Wednesday, 25 March 2009

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Nine-day Working Fortnight—Fisher and Paykel Appliances

1. NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Prime Minister: What reports has the Government received on the 9-day fortnight?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I have received a report today that Fisher and Paykel Appliances has negotiated with its workforce to take up the Government’s 9-day fortnight scheme. As a result, it is my understanding that some 350 workers now have a guaranteed job for the next 6 months and 60 workers who would otherwise have been made redundant have managed to keep their jobs. [Interruption] I note that the noise coming from Labour members means that they do not support those 350 workers who have kept their jobs. Let us see whether they are talking that tough when they visit Fisher and Paykel Appliances one day. I for one am proud to be leading a Government that has come up with a solution that has seen those workers keep their jobs.

Nathan Guy: Are there other elements to the Fisher and Paykel Appliances announcement?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, there are. Fisher and Paykel Appliances has announced that employees will work a 35-hour week, which will be supplemented by an additional 3.5 hours’ pay, consisting of the Government’s scheme and an equivalent contribution from the company. The remaining 1.5 hours per week may be taken as paid leave to ensure continuity of wage levels, and workers will attend a Fisher and Paykel Appliances - funded, in-house training and upskilling programme for the balance of the time. This is a great example of the Government, business, unions, and employees all working together. It is a successful programme.

Nathan Guy: How many companies have inquired about using the scheme?

Hon JOHN KEY: It is my understanding that as of this morning Work and Income had received 21 inquiries for the job support scheme—21 companies were looking to ensure that they can keep their workforces intact. This is a great example of the success of the Job Summit, and I take it, going by the silence of the Leader of the Opposition, that he is not quite so chipper today.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the advice he has received from his officials that the 60 jobs—not 350 jobs—saved today at Fisher and Paykel Appliances, as cited in the statement from the company, mean that he is now on track—[Interruption] Can I start again, Mr Speaker, because I cannot be heard over the Government benches—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I can hear perfectly well. The member should continue his question.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the advice from the Prime Minister about those 60 jobs—which all of us welcome as having been saved today—mean that the scheme is on track to save the 100,000 jobs that he said the initiative would save at the Job Summit earlier this year?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, let us get it right. There are 350 workers at Fisher and Paykel Appliances who are guaranteed their jobs for the next 6 months. There would have been many more—up to 60—who would have been made redundant. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to come with me to Fisher and Paykel Appliances, to stand on the shop floor, and to get up and say that he does not care about those workers’ jobs when I get up and say that I do, then he should feel free to join me.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the statement made today by Fisher and Paykel Appliances that it would prevent about 60 redundancies.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Hon Phil Goff: Secondly, I seek leave to table the statement from the Otago Daily Times where Mr Key states that this new scheme—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a press statement?

Hon Phil Goff: It is a statement made in the Otago Daily Times, dated 28 February of this year.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. Leave is sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? No, there is no objection.

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

Recession—Job Protection

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is it his policy as Prime Minister to save jobs and to protect the most vulnerable from the effects of the recession?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; unlike the Leader of the Opposition I do care about saving jobs for New Zealanders. This Government cares so much about this that it has undertaken a number of programmes. They include the ReStart package, the small-business package, the 9-day working fortnight, $2.5 million of additional promotion of New Zealand tourism in Australia, the reform of the Resource Management Act, of course tax cuts—

Hon Chris Carter: What about the cycleway?

Hon JOHN KEY: —and yes, I say to Mr Carter, the cycle track will also see people employed. The member should not worry; he will enjoy riding on it.

Hon Phil Goff: What credibility does the Prime Minister have in telling New Zealanders struggling to make ends meet that they should donate their tax cuts to charity to help those in need, when his own Government has done absolutely the opposite by slashing tax cuts, legislated for by Labour, for those on lower incomes, which would have helped those people directly?

Hon JOHN KEY: I personally happen to believe in giving, and I think it is a good message for New Zealanders who may not need to spend their tax cuts or may not want to save their tax cuts to give them away. Let me make just two points. The first is that when National announced this policy in Opposition it was greeted by the then Minister of the Labour Government, Steve Maharey, as Tory charity. Some weeks later the policy turned up in Michael Cullen’s Budget. That is how much the Labour Government thought of it when it heard about the policy from National. It liked it! The second point I will make is simply this one. Mr Goff is rapidly losing the title of being “Phil-in”, but he will certainly not be thought of as “Phil-in-thropic”, that is for sure.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I expected you to intervene on that comment. You have already ruled that comment out of order in the House, and I expect that when people address members in a way that you have already ruled out, we should not have to intervene. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: We are considering a point of order; both sides of the House might reflect on that. The Hon Trevor Mallard has made a perfectly valid point in his point of order, which is that members should not be referred to by inappropriate names. I am sure the Prime Minister would have no problem with withdrawing that comment. I ask him to withdraw that use of inappropriate language.

Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister accept the argument that focusing tax cuts on those in the greatest need would have been fairer and most effective in stimulating demand and saving jobs and businesses, as economists and people like Rob Fyfe and Steven Tindall have pointed out to him directly?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, Rob Fyfe is a great bloke, but he is not an economist. The second point is that I agree with the way the package is structured. It will be good for New Zealand, it will be good for growth in this country, and, unlike under the Government that Phil Goff was a member of, New Zealanders have not had to wait 9 years for a tax cut under our Government.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister accept that people in streets like McGehan Close—the people about whom he professed so much concern before the election—will be the people most vulnerable to losing their jobs at the present time and will also be the people who get absolutely nothing from the tax cuts he has legislated for; if so, where is the evidence that he was sincere about his earlier professed concern?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have two points. It is not true that people in McGehan Close will not get a tax cut.

Hon Phil Goff: Oh, it is.

Hon JOHN KEY: Oh no, it is not, actually. For a start, if they get an independent earner’s rebate, then they will get $10 a week, so they will certainly get something. Secondly, I might add that the Leader of the Opposition should go and have a look at the ReStart programme, because the way the ReStart programme works is that if somebody living in McGehan Close loses his or her job, he or she will be getting $160 a week. Under the Labour package, if the spouse of a multimillionaire lost his or her job, and the multimillionaire continued in the job paying $2 million a year, his or her spouse would have got something under Labour, but a low-income person living in McGehan Close would have got absolutely nothing. The party that cares about all New Zealanders is on this side of the House.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister agree that insulating cold, damp houses and comprehensively improving their energy efficiency is good for our economy, good for workers, and good for health?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I do agree that insulating housing is good for the economy and good for health.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister accept that the people in McGehan Close, most of them families with dependent children and earning under $40,000 a year, will get absolutely nothing from his tax cuts?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not accept that.

Sue Bradford: Has the Government done any work on assessing the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member at the back of the Chamber has the floor and it is a little hard to hear from the back of the Chamber.

Sue Bradford: Has the Government done any work on assessing the job losses that are likely to happen in the wake of possible funding cuts to the community and voluntary sector—for example, if the Ministry of Social Development’s Pathways to Partnership programme is cancelled?

Hon JOHN KEY: I and the Government have certainly considered the impact on the voluntary sector. It is one of the reasons I spoke at the philanthropy conference last week and said that if New Zealanders want to give to all sorts of great charities out there, then that will help.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the latest estimate the Prime Minister has received from his officials on the cost of the proposed Cape Reinga to Bluff bicycle lane and the number of jobs that it will create?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have not had any updates in recent weeks.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister agree that the community and voluntary sector plays a vital role in society, in terms of both jobs created and the work it carries out; if so, what steps will he take to ensure funding stability for organisations whose work will actually be needed more than ever in this time of recession?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes; the Government is in negotiations and discussions with the community and voluntary sector to make sure it is in the best shape it can be, given the circumstances it faces, which are difficult for everyone.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister support the call by the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) for workers to cash up 2 weeks of their annual leave, given his support in this House for the US position of having only 2 weeks’ annual leave entitlement for workers?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I will not. I have made it quite clear that I think it makes sense for people to potentially have the choice to cash in their fourth week. That will give them a 2 percent pay increase, so they may choose to do that. Of course, most workers will choose not to do that, but this party believes in choice, which is something the New Zealand public was robbed of for 9 years.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] I understood that members were not to interject on points of order.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is absolutely right. There will be silence. The member can proceed with his point of order, please.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table this document in which Mr Key says that the 4 weeks’ annual leave is a retrograde step and that he supports the American position—

Mr SPEAKER: It is not clear what the document is.

Hon Phil Goff: The document is Hansard from 16 December 2003.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Leave is sought to table Hansard. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Economic Growth—Forecasts

3. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: My question is to the Minister of Finance—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Amy Adams is at the back of the Chamber. It is hard to hear.

AMY ADAMS: What reports has he seen on the state of the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, the latest consensus forecasts collated by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research were released. These forecasts confirm the difficult situation the Government has inherited. All forecasters have revised their forecasts downwards, and are now, on average, expecting two more quarters of negative growth.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister on this matter. The Labour Party submitted a question: “Has he seen the latest economic forecasts of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research?”, which the Clerk’s Office ruled out because, apparently, the Minister has no responsibility for the institute. That, of course, is true, but it seemed to us that whether he had seen those reports was certainly a matter of ministerial responsibility. Yet the Government has been allowed to ask the question: “What reports has he seen on the state of the economy?”. Of course, the Minister has launched into an answer about consensus forecasts, the institute, etc. I simply draw that to your attention, Mr Speaker, because we do not want to get into long arguments with the Clerk’s Office. It does seem to me that there are not entirely even-handed rulings from the office on these questions.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that last point was fair, but the member makes an interesting point. As he well knows, having served many years as a Minister in this House, the rules that apply to answers are a little different from the Standing Orders that apply to questions. Of course, although the Minister cannot be questioned about something that he is not responsible for, as long as the reports that he is asked about are in the area that he is responsible for, he can refer to those reports. That has been longstanding practice. I invite the Minister to continue his answer.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you may have slightly misunderstood my point. My point was that the question that was submitted in the name of Mr Cunliffe asked whether the Minister had seen certain reports, and it actually named those reports. This question from Ms Adams asks: “What reports has he seen on the state of the economy?”. It is hard to see the difference between those two questions, unless the Minister is confined to reports for which he has direct responsibility. Quite properly, he is not answering along those lines, because the Minister of Finance has responsibility to be aware of any reports on the state of the New Zealand economy.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the interesting thing that the member might like to reflect on is that he could have submitted a further question along the lines of the question that has just been asked. He acknowledges that it is different from the question he sought to lodge. It is slightly different. I assure him that I will endeavour to make sure that questions are treated in the same way. I will be watching for that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The latest consensus forecasts show that all forecasters have revised their forecasts downwards, and are now expecting two more quarters of negative growth. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research forecasts all show ongoing twin deficit problems. The consensus view shows the balance of payments deficit persisting above $12 billion in each of the next 2 years. That is about the worst level that New Zealand has experienced.

Amy Adams: What is the outlook for economic growth as reflected by the consensus forecasts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The consensus forecasts show 2 years of declining output. GDP is projected to decline by almost 1 percent in the year ending March 2009, and by a further 0.6 percent over the 12 months after that, through to March 2010. That will have a considerable impact on Government revenues.

Amy Adams: What does this outlook imply about the basis for future growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I wish the forecasts could show that there was a strong basis for future growth, but actually they show how poorly the foundations for growth have been laid over recent years. The previous Government oversaw a period of growth based on an unsustainable credit-driven boom, notably in housing, and very low productivity. This boom is now reversing in spectacular fashion, and it will take a considerable period of well-founded economic policy to lay some foundations for growth.

Economic Growth—Forecasts

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with reports from NZIER consensus forecasts that show that on current policy settings growth will remain negative for the next 2 years, with the beginnings of recovery not expected until 2011?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I am not sure whether the member has correctly understood the forecasts. They are prepared on a March year basis. The 2 years they are referring to are the year to the end of March 2009—and it is now 25 March—and the next year, to March 2010. In fact, forecasts indicate the economy may start recovering in 2010, rather than 2011.

Hon David Cunliffe: What advice has the Minister therefore given to the Prime Minister, who as recently as last Sunday told television viewers on Q+A that he expected the recovery to commence in 2009, or is the Prime Minister perhaps taking his advice from Steven Joyce and not that Minister?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, the Prime Minister has a positive outlook for the New Zealand economy. In fact, I think it could be described as upbeat and aspirational.

David Bennett: What do the consensus projections imply about the balance of payments?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand has a particular vulnerability with its high balance of payments deficit. I might say that the previous Minister of Finance made much of setting out to fix that when he went into Government, and if the result in 2008 was a measure of success, then he and the Labour Government utterly failed. The consensus projections show an accumulative increase in net foreign liabilities of $42 billion in the 3 years to June 2011. That is uncomfortably large and not a level that the Government can be comfortable with.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister consider that upbeat and aspirational action is now needed in New Zealand, when US stock markets rose nearly 7 percent in recent days on the back of such intervention by the US Obama administration, or is he instead using this recession as political cover to undertake a preordained agenda of privatisation, gutting KiwiSaver, the Superannuation Fund, and accident compensation, and, to boot, hobbling regulators like the Commerce Commission and Overseas Investment Office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It may well assist the Labour Party if it stops trying to rerun its terribly failed 2008 election campaign and actually pays some attention to the economy. I am very pleased that the New Zealand Government does not have to put a trillion dollars into stabilising the banking system—it is probably about the third or fourth attempt the US Government has made. I acknowledge the efforts made by the previous Government to help to stabilise the banking system; we are continuing with those, and I hope we do not have to follow the course of the US Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister further acknowledge, therefore, that of the approximately $13 billion of stimulus that he claims he has injected into the New Zealand economy, nearly all of it results from Labour’s policies in the 2008 Budget and Labour’s planned business tax reforms, or does he consider cycle lanes just a stimulus, even though his Government has just removed funding from such non - State highway transport classes; or is this just another example of his leader being aspirational—

Mr SPEAKER: This is the third question.

Hon David Cunliffe: —while he does the opposite of that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am pleased that the combination of tax cuts on 1 October, which occurred under that member’s Government, and tax cuts on 1 April, which we campaigned on, along with significant cuts in interest rates, is putting cash in people’s pockets and helping to protect New Zealanders from the sharpest edge of recession. However, these policies come at a cost. That cost is increasing debt, and this Government is determined to get on top of that rising debt problem.

Recession—Unemployment

5. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen about job losses in the current economic climate?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There has been a sharp increase in the rate of unemployment. There are 35,283 people currently on the unemployment benefit, and the number of people on that benefit is up by 15,250 on last year’s number. It is telling us that people need all the support and help they can get via Work and Income. We are seeing people, though, walk in, and walk out with jobs. Of those attending seminars, up to 38 percent are walking out with a job instead of having to go on the unemployment benefit.

Jo Goodhew: How many people are being helped by the Government’s ReStart package?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are 1,245 families receiving ReStart. There are worries about job security out there; people are concerned. ReStart inquiries have been up. Around 9,300 people have been calling our helplines to get information on ReStart. But there is good news: 10 percent of those people have cancelled their ReStart package because they have found new work.

