of the family. If the family is so important, why cannot we give family members an extra week to spend together, when they can have quality time together? It is actually incredibly important for parents to be in a relaxed state of mind, so that they can spend a quality, a productive, an enjoyable, and a relaxing time with their families. The National Party members speak out of both sides of their mouths sometimes when they are talking about families.

I want to conclude by saying that the sky will not fall in now that the workers in this country are to have 4 weeks’ leave in due course. All those predictions that have been made in the past by right-wing groups have never ever come to pass, and the economies of the countries that have enjoyed 4 weeks’ leave for a very long time are good, strong economies. This is a positive piece of legislation, and I am delighted to see it go through the House.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill

First Reading

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I move, That the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This is a very interesting situation once again. This member’s bill was placed in the ballot in the year 2001, 3 years ago, and has finally reached this House. Since then the matters that are contained in this bill have become Government policy and are included in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), which is why it is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee, to be considered alongside the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) in due course.

This amendment to the Crimes Act grew out of perceived inadequacies as far back, as I have said, as 2001—3 years ago—in the Act concerning drug rape. The New Zealand Drug Rape Trust was formed and its members, some of whom were victims of drug rape themselves, drew to my attention the increase in drug-facilitated rape in New Zealand. Until recently drug rape was regarded as a crime that occurred overseas. Most of us have probably been warned by our mothers, and as mothers warned our daughters, about people who spike drinks. We know that many people have been told, and warned, to drink with friends, not to leave a drink unattended at the bar, and to make sure they look after each other, etc. But this crime has been on the increase.

The increase in drug rape was thought to be blamed on tourists, but we have discovered since, and reporting in places like my electorate in Hamilton has shown us that drug rape is not just committed by tourists. Drug rape occurs not just in the tourist centres and not just in our cities, but is a New Zealand - based crime that is on the increase in the provinces as well as in the cities. I want to thank, particularly, the police in Hamilton for the work they have done in that regard, and also the very brave young women who have reported drug rape and suspected drink-spiking. It is not an easy thing to bowl up to a police station and report a drug rape. I want to thank the women who have done so and the police, particularly the detectives in Hamilton, who have been sympathetic, and who have been working with the hotel industry and with those people who are involved in the selling of liquor, to prevent further criminal activity in that regard.

In the past 10 years, as I have said, we have seen an increase in drug-facilitated rape, both in New Zealand and overseas. The increasing popularity and accessibility of the Internet has facilitated the spread of information about the drugs commonly associated with drug rape. As a result, would-be perpetrators are gaining more information about drugs and about how to commit these crimes. Drug rape is a crime that is very hard to legislate against, and it is very difficult to prove. As we know, most rapes do not have witnesses. Drugs leave a person’s system very quickly, and the victims themselves are often unsure of the exact events, due to the effects of the drugs. However, it is hoped that by amending the current legislation some improvement may be made in order to protect victims and punish perpetrators. As I have mentioned, statistics on drug rape have escalated in recent years, both in New Zealand and overseas, as has the publicity about drug rape. Statistics, however, have often been difficult to obtain, due to the low level of reporting and the fact that few police departments specify the nature of rape when compiling statistics—New Zealand included.

There have also been relatively few convictions for drug rape in New Zealand, though reported incidents of rape in Queenstown, Wellington, and Auckland have shown us that women were targeted in bars. The police are aware of groups of people who trade stories and photos of their attacks over the Internet. When the bill was lodged, there were no convictions for drug rape in New Zealand, and a recent court case in Wellington, R v Hooker, had failed to convict a man on rape charges. That case highlighted the evidential difficulties associated with prosecution for sexual violation in cases of alleged drug-facilitated rape. That does not send a strong message to would-be perpetrators nor foster a sense of security amongst women. While evidential difficulties may still arise in some cases, a specific statutory provision dealing with the issue of consent may assist prosecutions. A strong message needs to be sent that drug-facilitated rape, as with all instances of rape, is totally unacceptable and will be dealt with harshly.

The bill addresses the consent issue by stating that a person who is unable to resist because of an illegal anaesthetic or a hypnotic substance is unable to consent to sex. The bill also seeks to legislate against those who deliberately drug a person to have sex with him or her. Introducing this legislation will enable prosecutors to perform their jobs, and it will be an important step against drug rape. Legislation needs to take into account the specific factors of drug rape, such as the fact that the victim may be conscious but can still be unaware of the act or the nature of the act. We have seen pictures on television of people who have been drugged and who look OK, but who are actually unable to make decisions and are unaware of the acts they have had performed on them. The victim may be prevented from resisting due to the nature of the drug, and the fact that the victim did not fight off his or her attacker or specifically state his or her opposition to the act does not in itself constitute consent. Consent must be given knowingly and voluntarily, and the drugs used in drug-facilitated rape impair the victim’s ability to reason or to know the exact nature of the act. Another factor is the reasonableness of the accused’s belief as to consent, given the effect of drugs or other substances consumed by the victim, and the circumstances in which that consumption occurred, particularly when the drug was administered by the accused or was known by the accused to have been administered to the victim.

This members’ bill, as I have said, has been overtaken by the Government’s Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), and I suppose I should be pleased at that, as imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I believe, however, that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) is better worded than this bill, and I wish to thank the Minister of Justice and the drafters of the Government bill for the work they have put into it. As I have said, I want to thank certain individuals. I particularly thank those who have already appeared before the Law and Order Committee for sharing their stories with me and the other members of the committee. I thank the Drug Rape Trust. I want to mention Amelia Carter, a former intern from Victoria University of Wellington who did the research on the bill and helped to draft it.

I thank Detective Chief Inspector Peter Sturman of the London metropolitan police for his research and for coming to New Zealand to share it with us. I thank the New Zealand Police and the Minister of Police, George Hawkins for the work they have done on the prevention of drug rape, and particularly for the print and television advertising campaign warning young people about drug rape. I thank all those who have helped to get the bill to this stage, and, as I have said, particularly those who have shared their stories of drug rape, at great personal cost. I am sure members know that it is at great personal cost that people do that.

Once again, I thank the Minister of Justice. I thank my colleagues in the Labour caucus for promoting this bill. I also say a big thankyou to the people in the Labour Party who accepted this measure as a policy platform at the last election. They will be pleased to see that it has now come before the House and that it is to become law.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): The National Party will support the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill through to a select committee. We will be happy to see it go to the Law and Order Committee, which is currently looking at the Government’s Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), which deals with this very issue.

There are a few reservations about this change to the law that I as a former lawyer need to deal with. First, as I recall, the previous Government speaker spoke about the Hooker case in Wellington—an unsuccessful prosecution relating to an alleged drug rape case. I also recall a recent decision in the Sturm case in Auckland, which involved a drug rape of men by a man, where there was a very successful conviction, and subsequently a very long penalty was given. I am a little concerned that we may be passing—or looking at passing—a law that has already been dealt with in the Crimes Act, in terms of that particular rape case. I do not see how any person could be considered to be able to consent to sexual connection if he or she has been stupefied by drugs. Certainly, it will be something we will be looking at. Clearly, we are opposed to any sort of drug rape and crime of that sort, but in the select committee we would like to tease out the law and get some very good advice from the Ministry of Justice and associated bodies. I am sure they will be able to assist.

This bill has been brought about because the member in charge of it has noted, correctly, the party-drug culture out in the community that has unfortunately grown over the last few years and that has seen an escalation in the use of illegal drugs in this country. Often those drugs are manufactured under the auspices of criminal gangs, which sell them to teenagers on the basis that as the drug is non-alcohol they will not get picked up for drink-driving, it will not make them fat, because it is not alcohol, it is a fun thing, and it is only a little pill. Of course, what we are getting is an attitude, particularly amongst teenagers and other younger people, that such drugs are “only party drugs”. But party drugs can be extremely dangerous, and the member has correctly noted that.

An acquaintance of mine recently told me of an instance where she, a woman in her forties, felt she had been the victim of somebody putting such a drug in her drink. It was a drink of orange juice, and she was completely unable to detect any drug in it. It was only when she arrived back in New Zealand and discussed the symptoms with her doctor that it became apparent she had suffered the classic symptoms caused by an illegal drug that someone had put in her drink. Fortunately, there was no rape as a result of that. But it is quite clear that the problem is very prevalent, and we want to send out a message to people that it will not be accepted.

One of the concerns I have with any sort of law about drugs and drug testing is that at the moment there is a real backlog in the community of cases involving drugs—methamphetamines in particular, and other drugs in terms of testing. We see every now and again in the newspapers and in other media that some criminal cases that involve drugs wait up to 18 months to come to trial. Quite often, after that amount of time, prosecutions are abandoned for the reason that it is simply not fair to expect defendants to wait and wait, sometimes for years, to go to trial. One of the concerns I have when we make these sorts of laws is to look a little further than just at the law and make sure that the Government has the ability, the wherewithal, and the will to put in place the assistance of, for instance, scientists and others to do the testing. It is no good to put a law in place and then leave the police with none of the tools to deal with it. I understand that it is very difficult to test for some of these drugs, particularly within the time frames involved. I hope that at some stage that will not be a problem, and if people know that the testing can be done, and done quickly, then we might find that some more may come to our attention.

One of the concerns lawyers will have with this bill will be in relation to evidential concerns. That, of course, is something that should concern all people in New Zealand, and I am sure that the Law and Order Committee—and I note that my colleague Brian Connell is a member of that select committee—will look very carefully at that. It is very tempting, certainly in Parliament, to make laws to fit a particular offence or crime, when we always have to look at the principles and ask whether they will still be adequate in terms of all other offences. Will we, in fact, do a greater injustice to someone who could be alleged to have committed a crime just to be able to say that we have dealt with various groups of alleged criminals? It is extremely important in Parliament that we look at the role of the State in this, because the State is a huge and powerful body. I am greatly concerned that, no matter what we do, we do not give away individuals’ rights to defend themselves adequately against allegations, and that they should have the sorts of resources they need to do that.

I have found that a lot of people in the community are very interested in law and order and in tougher sentences being handed down, and I am one of them. However, some of those very people are often the very people who, when they have experienced their own children being collected by the police in an embarrassing situation, are the first to say to everyone they meet that the police were dreadful in their particular case. Certainly, that is the sort of situation that could very well happen if this bill goes to law, and no doubt the Crimes Amendment Act (No 2) covers it. Right-thinking, decent, ordinary New Zealanders might well find that a family member is accused under the law when they may well think that he or she is innocent. We need to understand that innocent people are occasionally—and fortunately it is occasionally—wrongly found guilty. That is why we make sure that whatever we do in relation to the laws of evidence and to offences like this, we do not throw out the principle along with everything else, and that is extremely important.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have 10 minutes?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have 2 more minutes.

Hon Ruth Dyson: It just feels like 10 minutes.

JUDITH COLLINS: I really did like that very positive contribution from the Hon Ruth Dyson, who, of course, is always interested in making sure that innocent people are not wrongly accused of crimes and convicted. That is one of the concerns that the Law and Order Committee needs to look at, and I am sure that the New Zealand Law Society, hopefully, will give submissions on this. I know it is very easy to give a knee-jerk reaction. I have heard from people who have been the victims of this sort of crime. It is an absolutely dreadful crime, and I want to do something about it. At the end of the day, we have to understand that until people are convicted they are entitled to be treated as though they are innocent. We must always do that, no matter what. No matter how heinous or abhorrent the crime is, I plead that the Law and Order Committee does not go overboard and allow for innocent people to end up being convicted.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): There are a range of issues before this Parliament, and obviously before the dinner break we had an issue that, if one likes, is an example of the litmus test of politics, of the so-called centre-left, centre-right divide in terms of the Holidays Act. This is an issue that clearly is entirely different in terms of parliamentarians, where there is a much greater sense of commonality and consensus.