Hon Annette King: Has the Minister received representations from Jacqui Dean MP to support the 80 workers who face redundancy at Summit Wool Spinners Ltd in Ōāmaru, who went away from a meeting with Ms Dean very disappointed that she had washed her hands of their problem?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Jacqui Dean has made many representations to my office on behalf of her constituents. She is indeed concerned about their well-being and their welfare, and she is certainly looking at how they can get assistance through Work and Income.

Jo Goodhew: What other assistance can redundant workers expect the Government to provide?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Work and Income is already working with companies and businesses to help them get through this time. We have beefed up the redundancy support to such a level that staff are walking in and talking to businesses about what is available. The focus is on the transition of getting people from job to job, and we are seeing some successes with that.

District Health Boards—Letter of Expectations

6. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: What cuts to existing health services is he prepared to accept in order to have district health boards meet the demands of his letter of expectations?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I am expecting district health boards to be more productive within the resources they have, and within the additional resources they will be receiving. I have also made it clear that some low-quality programmes will have to be stopped or deferred, in order to move resources to better help sick people. My letter of expectations made it very clear that the new Government expects improved performance, particularly in relation to elective surgery, emergency department waiting-times, cancer treatment waiting-times, and clinical leadership.

Hon Ruth Dyson: So does that answer mean that it is OK for women from Karamea, Waimangaroa, and Westport to now have to travel for up to 3 hours in order to have a breast screen, when women working in this parliamentary complex just have to walk out to the forecourt to have exactly the same level of service; if it is not OK, what is the Minister going to do about it?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Ministry of Health is in discussion with the provider of breast-screening services on the West Coast, and made it very clear that the new Government expects an improvement on the service that it has inherited on the West Coast.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why, in the Minister’s letter of expectations, did he include a significant emphasis on district health boards living within their means?

Hon TONY RYALL: The previous Labour administration left the New Zealand public health sector on a track to financial crisis. Let me give the House three facts: firstly, district health board deficits that that party opposite said were only $111 million are heading towards $160 million; secondly, we face requests of $600 million in capital with little resources to meet those; and, finally, the outgoing Labour administration must surely have known that it had removed $150 million from the health budget over the next 2 years. I call on the member opposite to admit these facts, and to explain them.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Will the Minister join the chairs of district health boards and the chief executives of district health boards whose jobs he has put on notice if they cannot cut cancer treatment times, and offer to resign if women from Buller have to wait longer for breast cancer screening and diagnosis?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is quite clear that district health boards have a responsibility to provide services for the people of their communities. This Government is not prepared to tolerate a situation whereby the health budget doubled in the last 9 years and fewer people received service, on a population basis.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Has he seen newspaper reports that cash-strapped patients are putting off having cancer treatment from their general practitioners, and will he take any action about that, or is he still determined to let the market decide general practice fees?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is determined to improve the service that cancer patients in this country receive. We think it is intolerable that the previous Government doubled the health budget, yet sent 180 New Zealand men and women to Australia for treatment. We are not going to be able to turn this round overnight, but we are at least dealing with the problems that that member failed to deal with.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: If I recollect the member’s question correctly, she asked whether he had seen reports of something. That kind of question is not exactly that precise. I think we need to make sure that questions are asked very clearly if the answers that are sought are to be received. If I misheard the member—

Hon Ruth Dyson: You didn’t mishear.

Mr SPEAKER: That was correct? I call the member for a further supplementary question.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is it OK that in the 4 months since he has been Minister, New Zealanders have seen service cuts in Taranaki, staff cuts in Tai Rāwhiti, home support service cuts in Otago, elective surgery cuts on the West Coast, and now, increased costs and waiting-times for women from Buller who are waiting for breast cancer screening; if it is not OK, what is he going to do about it?

Hon TONY RYALL: First of all, those allegations that the member makes all happened under the Labour Government’s funding cuts in the public health system. Just because that member repeats allegations does not make them true.

Immigration Policy—Labour Demands

7. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Immigration: How is the Government’s immigration policy responding to the changing demands for labour in the face of current economic conditions?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration): The first thing to note is that this Government’s priority is jobs for New Zealanders first. We also recognise the importance of an immigration policy that ensures that in the long term this country has the skills and the capital to build a strong economy. Each year New Zealand approves somewhere in the region of 45,000 permanent migrants, most of whom supply skills that New Zealand is short of on a long-term basis. That will continue. In contrast, in situations where more New Zealanders become available, temporary visas will not be renewed and new ones will not be issued. In summary, we will be retaining permanent migration in areas where there are long-term skill shortages and cutting back on temporary migration in areas where New Zealanders are becoming available.

Jacqui Dean: How does the Government balance adjusting the flow of temporary migrants against continuing to encourage permanent migrants with the skills and capital that the country needs?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: An analogy is to think of temporary migration as a tap, the flow of which can be controlled according to New Zealand’s labour needs. In the current economic climate we still need highly skilled permanent migrants, but we need fewer foreign workers to come in on temporary visas when there are Kiwis available to fill those positions. Permanent residency programmes encourage people with skills that are in demand worldwide to move to New Zealand, and they also encourage people with significant capital to move to this country. Those types of people actually create jobs for all New Zealanders and help to grow the economy.

Jacqui Dean: What concerns does the Minister have regarding the MCK Metals Pacific case in Taranaki?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The concern is that six foreign workers were issued with a variation of conditions to their work permits that allowed them to do work for which New Zealanders were available. Two weeks after the issue of those permits, New Zealand workers were made redundant and foreign workers retained their jobs. If the Department of Labour had known that the redundancies were imminent, it would not have issued a variation of conditions. I have therefore asked the Department of Labour to investigate whether the revocation of those permits is appropriate.

Corrections, Chief Executive—Confidence

8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections; if so, why?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): As the State Services Commissioner said at the Law and Order Committee this morning, confidence will come from improvement in performance, and the magnitude of the task ahead of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections means that confidence will take months, not days or weeks.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she consider, given that answer, that nine prison escapes, two prison deaths, and two prison assaults, in the course of a little over 2 months under her watch, constitute an improvement in the performance of the Department of Corrections?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. The basis on which that member has asked the question is disputed.

Sandra Goudie: What other statements has the Minister heard about the Department of Corrections?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am advised that at the Law and Order Committee this morning the State Services Commissioner confirmed to committee members that the department had repeatedly warned the previous Minister of Corrections, Phil Goff, that the probation service was struggling to cope with the number of offenders, and of the risks associated with that. But his Government chose to ignore those warnings.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does the Minister not agree that it is impossible to expect the public to have confidence in the Department of Corrections, given her and her Government’s continued failure to express confidence in the department’s chief executive?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, I do not agree with that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can the Minister explain why the following statements about the report of the State Services Commissioner into accountability at the Department of Corrections are contradictory: the first being her own statement, when she claimed on Newstalk ZB on 10 March that Mr Matthews had been held accountable by the State Services Commissioner; and the second being the claim from the Prime Minister on Television New Zealand’s Breakfast programme on 16 March that the State Services Commissioner in his report had not apportioned responsibility to anybody?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: One word is “accountable”; the other is “responsible”. They are two different words. Mr Cosgrove should get them right.

Rahui Katene: Is the Minister aware that Arohata Women’s Prison recorded the highest assault rate among small prisons, and given that some 58 percent of the female inmate population are Māori, what specific interventions will be undertaken to ensure that Māori responses are instrumental in addressing violence?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am concerned about assaults and violence in prison, and I look forward to working with Minister Sharples to provide Māori-appropriate responses, because this Government is focused on what works.

Rahui Katene: Has the Minister been advised that the Corrections Association president, Beven Hanlon, has called prisons “a powder keg”, referring to an intolerable amount of violence, and how does she believe that contract management of prisons could address the seeming rising tide of violence in prisons?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, I have heard that report. Mr Hanlon has recently released a report that portrays privately managed Port Phillip Prison in Melbourne as comparatively safer than the New Zealand public prisons that the writer visited when he was recently in New Zealand.

David Garrett: Does the Minister’s failure to express unequivocal confidence in the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections mean that she is not satisfied with the report of the State Services Commissioner on the Auditor-General’s report, which identified numerous failings within the Department of Corrections?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. It means that, as the report of the State Services Commissioner has noted, Mr Matthews is working very hard to bring corrections to a standard where I as the Minister, and, more important, the public, can have full confidence, because this Government cares about public safety.

Nursing Council—Appointment Process

9. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: Who appoints members of the Nursing Council, and is the Government proposing changes?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, the Government is changing the appointment rules for the Nursing Council, so that nurses will be able to elect half of the six health practitioner members of the Nursing Council. Unlike the previous administration, which wanted to control and appoint every last position, this Government trusts our health professionals. We believe that nurses can make a significant contribution to the regulation of their profession, and from later this year we are giving them this opportunity.

Dr Jackie Blue: When are those changes expected to take place?

Hon TONY RYALL: The first elections to the Nursing Council will take place in September this year, when two health practitioner members will be elected for a term of 2 years. The next elections will be held in 2011, when three health practitioner members will be elected for a term of 3 years, with the elections being run by the Nursing Council.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Removal of Agricultural Emissions

10. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he considering removing agricultural emissions from the New Zealand emissions trading scheme; if so, why?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I think the member meant to set down the question to me as the Minister for Climate Change Issues, but I am happy to oblige. No; agriculture emissions make up—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that the question was set down for the Minister for Climate Change Issues, but that it was transferred by the Office of the Clerk to the Minister for the Environment.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave to table the form signed by Mr Darren Hughes, which set down the question as being for the Minister for the Environment.

Mr SPEAKER: I think we do not need to take this matter further, because it is the Government’s responsibility as to whom the responsible Minister is. The question is to the appropriate Minister, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. The House will listen to the answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No; agricultural emissions make up 49 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, so they do need to be included at some stage. However, we do need to be honest about the huge complexities of including agriculture into an emissions trading scheme, in that accuracy in the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions from animals is very difficult to obtain. This is a sector that is very much subject to pressures from international competition. There are also issues in terms of the technologies that enable us to reduce emissions from farm animals, and that is an area in which the Government is making a substantial investment into research.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister think that the inclusion of agriculture in the emissions trading scheme will be a barrier to his stated desire for there to be harmonisation between Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and New Zealand’s emission trading scheme, given that the Australian scheme will not include agriculture?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not. There are some issues around harmonisation between New Zealand and Australia where the provisions do have to be the same. If, for instance, there is to be a price cap in one country and not in the other, that would be unworkable. If there are issues around the assigned amount units that are able to be traded internationally, that, too, would be critical. Having said that, the Australian approach to agriculture is that its inclusion is programmed for after 2015, with a decision on that intended to be made in about 2013.

Charles Chauvel: Will the implementation of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme be further delayed if the Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is not legislated for according to the Australian Government’s anticipated timetable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In my discussions last week with the Minister for Climate Change and Water in Australia, Penny Wong, she remained confident of being able to secure the numbers, particularly in the Senate, for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to be able to come into effect on 1 July. But that is substantially an issue for Australia. It is this Government’s view that there are real advantages in harmonising the approaches of New Zealand and Australia. If it is necessary to take a bit more time in order to get those schemes harmonised in the early stage, it is worth doing that.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether, in the event of delay in the implementation of the Australian scheme, there would be further delay in respect of the New Zealand scheme. He said, based on assurances from the Minister in Australia, that he did not think there would be a delay, but that it was worth taking time. I am not quite sure whether the question was actually addressed—[Interruption] Members opposite may think it is funny, but it is actually a very serious question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a perfectly good point, and there should not have been any interjection. I think it would be fair to say, though, that the member asked whether there would be a delay, and the answer he got from the Minister was an assurance he had from the Australian Minister that things were on time. The Minister cannot really speculate—and I do not think the member can expect him to speculate—beyond that, and I think the answer to the question was a reasonable one.

John Boscawen: Does the Minister agree that it would be foolish for New Zealand to move faster than Australia in the area of agricultural emissions, which Australia is not including in its scheme until 2015 at the earliest; if not, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think it is important to recognise that the significance of agricultural emissions for New Zealand is significantly greater than they are for Australia—they make up about 49 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, as compared with about 15 percent for Australia. But I also think we need to be honest in this Parliament about the huge difficulties of including agriculture in an emissions trading scheme. The measurements are extremely difficult, this sector is very much exposed to international competition, and the third point I make is that we have not even resolved the question—nor did the previous Government—of whether the obligation would be at the processor or the farm level.

Nikki Kaye: What recent reports has the Minister received on the inclusion of agricultural emissions by other countries?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have received reports today that Denmark had included having a price put on agricultural emissions, but has subsequently decided not to proceed with that because of the international competitiveness issues. I think that response and what is taking place internationally are matters that New Zealand needs to responsibly keep a brief on, so that we are not putting our key exporting industry at risk.

Overseas Investment Rules Review—Sensitive Land

11. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government be reviewing all the land deemed sensitive in the Overseas Investment Act 2005 in its upcoming review of overseas investment rules; and if not, what particular categories of sensitive land will be exempt from the review?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): There are no particular exemptions from the review; the terms of reference are deliberately broad. As I said when we issued the review’s terms of reference, we will ensure that land of particular significance or importance to New Zealand continues to be protected.

Dr Kennedy Graham: What communication has the Minister had with the Minister of Māori Affairs about the implications the review might have for the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, and, specifically, statutory provisions pertaining to the foreshore and seabed; and what was the outcome of any discussions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have begun those discussions. As a rule, we will be discussing aspects of the review with a wide range of groups.

Craig Foss: Why is the Government reviewing overseas investment rules?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are setting out to reduce the time and the cost of making decisions. The current regime is too complex, too slow, and very expensive. Processing sensitive land applications, for instance, involves assessing 27 different criteria and factors. Over the next few years New Zealand will have to compete for the kind of investment that will replace the jobs that are being lost in this recession. Among those investors will be overseas investors, and we want to make sure they can get a decision quickly, rather than being frustrated by bureaucratic process.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Can he confirm that in respect of section 17 of the 2005 Act the Government will not relax the provisions pertaining to indigenous fauna, protected wildlife, public walking access, and historic heritage sites?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, the terms of reference are deliberately broad and it would be premature of me to confirm any particular aspect. The member could ask a dozen questions about what I can or cannot confirm; I am unable to do that.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he agree with ACT’s recorded belief: “There is no evidence that foreigners make poor landowners.” or John Key’s admonition of June 2005: “There is a genuine concern, and I think a warranted concern, from New Zealanders, that we do not want to become tenants in our own country. I think the long-term future for New Zealand is not that of a bunch of people running around, serving lattes to foreigners who own our country.”

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may not be surprised to know that I disagree with ACT and that I agree with the Prime Minister.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that the amendments to overseas investment rules for land purchases made and enforced by the Labour Government have led to the return of the foreshore and seabed as well as river and lake beds to the Crown, for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and to the creation of legal access to many previously landlocked waterways?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The previous Government, along with its coalition partner, had a wide range of political objectives it was trying to achieve. I would have to say our objectives are focused on protecting those interests that are vital to New Zealanders but also on providing for the opportunity to compete for the kind of investment we will need to replace the jobs that are currently being lost. Over a number of years, changes to the Overseas Investment Act have made it complex, expensive, and confusing. Along with a lot of other changes this Government is making, we want to make it clearer and simpler so decisions can be made quickly, and people can know whether they are welcome.

Hon David Parker: Will the Minister undertake not to dilute the legislative controls on the purchase of New Zealand land by overseas people; or is the next part of his right-wing agenda to give up New Zealanders’ birthright of free access to our waterways?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member continues the Labour practice of trying to rerun the 2008 election. Labour members shouted about all those conspiracy theories, and used all those conspiracy theories in election year. Even their own voters are telling us after the election that they have stopped supporting Labour because they think it is all nonsense.

Public Service—Front-line Services

12. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of State Services: How many front-line Public Service jobs have been created by this Government?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services): Every year the State Services Commission conducts a human resource capability survey as at 30 June. The next report, as at 30 June 2009, will be available around October and it should provide us with an indication of the answer to this question. It is the Government’s intention to improve front-line services for New Zealanders.

Grant Robertson: How is the cutting of more than 200 public sector jobs and the apparent creation of no new so-called front-line public sector jobs consistent with John Key’s promise to shift resources to the front line and to cap, but not cut, public services?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is the Government’s intention to move resources to the front line. One example might be provided by the information that the Minister of Social Development has passed to me this afternoon, that Work and Income is looking to move 100 staff to bolster front-line services in Auckland. This is on top of the 60 staff who have been moved to help deal with the higher demand in that area as well.

Louise Upston: How much did the Public Service grow by between 1990 and 2008?

Hon TONY RYALL: Between 1999 and 2008 the Public Service grew by 50 percent. After 9 years of unfocused and unmanaged growth under the previous Government, the new Government has been left with a Public Service that is unbalanced between head-office administrators and front-line services.

Grant Robertson: Which of these statements is correct: the statement that the Government has no idea how many public sector jobs are to be cut but that it will be less than 4,500, or the statement that under National no public services will be cut? Both statements were made by John Key.

Hon TONY RYALL: I think there is a difference between public services and the original quote, but, of course, both were from the Prime Minister, who is providing this country’s superb leadership.

Grant Robertson: Does the Minister stand by his statement yesterday—

Mr SPEAKER: This time Labour members might show courtesy to their own colleague.

Grant Robertson: Does the Minister stand by his statement yesterday that the reason the Government is to make an announcement about what it considers to be the core Public Service is that “people have been asking”, and does this mean that the Government has been implementing a policy with no idea of what it actually means?

Hon TONY RYALL: No. The Government does know what it means, and that member will find out in due course.

Grant Robertson: Does the Minister stand by the answer given on his behalf in this House by Gerry Brownlee, that the core Public Service is “the bit that will not be cut”, and does he think that simply shifting the goalposts is a good way to manage the Public Service?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think the most important way that we can manage the Public Service is to ensure that we can move front-line services to improve the services that New Zealanders receive from the Public Service. We simply cannot have a 50 percent increase in the size of the Public Service over 9 years and not have the accent on the improved front-line services that New Zealanders would expect.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. It asked the Minister whether he stood by Gerry Brownlee’s statement that the core Public Service is “the bit that will not be cut”. The Minister did not answer that.

Mr SPEAKER: The member actually went on and added some more, and the Minister answered the last bit of the question, which he is perfectly entitled to do.

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2009. The Finance and Expenditure Committee heard evidence on the Budget Policy Statement on 18 February. I would first like to acknowledge those who submitted on the Budget Policy Statement, particularly the Business Roundtable, Federated Farmers, chambers of commerce, and others. I do acknowledge the tight time frames that they had for submissions—the deadline was 18 February at 8.30 in the morning—and a lot had changed since the release of that particular Budget Policy Statement on 18 December 2008. Once again, I acknowledge and publicly record my thanks for the hard work and resources that those organisations put into preparing those statements and their submissions. They all go into the mix.

The statement is of the intentions for Budget 2009. It is quite simple: it outlines the Government’s intentions for Budget 2009. This coming Budget will take a responsible, reasonable, and fair approach to the position that we have inherited. I will speak to that a bit more in a moment. It will set out a credible plan for the medium to long term for New Zealand. This comes hot on the heels of the execution of National’s 100-day plan of action—of doing, not just talking, of passing legislation, and of doing the things that matter. I will contrast those announcements with what has already been achieved—what National said it would do before the election, what it placed before the public and was elected on, and then what it did post-election. I will then line that up with the various economic reports that have come through over that time. I will contrast that with the plan of Labour’s spokesperson on finance, David Cunliffe. He said that a plan would be released by his party some time before the next election. The election is still 3 years away, but I guess Labour has plenty of time on its hands. Perhaps he was talking about a mini-Budget, which that party had said it would release if—unfortunately—it won the previous election.

So what did the new incoming National Government inherit? Quite frankly, it inherited a total shambles. It inherited a set of books that are somewhat questionable, as shown by events that have unfolded. I will refer to the accident compensation scheme, I will refer to the rail purchase, and I will refer to the various contingent liabilities that were in the previous Budget.

This new Budget in May 2009 will be true, fair, and transparent. It will have the risks in it, and the contingent liabilities, wherever possible, will be qualified and quantified so that New Zealand will have a true and fair view of the state of this country’s accounts. It became very, very apparent as reports came out from Treasury and various organisations that what New Zealand was led to believe was the state of New Zealand’s fiscal accounts was, in fact, nothing like the reality. Dr Smith has told us a lot about what has happened with the accident compensation scheme, and I will come back to that in a minute.

What did the National Government inherit? Well, there had been mismanagement of our economy. If members want some evidence, they can see that some things have changed. There has been mismanagement of our economy through some of the best commodity priced economic times in living memory—the last 9 years, in particular. As a result of that mismanagement, Kiwis left New Zealand in droves. Just the other day we saw the latest statistics: Kiwis are coming home. Did Opposition members not notice that? I wonder what has changed.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

CRAIG FOSS: Opposition members do not like it, do they? They do not like the evidence. Things are starting to turn. I wonder what has changed. Perhaps there is a better outcome and a better outlook for New Zealand.

What else has happened? What else did the National Government inherit? The previous Labour Government talked about a mini-Budget. The Labour Government had announced some tax cuts, to be fair, but given its track record no one was particularly confident that it would follow through on them. We all still want to know what was in the mini-Budget that Labour Government members talked about. In that mini-Budget was the previous Minister of Finance going to declare the true state of the accident compensation scheme? Was the previous Minister of Finance going to declare the true cost of the rail purchase? Or was he simply going to cancel the tax cuts? Speech after speech from members on the other side of the House has tended to reveal the true colours the election result deniers are showing.

The May 2009 Budget will include all lines of funding—for example, the $26 million hole in the budget of the Ministry for the Environment, which no one was really told about because previous Budgets and accounts up to that time were full of smoke and mirrors. New Zealand was not shown the true state of our accounts. The May 2009 Budget will show the true state of the health budget. We inherited probably a $150 million deficit in the health budget. I note that the Labour finance spokesman, when he was the Minister of Health, sacked the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board for something like a $3 million deficit, and now across this country the deficit is $150 million. It raises some interesting questions, I guess.

The National Government inherited announcement after announcement after press release after press release, but without the lines of funding. There is $250 million of capital expenditure on district health boards that has to come due in the next year, and $400 million is coming up for next year. Where is the money? The money is not there at the moment, because the previous administration mismanaged the economy over the best period we have had for a long, long time.

Let us cast our minds back for a moment to the May 2008 Budget. The rot had set in perhaps 8 years prior to that, I guess, but we must note—because members opposite constantly talk about debt and constantly try to put this fear about State asset sales or something like that—that $6.4 billion of extra borrowing was announced in that particular Budget. At the time, gross sovereign-issued debt was about 18 percent, to be fair, but in that same Budget $6.4 billion of State financial asset sales were also announced. There was $13 billion of deterioration in the Government accounts at that moment. The clock starts ticking for this National Government when Budget 2009 is released in May. That is the start of the accounts, because that is when they will be true and fair and every line of funding that should have been in previous Budgets will be in there.

I spoke earlier about contingent liabilities. In the May 2008 Budget there was a contingent liability that alluded to the shambles of the buy-back of rail from Toll Holdings. The amount was something like $500 million, from memory, and there was a line that stated that this may have to be revalued up or down, depending on the valuation of this asset/liability. We have now learnt that only now are the accounts in a true state, with the purchase of assets/liabilities having been valued—only now. Scarily and sadly, we are finding, from the various press release announcements by the previous Government, that the commitments totalled something like $3 billion. It is $3 billion that is not there and has to be borrowed somehow if, in fact, that is followed through on. We have member after member on the other side of the House essentially asking where the money is: “Where’s the money? We want more money.”

The previous Minister the Hon Ruth Dyson was asking questions about hospital spending and health spending. How can those members look each other in the eye, when they have deliberately produced accounts after accounts that have not, in my opinion, shown the true and fair view of New Zealand’s economy? It started with May 2008, when we had the first deterioration.

In the May 2008 Budget there was $13 billion of net deterioration in the accounts. With the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update we started to get the decade of deficits. Do members remember that? That is when it first came out. In the decade of deficits we were getting about 30 percent of GDP borrowing at that time. Then we have the Budget Policy Statement right here, which the Finance and Expenditure Committee has examined. Sadly we started to have to put the sunlight on to the accounts, and the accident compensation fiasco and debacle was starting to be revealed. There is nothing like a bit of sunlight on to the accounts. Unfortunately, disgracefully, and sadly for our country and our economy, the previous administration made an awful mess of the accounts, which this new Government has inherited. We will be up front and honest, and outlay everything that should be outlaid.

I am looking forward to the Budget because it is the starting point and it is when the time starts ticking on how this National Government will be measured on its success. The success of this National Government will be measured after the May 2009 Budget. The clock did not start ticking at the May 2008 Budget. There has been a massive deterioration in the accounts and in the economy since that time, and the previous administration was in charge right through that period. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): The member who just resumed his seat, Craig Foss, clearly demonstrated why Paula Bennett, Anne Tolley, and even Nick Smith were preferred over him for ministerial appointments. That disgraceful speech bore very little recognition of reality.

It was a telling comment, was it not, from Therese Arseneau on Sunday on the Q+A programme when, having listened to John Key for quarter of an hour, she said she could not see whether National had any plan to bring New Zealand through the recession and to make it stronger coming out the other side. I think Therese Arseneau was absolutely right. The Government has done the exact opposite. The Government has not only taken steps to damage the poor and those most vulnerable to the recession in our community but also undermined the future ability of New Zealand to come out of this recession in a stronger state.

The member Craig Foss said nothing about cutting the research and development tax credit, but the information technology firms in his electorate will tell him about the damage that has done. He said nothing about abolishing Fast Forward, but every primary producer in his electorate will tell him that that was a key to innovation and creativity. The member said nothing about the fact that the National Government is sitting idle while we are suffering the loss of training opportunities. The number of apprenticeships is down by 15 percent. What will happen in 4 years’ time when this country is out of the recession? We will have a shortage of skilled labour, because of the lack of foresight of this pathetic National Government to do anything about it.

Therese Arseneau was right in saying that there was no plan to deal with the crisis. She might have also said that there is certainly a plan to exploit this crisis as a pretext for bringing in things that were not foreshadowed to the electorate during the campaign, such as slashing entitlements to accident compensation and undermining the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, meaning that the fund will not have the ability to meet entitlements in a few years’ time.

Although this Government has been given the benefit of the doubt during its honeymoon phase, increasingly, media commentators are making criticisms about it. Here is what Gordon Campbell had to say this week: “Plainly, the wheels are now falling off the government’s attempts to govern by tokenism and PR gimmicks.” Gordon Campbell is absolutely right.

The Government decided that it would have a Job Summit. I thought that was a good idea. I thought that showed a little bit of humility from a Government that had no plan to at least go out and listen to others who had ideas. I told John Key that members on this side of the House think that saving jobs is the most important thing. It is about people’s livelihoods. I said that we wanted to be constructive and to help, and that we would participate in good faith. What did John Key say? National was 2 months into Government and was already incredibly arrogant. John Key said no. He would not have the 40 percent of the electorate that voted for Labour or for the Greens represented at the Job Summit. So much for inclusiveness in Government! There is a double standard.

Even better was the wonderfully awful performance of Paula Bennett on Morning Report last Friday. What did Paula Bennett say? Apparently, we are now a one-party State. She said that people were expected to come along to the regional job summits, to listen, and to not contribute ideas. Her approach was to ask how the Labour Party dare come up with the constructive idea that we could introduce job-rich job-creation programmes by creating warmer, drier, healthier homes, and that it was outrageous that we had an idea that 99 percent of New Zealanders would support. What a fool she made of herself, showing her immaturity and arrogance so early in this term of Government.

We looked for initiatives from the Job Summit. The National Government came back and told us that there were two key initiatives. One was the 9-day working fortnight. I thought that, in certain circumstances, it could be a very good thing. I support today’s move to save 60 jobs at Fisher and Paykel Appliances, but I ask Mr English why the 60 workers who were laid off today at Solid Energy will not have the option of a 9-day working fortnight because State-owned enterprises are not included under the scheme. I want to know why 80 workers are being laid off at Summit Wool Spinners in Ōāmaru. Those 80 people being laid off will not have the option of a 9-day working fortnight, because they are in a business that employs fewer than 100 workers. Well, so are most New Zealanders. Most New Zealanders are excluded from the scheme.

I actually applauded the Government’s idea of having a 9-day working fortnight with the 10th day being used to provide job skills. We could use this opportunity to upgrade the skills of New Zealand workers, so that when we come out of this recession we are stronger. But what did John Key do? He removed entirely the component of funding the job-skill training. Even Roger Douglas asked yesterday in the House how it would help the productivity and the progression of New Zealand to pay people a meagre sum to do nothing on the 10th day. There we are; at least in one area there is a minimum of agreement.

Then there was the concept of creating a bicycle lane from Cape Reinga to the Bluff. Again, I was prepared to give John Key the benefit of the doubt. He is a financier after all, is he not? He is one of those money people. He said that he could create 4,000 jobs for $50 million. I gave up mathematics quite early in my school career, but I sat down and worked it out on the back of an envelope. That worked out to payments of just over $6,000 per worker per year. I thought: “That is funny; the minimum wage is four times that amount.” I ask what he will spend on the materials—the concrete and the gravel to make the cycleway. Of course, environmental engineers said this week that the cycleway would cost at least $300 million. That is six times the estimate made by the financial genius that the Prime Minister is. When I asked him today what estimates he had received, he did not answer. He did not even tell the House whether this concept is still a goer.