Today the Law and Order Committee was in the process of hearing evidence on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). Before I briefly talk about the public hearings we held today I will take the opportunity to warmly congratulate my good colleague from Hamilton East, Dianne Yates, on her work and initiative. An earlier speaker said that her bill will very much sit alongside the current legislation before our committee. I believe that the work she has done has been something of a catalyst. This is a very good example of how effective a member of Parliament can be, one has obviously done the work and has talked to a range of people—victims, and people who have expertise in this area—and has come up with a very good bill, which now, of course, has been superseded by a Government bill. Dianne Yates’ member’s bill will go alongside the Government bill and come to the Law and Order Committee.

Today we heard an excellent and very insightful submission from the New Zealand Drug Rape Trust. What it did, in public session, was give a briefing around the issues of drug rape. It then, as an interested organisation, made a specific submission to the select committee. I have to admit to members and to this Parliament that as chairman of the Law and Order Committee I was very mindful of the fact that we as representatives are but lay people, fundamentally, and we are required to get our minds around a huge range of issues.

But when one comes face to face with a submission such as this from the Drug Rape Trust, as happened today, one fully appreciates absolutely the significance and the extent of this problem, and for some of our young people the potentially fatal consequences. One cannot fail to be moved in the public session when one hears of a situation that I understand happened in Australia recently where someone’s bright, lovely young daughter went out for a night on the town and the next day, in the words used, “returned to her home in a pine box”. In her case the drug was fatal. One suddenly realises the dangers that are out there, particularly for our young people, and one has a sense of anger that adults should put people into this position. Dare I say it that in respect of bars, and certain pubs and clubs around this country even, one has a sense of anger as a parent, brother, sister, or whoever, that perhaps some of the owners of those establishments might turn a bit of a blind eye.

Again this issue is about community vigilance. I want to reflect a little bit on the work being done in Hamilton, and I think Dianne Yates certainly talked about the good work that the police are doing. I particularly want to pay tribute to our bar managers and bar owners in Hamilton, and also to the local police.

One of the other issues that the Drug Rape Trust emphasised in its public submission is that this is not just about a young person going out on the town and being incredibly vulnerable; this is a crime that affects a cross-section of people and a cross-section of ages. That again adds to the horror and fear we have about this social problem. The Law and Order Committee looks forward to considering this bill and doing its very best, and compliments Dianne Yates on her good work.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First it is my pleasure to rise and support the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill to the Law and Order Committee. This crime is despicable and it is happening throughout New Zealand in many environments. It is despicable because the assailant, with the use of a variety of drugs, prevents the victim from physically resisting or consenting to any connection. The drugs used can be intoxicating or illegal substances, or some sort of hypnotic drug. The assailants do not need to be worried about the victim’s screams, or needing to use physical force. The drugs they administer actually immobilise and silence the victim. These assailants deserve to be dealt with in the most severe way possible. This is a dreadful crime. I do not know what would be worse for the victim—being unable to forget or being unable to remember. Either way, the trauma experienced is absolutely horrific. There is no excuse for this.

These drug rapes are happening to men and women throughout New Zealand, and it is not just a big-city crime. It is happening everywhere. It is not happening just to young people either; although they are the principal targets. Statistics show that everyone is vulnerable to this type of attack. I accessed the Roofie Foundation website in Britain and saw that people over the age of 40 have also been targeted in bars, pubs, and clubs. An article in the Southland Times of August 2003 reported that 11 percent of the victims were male. So this crime can happen to anybody.

There have been many incidents of this crime in New Zealand towns. I contacted the police in the Waikato town of Huntly, and even they have had this crime reported. It is not a new crime but it is difficult to identify and difficult to prosecute successfully. Indeed, many cases go unreported because the victim does not seek help or even report the incident. As Judith Collins said, some victims do not remember until years later.

The police say that drug rape is probably not as uncommon as the official statistics tell us. We know the drugs are usually administered orally. The assailant spikes the drink of the victim, and it is not a myth, because these drugs are easy to administer and the victim is totally unaware, as the drugs are usually colourless and tasteless. It is a totally planned, premeditated crime. It does not happen just on the spur of the moment. These assailants have to plan their moves carefully. It can only be a total sleaze who carries out this type of crime. Such people deserve to have the full force of the law thrown at them; to be prosecuted by the justice system. But this crime is so difficult to prosecute. Worse, it is on the increase and it is happening not only in bars and clubs but in workplaces and at private parties—indeed, everywhere. Nobody knows how common this drug-facilitated rape is, because there is no way of measuring the number of incidents.

The fact is that in these cases time is the enemy, and that makes this crime doubly devious. When the victim recovers, or even remembers enough to make a complaint, and can then be tested, there can often be no trace of that drug left in the victim’s body. I was very pleased to read recently that a matchbox-size detection kit to test drinks for date-rape drugs is now on sale in Britain and is to be sold in New Zealand. This drink detective, which apparently tests for the three most commonly used drugs, will be marketed for female and male drinkers in bars and clubs. As far as I am aware, this kit has not yet gone on sale in New Zealand. It is a sad fact of modern life that a detection kit like this is needed.

I was interested, too, to read comments made last year by the Drug Rape Trust chairperson, Jenny Fenton. She said that the ease with which people could buy recreational drugs had boosted drug rape cases, and that she had seen a lot of middle-class men involved in this crime, because they had the money and easy access to the drugs. We need legislation that will enable prosecutors to work against drug rape. New Zealand First supports this legislation.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is my understanding from the Standing Orders, Appendix A, that these speeches are 10 minutes long.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National): For the length of the debates that are an hour long the Business Committee has allocated the speaking times, as an agreement with all parties.

Sue Bradford: So it is different, then?

JOHN CARTER: It is different from what is in there.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is 5 minutes.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): On behalf of the Green Party, I would like to thank Dianne Yates for introducing the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill to the House in July last year. I am sure Ms Yates’ bill, and she herself, have made a positive impact on the development of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), which the Law and Order Committee is considering at the moment. I imagine that like everyone in the House I look forward to the day when measures to strengthen the ability of the courts to convict in drug rape cases are passed into law.

I realise that the Green Party, and particularly people like myself, are not usually in the camp of those calling for the strengthening of police and court powers. However, in situations like those dealt with by this bill, I feel strongly that the legislation must be changed to make sure that those who rape people through the use of premeditated application of drugs, do not escape conviction because of legal ambiguities.

From my own life and work experience, I am aware that historically many people have been subject to drug rape in this country, and it is a crime from which offenders have traditionally escaped scot-free. The people who have not escaped have been the many women and some men who have suffered as victims. Somehow society saw—and, in some cases, perhaps still sees—that if a woman or man is intoxicated and taken advantage of sexually, the victim is still to blame. And if the offender can get away with it, then it is good on them and no harm done.

Luckily, we have a Government for whom such primitive notions must be relegated to the dustbin of history. I am aware that already the court system and police have been starting to catch up as well, but have not been able to go anywhere near as far as they should have been. It is clear that we need to go a lot further in making sure that where someone does not consent to sex because they are unconscious, asleep, or grossly affected by alcohol or drugs, the perpetrator can still, and must, be held to account.

I must admit, however, that had this member’s bill been going forward in its original form I would have had some problems with it, as it did appear to deal only with the cases of people who were raped following their ingestion of drugs administered by someone else. I am therefore glad the expanded Government legislation appears to have been extended to include rape in any situation where people are unable reasonably to give their consent to any form of sexual connection.

It is way past the time that we as a society acknowledged the reality of what happens all too often in our pubs, clubs, and back rooms of our towns and cities, and what happens most particularly to our younger and more vulnerable citizens. I look forward to the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), which has grown partially out of this bill. Once again, I thank Dianne Yates and all those around her for the role they have played in ensuring that this issue finally gets the parliamentary attention it deserves.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): It often falls to the ACT party to disturb cosy consensus but, particularly following Ms Bradford’s confidence that there would be no dissent in the House, I will dissent. [Interruption] I am just making sure that the member feels we are fulfilling our role.

I am concerned about this bill, because it seems to me that if this were a matter the police had been drawing to the attention of the Government, or that the Courts had been drawing to the attention of the Government, or that the Government thought was serious, it would not be a member’s bill. It would be a Government bill before the House and the Government would not be using members’ time on a matter that so clearly needs more expertise. It may be that it is to be welcomed that this bill has spurred the Government into looking at this area. I am not prepared to express a view one way or another on prevalence.

I am conscious of relatively recent statements from Wellington police sources that the fear of drug rape might be exaggerated and that the actual established incidence might be lower than has been stated. I am very conscious, as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, that the fear of some crimes goes in historical cycles. About 15 years ago, this House passed some very poor law in response to a panic about alleged child sexual abuse, which undermined the very long-evolved protections in the rules of evidence that sheltered people from evidence they simply could not combat.

As I look at the provisions in this bill, I am concerned there might at least be a risk of a similar phenomenon at the moment—that is, in the new offence proposed by new section 129B, to be inserted in the Crimes Act by clause 5 of this bill: “Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefies or renders unconscious any other person with the intent to commit sexual violation.” If members think back—or maybe for some the knowledge is still current—to the times at parties when they have set out to overcome the better judgment of other people present, they might agree there is a long, grey continuum between the act of stupefying or rendering unconscious and the normal process of pouring drinks into someone. While both actions may be reprehensible, and while it may be that we should not condone what is traditional social custom, we do undermine the law when a 10-year penalty is created for something as common as that. If the law gets out of step with the way people actually behave, people will consider themselves not to be criminal when they are. They essentially place responsibility on the person who is being stupefied to avoid it.

Hon Marian Hobbs: That is not normal behaviour.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I am hearing objections from the Hon Marian Hobbs. I do not think that Marian Hobbs can have been to very many parties as a youngster, because it is absolutely the case that people pour drinks into others for the purpose of—

Hon Marian Hobbs: I have never experienced that kind of behaviour.

STEPHEN FRANKS: She has never had that experience? Well, I say to Ms Hobbs that it is not her speech. If she wishes to make that point, she should take a call—as so rarely happens from Ministers on that side of the House. She should take a call and make a speech.

Hon Marian Hobbs: I will.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I do not notice others in the House agreeing with her—in fact, I see nods around the House—so Ms Hobbs may have had a sheltered upbringing. But the fact is that the very object of a lot of teenage drinking is to get wasted. If one talks to children, one finds that that is exactly what they do. While I do not condone that, I do not think a 10-year sentence, or putting into the law something that could result in a whole group of—probably—kids getting into a position where they are facing a 10-year sentence, does credit to the law.