The two big schemes that people came up with at the Job Summit are both in real difficulty. I hoped that something could be made out of both of those schemes. I know that John Key boasted to the Job Summit that 100,000 jobs would be saved by the 9-day working fortnight—100,000 jobs. Today, which is the day before the scheme comes into operation, he came into the House and boasted that 60 jobs had been saved, and he exaggerated that. He said 350, and Fisher and Paykel Appliances said 60. I say to Mr Key that I am sorry, but I believe Fisher and Paykel Appliances. As 60 jobs were saved, what is the remainder? It is 99,940 jobs still to go. Well, I wish Mr Key luck on doing that.

What National members really could have done at their Job Summit was to make the decision that so many people told them to make. That was to give the tax cuts to those who needed it most, where the job stimulation would come from. National did not do that; it gave away the chance to preserve thousands of jobs and hundreds of businesses. It is absolute arrogance that John Key, in his financial position, stood up last week and told middle-income New Zealanders that they should give their tax cut to charity and should do what the Government has itself refused to do—that is, to give decent and reasonable tax cuts to people who are struggling to survive and who would have spent that money, created jobs, and sustained businesses.

This Government has been a failure. This Government has another agenda; it is a right-wing agenda. But it has no plan to look after the very most basic need of New Zealanders, which is the right to a livelihood.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw to your attention a breach of Speakers’ rulings 62/6, 63/1, 63/2, and 63/3 by Mr Quinn. I ask that you either stop him interjecting or return him to his own seat.

Paul Quinn: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need to hear any more on this. The member has raised a perfectly proper point. The Speakers’ rulings are very clear that members should not move their seats in order to interject more effectively. The dilemma we have is that often in these debates members move so that they are in this part of the Chamber. I note that quite a few Labour members are not in their normal seats, and certainly quite a few National members are not, and it would be wrong to say that they could not interject. If I could pick up on the member’s point, I think that Mr Quinn should perhaps be a little more reasonable in his interjections. He has a very good baritone voice and it is quite loud. Rather than my banning injecting when a member moves seats, I ask him to please be a little more reasonable. I hope that is acceptable to the honourable member.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The previous speech shows why no one is listening to the Labour Party. Eventually, when those members have been in Opposition long enough, they will realise that it is not all about them; it is about what the country requires.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am offering free advice based on experience. What is so striking about Labour Party members is that they are more arrogant in Opposition than they were in Government. They are still struggling with the reality that having run all their conspiracy theories for a whole year, backed by the whole machinery of Government, they quite decisively lost the election. I think it will take them some time yet to adapt to that reality. In the meantime, the rest of the country is getting to grips with one of the most—

Hon Darren Hughes: This is so 2002.

Hon Chris Carter: Yes—remember 2002?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do, and that is why I am giving the advice. If they do not take it, they will repeat the same experience—that is the point. Labour will get rid of Phil Goff, and then there will be no leader until Andrew Little turns up—and, man, will they be fighting then! Who will keep order when Helen Clark and Dr Cullen are gone? Nobody. There is no one to keep order in the Labour Party once Helen Clark and Dr Cullen are gone.

Hon Anne Tolley: Cunliffe.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Oh, the most popular member of the caucus, the Hon David Cunliffe! Yes, he will do it. In the meantime, the rest of the country is focusing on the very considerable economic challenges that New Zealand faces.

This debate is about the Budget Policy Statement. As we talk about the Budget Policy Statement, I want to take people back to the 2008 Budget. The 2008 Budget set down a foundation that made the Budget Policy Statement pretty difficult to put together. I remind the House about what happened in the 2008 Budget. It showed a couple of things. Firstly, the 2008 Budget was when New Zealand switched from surplus to deficit. In the 2008 Budget, the Government forecast $13.5 billion of cash deficits over the forecast period. That meant that the New Zealand Government would have to go out and raise $13.5 billion in debt.

The 2008 Budget also showed that the current account deficit was running at about 9 percent. As I noted in question time, this is one particular failure of the previous Government. Labour came into office in 1999 saying that the Budget deficit at the time—which was about 5 percent of GDP—was so bad. It indicated that the previous 15 years of economic policy had failed and that Labour would fix that. By the time the previous Government left, the deficit had doubled. Why does that matter? It means that of all the OECD countries apart from Iceland, New Zealand has more need to borrow money in overseas markets. Anyone who has been following any kind of media in the last 6 months knows that those overseas markets are volatile, unpredictable, and in a state of turmoil.

That is the main vulnerability of the New Zealand economy as we head through this recession. So that leaves New Zealand with two chronic deficits. One is the current account deficit, the other is a fiscal deficit, and I remind the House and the Opposition that these were as plain as day in the 2008 Budget. Then, when the global financial crisis turned up in September and October, the Labour Government had to put together a Budget Policy Statement against the background of that vulnerability. Along the way we had the pre-election fiscal update, which actually forecast a decade of deficits.

So as the previous Government left office, it did not leave the accounts in surplus, as it likes to claim. It left us with forecasts of 10 years of deficits, and we know from events since then that that decade of deficits did not include the $300 million of accident compensation liability that that Government had hidden from the New Zealand public. So the fiscal outlook has been deteriorating since the 2008 Budget, and I have to say that with the impacts of global recession, we are likely to see further deterioration in the fiscal outlook over the next few months. Those two things are signs of the major shift that the New Zealand economy has to make.

It is now apparent that the growth of the last decade has been to a large extent driven by debt, and that that debt has been used largely on consumption. The switch that the New Zealand economy has to make is a move away from debt-driven and consumption-driven growth. That option will not be available, so we need to move to export-driven and investment-driven growth.

Hon David Cunliffe: Hear, hear!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member who is saying “Hear, hear!” was part of a Government that made that problem worse, particularly with its strong uplifts in Government expenditure.

Hon David Cunliffe: Rubbish!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If he does not believe that Government expenditure was getting out of control, I will give him a very simple fact. In the 2005 year the Government spent $44.8 billion, and by 2008 that had risen to $62.4 billion—in just over 3 years.

There is absolutely no choice for the current Government—we will not be able to increase spending at anything like that rate over the next 3 years. We have had debt-driven and consumption-driven growth and the expansion of Government, and now we are going through an adjustment process—largely forced on us by the rest of the world—where we have to move to growth that is based on savings, investment, and exports, and we have to do this at a time when international markets are particularly volatile.

So the Government has a two-pronged attack on this problem. The first prong is the one that seems to bother the Opposition particularly, and that is our commitment to protecting New Zealanders from the sharpest edge of recession. We do not believe that we can roll the recession back—we do not believe that the waves that are coming at us from the world in coordinated recession can be rolled back. That is why the Government has rolled out a series of measures, such as the ReStart programme for people who have been made redundant, the 9-day fortnight, the bringing forward of infrastructure spending, and the tax cuts on 1 April to help to protect people from the sharpest edges of recession in the short term.

Of course, what goes with those measures, and what goes with protecting entitlements, is a pretty rapid increase in public debt, and that is the measure of the extent to which the Government is committed to maintaining entitlements and protecting people from the sharpest edges of recession. We have to gear up now to start getting ready to pay back the debt that is being incurred as we speak. Public debt is likely to double in the next 3 years. Every dollar we are borrowing now will have to be repaid with interest, and that is why we have a longer-term plan to lift the productivity of the economy, and to get this economy into top gear as it comes out of recession.

We have announced, for instance, a significant programme of regulatory change, all of which are designed to lift business confidence, to give businesses the opportunity to invest, and, most important, to fulfil this Government’s ambition to replace every job that is lost. We cannot retain the jobs that are being lost now, but we can make every effort to replace those jobs as this economy comes out of recession.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): When Bill English goes back to his office and looks at the replay of that speech, he will see that even the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee was nodding off behind him, and that other members, like David Bennett, were bored stupid by a speech that proved why that member can never lead the National Party—

Hon Darren Hughes: Again.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —again. I tell “Mr 2 Percent” that that was a 2 percent effort. Here is a message to Bill English: “You won. We lost. So grow up and govern!”. He should stop blaming Labour or the international recession for every problem National has on its plate. National should grow up and govern.

I tell my colleagues that he is a Minister whose tail is hanging between his legs because he was caught out at the Finance and Expenditure Committee telling porkies. He was caught out saying there were unfunded liabilities when quite clearly there were not, and he was forced to admit that National itself would use the same techniques in the Budget. He was caught out saying National would have no forecasts, when the very next week he came back with a new one. And he has been caught out trying to have it both ways, by saying the pre-election fiscal update sticks but that somehow Labour never really told him what it really had in the closet.

Hon Ruth Dyson: He can’t have it both ways.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: He cannot have it both ways. But he told us one very important thing in his speech. His own members were asleep and did not notice. He said the Government has a two-pronged strategy—and we agree that it does. The code “take the sharpest edges off the recession” means that National will send out John Key on a public relations offensive about cycleways and 9-day fortnights. That is pure flimflam that, at best, will save a handful of jobs but looks kind of soft, gentle, and centrist. In the second half of his speech he said National will position New Zealand for the rebound with a programme of regulatory reform. Oh yeah! We can bet it will. The Government does have an agenda, but it is a very bad agenda and an agenda that New Zealanders did not vote for, because they were not told about it before the election. Crosby/Textor, National’s spin-meister, said: “If you tell New Zealanders, they won’t vote for it.” New Zealanders threw out that man Roger Douglas when he tried that, they threw out Ruth Richardson when she tried that, and they will throw out that lot when they realise that is what has been done.

The Budget Policy Statement comes with the hard work of the all-powerful Finance and Expenditure Committee behind it. The report, which is before us in the House and that no one has yet mentioned, explodes some very important myths. It acknowledges in a bipartisan way—and the Minister acknowledged this to the committee—that the Government actually inherited low debt. Unlike most other OECD countries, which have between 40 and 50 percent of gross sovereign debt to GDP to contend with, this Government started out with 17 to 18 percent. That is in black and white, in the Minister’s own words.

Hon Members: Why?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Because of the great Labour Government, which had 9 good years of governing for all New Zealanders. The second thing that is in black and white is that the Government inherited extremely low unemployment and that New Zealand is better able to cope with the recession.

Hon Members: Why?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Because of the great Labour Government and 9 years of hard work by New Zealanders. The starting position in black and white is not what that Minister has claimed in the House; it is anything but. It is a damned good start, and all New Zealanders contributed to it.

The second myth that was exploded in this report is that of unfunded liabilities. National’s view is that if it cannot blame the economy, then it should blame the Labour Party and say that it hid a whole lot of bombs. The trouble is that it did not. The trouble is that every time the Minister mentioned an unfunded liability, with a bit of digging and a bit of analysis in this report, guess what was found? It was not really there. The accident compensation scheme was not an unfunded liability; it was the difference between an unrealised change in the capital value of its actuarial account and an interest rate cut that had loaded up the notional value of its future claims. That is not an unfunded liability.

An unspecified fiscal risk, as the Minister later admitted in the Chamber, is something he will be using in his May Budget for anything when he cannot tell us the exact amount of the debt. That is another myth that was exploded in this report.

The dilemma the Government has is either that it has no plan, which is what Gordon Campbell said when he said the wheels are coming off its key arguments, like the 9-day fortnight and the cycle track, or that it has a very dark plan, which is what Fran O’Sullivan was getting at in Saturday’s New Zealand Herald where she said that it is a very, very fine line between using the international recession to create the “ ‘burning deck’ to force radical change, and downright chicanery”. That is what Fran O’Sullivan said. She is not a journalist known for her sympathies to the Labour Party, but she is saying to the Government: “Just be careful, Mr Key. You’re looking a bit like a soft shoe shuffle. You’re being a little bit too clever by spinning too hard and leaving poor old ‘Mr 2 Percent’ to do all the hard work.” In fact, Bill English has been left carrying the baby. That is the truth of it. He has $1.75 billion to spend and way too much to do with it, and he is going to have a tough job. It will be a black day for New Zealand on Budget day, come the end of May, when people start counting the chickens that are coming home to roost.

Another great myth that was exploded in this report is that the fiscal stimulus that this Government has come up with is the fifth largest in the Western World. How many times has the Government trotted that one out? It cannot be, can it? Guess what! Of the $13 billion of stimulus, $12.5 billion came from the Labour Government, and half a billion came from the National Government. It is almost like National members have been asleep. National put Treasury to sleep the day it got elected. Of all that $13 billion of effort—anything designed to inflate the economy when New Zealanders are, quite rightly, contracting their own household balance sheets and businesses as they are trying to pay down their debt, and anything the Government can and should be doing to keep the wheels of industry turning and keep New Zealanders in jobs—$12.5 billion was from Labour Government policy. It was $12.5 billion from the previous Government, and half a billion in the 6 months since the National Government has been elected.

That is why, when the 100 days of action drew to its close, and the Crosby/Textor script ran out, we started to see more of the real plan that Mr English today has confirmed is “positioning New Zealand for growth through regulatory reform.” You bet! The privatisation of prisons is a start, and the accident compensation scheme is not far behind. The trouble was—[Interruption] Absolutely!

The first thing that Nick Smith exploded was his own temper. That was the problem. Imagine walking into a select committee and replacing the chairman of a delegated board. Does this man have the first clue about governance? He sacked the chair then he muzzled the chief executive.

Paula Bennett’s idea of being friendly, open, and centrist is to say that no idea that the Labour Party could contribute, even if was something as simple as warming our homes, could possibly be considered by a job summit. I think one journalist likened that to the situation in Zimbabwe. I thought that was a little bit cruel, but it certainly was not John Key on a good day, was it? No, it should be back to the Murray McCully finishing school for her.

This Government is running out of puff already. It is not exactly positioning itself for three terms; it is having trouble scrambling past 3 months. All joking aside, as much as we are enjoying this speech, I fear I have only another minute. The Budget Policy Statement is a very important document. It lays out the truth on some myths. Myth No. 1 is that the Government inherited a bad start. Governments around the world would have killed for 17 percent debt and 4 percent unemployment. That is the first point. Myth No. 2 is that the Budget 2008 was full of holes. That is absolute rubbish. The Minister had to admit he will have the same things in May’s Budget. Myth No. 3 is that the Government has a plan. It has a script, not a plan. It has a Crosby/Textor script, and it just ran out.

In conclusion, from page 1 of Bill English’s Budget speech, he may well say: “Look, I am going to solve world hunger. I am going to solve the economic crisis.” When he comes to page 2, it will be blank.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I speak to the Budget Policy Statement 2009, and I acknowledge Craig Foss as chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. In the Green Party’s opinion, this Government’s Budget Policy Statement lacks a vision and a plan for the way New Zealand can address the two crises facing our country and our planet—the economic crisis and the sustainability crisis. If we are to respond to these twin crises, we need to understand them. The economic crisis is the result of the conflation on the one hand of the global financial crisis, due to lack of regulation of the financial sector, especially the non-banking sector, and on the other hand there were spiking commodity prices, especially in oil, due to the limits of growth on a finite planet.