I hope the select committee takes very careful cognisance of the potential for careless drafting in this area. In this case, it may not be the drafting that ultimately gets considered, because of the Government’s other steps. But I am puzzled, for example, by the suggestion that one could have a “lawful justification” to stupefy someone in order to commit rape. What possible lawful justification could there be—or does it even need to be done “wilfully”? It is hard to imagine.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to address this member’s bill, the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill. On reading this bill, one cannot help agreeing—particularly having come from the Law and Order Committee today and having listened to some of the testimony from the Drug Rape Trust—that we desperately need to address this issue. We will not be supporting this bill however, but only because the Government’s bill supersedes and expands on it. There is no point in supporting this bill, which will only sit alongside the Government bill and occupy time that it need not. But that does not diminish for one iota the intent of this bill, and the fact that we support there being a rational debate on and exploration into what can be done about something as reprehensible as the drugging and stupefying of people, with the intent of committing rape or sexual connection.

When we consider just how disgusting and deplorable a crime like rape is on a person, I do not see that there is much difference between drugging people, stupefying them, or holding a knife to their throat. The end result is pretty much the same. But this is the ability to drug people to the point that they can have loss of memory, and loss of physical control, so that in many cases they cannot even remember that they were a victim until quite some time later. Some of the effects show—

Stephen Franks: What’s the difference? Alcohol does this.

MARC ALEXANDER: Alcohol can do that. That has equally to be looked at, as well. There is a combination of drugs and alcohol that can be used, and have been used. The testimony that we listened to today, for example, pointedly showed the diabolical depths to which some people will go to stupefy an individual for their own sexual pleasure, and, in a sense, to cover up the trail of their crime—often by disabling the victim from being able to recognise that a crime has been committed, until quite a long time afterwards. We heard testimony from a person, that the commission of another event actually drew back her memory of the first event. There were traces of drugs in her system to prove the point.

I think it is utterly despicable that people can get away with this, and that we have not addressed it properly in the past. We have the Government’s bill to look at, but we need to be very wary of how it is phrased, because there are a lot of fishhooks in it at this stage. We hope that with some amendments, and with a possible Supplementary Order Paper down the track, it will be good, workable legislation.

United Future is not saying it will not support the intent of the bill; simply that, in light of the fact that the Government’s own bill supersedes it, there is absolutely no point in pursuing this particular legislative vehicle.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Women's Affairs): I would like to begin by giving a very strong commendation for the work of my friend and colleague Dianne Yates from Waikato, who has spent many hours preparing this legislation, and who has also worked to ensure that the wider community is onside with it. She has had very strong support from the police and other organisations for the introduction of this bill. I was a bit disappointed to hear the contribution of Mr Alexander, who has just resumed his seat, because I assumed that this bill would receive support from United Future to go to the select committee. Perhaps United Future might reconsider before the time comes for a vote. Even though it is clear that the recently introduced Government legislation supersedes this bill in some areas, from my point of view, this is in the same way as much other legislation.

One of the most important things we can do as a Parliament is send a very strong and clear message to the public of New Zealand—to the citizens whom we are elected to represent—that drug rape, like all other instances of rape, is totally unacceptable to every member of this House. It was a real pleasure for me to hear Judith Collins from the National Party, Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First, and Sue Bradford from the Greens stand up and say that.

Stephen Franks: Empty words! Why doesn’t the Government keep them in prison?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Why Stephen Franks does not say that is, frankly, beyond me. Why ACT does not want to send a message saying that rape is unacceptable is a puzzle. I urge Marc Alexander—because I know that his heart is with this, and his head, as well—to reconsider, so that we can be more united, and can send a very strong message to the public that, party politics aside, we all agree, with the exception of ACT, on the intent of this bill.

The other important point to remember, in recognising the work of a member on the introduction of a member’s bill, is that sometimes the member has worked in a way that shows more community support and understanding of an issue in that bill than on a bill that has been prepared through ordinary Government processes. I am sure that the people who have worked so hard with Dianne Yates will be very proud to see their work being recognised and considered by the select committee, as well. It seems to be an opportunity for the select committee to focus in particular on what is fortunately a new, and I hope very temporary, issue in New Zealand society. Barbara Stewart alluded to the fact that drug rape is now an international occurrence. It beggars belief, does it not, that two decades ago we would not have been discussing this at all in the House. It is an opportunity for the committee to focus on a more narrow issue, with more concentration—and, again, reinforce our rejection of drug-facilitated rape—than would be possible if we looked only at the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). I am delighted that the Government picked up the intention of this member’s bill, because at the time of the introduction of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) we were not at all sure for how long members’ bills would be debated, and whether this bill would get to the Order Paper in time.

I wish I was on the select committee, because I think that it will hear some very interesting submissions, and will develop some law that will probably put us at the forefront of international legislation, and offer far more protection primarily to women, but to men as well, in these vulnerable situations. As I said, I am very pleased that this bill has such widespread support across the House. I urge its speedy and thorough consideration by the select committee, and I commend its progress.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): Unlike some legislation that has come into the House over recent months, I believe that this legislation is very worthy. Like previous speakers, I also would like to recognise and commend Dianne Yates for the work she has done in bringing this legislation to the House in this shape.

I want to start by debunking a myth that date rape is in some way something special. It is just another form of rape. I learnt something today that shocked me. Seventy percent of these types of drug rapes are not done by strangers, but by people who are known to their victims. In my view, that is extremely alarming. Men who engage in this type of drug rape are vicious criminals. They are serial rapists, and, unfortunately, for every person that our justice system brings to book, there are probably many people who have gone undetected, simply because this type of crime is easy to perpetrate. The drug is easy to administer by sleight of hand and is hard to trace in the body. It is becoming a significant issue.

I had the opportunity—as I know that other members in the House did—to listen to some amazing people today at the Law and Order Committee. I want it on record that I was deeply touched by some of those individuals. They were strong, courageous people with equally strong families, and they were victims of this type of crime. They wanted to talk about their plight, and why it is just so difficult to deal with. They told us in some detail why it is hard to prove, and of the impact on their families and relationships.

I am sure I was not alone in immediately thinking about my own children, and about how I would need to act to protect their best interests as they start to engage in social activities. My daughter is 14, and my son is approaching 16 years of age, and I now believe that they are very vulnerable. Anything we can do to tighten up this legislation will get my strong support.

One thing that hit me very hard today, listening to these people talk, was that they felt, in the early days in particular, that they were not well supported by the judiciary and the police. They stressed that that is changing, but it is an issue in their minds. One submitter talked to us about how she was unable to prove her prosecution, simply because she could not prove that she did not consent. This is the real issue of this legislation. These drugs render people unable to object. We must make sure that we frame legislation that gives those people the protection in law they deserve.

I raise one concern, and that is the “drunk and regret syndrome”. Having a lot of drinks and falling into bed with someone, then waking up the next morning and regretting it is not an excuse—

Rodney Hide: A National Party party!

BRIAN CONNELL: I say to Mr Hide that that is not an excuse to invoke this legislation. We must be very careful as we frame this legislation that that does not happen.

I will go back to the issue that I raised earlier that the people who perpetrate these acts are vicious criminals. The people who spoke to us today also talked about the appalling injuries they had received whilst being rendered unconscious or unable to object. They talked about broken arms, head injuries—

John Carter: Really?

BRIAN CONNELL: Absolutely—and also about sexually transmitted diseases. Women who are good citizens had to go through the embarrassment of presenting themselves to sexual health clinics. We need to do more to protect our women from this type of activity, and as a member of the Law and Order Committee I am very determined to make sure that we frame legislation that allows that to happen.

So I go back to where I began in congratulating Dianne Yates on having the courage and the determination to bring this legislation to the House. I hear what some of the other members have said about their reservations. As a member of the Law and Order Committee, I will be mindful of what they have told us, but the thrust of this legislation has my very strong support.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I rise to commend my colleague, Dianne Yates, not only for presenting this bill to the House, but also for the work that has gone on beforehand. My other colleague, Ruth Dyson, made the comment that to make a bill effective in the House, particularly when it is a private member’s bill, an extraordinary amount of community work must be done to network with people—not only with the police, the community, and social work agencies, but with MPs from all around the House. Dianne Yates has done that.

As a parent, I have been very concerned about this notion of drug rape for some time. My poor, blessed daughter barely goes out the door than—about every 3 months—I am asking her not what bars she goes to, but what she does when she gets up to dance, or to go to the loo, and where she leaves the alcohol behind afterwards. I ask all of those sorts of questions because I am really concerned about this issue.

What I have become very aware of is that this is not just a teenage female issue. First of all, this can happen to young men, and also to older women. I think it is a popular assumption that we will put the problem in wee boxes and say that it is for the wee partygoers going out and having their fun. It is a bit like the myth about “stranger danger”—it is something that goes right through our communities.

In a past life, I can remember when conferences were things that happened once a year. They were highly exciting, and the adrenalin was up. Now conferences occur once a week in God knows how many places, and the adrenalin is not quite so high when one addresses them. But when it was really exciting to go to Palmerston North—sorry Palmerston North—for a conference with colleagues, one could be carried away with the friendship. What I became aware of today is that conferences attended by middle-aged, professional people are equally places where someone can suffer from having his or her drink spiked by someone who has always had a bit of a crush on that person and decides to move at that particular moment. That is a very sobering thought. It takes the issue well away from teenagers drinking in bars and really livens it up.

The issue that was brought to us today was the problem of consent. I recognise that this is something that will really have to be teased out in the select committee. It is the issue of people being in situations where they do not know what has happened to them because they have been drugged or their drinks spiked. They do not know whether consent has been given or not. They are not in a position to actually give that consent.

I thought I heard the ACT member say very clearly that there was a danger of a grey area. What worried me about what that member was saying was that he seemed to assume that it was normal behaviour for a person to offer someone enough drinks that he or she would think that that person was a pretty good sort of guy and would end up going to bed with him. I think there has to be an absolute end to that sort of culture, and that is what I was reacting to. I do not mind going to bed with—well, excuse me—

Rodney Hide: What about the poor guy?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: That is exactly right. I do not mind people choosing to go to bed with someone, but they should do it honestly, not because they have been persuaded by drink—on a grey line or otherwise. That is what concerned me, because for too long in our culture it has not been the actual persuasion of: “I’m a really interesting person, I like you and I love you.”, it has been: “I’m a really interesting person, but I really haven’t got the courage to do this to you, so I’ll get you drunk.” That is the kind of culture that leads to people using drugs as a means of securing their particular ends.

The other thing I became aware of today is that this problem results not only in rape, but also in other long-term physical damage that has nothing to do with actual rape. People are being left, as I think my colleague across the floor said, with broken limbs, or effects on their memory, or neurological damage, because of the kinds of drugs used—drugs that one would never have chosen to take in one’s life. I think that is equally important when we consider this issue.

The “no-one believes me” syndrome is an absolutely heart-rending thing, and it reminds me very much of young children. Again I think back to the speech made by the ACT member. For too many young people it has always been that no one has believed them when they have complained about child abuse. Here we have a similar situation, whereby people who have had their drink or food spiked have woken up and found that no one believes them. That is not good enough, and I therefore support this bill and my colleague’s excellent work.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I thank the members of the House who have spoken in support of my bill, and those parties who are supporting the bill—particularly those members who have been on the Law and Order Committee and who have heard from the victims. Some of the victims of drug rape who appeared before the public hearings of the select committee are the people who have been very strongly lobbying, and who originally came to me advocating for a change in the law. They are people who have been through the courts. They are people who have seen what has happened when they are not believed in what is often a witness-less crime. They are people who did not get to the police and doctors in time to ascertain that the drugs were still in their system. They are people whose lives have been dramatically affected, as Marian Hobbs has said, and who have been affected for life. Their relationships since have been affected by their traumatic experiences with drug rape.

I admit that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) has superseded this bill, and I have already said in my introductory speech that I prefer the wording of the new bill. I thank those people in the office of the Minister of Justice and at the Ministry of Justice, and the Minister of Justice for the work they have done on the bill. They have more resources and more time, and I believe they have come up with better wording. I remind Mr Franks that the word “stupefy” is not in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), and I ask him to refer to that bill. A much more comprehensive definition of consent is in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). The two major points are there, however. It includes proper definitions of consent that are clear and will be clear in the courts, and, secondly, it also makes clear that to disable or stupefy—or whatever word we use—someone for the sake of sex is not approved by society and not approved in our law.

To the United Future members I say that I seek their party’s support for this bill to go to the select committee. I am asking that it be heard, and I say to the United Future party that I cannot see how anyone would be pro-rape, and therefore could possibly vote against this bill and the considerations that would be made when both bills were before the Law and Order Committee.

I would also point out that it is not necessarily—as people have said—just young women or young men who are involved. The police assure me it is often men and women who are a little older who come back into the dating scene and the pub culture, after having been in a stable relationship, who are the most vulnerable and the most trusting, and the ones who are the most likely to be victims of what is quite often a crime of professional people. They are the people who are most likely to be victims of that crime.

As I have said, I am looking forward to further consideration of this bill and the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) in the Law and Order Committee. I thank, once again, my Labour colleagues, and members across the floor of the House generally, for their support on this bill, and, once again, I thank those very brave women who have allowed their stories to be heard in public. It is not an easy thing, as members of the select committee have already said, to appear before a select committee and talk about rape of oneself. It is a very brave thing to do. I look forward to the passage of this bill through the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 104

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Noes 16

ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Law and Order Committee.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing): I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343 relating to an answer I gave to a supplementary question this afternoon.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is this a correction?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, that is all. Is the member happy? In answering Brent Catchpole’s supplementary question: “Is Housing New Zealand Corporation building new housing stock or is it simply buying housing stock from the private sector,” I said: “Since 1999 the Government has built 4,000 new houses, and it is currently in the process of building another 4,000 new houses.” I need to break down that second figure of 4,000. Up to the end of April 2004, the Housing New Zealand Corporation had added a net 4,083 houses to the State house portfolio, of which 940 were new builds, 1,666 were acquired from the Auckland City Council, and the rest were a mixture of purchases and leases. The 4,000 to be added will also be a mixture of new builds, purchases, and leases.

Bills

Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill

First Reading

RODNEY HIDE (ACT): I move, That the Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This will be a test for the Labour Government. Does the Labour Government stand for those Kiwis on a fixed income who are stuck with spiralling rate increases? Does the Labour Government stand for working families that are struggling under higher and higher taxes, a higher and higher cost of living, and, to beat it all off, a 300 percent rate rise that year from local government that is out of control?

We have heard the protests up and down New Zealand from low to middle income families and pensioners who are struggling. What has the Government’s response been? “Oh, it’s nothing to do with us.” Labour MPs can do something about it tonight. They can vote to send this bill to a select committee and, indeed, pass it. After tonight, if they do not do that, they will not be able to look their constituents in the eye and say there is nothing they can do about councils that are raping and pillaging people’s pockets every week. [Interruption] The Greens call out that that is not true. I would like Mike Ward to come up to Auckland to a meeting with Grey Power members and say to them that what Rodney Hide is saying is not true, that no council is raping and pillaging their pockets, that it is all hunky-dory according to the Greens. A rate increase of 400 percent, according to Mike Ward, is OK. That is what he says.

The Minister of Local Government, Chris Carter, stood in this House day after day saying that there was nothing he could do as Minister. We should understand the constitutional procedures here. A local council can strike a rate only because Parliament gives it the authority to do so. Local government, I say to Mr Ward, operates within the rules set here in Parliament. That is what happens. I suppose that, if one is a Green MP, a 400 percent increase is not very much for other people to pay, but if one is stuck on a pension, I say to him, or working each week and struggling to make—

Mike Ward: How many of these 400 percent increases were there?

RODNEY HIDE: Mike Ward asks, now he is thinking about this bill, how many there were. Heaps! He should come to Auckland, go to some meetings, and talk to some people for a change, instead of wandering around on cloud nine with his mate Nandor Tanczos, who is not even on the planet. He should come to Auckland and talk to some people about what is happening in New Zealand with rate increases. The Auckland Regional Council, I say to him, put up its rates on average by 30 percent. That is what happened under the Government that the Greens support. That is what happened.

John Carter: Who did? Which council?

RODNEY HIDE: It was the Auckland Regional Council. There was a 30 percent increase across the board, and some elderly people on fixed incomes, I say to Mr Ward, suddenly discovered that their rate bills had gone up 400 percent. Do not worry, the Greens say, it is not happening.

Well, here is what ACT proposes to do about it. We say that Parliament should cap the ability of councils to put rates up on a ratepayer in any one year. What would be wrong with that, when one sees rates go up 4.5 percent a year, on average, yet the rate of inflation is 1.5 percent? I say to Mr Ward that everyone—except Green MPs—has to live within a budget. But the council does not. It finds itself running out of money and it just puts up the rates. Then what happens? Low-income families, pensioners—the sort of people I thought the Greens wanted to represent—have to lose their disposable income, and their net income goes down as a consequence. I know that might be hard to grasp, but that is a fact of arithmetic and running a budget. This bill says: “Sure, put up your rates, but only, in any one year, by the rate of inflation plus 2 percent.” The truth of the matter is I think that is too generous. No one is sitting there getting an automatic wage rise of inflation plus 2 percent. But I thought if I was generous, my colleagues in the Labour Government would have a heart, show that they cared, show that for once they are listening to the pain of middle New Zealand and of our pensioners, and say that that is not bad and is quite reasonable—the rate of inflation, plus 2 percent.

There is another constraint in there—that is, in any 3-year period rates can go up by only the rate of inflation plus 4 percent. That tightens it somewhat over a 3-year period. If any council wants to put its rates up by more than that, then it will have to get special permission under this amendment to the Act.

We have a chance here to show that we care, to show that we have listened to the rates revolt, and to show that we understand what it is to struggle on a low income and be hit out of the blue by local authorities whose spending is out of control. I have to say to Mr Ward that some of this out-of-control spending is a direct consequence of obligations placed on them by none other than this Government. We hear them on the podium. Constituents come to see me and say: “Well, I’ve been to see the Labour MP, who was very sympathetic.” They say that Chris Carter was very sympathetic to their plight, but then he said that there was nothing whatsoever that he could do—and that was from a Minister. Well, I am giving the Labour MPs, and even the Green MPs—

Simon Power: Steady on!

RODNEY HIDE: Well, maybe not. Even the Green MPs have an opportunity to show that they care about hard-working families and pensioners on a fixed income, and show that they understand the toughness of living on a tight budget, and send a firm message to local government that it cannot turn round and out of the blue increase a person’s rates by 400 percent. That is what we are deciding tonight. Do we think that is fair? If we think it is not fair to increase someone’s rates by 400 percent, then I implore members of the Government to have a heart and to vote for this bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee to be considered. Then we can hear from, I say to Mr Ward, Grey Power and the ratepayers of New Zealand. Let us do that. Let us have some consultation, which the Greens are keen on. The way to do that is to vote for my bill and to send it to the Local Government and Environment Committee. For once let us hear from the people.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government): This bill is a political stunt and a deceit. It purports to help ratepayers by placing a cap on the amount by which a local authority can raise its rates, both in any 1-year and in any 3-year period. As Minister of Local Government I can say clearly that this bill will do nothing to help ratepayers. It ignores the fact that we have local democracies in this country—elected by ratepayers—to make local decisions about how to deal with local priorities and how to fund them. Local Government New Zealand does not support this bill, and I am not surprised.

This bill is an instrument of central control; rather strange from the ACT party, does one not think? It is an example of ACT decreeing what is good for local communities instead of letting the people who live in those communities decide for themselves. It would mean that if a local community wants its council to do something that would require the raising of rates beyond inflation, the council cannot do it if the community paying the rates does not want it. Mr Hide knows best—that is what this bill is all about.

It does not come as a surprise to anyone to learn that Mr Hide does not know what is best, at all. His bill is prefaced on the idea that there are no compelling financial reasons driving local rate rises larger than inflation—just the frivolous whims of councils and local people. Obviously, ACT has not spent any time at all talking to New Zealand’s local authorities. There may be some poor decisions made by some local authorities around the country, but across the board there are also real financial problems facing councils after a decade of failed free-market policies. Councils are struggling to meet the huge cost of upgrading vital community infrastructure such as sewers and water pipes, because of the deferred maintenance that occurred in the 1990s under the pretence of greater efficiency. That has been a key driver in rate increases in recent years, and this bill completely ignores it.

The bill will significantly restrict the ability of councils to meet infrastructure costs. Improvements to roading, sewerage, and water systems will be nobbled. Communities will have to continue to endure health and economic problems that run down infrastructure courses, and so will the taxpayer. After all, it is the taxpayer who ultimately picks up the tab for hospital bills and lost productivity. Because of the infrastructure imperatives that are driving rates, if this bill were to become law councils would have little choice but to attempt to find other ways of raising money to try to meet those imperatives. Those attempts could have unforeseen consequences. This bill is a stunt because the very thing it seeks to stop—significant rate rises for ratepayers—it cannot prevent. An individual’s rates might rise massively, even though his or her council has not increased rates overall beyond the parameters set by this bill. That is because the bill does not account for a movement in property values or a shift in the incidence of rating from one sector to another.

The bill implies that its authors are conversant with the new local government legislation and its application. It is quite evident that they are not. The Local Government (Rating) Act, passed by this Government, seeks to give councils more flexibility on how they rate, in order to more fairly spread the rates burden. That Act and the Local Government Act 2002 seek to provide communities with more transparent and understandable information about rating decisions. These days a council must front up to its community with clear and compelling reasons for rate rises. The community has greater opportunity than ever before to influence a council’s spending priorities. Councillors are explicitly required to take into account the necessity for rate rises, any reasonable steps that should be taken to mitigate an increase, and the level of community support for it in their decision-making processes. The supreme irony of this bill is that it effectively repeats those requirements in its dispensation provisions. Apparently, its architects were ignorant of the fact that such requirements are already in legislation.

As a final comment, let me say that while this bill is totalitarian—and that should hardly be surprising, I suppose, considering whom it has come from—Rodney Hide’s underlying concern for efficiency in local government is commendable. I suggest that he redirect his efforts toward working with councils to improve efficiencies, rather than against them. We have a lot of councils in New Zealand—86 in total. If we are to maintain the number we have—and ultimately that is down to communities to decide—then we must ensure that those 86 councils work together in the most prudent ways possible. There is immense scope under the Local Government Act for councils to save their ratepayers money by jointly providing services and sharing costs. We do not have to issue parliamentary decrees to achieve that. We can provide evidence and information about the savings that can be made and convince councils and local people with persuasive arguments.

The Labour Party will not support this bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): National will support this bill, because it is the only way we can give a message to that Government and that Minister that the ratepayers of New Zealand are under substantial financial pressure. During Chris Carter’s watch, rates have gone up more in real terms than they have during the term of any other Minister of Local Government in this House. Mr Carter holds the record. That is what the official figures show. They have increased at three times the rate of inflation. If we are to believe Mr Carter, the community wants these increases in rates. Well, I say to him that that may be what the councils tell him but it is not what the people and the ratepayers are saying.