The first factor, the global financial crisis due to deregulation of the non-banking sector, cries out for stronger regulation. We need much stronger regulation of that sector. But I will leave it there. The second factor—spiking commodity prices—is directly linked to the sustainability crisis, which is the other problem we have. There is only so much oil, there is only so much nitrogen fertiliser made from natural gas, there is only so much phosphate that we can mine in Western Sahara and import into New Zealand, and there is only so much arable land on which we can grow food. The atmosphere has only so much capacity to absorb our greenhouse pollution, until the stable climate in which our civilisation evolved is seriously disrupted. There is only so much water under the Canterbury Plains, and the Waikato River has only finite capacity to absorb our waste before it becomes dangerous even for stock to drink from, as is now the case in 75 percent of the catchment.

These twin crises—the economic and the ecological—must be addressed together. But this Government, and sadly much like the previous Labour Government, still does not get it, as evidenced in this Budget Policy Statement. It is to address these twin crises that the Green Party has proposed a Green New Deal for New Zealand as an alternative to the Budget Policy Statement. If, as the Prime Minister states, we are to borrow $40 billion from our children—the ones who will have to pay it back—then we should invest wisely. We should invest wisely, with our faces looking towards the future that those children will inherit, rather than the past. The Greens believe that the economic stimulus should be invested in clean energy generation. We should look at smart meters combined with smart tariffs, research and development, more State housing, fixing up our cold damp houses, a modern public transport system, reafforestation, high-speed broadband, low-input sustainable agriculture, cleaning up rivers, education, and more. These initiatives would create jobs and start to make the transition to a sustainable economy and society. Our children will thank us for these investments and they will understand why we put them into debt. They will inherit green jobs in sustainable industries that will be profitable and export to the world. They will not be locked into a dinosaur economy of fossil fuels, greenhouse emissions, and putrid rivers and lakes.

One of the issues addressed in the Finance and Expenditure Committee report on the Budget Policy Statement is the issue of oil dependence. I think that this is important to address because it is a good example of one of the key problems with the Budget Policy Statement. The Minister of Transport, the Hon Steven Joyce, put up the argument that we currently travel to work by car, therefore the Government will borrow tens of billions of dollars to build more motorways. Now there is an element of honesty and clarity in this argument, and I appreciate that. But it does not mean that the argument is right. Just because we currently do things one way does not mean we will always do things that way. Once upon a time, the National Government passed the Building Act 1991, which resulted in the building of tens of thousands of houses that did not keep out the rain. That does not mean we should always build houses that do not keep out the rain. Just because we currently do something, does not mean we should keep doing it that way. So the main argument put forward by National is not right. Just because our current transport system is dependent on roads, cars, and oil does not mean that it should stay that way. We are human—we have the capacity to change direction if we see a good reason to do so.

So is there a good reason to change? I would argue that there is. Oil is a finite resource. It will get more expensive—just ask the International Energy Agency, which has been very clear about this. As the world economy recovers, oil costs will increase again. We spent $7.5 billion importing oil last year—$7.5 billion that we had to find from somewhere. It adds to our trade deficit and to our current account deficit, which is ballooning. It adds to the cost of congestion, which may be $750 million a year in Auckland alone. Of course, burning all this oil adds to the GDP and economic activity, but that does not make it good. This oil dependency is a major structural weakness in the New Zealand economy and it does not have to be so. We also have a major problem with greenhouse emissions, which have increased by 25 percent over 1990 levels. They increased under the former National Government and then increased dramatically under Labour. It is very expensive for us as a country to buy carbon credits—it may be half a billion dollars to cover this increase in emissions.

So we have three good reasons to question the wisdom of deepening the current transport model—congestion, oil import costs, and greenhouse emissions—and the costs of the three are both economic and human. Public transport, walking, and cycling all relieve congestion, reduce oil dependence, and reduce our greenhouse emissions. These are all of tremendous benefit to the New Zealand economy. So is it good enough for the Minister to say that this is the way we have always done things in transport and this is how the Government will keep doing them. Of course, it is not. The Government appears to be pragmatic but the reality is that it is the slave of a defunct 1950s theory about transport. It is a deeply unsustainable theory. The apparent pragmatism of this Government is one of its attractive elements. It has adopted some measures from the left that have wrong-footed some on the other side. But is it really pragmatic to throw all our precious borrowed money at new motorway projects across the country? Or is the Government in the thrall of the pro-road, pro-oil theorists but does not even realise it?

John Maynard Keynes—a man who is coming back into vogue in current times—had something very important to say about the issue of ideology and pragmatism. In 1935 he wrote: “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”—so said Keynes. This Government, as seen in the Budget Policy Statement, remains in the thrall of the ideology of exponential growth—growth in the use of resources like oil, and growth in the production of pollution like greenhouse gases. It is hardly surprising that it remains in the thrall of the theory of the growth ideology; it has, after all, dominated our culture for two centuries or more. But the problem with this ideology is that we live on a finite planet. We simply cannot continue to indefinitely increase our use of resources on a finite planet. The growth ideology is the academic scribbler that stands behind this Government’s Budget Policy Statement. That is the ideology that this Government is a slave to. The growth ideology is the defunct economist to which this Government remains ideologically committed. It is not pragmatic; it is not wise; and it is not in our children’s interests.

It is time for a Green New Deal. It is not too late, there is still hope. Let me finish with a quote from one of New Zealand’s great ecologists, Geoff Park—a true patriot who had a message of hope for us, who died last week, and who wrote about the loss of our lowland forests and his hope that one day we will understand what we have lost. Geoff Park said: “The plains forests have come within the final few acres of vanishing—tragic in one sense, yet magic in another. We still have a chance. The last embers of the verdant country that drew our first comers ashore must lead us towards a concept of survival for ourselves: that we must live with the rest of nature or die with the rest of nature.” The Greens want a Budget Policy Statement that will let us live.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT): The 2009 Budget Policy Statement was prepared against the background of economic contraction since the March 2008 quarter. Stripped of any jargon, this means that we are poorer today than we were 15 months ago. New Zealand’s recession was caused by Labour Government policy that substantially reduced our economic growth. A Labour Government made us relatively poorer. We funded the difference between our actual wealth and our desired wealth by allowing private household debt to balloon and mushroom.

In the private sector, under Labour, labour productivity declined by 60 percent, multi-factor productivity declined by 65 percent, our relative labour costs rose by 60 percent, and our balance of payments went from 3 percent in deficit to about 9 percent in deficit. Unemployment is now rising dramatically, as is Government spending as a percentage of GDP. Under Labour, New Zealanders refused to save; instead they chose to amass large household debt.

The Government’s accounts have also been deteriorating. The only way to finance Labour’s irresponsible bribes and expenditure, which are becoming more and more costly, is through racking up a large amount of debt, and we see that the National Government is going to increase that debt by $40 billion. This will serve to further increase our current account deficit, and ultimately will require higher tax rates across the board.

Against this background, how does the 2009 Budget Policy Statement stack up? If we look at it holistically, we have to say that the National Government’s approach to the recession has tended to be in the right direction. National has, generally speaking, avoided acting on the calls to implement more irresponsible spending as a solution to a problem that was caused by irresponsible spending in the first place. National has moved, instead, to cut taxes, ensuring that struggling households can, at least, last out the recession.

National has also freed up investment rules. The cap on bureaucrats and the review of some areas of Government expenditure will see the public sector share some of the pain caused by the economic contraction, ensuring the pain does not fall only on the private sector. All of these actions are laudable, but they simply do not go far enough. Overall, National is more worried about the cents than it is about the dollars, given the level of Government waste that it inherited. Moreover, National is at risk of getting bogged down in minor matters, and increasingly responding to calls to do something, hence the 9-day working fortnight and the national cycleway.

It is, unfortunately, becoming clear that National lacks the courage and the vision to transform New Zealand into a prosperous country again. It seems unwilling to push forward measures that would result in temporary pain but would create a framework within which growth would flourish. In my view, there are three reasons why National is unable to do what is necessary. Firstly, National is locked into election promises that have proved to be unsustainable. National lacks the vision to rethink how we can better deliver social services in this country, and I am afraid that until we do that we are not going to prosper. Secondly, National is still wedded to the idea that politicians can somehow make the system work, despite all the evidence to the contrary—for example, Labour wanted increased spending to lead to much higher output in the health sector. But in fact it delivered a dramatic reduction to the rate of productivity in that sector. And, thirdly, National lacks the urgency to make the required changes. We are already seeing this with the lobbying of various unionists and other groups, such as the film industry. The tyranny of the status quo is a powerful force in politics and can be overcome only by rapid reform.

A deep-seated recession of the type we currently have requires three things of politicians. Firstly, politicians need to be able to make the hard decisions. That means we have to admit that we have been living beyond our means. Household debt cannot finance all our wants and desires as Labour seemed to wish it to do. Equally, Government spending and borrowing will not stop the pain; it will only prolong and slow down the correction that has to take place in this country. Secondly, we need to set a clear and measurable goal, which New Zealanders can get behind. We need to be bold and aim for a sustainable economic growth rate of between 4 and 5 percent. Every policy, new and existing, needs to be measured against that target. Does it help or hinder its achievement? Thirdly, politicians must set out to increase certainty amongst the public and within markets. If we do not do that, the recession will be much deeper than it needs to be. National’s rolling maul is just spin for ad hoc policy responses. Such policy responses will continue to undermine the certainty that the markets need. Talk of potential bail-outs and guarantees reduces the ability of toxic assets to reveal themselves and be liquidated. With a clear goal and path, everyone could start working together to restore the country to prosperity.

As a country, if we like, we do not have to aim at prosperity. It is not necessary. Nor do we have to undertake a programme of reform. We can continue to self-deceive and pretend that we are prosperous. We can continue, as Labour did, to blame our economic misfortune on other people and other countries. We can continue to choose short-term gain and ignore the effects that it has on long-term prosperity. This path will see ad hoc and occasional reform, which will take the sharp edges off the increasing poverty that will be the reality in this country. We will continue to struggle, but life will not be great. We will continue to get relatively poorer, if we go down that path. We will lose access to the kind of health care, education, and goods and services to which only those in the First World have access. We will continue to do what we have been doing since 1996, but we need to seriously question whether this is the future to which we aspire. I do not believe that the 2009 Budget Policy Statement answers that.

We need to get real about the options we face. National’s alternative of big government and low taxes does not exist. The only alternative to Labour’s high taxes and big government is low taxes and small government. However, small government does not have to mean that people cannot have access to the social services they need. In fact, the opposite is the case. A well-designed system would not only allow New Zealand to grow but also give people better access to health care, education, and social services.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): I spent yesterday in Christchurch at a national conference on homelessness, learning about the challenges facing our night shelters and soup kitchens, the demand on emergency accommodation, and the situation for families experiencing financial crisis. It was, in many ways, a most appropriate context in which to consider the 2009 Budget Policy Statement. As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I have been part of a discussion that has focused on the projected decline in the fiscal position. The committee has contrasted the fiscal stimulus with that of other OECD countries, debated the inflation indexing of benefits, and pondered the challenge of maintaining stability and liquidity in the banking system, but it was not until I sat listening to the call for a statutory safety net for all homeless people that the true impacts of the projected deteriorating fiscal position really hit home—excuse the pun. All the talk about export prices, declining asset values, and rising unemployment will have its inevitable effect on the numbers of New Zealanders who lack access to affordable housing. It will be seen in the faces of those who have to make income-related decisions about whether they can attend to the health needs of their children. It will be experienced by those whose quality of life is affected every day by the meagre scraps that constitute their income. It will be felt most deeply by those whose education fortunes will become defined by cash flow rather than talent or skill.

In the submissions received by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, a particularly strong call was made by the Public Health Association of New Zealand to highlight the close interrelationship between good health and New Zealand’s economic performance. The Public Health Association urged the Government to minimise the negative impact of the economic downturn on Māori, pointing out that tangata whenua tend to suffer more than the rest of the population in recession years. It is not, of course, as if Māori started off in an equitable position before the downfall of the New Zealand economy. We all know that although the average unemployment rate is sitting at 4.1 percent, it is twice that for Māori—they have an unemployment rate of 8 percent. Te Puni Kōkiri suggests that a likely scenario is that Māori unemployment will rise to 12 to 15 percent by the middle of next year. Initial signs of an economic slow-down in construction, tourism, and primary industries are of particular concern for Māori, who are strongly represented in each of these sectors, so it is with great anticipation that we look to the Government’s jobs and growth plan with a view to finding out how tangata whenua will be protected against the sharpest edges of recession.

But of course the jobs queue will not solve all of the issues that we expect to arise as the recession deepens. We are particularly conscious of the position of non-working families with children, many of which will include Māori parents. The Human Rights Review Tribunal found clear discrimination in the Working for Families package, with significant adverse effect on the living standards of around 200,000 children. Two hundred thousand children must not—cannot—be ignored, nor can our collective neglect of them be justified as a saving. It remains an absolute anachronism that the very poorest families miss out on at least $60 a week tax-free for their children, while that same $60 is available to working families, even to those earning over $100,000 a year with several children. Sixty dollars may not seem like much to some of us, but in real terms it equates to six packets of nappies, 15 loaves of bread, or 15 litres of milk, and that could make all the difference between survival and distress.

At this point I want to add another issue into the Budget policy agenda, for although we may all hold our breath and hope that the focus on longer-term productivity and on getting the economy ready for recovery will make life better for the great mass of New Zealanders, it might be timely to explore the wisdom of the notion that exponential growth is simply part of the status quo. All of the international evidence points to the fact that the global financial system is on the cusp of ultimate failure. A business-as-usual Budget that focuses on GDP growth stimulants will only ever come up short when it comes to confronting the risks of emergency pressures. I mean, how many times do we attempt to budget for something, only to find out that it all turns to custard down the track due to unforeseen circumstances? I know from painful personal experience that my own budgets never seem to add up, no matter how robust are the theories I have about them. We are not talking about day-to-day finances that we earmark for systems maintenance; I am talking about exponential GDP growth as opposed to risk management strategies for the future as we know it.

The enormity of this issue must not be trivialised. Given that the entire global financial system is predicated on growth, it can appear overwhelming. But this is the time when the value of the genuine progress index comes into its own, for it takes into account not just the bottom line on consumption but a broader view, including the implications of climate change and its consequences, the effects of the ongoing demand on our natural resources such as water and air, the impact on our ecosystems, and the overall challenge of how to create sustainable progress on a finite planet. Simply printing more money will serve only to exacerbate the problem that starts and ends with the thinking that the race is on to consume resources until they are all used up. Talking and projecting GDP growth stimulants is like taking medication to aid and abet our collective addiction. So although the Minister of Finance took the time in the select committee to describe three different risks—those of banking stability, export prices, and the combination of housing prices and rising unemployment—we in the Māori Party are also very concerned about the bigger picture, including the complex consequences that fall out of our high oil dependency.