The real reason this bill is required is that this Minister and this Government pass, one after another, bills that impose additional costs on councils and ratepayers. Let me go through just a few of them. Did the ratepayers ask for a Prostitution Reform Bill that imposed costs on every one or our councils? I do not remember that matter being raised with ratepayers in any part of my community, or in any other part of New Zealand. The Minister imposed that law on councils. The new dog laws have huge extra costs for councils.

Simon Power: They’ve worked!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes! They have been a disaster. They have not been in place 12 months and we now have another bill to try to patch up the Minister’s last mess. I ask the Minister to tell us when the ratepayers asked for those additional laws. What about the gaming laws? It was this Minister who imposed additional responsibilities on councils to regulate gaming machines. They were not asked for by councils or ratepayers, but who gets the bill? The long-suffering ratepayer gets it. Then there were the Government’s amendments to the Resource Management Act, which impose another layer of Labour’s politically correct dogma on our councils. Did the ratepayers ask for them? Not on your life! Again, they were imposed by this Minister and Marian Hobbs. Now we have another bill; they are not finished yet. Tomorrow we are being asked to put forward the Foreshore and Seabed Bill.

Simon Power: It’s going well!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, there have been a few people a bit upset today. The explanatory note states that this bill will lead to increased costs for councils, and that means increased costs for ratepayers. It contains all of this nonsense about ancestral connection and customary rights. All of that material is going to send another bill off to the ratepayer. Is there any way in which this Parliament and the ratepayers of New Zealand can send a message to this Government that the ratepayers have had it? They are sick of the extra bills that Chris Carter and his Government’s policies are imposing on them, and this bill is as good a mechanism as ever. Then I heard the Minister say: “We believe in local communities deciding.” Well, well, well! I have to say that that is a first. If councils want to introduce a charge for their library books or for the odd porno video, or the like, are they allowed to? No, they are not. The Minister steps in and passes a bill that prohibits any charge of that sort. This Government says: “We will support local decision-making, provided you do what you’re told.”, and that is a nonsense.

Then we had the biggest driver of increased costs for local government: this Minister’s Local Government Act. That new Act has our councils involved in a huge navel-gazing exercise with its 5-year community plans. Do members know how many plans this Minister now requires my council in Nelson to have? He requires it to have eight different planning documents. Councils spends so much time strategising, so much time planning, and so much time meeting the bureaucratic requirements of the Minister that they do not have time to get on with the job of providing footpaths, roads, and some of the basic services that the ratepayers of New Zealand require. We say it is time there was a limit, because this Government is saying it will dump a whole lot of responsibilities on to the councils, and then send the bill on to the ratepayer. We say that some control must be put in place, and that is why this bill should have the support of this Parliament—so it can be referred to a select committee.

DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago): From the Opposition benches we have heard from the two greatest self-promoting populists they have—Rodney Hide and Nick Smith. Everyone knows they are self-promoters, and this bill is no exception. What nonsense! The suggestion that central government should step in and, by writ of Act of Parliament, control the budgets of local government, would, I think, find no support anywhere in Western countries. I have recently been to Russia, and the members would have had trouble poking it through even there. It is just nonsense.

What is being said in the press? I will read out a few extracts from the press. They come from all over the country. In Gore, it was reported that the council has kept rates increases under the rate of inflation for a number of years but that it got into trouble and is now facing an infrastructure upgrade it cannot afford. It has therefore had to increase its rates beyond the rate of inflation. The article says that this legislation would not work and is nonsense. What are they saying in Southland? A senior Invercargill city councillor said that linking local rates to inflation threatens to fill New Zealand with Third World centres.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What do ratepayers say?

DAVID PARKER: Ratepayers exercise their rights to say something when they go out to vote for their councillors every 3 years. That is why they have elections. What are they saying up north? Hastings’ mayor, Lawrence Yule, blamed most of the rates increases on people’s growing expectations of higher standards in council services. Central Hawke’s Bay mayor, Tim Gilbertson, slammed Mr Hide’s proposals as ludicrous and stupid. Mr Gilbertson said he was annoyed at a proposal driven by politicians parading their egos and trying to score political points. He is on to it. He is right. That is totally consistent with what the public knows of both Mr Hide and Dr Smith.

What do the editors say? Let us move away from the elected councillors and mayors, the people who have a mandate from their people to exercise decisions for them and to levy rates through the councils, and see what editors say. I will read from the Timaru Herald: “Yes, ratepayers are entitled to be angry”—about rate increases—“and to seek to overturn the council’s decision, first by weight of submissions and second at the ballot box. That is called democracy. But it is a quantum leap from there for Parliament to limit the rate increases local bodies can apply. Mr Hide and the supporters of his bill—already National and the Business Roundtable are with him—appear to forget the key word in regional, city and district councils is ‘local’. The councils are made up of local people, elected locally, and accountable to locals. If locals want to address major local issues using local money, surely it is their affair and nothing to do with Parliament.” The newspaper is quite right. It is appropriate that Parliament exercise some sort of guidance in the way councils run their business and levy rates, and that is one of the reasons that this very good Government in the last amendment to the Local Government Act required more long-term budget forecasts to be set out by councils.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: More bureaucracy.

DAVID PARKER: Well, on this occasion that additional bureaucracy is necessary. There have been occasions in the past where councils have, in very quick order, thrown over their old budget estimates and embarked upon some very expensive additional capital expenditure that has been forced through rather hurriedly. The new Local Government Act would make that more difficult. It is still possible, because in the end it is the right for councils to do what they say they want to do, but they would have to go through a slightly longer process and make it clear what the financial ramifications would be on rates in the longer term. So in closing I think this bill ought not to be given even the decency of a referral to a select committee. It is nonsense to suggest that rates should be controlled at central government level. Those are local government decisions made by elected local members who have a mandate from their population to make them.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the referral of this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, for the simple reason that, in so doing, members of this House who support it, or who do not support it, are informed as to the true nature of local government. It is certainly not because New Zealand First believes that the bill has merit; it is merely because we, as a democratic party, let the people have their say—and so be it. First of all, I found it rather strange, when I delved back into the history of the ACT party and found such common visions as “people are important”, “power should be put back into the hands of the people”, and “everyone should be given as much choice, opportunity, and independence as possible”, that that party of so-called independence and liberty has adopted, if this were to be its policy, an almost Stalinist approach of regulation and restriction, without any ability at all for individual councils to exercise their independence and rights.

Secondly, there has not been any period in local government when councils have not had to increase their rating base, for the simple reason that Governments have introduced legislation that they must take into account—and there has been no more costly one than the Resource Management Act. Today in this country there are councils and ratepayers who, right now, are still paying out thousands of dollars to implement some of the far-reaching implications of that 1991 Act. So it is not really correct to come to this House and say that any one piece of legislation has had an impact, apart from one—that is, the 2002 amendment to the Local Government Act. The Hon Nick Smith is absolutely right: that Act imposed a huge burden on our ratepaying community. That burden is not for just this year; it will be for at least the next 3 to 4 years as we try to work through what, for many councils, is a heedless and needless operation—namely, more long-term planning than they ever thought they would ever need. Maybe it was needed in the case of Auckland, Wellington, or some of the larger councils, but it certainly was not needed in this detail for some of the smaller councils in this country whose ratepayers have a very heavy burden at the present time.

However, in so saying, I do not want to convey the impression that I, or my party, shares the viewpoint expressed by Mr Hide with regard to the Auckland Regional Council. The real reason for the problem the Auckland Regional Council faced last year was that our good friend Mr Philip Warren screwed down that council’s spending so tightly over such a long period of time that nothing to do with roading and other infrastructural needs was met. When the council had the opportunity under the Local Government (Rating) Act to do something about that, it looked at the nature of rating, and last year it took the step to effect a new rating policy—which I would have thought Mr Hide would find highly agreeable—that better reflected the services, responsibilities, and duties of the council. It took capital value as the basis for its rates, it did not impose a uniform general charge for no sound reason—which is the refuge of some councils—it took into account the needs of business, and it did not have a superimposed subsidy on the business community that was several times the charge on residents, or vice versa. In other words, last year the Auckland Regional Council adopted a clear, transparent rating system. Its problem, probably, is that it did not do it with sufficient care and precision with regard to the presentation to its ratepayers. However, I certainly would not want to leave the impression that New Zealand First saw the Auckland Regional Council as being an unusual council in respect of its rating system. The council has learnt from the exercise, as its ratepayers are finding at the present time.

So in 1999, 2000, or 2004, no matter what year one takes, councils have had the same issues that they are facing right now as they prepare their long-term community plans and their annual plans. Those issues are what the overall needs of the community are. I live in Kaikohe, where the Far North District Council has huge infrastructural needs, and to suggest upon our council, after careful consideration and planning, that there should be a 2 percent increase would be a long-term burden on our community, and that is something the council would look at carefully.

MIKE WARD (Green): I do speak to ratepayers, and I do speak to local councillors. The idea that we should set rates, or limit rates, flies in the face of the power of general competence, and flies in the face of the principle of appropriate decision-making.

The ones to make decisions on rates should be the councils. Ratepayers have the opportunity to do something about those decisions come the planning process—every year they have their say on council plans, and have their say to shift council plans—and every 3 years they have the power to shift councils, if they choose.

This bill undermines both the appropriate decision-making principle and the power of general competence. It is particularly inappropriate when the Government has been devolving responsibilities to local authorities for some years now, without devolving the funds to meet those responsibilities. This bill suggests that local authorities are eager to increase rates. I have sat through so many budget rounds that I can tell members that getting rates shifted upwards is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. Local authorities are most reluctant to raise rates.

Jim Peters: Especially this year, an election year.

MIKE WARD: At any time. Are rates unaffordable? I suspect that for some people they are, and I suspect that for those people, a lot of other things are unaffordable. Are rates good value? Yes, they are, if we think about what we get for them. The average rate is something like $1,000 per year—roughly the cost of a cup of coffee per day per household per year. What do we get for it? If all that we received for that was a road and access to all the places we needed to be, that would still be extraordinarily good value.

Not even rural folk get so little. Most get a great deal more. They get their playing fields, libraries, somewhere to be buried, footpaths, street lights, toilets that flush, clean water, parks, and gardens. If somebody’s dog bites, then our rates pay for somebody to catch the dog and look after it. If somebody’s stereo keeps one awake at night, then someone else will come out and do something about that, at any hour. If someone plans to build a fish factory next to one’s house, then somebody will make sure that that is appropriate. Councils make sure that our properties retain their value by looking after the things that people do around us.

Are rates too high? For some people they are. I am all in favour of measures that look after those folk who cannot pay—measures to defer rate payments, and measures to look at the rate of abatement so that people on low incomes can get a rebate to pay their rates.

I have been around the country talking to people, and one thing they have been saying to me, and to local authorities, is: “Remember that little authorities don’t play by the same rules as big authorities. We need you to let us make our rules different, in order to do things differently.”

A rule like this treats all local authorities the same, and, in fact, they do have different needs. Not all local authorities have the same pressures on them. Those that are growing certainly do, and local infrastructure demands will increase along with increasing populations. The best thing we can do for them is to ensure that the small communities from whence those larger, growing communities derive their populations are kept strong.

We find that in places such as Nelson, where the population grows every year—and we trumpet the virtue of growth—our water supplies become inadequate, and cost a great deal to upgrade. Our sewerage treatment becomes inadequate, and is very expensive to upgrade. Our roads are inadequate, and what do we do? We simply try to build more of them and, of course, we fail miserably there as well, because we cannot keep up with the rate at which cars keep coming on to the roads.

I am sure that this bill will look popular on the surface, but it panders to the misinformed, the ill informed, and those who have little idea about where their rates go. As I said, if we sit down and think about it, the price of a cup of coffee a day for all the things we get for our rates is extraordinarily good value. The Greens will not support this bill.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): United Future will not be supporting this bill. That said, I should say immediately that United Future shares the concern expressed by the bill’s sponsor, Rodney Hide. In a number of instances recently, rate increases have been way too high and beyond affordability for many people, including those on fixed retirement incomes.

However, whilst United Future agrees with the diagnosis set out in the explanatory note to this bill, we disagree with the treatment prescribed. This bill smacks of the cost-plus mentality that used to prevail in this country in the Muldoon years. This bill is a Muldoon-style bill. Experience during those years demonstrated that if we give local authorities, in this case, the ability to ratchet up rates each year by the consumer price index plus 2 percent, that is exactly what they will probably proceed to do.

In addition, as a party that voted for the power of general competence to be bestowed on local authorities through the Local Authorities Act of 2002, we think it is far too soon to rush to the conclusion that a restriction of that power is now justified. We have not allowed the new Act to bed in. I believe that the wiser course of action is to allow local councils the freedom to run their own affairs without further interference from central government.

That said, the principal reason why United Future opposes this bill is that we have placed in the ballot a members’ bill in my name to zero-rate GST on rates. We believe that that is a better solution to the problem. The enactment of my bill would see an immediate reduction of 12.5 percent in the out-of-pocket cost for all residential ratepayers in this country. This idea has the strong backing of Grey Power, and many citizens’ rating action groups up and down the country. It is a principled position, since in terms of tax policy, if GST on rates is justified, then GST on income tax is likewise justified. It is inconsistent and therefore wrong to impose GST on local government’s taxation of its citizens simply because the name “rates” is attached to that taxation, whilst at the same time exempting rates levied by central government from GST.

I am hopeful that my bill will be selected from the ballot in the near future. If so, I hope other parties in this House might give it their support, since it will continue to allow local bodies the power of general competence, but at the same time reduce the rates burden. When we think about it, we can see that the restraint on the power of general competence we have given to councils should in fact be the democratic process. They are up for re-election every 3 years, and will, if they want to stay around for a while, listen closely to the concerns of their citizens. This bill interferes with that relationship.

By contrast, the bill United Future is proposing is an action that central government can and should take in the interests of reducing the overall tax burden resting on the shoulders of hard-working New Zealanders, and those who are endeavouring on fixed incomes to enjoy their retirement years without undue financial stress or worry.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I rise to add my support to Labour’s opposition to this bill. I was a district councillor, and I am absolutely astonished that the initiative for this bill comes from the ACT party. I find that a complete conundrum, as ACT supports the approach of civil libertarians and letting people make decisions for themselves. It is a little bit like the situation with the Building Bill, but here ACT is saying that we should reregulate, rebuild, centralise, and take control. It just does not fit with its central platform of allowing people to make decisions about their own future. It also shows me that nobody in the ACT party, and nobody Mr Hide would have consulted, has any idea about rate-setting policies on local authorities.

It is a very complicated process, and yes we do require them to consult. I am glad we do, because in the end we hit a bottom line where a community agrees that it simply cannot afford to carry out its projects below the line of what is a financially sustainable threshold of rate-take, and agrees that those capital projects have to be deferred for the out-years. Communities make quite sensible decisions through their local councillors, and this bill simply imposes over that right of elected district councillors to make those sensible decisions on behalf of the communities they represent. We certainly will not be supporting this very bizarre rate cap.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT): The reason this bill is in front of the House is that all around the country ratepayers are finding that their rates bills are going through the roof. While we have heard all sorts of excuses, the reality is that the responsibility has to be put fairly and squarely at the feet of the Labour Government. This is a tax-and-spend Labour Government that has devolved more and more responsibility on to local authorities without giving them any of the financial resources to be able to manage, except by increasing their rates. Labour is to blame for the fact that in some communities around New Zealand rates have been rising by 30 to 40 percent, and Labour members have the audacity to stand here tonight in this debate and try to pretend that they are blameless. That just will not wash with thinking New Zealanders.

I went to a Grey Power meeting not too long ago, and that last member talked about there being no consultation, and how the people do not realise what is going on—blah, blah, blah. New Zealanders know very well that their councils are being asked to do more consultation. They are being asked to do more social responsibility planning, and now they are being asked to build houses. This is the newest initiative by the Labour Government, and somehow Labour members think that that cost will not be passed on. Well, anybody knows that it is passed on. It is passed on to ratepayers, and on to pensioners who are struggling to get by. This Government is making those people’s local councils pass on huge extra costs.

The power of general competence was a first step, but there is a whole new tier of Government responsibility about to be passed on to local authorities that ratepayers will have to pay for, and Labour is to blame. That is why the ACT party is putting forward a bill that actually tries to restrict this all-out, wholesale expansion of Government. It has gone from central government—which this Labour Government has bloated like crazy because they are a tax-and-spend Government—down to local government, so the poor old Kiwi has to pay not only through higher taxes, through stealth taxes, but now through increasing rates. I say that is not fair on working New Zealanders.

This Government has no right to pass the costs of its social development, its social rebuilding, and its other ideas on to ratepayers—and that is exactly what it has been doing. I say it is an arrogance of Labour to think that the people out there do not realise what is going on. In my own community, the rates will have to go up by 3.5 percent. That is an extra $700,000 to comply with the new Government responsibilities that have been passed on to that council. I am not referring to the regional council—it has to pay another $400,000 to $500,000 for all the added consultation and all the other stuff that Labour has passed on to it. That is just the tip of the iceberg, because that is just a little council. Members can imagine what the bigger councils have to pay, and the burden of that will be passed on to other New Zealanders who are struggling to get by.

This week in the House we have already heard about families on $55,000 who cannot make ends meet. This Government does not care. That is the reality. It is running a surplus, it is taking too much money off taxpaying New Zealand, and it is using it to spend hither and thither on its great pet projects. Now it is hitting local government as well, and hitting New Zealanders through their rates.

Councils are there to deliver community services such as sewerage, roading, parks, and things like that. No ratepayers worry about that, but they worry about the cost of all this Government’s social interventions, which are being passed on to councils. That is why ACT put forward this bill.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): Ladies and gentlemen, that was one of the contenders in the ACT primary, Ms Muriel Newman. I have to say that that speech was really about an ACT primary—it had very little to do with the bill, at all. This Government is not supporting this bill, because it does nothing for ratepayers. It does nothing about reducing rate increases. In fact, it takes the power away from ratepayers.

This Government supports local democracy. One of the things I have been delighted to hear as I have been moving around my constituency is that people are appreciating the increased dialogue between central government and local government. Certainly, those local government members who are actively engaged with their community are making statements along the lines of: “We appreciate the fact that for the first time in a number of years central government is talking with us and listening to the concerns we have as local government members.”

In effect, this bill would mean that if a local community wants its council to do something that requires the raising of rates beyond inflation, the council would not be able to do that, even if the community paying the rates wants that. I have to say that there is a disconnection between what the proponents of this bill are advocating and what is really happening out there in the community of New Zealand. To denigrate the positive impact of consultation really reflects how little face-to-face contact, or trust, some members on the other side of the House have with the community they purport to represent. I suggest they get out and engage with the people on a one-to-one basis, or talk in small groups. It is an enlightening experience. Consulting with the community is a very positive thing for both local government and for the community itself.

In my opinion, local government does have a social responsibility, and I am sure that is the opinion of my colleagues on this side of the House. Local government has historically exhibited its social responsibility in, for example, the provision of housing. Council housing in my electorate has been an important part of the essential infrastructure that helps to make the community I represent strong. Social responsibility is an integral part of the overarching responsibility that local government has. If one is not consulting, talking with, or listening to the community one represents, I have to say that one is in serious trouble and risks being accused of being arrogant and out of touch. I am proud of the relationship that this Labour-led, progressive Government has forged with Local Government New Zealand. We do meet with local government in our area on a regular basis, and I personally appreciate the relationship I have with my local government representatives. That is one of the reasons that we will not be supporting this bill.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT): That was Mrs Jill Pettis, the senior Government whip, giving Parliament a 10-minute lecture on consulting the community—that from a Government that manages to unite Māori and have them march from all over Aotearoa! There were 15,000 people on the front steps of Parliament, and the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, was hiding under her desk in her office in the Beehive, too scared to go out to talk to the community, the Māori people, and the people who voted Labour.

Government members turn round and say that they consult the community. “We talk to the community.”, they say, but when the people turn up, Helen Clark is hiding under her desk, too scared to come out from under it, let alone go on the steps of Parliament, where, I am proud to say, every ACT MP was. We front up, I tell Mrs Jill Pettis, so she need not come into this Parliament and talk about consultation. When 15,000 Māori want to talk to the Prime Minister, I would have thought that a Prime Minister with balls would be out there talking to them.

We heard from Chris Carter about his consultation and what the people want. We discovered that when the Minister of Local Government talks to the people, he talks to the councils. He talks to the villains of this piece. He does not talk to ratepayers, taxpayers, pensioners, or hard-working families. No, he swans off on the local government cocktail circuit. That is what he does. They have a cocktail together, and they ask: “Why are the people complaining? It’s a great Government. Here, have another drink, have another sandwich, have another meal.” That is what is happening with this Government.

I ask the Minister of Local Government why he does not talk to the people who are paying for local government, rather than to local government—which is the beneficiary of big rate hikes. What did the Minister of Local Government come here to report? He said that councils do not like not being able to put up their rates by 30 percent a year. Well, that is a surprise, is it not? Then he happened to say that people want that to happen. Well, which people? I look across to my colleagues in New Zealand First and to Jim Peters. Does he remember people in Northland and Auckland being consulted about their rate increases? No. I look across to Mr Benson-Pope. Does he remember the people of Dunedin being consulted about their rates increase?

Hon David Benson-Pope: Yes.

RODNEY HIDE: Oh, he does! What was the result?

Hon David Benson-Pope: They know about the public process.

RODNEY HIDE: He knows about the public process. Already Mr Benson-Pope is backing off. We know he does not think before he opens his mouth in this House. That is why they had to take the whip’s job off him, actually. No one in his own team liked him. He could not get them to do anything. One way to sack a whip is to make him a Minister. That is what they did. What a desperate, tawdry, Government it is, and it will be measured.

Russell Fairbrother: Is this an election speech?

RODNEY HIDE: The member can bet it is, because an election is just around the corner with the way Helen Clark is running things. I look forward to debating with Mr Russell Fairbrother why his constituents have to pay more and more rates because he would not stand up for them and vote for my bill. He would not even vote for my bill to go to a select committee so that the people of New Zealand could make submissions. The Government does not want to hear from Grey Power, does it? Why not let Grey Power make a submission on my bill? Why not test it? Did anyone hear an explanation from this Government as to why Grey Power cannot make a submission, turn up to Parliament, and give its views on this bill? The Government is a disgrace. It is about time it was gone.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Noes 71

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill

First Reading

SUE BRADFORD (Green): I move, That the Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I would have liked to move that the Social Services Committee consider this bill. However, I understand that Dr Cullen and his Labour Government have decided to place a fiscal veto on it, which means that this bill’s first reading will also be its last. I know that other political parties in the House tonight, and a large number of church and community organisations and trade unions, will be as disappointed as I am that Labour will not even consider allowing this bill to go to the select committee for consideration.