There are many issues that we must take seriously if we are to plan responsibly for our future. The predictions are that poor health and poverty look set to increase as the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen and population increases put strain on health resources. We know that life expectancy will increase, and the increasingly aged population will have significant implications for the cost and balance of health and social services. We are advised that those with solely Māori ethnicity are more likely to have poorer health, income, and education outcomes. Skill shortages will increase in some sectors. Low future growth in unskilled jobs will mean an increase in the number of the working poor, and Māori and Pasifika workers will be overrepresented in these areas. We know that a shortage of fresh water and the quality of water will become increasingly significant in the quest for economic growth. None of these issues are isolated incidents; they are all worthy of future exploration. None of us can continue with the insanity of business as usual when basic common sense tells us that we must look to all solutions to ensure the system is sustainable, and that the future we forecast is one we can all look forward to. Kia ora.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance): The Budget Policy Statement tells us today that New Zealand is a country with twin chronic deficits—twin chronic deficits that National inherited when it came into Government last November. The balance of payments has long been a problem for this country, and the balance of payments deficit for 2008 is 9 percent of GDP. The outlook has worsened from the pre-election update, but National is doing all it can to bring under control the loose and reckless spending of the previous Labour Government, which has led to the projected decade of fiscal deficits. The issue is not just a balance of payments deficit, and it is not just a decade of fiscal deficits; it is twin chronic deficits, and this Government will act to get that under control. There are a number of ways to do that, and all of them have been turned down by the Labour Opposition members because they are in fairyland. They were in fairyland before the election, and they are surely in fairyland now.

What does one do if one is faced with these problems? Well, one has to solve the big bogey that has been the problem for this country over the last 9 years, which is falling productivity per person. Productivity has not been growing. The reality is that in any organisation one cannot expect to improve people’s incomes unless one improves productivity. So how does one grow productivity? How does one get productivity to improve? Well, the first thing one has to do is to look around one’s organisation and ask which programmes or things it is doing do not make any sense, because they are not actually saving any money or making any money. Which are the programmes that one might do something about? Which low-quality programmes in the organisation might one try to sort out?

Well, according to those in fairyland, there are none. Every programme is sacred; every programme is absolutely essential! Members on the other side of the House spent the last 9 years adding programmes and refusing to reduce any of those programmes. Over 9 long years all they did was announce new programmes, and they never checked what was going on with the programmes that were already in place.

Hon Darren Hughes: That’s rubbish.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I think they had an expenditure control committee, which met probably two or three times and then gave up. We need to improve productivity, and that is why low-quality programmes in Government have to be curtailed.

Then we have to improve productivity in the public sector generally. How do we do that? We have to move people to front-line services. Apparently—according to the Labour Opposition, and particularly Mr Robertson—that is impossible and cannot be done. Not only is that the case, but it is an insult to try to do it! But we have to think of the people who are paying the bills, and we have to think of the people whose incomes are not growing. The only way to achieve a growth in income is to improve productivity. That means providing more front-line services, and that means really testing whether the people who are working here in Wellington in the back offices are all needed, or whether we need to move people to the front-line services.

Hon Darren Hughes: Like press secretaries for Ministers!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Then we get on to the matter of Government infrastructure investments, and that is where—particularly—Mr Hughes is in absolute fairyland. This is the Hon Darren Hughes who, when he worked out that the Waterview Connection was going to cost $3 billion or thereabouts—$3.16 billion—said: “Oh, just get on and do it. It doesn’t matter what it costs. Just get on and do it. It’s not my money; I don’t care. We need to do it, and you are just a silly person for even considering for a moment that we should not get on and do it.”

Then there was the small matter of Transmission Gully, which again he thought should be done at any price whatsoever. It did not matter whether it was going to get any return; it had to happen immediately. Darren has no understanding of the value of a dollar. He would be—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is a relatively new member, but I think even he should know now from the briefings that he has had how to address members in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The point is made that members should be addressed correctly. I call upon the Hon Steven Joyce to continue.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Hon Darren Hughes would not have been out of place in the late, lamented social credit party, because he has no understanding of the value of a dollar whatsoever. He thinks that the solution is just to throw dollars like confetti in the general direction of a problem, and that there is no point worrying about annoying things like cost-benefit ratios, or value for money; they are just pesky things that get in the way, and we should just go away and spend—[Interruption] That is right. Of course, it is always unfortunate if a party makes those promises and then does not win at an election—that is unfortunate, as well.

The other thing a Government has to do is to think very carefully about the costs it is imposing on people around the country. For example, it would be high arrogance at this point in time to suggest that a 14c a litre tax on one-third of the country for petrol was a good idea at a time of recession. That would be a real, arrogant imposition on the economy. The Labour members said “But it’s only money. If we just hit them with it, it doesn’t really matter. We’ll just dive in, take the money, and pretend that it doesn’t hurt anybody. It’s simply free money for the Government and its friends to spend as they see fit.” The issue here is that the Opposition is in absolute fairyland when it comes to dealing with a very big world economic crisis. On this side of the House we understand what needs to be done. We will not be slashing and burning, despite Labour’s worst rumours. We will not pretend that problems do not exist, either. We will be responsible, we will take measures that will have an impact on the economy and that will help to grow productivity.

What are those measures? For a start, reducing taxes is helpful. That gives people incentives to work hard and get ahead. That encourages people to go out and work harder, because that is what we need. It will not make any difference whatsoever what we here in Wellington do in the Government sector; it is the private sector, the people working in businesses up and down the country over the next 2 years, that will determine how fast this country grows out of recession. That is why the tax reductions from 1 April this year are so crucially important.

Then there are the plans for small to medium sized enterprises, which are really important. The small to medium sized enterprise business package is crucially important, because small and medium sized businesses in this country over the last 9 years have struggled under the yoke of a Government that did not understand them. It professed that it understood, and it had a small business advisory forum, but then it did not actually do any of the things that it said it was going to do. Then it said it was too late. Labour had had only 9 years, and it did not have time to put in place things that would help small businesses, which was unfortunate! But anyway, we now have a Government that understands that it is the small and medium enterprise sector that is so crucial to the economy.

There are other things, such as the ReStart package, the Job Support Scheme, the 9-day fortnight, and investment in infrastructure across the country that make sense—not the things that the Hon Darren Hughes thinks should happen so he can get a quick headline in the newspaper. Those are the things that will make the difference. Those are the things that are improving productivity in this country and are actually growing the country and growing individual incomes, to help us to grow faster out of the recession and into the future. The reality is that we have two very big deficits and we have to grow much faster than we have been doing if we are to deal with those over the next 9 years. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): A large number of people around the country will be asking: “Who was that man?”, and the rest will be saying: “Who cares?”. But for those who did not know, the previous speaker was Steven Joyce; his next aim is to be the Minister of Finance. I ask Bill English, after his speech to the House during this debate and after Mr Joyce’s speech, whether we could please have a third alternative. In the remaining term of this Government, I think Mr Dunne is looking positively dynamic compared to those two.

That was a dreary speech from a dreary member, but the worst part about it was that it was full of inaccuracies. The themes of this Government have been built on myths. They are myths that are slowly being broken by people realising that what they have been told time after time—by the hacks in the media who are National supporters, by National MPs themselves, and by the tragic people who have nothing better to do than to repeat those myths on talkback—is not true. People who have been hearing the myths time after time are now saying to Labour that those things are not true. It is not true that this Government inherited a shattered economy. We had almost the lowest debt level as a percentage of GDP—17 percent—in the entire world. Other countries would be cutting their throats to get to that position, yet Bill English says that this is a terrible position for National to have inherited. For quarter after quarter after quarter we had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, and we did not get much above 4 percent towards the end of last year when we knew the economy was slowing down. With that low level of debt as a percentage of GDP and a fantastically low unemployment rate, how can the National - ACT Government say that it inherited a bad economy? It is just not true. Some members further display their ignorance, if it was not already obvious to everyone, by repeating that myth.

The second myth that is being absolutely shattered around the country is that Labour left a whole lot of holes in the financial reporting. Well, Bill English himself had to front up to that at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. He said that was not true, and it was exactly as National would have reported it. Government members know that the unfunded liability stories that they have been telling are not true. They know that everything on the public record is exactly as it was when they became the Government. There were no tricks, there were no holes, and they did not inherit a bad economy.

The third myth that has been absolutely exploded around the country is that John Key has a vision and a plan. Members might recall before the election—and subsequent to that, as well—that the current Prime Minister modestly compared himself to Barack Obama.

Hon Darren Hughes: Yes, and Steven Joyce is Dick Cheney.

Hon RUTH DYSON: John Key often referred to “Barack and I”—as Steven was telling him to say—as if he was part of Barack Obama’s little fingernail. That is what we thought he was doing. We thought that was what he was saying about the incoming President of the US. It is clear now—if members want to be correct about the comparison—that John Key is like George Bush; there is no comparison between John Key and Barack Obama. Barack Obama had “Change You Can Believe In”. He is determined to support the citizens of his country, whereas John Key just likes the comparison and has no idea, no vision, and certainly no plan.

Nowhere is that more evident than in the health portfolio that I have been given responsibility for in the Labour Opposition. In the House this afternoon I asked the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, about cuts to services that have come as a direct result of his letters of expectations to district health boards around our country. The Minister just shrugged it off. He just smiled and said “Well, that’s all your fault”. Actually, nobody on this side of the House wrote those letters of expectations. Tony Ryall’s signature is on the bottom of the letters; it is his words that have caused direct service cuts. Then he laughed when I asked about the women from Westport, Waimangaroa, and Karamea, who, instead of having a mobile breast-screening unit that could come almost literally to their very doors, now have to drive to Greymouth and back in order to get breast screenings. That situation was raised by Labour members when we were on the West Coast, and, as a result of those representations, the Minister has been forced to take action. Until Labour members raised it during our visit to the West Coast, nothing at all was being done. Worse than that, Tony Ryall laughed in the House. I do not think it is funny when women who were getting access to breast-screening clinics outside their doors are now forced to drive for over 2 hours to Greymouth in their own time and at their own expense. [Interruption] I ask Mr Joyce whether he thinks it is funny, too. On this side of the House, we do not think that people having their access to services cut is a funny thing or a good thing; nor is it something that can be shafted home to the previous Government, because that is just not true. Everyone in New Zealand knows exactly what the state of the public health system is. Continuing cuts and blaming it on Labour is just not a runner.

Service cuts have been predicted for Taranaki. I do not even know who the member of Parliament is for that area, but I know for certain that he has not raised a single issue with the Minister of Health in this House. So it is all right for the people in Taranaki to have health services cut and for the member of Parliament to say nothing. Harry Duynhoven, the previous member for New Plymouth, would have been in this House demanding answers from the Minister of Health if any cuts had been made to health services under his watch. In Tai Rāwhiti, 20 fewer staff members are to be employed. Has the current member for East Coast raised that issue at all in this House? No, there has been no representation from Anne Tolley, the member of Parliament responsible for that area. She has left it entirely up to Moana Mackey to work with the district health board and with the workforce to ensure that those jobs are protected. How will having 20 fewer staff in the Tairāwhiti District Health Board area improve access to health services for that population?

In Otago, people over 65 have had their access to home support services cut. What have any of the people in Otago done that is so bad that their measly hours of support—sometimes only 1, 2, or 3 hours—have been cut to nothing? Those hours are nothing at all; they are a drop in the bucket in the overall health budget. But for those elderly men and women sitting at home and knowing that they will get their laundry done, that they will get some support with meals, and that they might get their cleaning done, it is the difference between them having quality of life and living in their own home, or having to go into a rest home. That choice is being taken away from them by Tony Ryall, because his letter of expectations has forced the Otago District Health Board to cut home support services to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. I do not think that is a laughing matter either. The Minister of Health laughed at those over-65-year-olds, those elderly people who are often frail and who are just asking for 1 or 2 hours of home support to enable them to live in dignity, with some independence, in their own homes.

The people of the West Coast, as we know, have not only had the situation where the poor old Minister was caught on the back foot and did not know about the women from Karamea and Westport having to go right down to Greymouth for their breast screenings; they have also had significant cuts to their elective surgery—their orthopaedic surgery. They said, on public record, that it was solely as a result of the letter of expectations from the Minister of Health. Many, many people on the West Coast who are waiting for their hip replacements, or their knee replacements, have now had their surgery cancelled and have no idea when their surgery will be performed. Has the member of Parliament for West Coast - Tasman come into this House and raised a single issue with the Minister of Health? No, he has not. On every occasion, those members who paraded around those electorates prior to the election saying “I’ll be your voice in Wellington” have not been seen or heard of since, and, at exactly the same time, the services that their constituents have relied on year after year are just being whipped away from under their feet.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): The Budget Policy Statement 2009 sets the framework for taking this nation forward through one of the toughest recessions we have had in two generations. It sets the framework for blunting the edges of this recession and providing a platform from which we can grow this nation and take ourselves out of this recession. I am proud to say that on the front cover of this Budget Policy Statement rests the name of our Minister of Finance, the fine Mr Bill English, who will set the platform, and deliver the Budget in May of this year, to take this nation out of this recession and to go forward.

This Budget Policy Statement is set in the context of a range of historical events and statistics that have set the basis of where we are at this point in time. I shall refer to a few points from the speech of the “myth-buster”, the Hon Ruth Dyson, who spoke about the myths that she thought needed to be busted for the New Zealand public. I will talk about some of those things myself, because we find ourselves in the context of a number of historical events, both positive and negative. I say to the member that we start from a position of low Government debt—18 percent of GDP. That is a good thing, and I acknowledge that. Let us look, for the benefit of New Zealanders, at how we arrived at that debt. If we go way, way back to 1984, we see that we had a debt to GDP ratio of 78 percent to 80 percent. In fact, we have reduced our debt as a percentage of GDP from 80 percent down to 18 percent, over a period of progressive governance.

Hon David Parker: It was 60 percent—you’ve even got that wrong!

CHRIS TREMAIN: I say to Mr Parker that the biggest drop in the ratio of debt to GDP over that period was in the 1990s, so getting to a period of having one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in our history has been a result of the work of a number of Governments, over time, with the biggest single drop in the debt to GDP ratio occurring in the 1990s. We are in a good, positive position, and it is the result of progressive government.

The second point, which is a positive point that we have reached, relates to unemployment. We have come from having low unemployment levels of 3.5 percent. Once again, we arrived at that position over a period of time through progressive government. Let us understand that through the 1999 to 2008 period we had one of the largest periods of economic growth in a generation—economic growth that was driven by businesses. The former Minister the Hon Ruth Dyson has the cheek to stand up and say that Labour drove unemployment down as a result of its policies. What a load of rubbish! It was businesses that employed people. It was businesses that did the hard yards, with owners who put their houses on the line to make sure they could employ people. It was businesses that took this country to the point of having the lowest unemployment. So we did start from a positive position.