The intention of my bill is simply to restore the family benefit, which we lost as recently as 1991. That is hardly a radical demand, and one that many, many people support as one step towards improving the situation in which our country finds itself at present. Despite economic growth and comparatively low unemployment, nearly a third of our children still live in poverty. Everyone here has now been well and truly alerted to the situation of families, like the one quoted in the Sunday Star-Times last weekend, who still struggle to survive on what appear to be reasonably high incomes.

Even if Labour had decided to vote against this bill in the long run, it could at least have had the decency to allow it to be referred to a select committee for consideration, in the context of the reforms that I believe that Dr Cullen and Steve Maharey are planning to make in the Budget. Surely the idea of restoring the equivalent of the former family benefit at the very low level of $15 a week for the first child and $10 a week for subsequent children is not so out of hand, and the public submission and select committee consideration process could have been permitted to occur.

In putting forward the introduction of a universal child benefit as a member’s bill, the Green Party is restating one of its major policy demands—that Aotearoa New Zealand should start putting children first. For far too long we have had an economy and a culture that act in a way that, both in theory and in practice, mean that children do not count. We would very much like to turn that round, and I am sure that many other MPs in this House feel the same way. But it is what we do about it that matters, not the sentimental verbiage that tends to be churned out on anything to do with children and families.

The Green Party sees the universal child benefit as one small step that this country could take towards eliminating child poverty. Of its own it will not do it, of course, and we do not want to negate other measures, like reforming family assistance and family support, improving abatement regimes, and/or increasing subsidies for childcare. However, apart from anything else, we believe it is high time that children were accorded the same economic respect that we accord our older generation. If we can provide a universal benefit in the form of national superannuation to everyone aged 65 and over at hundreds of dollars per week, I fail completely to understand why we cannot afford to provide a universal benefit to all children under 18 at a level of $15 and $10 a week. We have costed the universal child benefit proposal in this bill at roughly $650 million a year, but when this is put up against the overall cost of national superannuation, against the Cullen superannuation fund, and within the context of current Budget surpluses, this pales into insignificance. We believe that this would be a very small price to pay to get serious about how we treat children and parents.

Some people say, as this Government may, that in a modern society like ours it is archaic to think that we can afford such a measure of social equity. However, I point out that even in the UK a universal family benefit has been retained to this very day, at the much higher rate of around $47 a week for the first child, even after all the years of Thatcherism and a right-wing Labour Government. Why does New Zealand continue to lag so far behind in the way we view the coming generation, who, after all, will be the ones who work to pay the taxes that will help pay the superannuation for people like many of us in the House tonight when we reach 65?

All children deserve the best possible start in life. Even the very low amounts I am proposing in this bill would make a huge difference in terms of what parents and low-income families can offer their children. For example, the primary caregiver of a two-child family would get an extra $25 a week in the hand, and the poorer the family the more proportionally they would be assisted. Twenty-five dollars is a lot of money to a family whose budget provides, for example, nothing for clothes, nothing for presents or school fees, and nowhere near enough for a good diet. We have to start somewhere in redressing the balance between the universality we offer the over-65s through national superannuation and the very inequitable and targeted assistance we offer to families with children.

We should also be getting beyond the ridiculous differentiation between families where the parent or parents are in work and those in which the parents are out of work. One of the biggest injustices implicit in our current welfare and tax regime is that both National and Labour seem to support giving more to working families, totally ignoring the gross innate inequity of making children suffer because of their parents’ unemployment, sickness, or long-term disability. Universal provision of benefits, like the one proposed here, is one simple way to get beyond the constant dilemmas and contradictions posed by the infinite gradations and degradation of targeting. Targeted systems create poverty traps where, for some, increases in parents’ incomes are less than the subsidies and benefits lost. In some families, even comparatively well-off ones, the small amount of money paid through a universal child benefit could well be the only discretionary income that primary caregivers have to spend on themselves and their children.

I am sure some people will remember, as I do, the way in which, in the good old days of the family benefit, for some mothers, even in quite high-income families, this was the only money they ever had control of to spend as they wished on their children. Some may also remember the way in which so many people in my generation and earlier were only able to afford to buy their first home because they could capitalise the family benefit for a deposit. Such a scheme would be a wonderful boon as we live through yet another ongoing housing crisis, where the lack of affordability and access to deposits prevents many families from even dreaming of owning their own home.

When this bill was drawn from the ballot last year I immediately wrote to many groups and people in the community asking for their support. The response was very positive, especially from groups whose focus lies with children, women, parents, and low-income families. I shall give the responses from a few of the many organisations that wrote back.

The National Council of Women sees this bill as an ideal and appropriate vehicle for replacing the child tax credit with the universal benefit for children, indexed to the consumer price index—going rather further than I have—and urges Labour to vote in favour of the bill. The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services supports the bill being referred to the select committee so that there can be meaningful discussions about how to improve family support measures, and notes that had family support been indexed to inflation it would now be worth $74 a week for one child, instead of $47, and it says the complete inadequacy of the system must be addressed. The Public Health Association says it is crucial that this bill makes it through the select committee process as part of the development of real discussion and action on a comprehensive strategy to end child poverty. These are just a few examples of the comments that have come in, and I am aware that many more similar ones have been sent to Labour members and Ministers.

I am looking forward with interest to see how the Government votes tonight. I continue to hope that Labour members will see their way clear, along with at least one or two other parties in this House, to supporting this bill through to the select committee. I am also looking forward with interest to what this month’s Budget will bring to children and families. I know that Dr Cullen and the Hon Steve Maharey are promising handsome handouts to families. I hope they are right. I also hope that what they are bringing in will help alleviate the poverty and deprivation across all families, not just those lucky, educated, skilled, and/or healthy enough to be in paid employment.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Reference has been made to a financial veto. By Standing Order 314, such a veto can be exercised only at the third reading of a bill. Therefore a veto is not relevant at this stage to the progress or otherwise of this bill.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I want to begin my short contribution by complimenting the previous speaker, Sue Bradford from the Greens. One of the things I have enjoyed doing over the last few years is working with someone who has the dedication that Sue Bradford has to these issues. She not only talks about them, but she has lived them. She comes into this House with a track record that tells us she knows what she is talking about, because she has been there and worked with people in those situations. So any comments I make this evening I certainly want to preface with those remarks, which show I understand the sincerity of what Sue Bradford is bringing before us in the Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill.

But to cut to the chase in terms of where the Government will stand on this bill, I say that we will vote against it. Let me explain why we will do that. We will do it for a number of reasons. The first is that Ms Bradford is right. Later on this month we will introduce another Budget from the Labour Government. That Budget has been signalled as one in which we will be dealing with many of the issues that Ms Bradford is raising in her bill, in the sense that we want to do some things that will be very helpful for families, children, beneficiaries, and working families, within that middle ground of income within New Zealand. We have chosen to target our resources to those families in this Budget. It will not be heaps in the sense that the member described it, but it will certainly be a decisive step forward for families that are in that middle group.

But what we have had to do is make some decisions about priorities in this Budget, as we have in others, and as I will come back to. We have had to ask ourselves how we can get something that is meaningful into the hands of modest and low-income New Zealand households, so that they can see a sizeable difference in what is happening to their incomes. The member pointed out before—and I have not done the figures so I will just take Ms Bradford’s figures and work on those—that this policy was costed by the Greens at $650 million. That has actually been the sum for the Budget for a number of years, until now. So if we were to do that, we would work our way along the front bench of this Government, starting with Mr Hodgson and asking what he needed for energy and for science, research, and technology, moving to Mrs King and asking how to get the orthopaedic waiting lines down, moving on to Mr Goff and talking about the fact that he is trying to get our trade and foreign affairs going, and then getting to me and talking about tertiary students.

Rod Donald: The eco tax, the super fund.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I know that Mr Donald would like to see a 48c in the dollar tax rate, which would have to go on to the middle-income New Zealanders we are trying to give money to right now—[Interruption] I am afraid it would.

So we are in the situation where I am sitting here, arguing about what I would do for students and how I would invest in tertiary education, and then we move to Jim Anderton, who would talk about what he would do for regional New Zealand, and on it would go. What I am saying is that it is about priorities.

I guess I would say to Ms Bradford that in other words we agree, but what I would like to do is use the money we do have available to us in a way that can make a real difference to the people we are aiming for. I am sure that those people the Greens are not too worried about right now are high-income New Zealanders, who may have a child. They are not too worried about them. The Greens may make the argument that it is good to have the benefit right across the whole community, because that binds us together as a collective into the policy, but I am sure the Greens do not go to bed each night worrying about people with $150,000 a year, and their children. They are talking about the same people we are. They are saying they would really like to see those middle-income and low-income New Zealanders get something that would make a difference to their lives.

So that is the other issue: not only are we going to try to do something in this Budget, but we are going to try to prioritise our spending, and that means that $650 million on one policy is not really a runner. We have to spend some time thinking about how we can maximise it, and that is the second point I want to make.

The third broad point is that often when we get into these debates there is a sense that nothing has happened. Well, a lot has happened over the last 4 years. I know that both the Green members in the House and the Labour and Progressive members share a view that there was a major social deficit in 1999. There had been major cuts to the income of beneficiaries during that 1990s period. For example, when Ruth Richardson delivered her Budget, up to 31 percent of the income of beneficiaries disappeared overnight. In fact the food bank industry was created by that. We know that in the area of health, to go to the market model simply did not work. We know that 13,000 houses were sold in the State sector area, and on and on it went. So we arrived at 1999, and we all shared the view that there was a major issue: poverty had become a reality for New Zealanders and things had to be done about it.

Well, we have not been sitting here waiting for this coming Budget. We have introduced things like income-related rents, which cost a lot of money. That means 56,000 households in New Zealand are now in stable houses with rents they can afford. We have introduced primary health organisations, which means that the cost of health care is dropping. We had already lowered the costs to families who take their kids to the doctor. Every single year that we have been in power we have introduced the lifting of the minimum wage for youth and adult workers. We have introduced the Employment Relations Act, and I heard today that even people on the other side of the House such as Peter Brown are saying that the Act is working extremely well—after it was once claimed that it would cause a lack of growth, and so on. It is working fine, and there is a more civilised arrangement growing between employers and employees as they try to share good wages. We have seen wages go up over this period of time.

Sue Bradford would know that one of the key policies of this Government has been to give the full entitlement to people who are on a benefit, so we are on our way to paying out $60 million in special benefits at the present time. We started at $7 million. That means many more households are getting their entitlement—an entitlement they should get. We are not a Government that just gives away money, but we said that if people were entitled to a part of the benefit system the previous Government would not let them access, we would give it to them. And we have been doing that. We know that right across the benefit system there have been changes that have put $5 here into a household, $40 there into a household. There have been income-related rents, lower costs for going to the doctors, more money going into State houses, money going into low decile schools to ensure that the quality of education is there for kids—and on and on it goes.

I say to the member that one of the most important things we have done on this side of the House is that we have measured what we have done. No other Government in this country has done that. We have run living standards research, and we have held ourselves accountable as to whether we have moved forward. We know we have—unlike previous Governments who have not spent the time on asking whether they have made a difference with their social policies. This Government has made it transparent. Anybody can go to the website of the Ministry of Social Development and Employment and ask how we are doing on poverty measures and on key issues like housing, and ask whether we are making a difference. Yes, we are. After 4 years, we are about to release the second of our social reports and it will be seen, once again, that we are healthier and better educated. We are dealing with poverty and with all the kinds of issues I know that that member wants to see dealt with. So I just want to say to the member, that is my third major point.

I would encourage her to know that we have not just been sitting around—as she pointed out herself—saying the rhetoric. People are very keen on just saying: “Here’s the next piece of rhetoric about children and families.” We have not done that. We have tried to work our way steadily through an agenda over the past 4 years, with limited resources. They are always limited resources, and we always have to prioritise, we know—but we have made a genuine difference.

I want to mention two things in the minute or so I have left. One is the change in the behaviour of the Department of Work and Income. The member will know that when we came into Government there were large caseloads. My own caseload in Palmerston North often ran to six or seven pages of people who were with the department; I now have a half page of people from that department. Those six or seven pages were all people who were in desperate circumstances and who could not access things from the department. We now have a group of people, case managers, who are proactively seeking to do their best for people in real need.

Most important, they have put people into work. I do not believe, as Donna Awatere Huata has often said, that any job will do, and neither does Sue Bradford. We want living wages for people—real jobs, living wages. Over the last little while we have seen more and more people getting into those jobs, because we have a good, strong economy. We have seen 176,000 people get jobs—more people than 5 years ago when Labour came into Government. We are at a 16-year low for unemployment. People are earning an income, and that is why in regions like mine, and like her own, we are beginning to see that real sense of optimism around our communities. Yes, there is a long way to go, but if any Government has made a difference, it is this one. It has steadily chipped away at those issues.

So in opposing this legislation, and in saying that Labour cannot support it, I want to reassure the member that we respect her stand on those issues, and assure her we are doing things about them. We are making a difference, and I look forward to being able to sit down and talk with her at Budget time. I am sure she will say: “Even more please.”, but I hope she will be at least satisfied we once again have made a major contribution.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The remaining speakers have 5 minutes, with a bell at 5 minutes.

KATHERINE RICH (National): The National Party does not support this member’s bill—not because we have a disinterest in children or are disinterested in child welfare and protection, but because we do not think the bill really takes the country any further in trying to deal with some of the tough issues we face as a nation. This bill states that the child benefit is a must to: “… restore a benefit that is necessary for the protection and development of New Zealand children.”

We have seen no evidence that giving families another $15 a week will make that sort of difference, and protect some of the children we have seen in the headlines just in the last few months. Over the weekend we saw the McLachlan family in the news. That family earns $55,000 a year. Although this child benefit would return some money to them, in a sense we are looking at just another way of income churning. We are taking money off many New Zealand working families, only to give it back to them in another form.

We have a system at the moment that is incredibly complicated and complex. Very few New Zealand families understand the way it works. We have family support, a family tax credit, and childcare subsidies. Tonight we are debating whether to add a child benefit to that system. We are taking money from people, only to give it back to them. On this side of the House we believe that New Zealanders are better able to determine how they want to spend the money they earn. We think there are better initiatives, in terms of reducing taxes, to give people the opportunity to decide how they want to spend their money. We do not see that just continually whittling away the amounts that New Zealanders earn by taking it from them, spending it on administration and then handing it back, takes the country any further ahead. I understand some of the good stories about the family benefit in the 1960s and 1970s, but it is a different world today. I do not think that $15 a week would have made one skerrick of difference to the Saliel Aplins, the Coral-Ellen Burrowses, and the families that have unfortunately been brought to the nation’s attention.

The problem with this bill is that we cannot guarantee this money will be spent on children. We have seen no evidence—certainly no evidence presented in the explanatory note—that this will make a big difference to some children, in terms of their protection, development, and welfare. We are looking at a sum of about $780 a year. Why not give that back to families in taxes? Why not give that back to them so they can spend it on things that are important to them? At the moment we are a country that faces all sorts of problems. We have children lining up because they cannot get grommet operations. They sit in classrooms and cannot hear the teachers so, hello, it is no surprise that we are unable to get good outcomes from our education system. But in terms of the child benefit that we are debating tonight, all that is just small potatoes.

Some of the biggest issues this country faces come from the fact that we have 250,000 children living in welfare-dependent homes. One of the things we know is that in those welfare-dependent homes there is not a lot of extra money to spend on the things that many middle-class families aspire to give their children—the soccer boots, the school camps, the school fees, the music lessons, etc. Giving families $15 a week will not make a big difference. I think we should look at some of the more macroeconomic issues and also look at returning a greater amount of money through the tax system.

It is very interesting to hear the Minister, Steve Maharey, dish out some of the rhetoric that I believe Sue Bradford was referring to when she made her initial speech. Sure, he can talk about some of the benefit cuts that were made in the 1990s, but is it not interesting that Labour has not reversed any of those decisions? Labour understands the importance of the difference between welfare and work, and the motivations that any country has to provide for people, to ensure they move on to a better way of life.

This side of the House will support things that will make a genuine difference to children, and that is why we are working pretty hard to raise a lot of issues about the Department of Child, Youth, and Family Services, such as the fact that there are 6,000 children who have not even had their cases allocated to a social worker. That is where we think some of the focus should be—not on this sort of piecemeal initiative.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): First of all, I respect the proponent of this bill, Sue Bradford. I know she has done a lot of work on this bill, that in proposing it she is heartfelt and sincere, and I acknowledge that. Also, on a very personal note, I was a child raised under a family benefit system, and when my children were very young, I received the family benefit as a parent. It was a good system, but it was not perfect. I remember that my husband earned $16 a year too much for us to be able to capitalise on the family benefit to buy our first home. It meant that we had to have a second mortgage of $2,500 at 14 percent, as opposed to my husband’s rehab loan at 3 percent. I am looking at one of my colleagues across the House, Bill Gudgeon, a former serviceman who understands what a rehab loan is. Our getting rid of that second mortgage at an awful interest rate of 14 percent was a priority, and we bemoaned the fact that we were not eligible to capitalise on the family benefit because my husband earned $16 a year too much.

The family benefit is an important part of our social history. In 1972, the year our eldest child was born, the benefit was increased to $3 per week as opposed to $1.50, and there were cries that there would be a population boom. If only we had had a population boom after 1972, it might have been quite good for this country, but the dire predictions that were made at that time did not come to pass. That is just a personal comment on the history of the family benefit as we know it.

As my colleague Steve Maharey commented also, the forthcoming Budget, which, of course, members on this side of the House are very much looking forward to being made public, means that in effect Sue Bradford’s bill will be superseded by what the Budget will be able to introduce for working families in New Zealand, and young families in particular.

It is part of our political history to place a priority on addressing child poverty. That is not something that can be addressed and corrected in a short span of time. In fact, I think today’s event, with the culmination of the hīkoi on the forecourt, is very much about people’s impatience to have income inadequacies addressed in a short period of time. That does not always occur overnight. But I know, and speak with confidence, that the forthcoming Budget will see many improvements to family income assistance.

I understand that when one is trying to address the serious shortcomings in income that have occurred over the last decade or so, that assistance cannot come quick enough for a number of people. But it is something that has to be addressed in a systematic, planned, and programmed way, so that assistance is targeted to where the most need is. We look forward to that being promulgated later on this month.

I conclude by saying that I know this bill has been put forward with sincerity, but I also look forward to the Budget, which will address many of the issues that the member promoting this bill also wishes to see addressed in as quick a time as possible.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): First of all, I compliment Sue Bradford on the compassionate service she wishes to render to those less fortunate families. New Zealand First supports the Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill to the select committee. We support the vision that each child born requires nurturing, the best of parenting skills, and assistance to achieve an adequate standard of living.

The explanatory note indicates that children must be ordinary residents of New Zealand to qualify. Another provision specifies the way in which the benefit commences and terminates in respect of all children in New Zealand. The emphasis is on New Zealand citizenship. New Zealand First stands to ensure that taxpayers’ revenue will not be subject to abuse but will be accounted for to its rightful recipients as citizens of this nation. That means that children must ordinarily be resident in New Zealand to qualify.

According to the bill, each child will be entitled to a specified amount paid to a principal caregiver. As was related by the speaker from the National Party, there needs to be control in that area also. As recommended by our caucus, New Zealand First will discuss those and other issues in the select committee. A question that needs to be asked is how the chief executive will identify and be satisfied that each child is ordinarily a citizen of New Zealand. New Zealand First will query that method.

It is obvious that there is a need for assistance to some of our families, whether it is through education, health, or employment. If this bill will assist families to get on their feet, New Zealand First supports it to the select committee.

JUDY TURNER (United Future): This member’s bill raises a raft of questions that probably need reclarifying for the public good. The questions are: what are the advantages and disadvantages of universally targeted benefits? From an equity perspective, we know that financial supplements that are available to everyone certainly cannot be accused of being discriminatory. We also know that low-income families would welcome a subsidy that did not disappear as soon as they started to get ahead financially. On the flipside, we have to ask what percentage of the hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, per year that this bill would cost would be spent—and probably wasted—on well-heeled families.

A second and perhaps more important set of questions needs to be asked about family poverty in New Zealand—how we quantify poverty, how we sustainably lift incomes, how we best help families to move beyond financial dependency towards financial autonomy. United Future has serious misgivings about whether this proposal is the very best way to improve the overall outcomes for low and middle-income families. However, we will support the first reading of this bill, because it provides us with a chance to more fully debate the realities of poverty as they occur within the New Zealand context, and the chance to facilitate, at a select committee level, the discussion that so desperately needs to happen around this issue.

It is a discussion that United Future would welcome. For instance, United Future would like to see the debate reconfigured from its usual format, which is to focus on child poverty, and instead address the context that is facilitating the poverty, which is the family. While the plight of children may act as our motivation, it is by identifying and understanding the risks and strengths of the adult, or adults, charged with the responsibility of caring for those children that will best provide solutions for the child living in poverty.

The key seems to be to take the skills that low-income families use to survive and use them to develop strategies that will see them thrive. Just throwing a bit more money at a family is really, of itself, unable to lift it out of poverty. A whole range of factors contribute to a family’s lifestyle, but that does not mean that we should ignore low-income levels. It is clear that if a family’s income is too low, then that family will remain trapped and struggling to maintain even the basics.

United Future believes that we are well overdue as a nation for an in-depth debate on poverty in the New Zealand context. On nearly a daily basis, members of this House demonstrate combined concern about those who fall through the proverbial cracks in our society. We are united in our concern but divided in our solutions, and that is the nature of politics.

United Future has always been upfront about the fact that it prefers tax cuts and income splitting to benefits as the mechanism for delivering better financial outcomes for all New Zealanders, particularly families. For that reason, United Future is unlikely to support this bill beyond this point, but as the family-focused party, we welcome the opportunity it could provide us all. That opportunity is to listen to those who work at the coalface of social services to the families of this country, to put aside our unworkable ideologies, and to genuinely and pragmatically work towards some workable solutions for the New Zealand families who at present fall within international parameters of poverty. We will support this bill at the first reading.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.