The other thing in terms of the positive side is that we started with a fiscal stimulus package that has come ahead of those of other nations. We saw a huge spend in the 2008 Budget, and we saw tax cuts that were forced on to Labour in October of last year. Those tax cuts formed the basis of a strong fiscal stimulus package, now added to by this Government. So on 1 April 2009 we will see, very positively, one of the largest fiscal stimulus packages around the globe—among the top five nations. Once again, members opposite will say they did all of that. The guts of the matter is that we have a strong fiscal stimulus package going forward, which puts us in an excellent position.

We on this side of the House have been very prudent in the way we have gone forward. We have said “Actually, we are in a good position. We don’t want to engender huge levels of debt for future generations.” Members from the other side stand up and say we are not doing enough and that there is not enough going on. In fact, reports from the IMF state that we are in a good position going forward, we have structured our fiscal stimulus package well, and we are in a great position. There are some good positives there.

On the negative side, to counter the Hon Ruth Dyson’s point, we have weak projections going forward and we have inherited two chronic deficits. We have two huge deficits going forward. Firstly, we have the balance of payments deficit. As the Minister of Finance, Bill English, said, in 1999 we came in with a balance of payments deficit of 5 percent of GDP. That has grown to 9 percent of GDP over a 9-year period. It has been fuelled by debt, which has fuelled consumption-driven growth over that 9 years. That puts us in a very difficult position, and we need to address that. It is a tough place to come from.

Secondly, in the 2008 Budget we saw a turn-round—as Bill English said. It was the first time for a number of years that we moved from surpluses, to a period looking at deficits going forward. So we have inherited two chronic deficits: the balance of payments deficit and certainly the Budget deficit going forward. We have the positives and the negatives. But also going forward there are some other global trends we need to take account of, in terms of looking at where the Budget Policy Statement is going. There is definitely continued uncertainty out there and we are still not sure where the junk loans are going to end up and where all these other financial derivatives are going to drive us to. World growth projections are continuing to worsen, and our key trading partners are showing severe economic decline. As we have seen from the IMF, world exports have declined by 7 percent. These are tough economic times that will require a Government that is looking forward, considering our current situation, and putting forward sensible solutions.

That is what this Government has done. We have come in under the John Key - led Government. He has got to the plate quickly, put in his Cabinet, and had a 100-day plan, which included some key initiatives to drive our economy forward. Included in those initiatives was immediately getting that tax cut policy on the agenda. Opposition members say we should have pegged back the tax cut policy. In fact, we saw that policy as a key part of our agenda of giving people the incentive to get out there and to get ahead. So we will make sure that that tax cut policy continues.

We have driven other initiatives, such as the small and medium enterprises package. I have been fortunate to be on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, helping to steer that package of initiatives through the House. We have looked at the way we deal with provisional tax for small and medium enterprises, the thresholds for GST and legal fees, and fringe benefit tax thresholds. Again, they are all positive initiatives focused on the “engine room” of our economy: the small businesses that make up 95 percent of our businesses. We are focused on that and on taking that forward. So, all up, that is a $480 million package.

The Hon Paula Bennett came out with the ReStart package, immediately we got into Government. It is a package—she announced today—that 1,245 families are already benefiting from. Again, we are stopping the impact of the recession on those families, and helping them through it—1,245 people are benefiting from it. The job support scheme and the 9-day fortnight are also coming into play. The Prime Minister said here today that Fisher and Paykel Appliances have been able to take up that 9-day fortnight initiative. Three-hundred and twenty jobs have been protected by that initiative. Opposition members say it is disappointing that 100,000 people are not benefiting from it. Actually, we do not want people to use it if they do not have to; we want people to stay in employment. That is the guts of it. Opposition members do not get that. They actually want people to be unemployed; we do not. On this side of the House we want people to stay in employment. This initiative is a safety net that will be used only if it has to be. I can tell members that companies are not going to be racing to the trough to take it on. Companies will take it on only if they very much have to.

I will close my speech by talking about a range of other initiatives, particularly investment in infrastructure—$500 million was spent on transport, and $142.5 million on roads. It is great to see two roading projects in my own electorate within the Hawke’s Bay—the Matahōrua Gorge and the southern expressway extension—which, again, are providing local jobs and local incentives to help New Zealand get through this recession, to blunt the edges of this recession, and to provide a platform for us to grow, going forward. I am pleased to stand today with this Budget Policy Statement and to recommend it to the House. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): One issue that I agree with most members of the House on is that there is not much doubt that the world is experiencing the worst financial crisis that has been seen in more than one generation. Indeed, the level of financial turmoil in international financial markets is unprecedented during my lifetime and the worst since the 1930s. It differs from some of the other financial crises that have been seen in recent decades—the likes of the Asian financial crisis—in that it pervades the whole world, rather than just parts of the world. It truly is significant.

It is against that background that we are today considering the Budget Policy Statement. It really is true—as one commentator has said—that the tectonic plates of the world economy are moving. I think that is quite a powerful phrase—and it is true. It is at a time like this that Governments should be leading. Governments should be leading countries to position themselves to take advantage of the changes that come from movement in the tectonic plates of the world economy and to avoid the risks that open up through those changes.

This Government has unfortunately not yet moved from Opposition mode to Government mode. That is another statement that commentators have quite accurately made. They have pointed out that the National - Māori Party - ACT Government is still in an Opposition mind frame and has not yet taken on the mantle of leadership that is required of Government. It is not for Government members to take pot-shots at others at the moment; it is for them to take responsibility for governing the country and to position New Zealand as it ought to be positioned to take advantage of the changes in the world economy and to avoid the risks that await those who do not prepare or properly take account of those changes. What saddens me is that in official documents we have acknowledgments as to the soundness of the fiscal position the current Government inherited from the previous Government, but it is denied in the public utterances of the National Government members.

I will mention just two matters that are contained in the Finance and Expenditure Committee report on the Budget Policy Statement and will quote from it. Before that committee the Minister of Finance acknowledged “that the Government started with a relatively low level of debt at 17 to 18 percent of GDP, whereas some other countries started going into recession with gross debt at about 40 to 50 percent of GDP.” That is the first and the most fundamental difference between the position of New Zealand now and the position that New Zealand was in when Sir Roger Douglas and David Lange inherited the books from the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon’s National Government, which left the economy in tatters. Now we have low Government debt as a proportion of GDP; then it was very high. That is a benefit that the current National Government inherited.

The other benefit it inherited was one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world. In recent years New Zealand’s rate of unemployment has been the lowest or second-lowest in the OECD. We have been flipping with South Korea for the honour of having the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. Even at the end of last year unemployment in New Zealand was running at 4 percent when in most OECD countries it was a lot higher. Again, in the official document—the Finance and Expenditure Committee report on the Budget Policy Statement—National members acknowledge this. They do not acknowledge this benefit in public discourse when they try to say they have inherited a difficult set of events, but in the official document they are forced to acknowledge it. Again, I will quote from the report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee: “The Minister noted that the Government started from a position of low unemployment and that Government forecasts do not predict New Zealand reaching the same levels”—of employment, that is—“as the United Kingdom and the United States of America.”

One of the changes happening here is that we are seeing the relative wealth of nations change. Even if the National Government completely mucks it up, as it may well do, New Zealand will rise in the OECD rankings, because other OECD countries are on their way down the rankings and will pass us on their way to the bottom. The National Government cannot take credit for that. It will try to, but the reality is that over the next few years, even if the National Government does nothing, New Zealand’s ranking in the OECD will improve. Countries like Great Britain and many others in Europe, and the United States, which clearly has problems, are declining in their economies more than the New Zealand economy is suffering recession. Those countries already have high levels of Government debt. In some cases it is already at 50 percent of GDP. Huge deficits were being run at a time of plenty, and as we come into a recession deficits in those countries will be even more difficult to control.

When we listened to Bill English today, not once did we hear him remind the public that in recent years he was calling for tax cuts to fuel the very fires of debt-funded consumption that he now criticises. In recent years we heard a call from the National Party for “tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts”, at a time when Mr English knew those tax cuts would have been spent, and would have further inflated the property bubble, which would have further increased levels of private debt—which I acknowledge are a problem in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Then in an election year, you guys did them too.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I beg your pardon, I say to Mr Coleman?

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: In an election year, you guys decided you’d better do them as well. What was that about?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, we did. That is right, I say to Mr Coleman. We agreed to tax cuts that were counter-cyclical. We did not agree to tax cuts at the time when the economy was booming. We agreed to tax cuts when the economy was coming into a slower patch. That is how tax cuts ought to be managed, not as that member’s party proposed in recent years.

Let us also look at where risks and opportunities lie, and at what the Government is doing. The Government says it is trying to position New Zealand for economic growth as we come out of this recession. What has it done? It has cut the research and development tax credit. We are one of the few OECD countries that do not have a research and development tax credit. The National Government cut that. The Government says we have a problem with too much private consumption, fed by increasing levels of debt. I agree that that is a problem. What is the appropriate response? It is to encourage people to save more and consume less. What has the National Government done? It has cut KiwiSaver tax credits so that it can redistribute tax cuts on another front, giving more money to the already wealthy at the cost of low and middle income people. The way the Government has distributed its tax cuts is, in itself, a bad thing. Perhaps, even more important, the Government cut the tax credit for KiwiSaver—so New Zealanders will not be saving as much. As a consequence, we will have more consumption, less saving, and fewer investment funds available for investment in productive enterprise.

What else has the Government done? It has been trying to spin this line that it inherited a very difficult financial position. I have already dealt with that, largely, but that does not stop National members turning up in this House and trying to blame previous Ministers for some cover-up that they assert has occurred in respect of the accident compensation scheme’s liabilities. The Government had a ministerial inquiry on that, but the inquiry did not prove the Government’s thesis. It did not even get to the point of having to interview the previous Ministers, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen or the Hon Maryan Street, because the inquiry found that there was no ministerial cover-up; it was a mistake by Treasury.

Even after that little fire that the Government tried to ignite was extinguished we then had Dr Nick Smith trying to invent another crisis, by exaggerating problems within the accident compensation scheme. He exaggerated them to such an extent that not just one columnist but the New Zealand Herald through Brian Fallow and John Armstrong, the Dominion Post through Vernon Small, the New Zealand Herald, again, through Fran O’Sullivan, and the Sunday Star-Times through Rod Oram all roundly criticised Dr Smith for trying to invent a catastrophe in order to justify his ends. Indeed, Fran O’Sullivan went so far as to say: “There is a fine line between leveraging the impact of the international recession on the financial health of the Government’s own assets to create what in management speak is often referred to as a ‘burning deck’ to force radical change, and downright chicanery.”

That is one of the things the Government is trying to do. It is trying to hide its own mismanagement of the economy. It is trying to say that it inherited a difficult set of affairs and therefore ought not to be held responsible for its own mismanagement. What else has the Government done? It has cut fledgling industries like the biofuels industry. It has taken steps that will increase New Zealand’s carbon emissions and make the environment worse. That has a fiscal as well as an environmental cost. What will the Government do next? Superannuation is next.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is a pleasure to rise to talk about the Budget Policy Statement for 2009, because we are in extraordinary times. This is a country that is facing the greatest recession of our generation. It is a country that needs good leadership to get through these times of unprecedented economic turmoil. We have exactly that in the National Government and in our leadership from John Key. The National Government is not afraid to make the key decisions that are required to get this economy pumping and moving forward into the future, to save jobs in the immediate future, and to provide for all New Zealanders a future that is brighter than that provided by the previous Government before the last election.

When we look at the Opposition, we see that it started this debate today with Phil Goff. Phil was there, doing his leadership speech, and it was quite amazing to see that the rest of his team was very quiet. Those members were not very supportive, were they? They were just sitting there, watching and listening. They know that he is a lame duck who is sitting there and just waiting his time. They do not care. They are not supportive of Phil. They are not working hard to actually create any issues for the Government. They just want to be seen as being part of Phil’s team. [Interruption] Yeah, they are all waiting in the wings, just looking for the opportunities to take Phil out at the right time. I think that as a leader Phil would be disappointed in his team. He would be disappointed in the way that his team was not there to support him, just as he would be disappointed in the legacy that the previous Labour Government left this country.

The previous Labour Government left a legacy of deficits throughout this country: deficits in our balance of payments, and deficits in what the Government accounts will look like for the next decade or so. When Labour members talk about the deficits that the National Government will encounter trying to get this country through the economic turmoil, it is important to remember that before the election last year, before all the stuff that hit in the world economic crisis, the Labour Government was presenting deficit after deficit after deficit. It was not doing that to build a stronger economy; those deficits were not based on keeping people in work; those deficits were based on keeping the Labour Government in power. That is all they were—they were paying for the Labour Government’s social spending, promises, and agenda.

At least the National Government recognises that there are some issues that have to be dealt with. We recognise that the pain will be extreme in some cases. We recognise that the Government has to be there to deliver some support for people at their time of need. We will borrow to help our country get through this time, but we will not borrow for the wrong reasons. We will borrow so that we can build a stronger country in the end, and so that we can provide people with some kind of comfort as they go through the transition of this economic turmoil.

This country is situated in a pretty good position in comparison with some other countries. I think the reforms that led to that good position were probably encountered by this Parliament 20-odd years ago, when we dealt with some of the issues around our banking and industrial sectors that other modern economies are having to deal with now. New Zealand made those choices about the issues of trade protection, and about having an economy that is open, after the 1987 crash. We went through a long period of pain then, setting ourselves up so that we could get through a situation like the one we are in now. That contrasts with some of the other economies that are our traditional trading partners. They are now having to go through the pain that we went through 20 years ago, in very exaggerated circumstances.

I think that is the real reason why, leading into this crisis, New Zealand is in a better position than some other countries. We had our crisis 20 years ago, and we faced some of those issues about what we need to have a strong economy. To face those issues, we need a Government that will actually follow those issues through and make sure that we have prudent management. That is what was lacking in the last 9 years of the previous Labour Government. The opportunities that were there for the New Zealand economy to grow, prosper, and build itself stronger to take into account any possible decline that might come through an economic downturn were not taken advantage of by the previous Government.

Instead of building an economy that would have been strong enough and would have provided the economic vehicle to get through this downturn, the Labour Party continually borrowed for its own mantra and its own ambitions in election times. That has been the shame of the legacy of the Labour Party. It is a legacy of a party that could have kept New Zealand on that track to get through this situation, but it has created a number of problems that we now have to deal with in Government. When we look at things like the KiwiRail purchase, the unfunded promises, and the blowouts in the accident compensation scheme, we see that all those things are symptoms of a Labour Government that did not deliver what was needed for the New Zealand economy. We have to pick up those issues and, in some cases, we will have to borrow to deal with those issues going forward. That will create further stress on the economy.

The Labour Party left behind a country where exports were weak, household debt was high, and the current account deficit was extremely high. Labour had a number of imbalances in the economy that it supported through its economic management. Now is the time when those things are coming home to roost, and we have to make some constructive and solid decisions around them. That is why the National Party has brought together a fiscal stimulus package at the upper end of the international reaction to the current situation. We have one of the best responses to this economic crisis that we will see around the world. We have a very strong tax cut programme, we have a very strong infrastructure spending programme, and we also have very strong social spending; for example, our ReStart programme, which gives people time to adjust to the changing circumstances they may find in their personal lives as a result of the recession.

The National Party has made the right decisions to deal with this situation since it came into power. I feel that that is the difference between what we see under National and what we would see under Labour. Labour members would not be making the right decisions; they would not be investing in infrastructure, they would not be carrying through the tax cut programme, and they would not be looking after people who need their support to keep their jobs. They would not be doing those initiatives, and the fundamental problem is that that would accelerate the potential impact of the recession on the New Zealand economy. New Zealanders are lucky that they have good, prudent decision-making on a financial basis through the National Party. It will stand them in good stead to make the right actions to try to deliver an end result through the next couple of years. When we look at how households will benefit from the National Party and this Government, we already see lower taxes, lower interest rates, and some lower petrol prices. The National Party is delivering for households. We are making it as easy as possible for people to get through this situation.

Hon Shane Jones: Long-term rates!

DAVID BENNETT: Mr Shane Jones would not take a call on this subject. Even though he was chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee last term, he would not stand up to speak on this. He has deliberately not done anything to support Phil Goff in the last few months, because he is sitting there and waiting for Phil to make a mistake so that he can take over. But Shane’s problem is that David Cunliffe has the run on him. While Shane has been sitting there saying nothing, David has taken over and is building up his numbers in the Labour caucus. Shane will have to be careful, because if he does not watch it then David will get such a lead on him that he will not get the job he wants. When it comes to the fight in the Labour Party ranks after the next election, Phil will be sitting there, and then there will be Shane and David. Who will win? I tell Shane that he needs to do some work now, mate. He needs to get out there and put up his flag. He needs to stand up and talk about his economic vision, because we are not hearing about it. He says that he is part of the Labour Party and that he is following the Cullen-Clark vision. It did not work, and the National Party is making the right decisions for the circumstances now to deliver the future we need.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2009.

Ayes 69

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Purpose

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): At the outset, as we move into the Committee stage of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, I once again reiterate that Labour opposes this bill. But I acknowledge Chester Borrows, the MP for Whanganui, for bringing this bill to the House. We know that the bill had its genesis in discussions in Wanganui about the problem with gangs, and I respect the member for having brought this bill to Parliament so that it can be debated and discussed. However—

Hon Tau Henare: But!

GRANT ROBERTSON: —however—there is a serious problem, I believe, with this bill. It is flawed, because it wants to wish away the problem of gangs in Wanganui rather than deal with the issues that lie behind the problem. We have a serious problem with crime committed by gangs and with violence in our towns and cities, and a serious response to those issues is needed. But I am sorry to say that this bill is a cosmetic response to those issues—literally, in many ways. It focuses on what gangs wear rather than on what gangs do, and that is the wrong approach to be taking.

We have to recognise that people in Wanganui have been dealing with difficult issues around gangs over recent times, but, unfortunately, they are being led astray by this bill. It is not the patches that commit the crimes; it is the gang members who commit the crimes and perpetrate the violence. We need to work on the causes of crime. It is disappointing, in many ways, that we are not looking at some of the deeper issues around crime.

In the Wanganui police district in 2007 there were about a thousand domestic violence incidents, and our attention should be focusing on the causes of those crimes that are happening there. Another major flaw in this bill is that it is piecemeal and ad hoc. It is a well-known fact among the legal community that we should not make criminal law on a region-by-region basis, because, quite simply, all that will do is move problems around rather than deal with them. It is almost like watching an episode of The Dukes of Hazzard or something, where people move to the county line to get away from a particular law. That is not the kind of criminal law—and Mr Bridges knows this from his experience—that we should have in New Zealand. It makes for a piecemeal and ad hoc approach, and it makes for a very difficult law to enforce.

We also know that this bill has significant issues in terms of definition. What is gang insignia? What is significant about the colours that gangs wear? Are they a significant part of their being and their role? Of course, we know that it would be completely impossible to ban a colour—to ban the colour red or the colour blue—from the city of Wanganui, yet we are trying in this bill to find a way to define insignia. I do not think that that will be able to be enforced in a way that can be meaningful.

We also know that the bill enables particular public places in the Wanganui area to be identified as being areas where gang insignia is not allowed to be worn. That is of concern to members on this side of the Chamber, because we know that the areas that will be targeted will be the central city areas—the areas where the Wanganui City Council would rather it could put the problem of gangs out of sight and out of mind. The areas that will not be targeted are where there are problems with gang violence—places like Castlecliff, Tawhero, and other such places. We know that this approach will simply enable the problem to be shifted out of the central city, out of the minds of the people of the Wanganui District Council, and, unfortunately, into the lives of people in those areas.

We also know that this bill was opposed on its first reading by the ACT Party. That was an interesting position to take—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What did Rodney say?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Rodney Hide actually had some very interesting things to say, I tell Mr Mallard, and I will take the opportunity to quote him, from his April 2008 speech. He said “I am so pleased that Mr Chester Borrows has relieved me of the obligation of voting for this shocking Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. I said that the ACT Party would vote for the bill to go to a select committee. We could never vote for its third reading,”.

Mr Hide made some very good points in that speech about the fact that the concern we have about gangs is not about what they wear; it is about what they do. But Mr Hide has subsequently decided that his position has changed on the bill, and he said this on Television New Zealand’s Back Benches show. His position has changed as a result of a deal over the “three strikes” bill. Once upon a time the ACT Party was dealing with this issue on principle, but now it has moved on and is prepared to trade away those principles—about freedoms and rights—to be able to get its “three strikes” bill through.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): This bill prohibits the wearing of gang insignia that endorses, supports, or identifies a prohibited criminal group, as defined by clause 4, and as contained in a related by-law. The penalty for wearing such gang insignia is a $2,000 fine and confiscation of the patch, and there is a power to arrest for non-compliance. Aligned with this power is the power to stop and search vehicles in a public place, or vehicles that have travelled through a designated banned insignia area.

The previous Attorney-General, Michael Cullen, reported unfavourably in respect of the bill with a number of concerns, but I am pleased to report to the Committee that advisers now confirm that the vast number of those concerns have been addressed by changes made by the Law and Order Committee, with the help of the Labour members, of course, who showed some significant concern about, and interest in, this bill. They put their minds to it and some changes were made. Of course, changes are also made by the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled in respect of tattoos.

A number of concerns were raised about tattoos, and the committee was split on this issue. Labour members, with the support of New Zealand First, insisted that tattoos be considered gang insignia, so the National members, who voted against that, were voted down. Accordingly, Supplementary Order Paper 12 deals with that particular issue. The point is that tattoos should not be considered gang insignia, on the basis that somebody who has been tattooed, but who now wants to comply with the law, could be prevented from entering specified places, depending upon where that tattoo was. For instance, it would not be easy to cover up a tattoo on the face or one that was visible on the body, without creating further intimidation.

The purpose of the bill is to address intimidation of members of the public by gang members. It is all very well for the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, to talk about this bill’s superficial actions or superficial intent in respect of gangs. The point is that we are talking about addressing the problem of people who feel intimidated by members of the community who wear patches. We are talking about people who are forced to live among patched gang members or their associates. We are not trying to deal with the whole gang problem in this particular bill, and the previous speaker is quite right in suggesting that to try to do so in this legislation would be superficial or ad hoc. But we are not trying to do that. This bill is just adding to the sheaf of legislation in respect of gangs that the National Government has brought forward in the last few months. And the Labour Party actually supports it. So it is a matter of just adding to the legislation, rather than trying to address the whole problem.

If the previous speaker’s point is that a little piece of legislation like this will not address some significant amount of offending, we have to remember that no legislation on our statute book actually prevents offending. We have laws against murder, rape, and arson, but people still murder, rape, and burn things down. The point is that this legislation is trying to deal to one particular issue, and that is the intimidation that people feel when they are surrounded by patched gang members.

I was speaking to the Mayor of Wanganui this morning. He has been in the isolation ward of the children’s wing of Wanganui Hospital with his daughter who is sick. He has been there for 6 days. This morning he walked out of his daughter’s room and saw a patched gang member walking down the corridor of the children’s wing of Wanganui Hospital. It is not as if the Mayor of Wanganui was intimidated by that, but the point is what are we doing having patched gang members within our public buildings? For goodness’ sake, what are we doing having patched gang members in the children’s ward of Wanganui Hospital?

Some concern has been raised as to who could be included in the definition of “gangs”. I draw clause 4 to the attention of the Committee. Under its definition of “gang”, it names specific gangs: “(a) Black Power, Hell’s Angels, Magogs, Mothers, Mongrel Mob, Nomads, or Tribesmen;”. Clause 4 goes on to describe a gang as “(b) any other specified organisation, association, or group of persons identified in a bylaw made under section 5”. Clause 5 refers to gang members, associates, or supporters individually or collectively promoting, encouraging, or engaging in a pattern of criminal activity. Members of the Daimler Club who happen to wear insignia on the back of their embroidered jackets will not be listed as gang members, and could not be listed as gang members, under this bill.

Another point to make is that the good people of Wanganui have taken it upon themselves to take responsibility for something that exists right across New Zealand, and that is the abusive nature of gangs, their behaviour, and the behaviour of their associates. This is common in every large city, in every provincial city, and in every reasonable-sized town within our country. The people of Wanganui have used the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002, enacted by the Labour Party when in Government, to bring this legislation before the House. They have a right to do that. If the Labour Government never intended that to happen, why on earth did its members not put in the Act that it was outside the scope of that Act to bring in criminal legislation to apply within a region? This is just democracy.

The point made by the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, was that criminal law should not be done region by region, but we have a couple of very good examples. One of them is our law relating to curfews, which was imposed initially in Te Kūiti, and was gradually rolled out around the country. Another one is the liquor ban legislation. It was brought in to deal with the problem at New Year’s Eve in certain areas, and was then rolled out around the country. It is an example of criminal legislation that was enacted for one particular region, but was then rolled out around the country and taken up by other areas.

Yesterday morning the headline on the front page of the Wanganui Chronicle stated “Man killed with axe over red hoodie, court hears”. There is a depositions hearing, and it relates to the death of Paul Kumeroa, who was not a gang member, but who, on 23 September last year, was walking down the street while wearing a red T-shirt. He was set upon by a carload of patch-wearing Black Power gang members and beaten up. He was thrown to the ground and hit over the back of the head with an axe, and he died 2 days later. That is the nature of gang activity within our provincial towns. No doubt members opposite will say that this legislation would never have prevented that from happening, because he was wearing only a red T-shirt, and it did not have a gang insignia on it—in fact, it was a gang colour, or was perceived as such because it was red. The fact is that if gang insignia had been banned at the time, if the gang members in the car that had been cruising around Castlecliff for some time had been tipped out—because of their gang insignia—by the cops, using the powers that they will have under this legislation, that incident could well have been prevented—

Grant Robertson: How would it have prevented the crime?

CHESTER BORROWS: Under this legislation, the whole nature of policing gang members would be that if they were stopped and turned out, if they were arrested, if they were taken—

Grant Robertson: They would lose their patches and they wouldn’t commit the crime.

CHESTER BORROWS: No, that is not the point—that if they lost their patches, they would not continue to behave like that. But they would have been identified, and they would have been aware of a police presence. That is the nature of policing. I am sure that even Mr Robertson can get his head round that.

I want to make a couple of final points. The first one is about the youth survey that was conducted in Wanganui at the end of 2005, and reported in 2006. Young people were spoken to about their city and were asked to address a number of things. When they were asked about things that detract from Wanganui, 49 percent of them listed the intimidation by gangs as their top priority. There were 778 responses to this question, and 382 of them said that what made them feel the most unsafe in Wanganui was gang activity. The Wanganui District Council, having placed this issue before its population through a referendum, had an endorsement from that referendum to produce this legislation. The process requires that a local bill go out for public consultation. Having received no submissions—

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I have tabled some amendments to this legislation, and I will discuss them as they arise. However, I want to address clause 4, “Interpretation”. Is that what we are debating?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, we are on clause 3, “Purpose”.

METIRIA TUREI: Mr Borrows has set out some interesting propositions about this clause. I take exception to his trying to gain sympathy from Parliament by talking about the personal circumstances of the Mayor of Wanganui. That is not relevant to our discussion or our consideration of whether the citizens of Wanganui should be subject to legislation that severely restricts their freedom of movement.

One of the other cases that Mr Borrows raised concerned a young man who was beaten to death for wearing a red jacket. This bill makes that kind of violence more likely, rather than less likely. If this bill had been enacted, those gang members in the car simply would not have been wearing their patches as they roamed around, looking for a means to commit acts of violence. They would not have worn their patches. They would not have been stopped by the police. The police would have had no legal justification for stopping and searching them, and, therefore, there would have been no restriction on their movements. Those gang members would have found anybody who looked like another kind of gang member—in this case someone wearing a red jacket—and attacked him.

Part of what this bill will do by removing gang patches as a form of identification is to encourage gangs to use other means to identify themselves. Colour will be the primary means by which gang members identify their affiliation to a gang. Gang colours are part of the identification process already. We have yellow for the Killer Bees, red for the Mongrel Mob, and blue and black for Black Power. Interestingly enough, a lot of the white gangs, like White Power and some of the motorcycle gangs, do not have colours or patches—

Simon Bridges: So this is racist as well, is it?

METIRIA TUREI: Yes, it is racist law. Those gangs will not be subject to this legislation. Nothing in this bill will impact on those gangs, because they do not wear gang patches. They have bald heads, or they have big boots. They will not be identified. But for those gangs that do identify themselves by colour, colour will be the primary means of identifying them. Gang members will be roaming around the countryside, looking for their gang enemies who are wearing the colours I have mentioned. This provision will put the citizenry of the whole country at greater risk of the kind of violence that Mr Borrows has just set out. I do not know whether that was an understood consequence of his legislation when he put it forward, but that is how it will be dealt with by gang affiliates and gang members. They simply will not wear their patches. They will revert to colours instead. Anyone who unknowingly wears gang colours will be much more vulnerable to gang violence across the country, not just in this one city.

I also note that there is nothing in this legislation that prevents the by-law from covering every single public area of the Wanganui District. In fact, this legislation could apply to every part of the Wanganui District. It does not restrict itself to city areas. It does not restrict itself solely to public places where the community congregates. In fact, it could cover every street, every paddock, and every place that the council has any control over. The entire region could be covered by this legislation. Effectively, that means that the discriminatory aspects of this legislation will then apply to any person going in or out of the Wanganui region. I assume that the Mayor of Wanganui City intended that to be the case. That is the kind of person he is and the kind of intention he would have. He would do his best—and I think Chester Borrows might have been involved in this—to keep from the public the fact that the entirety of the Wanganui region would be subject to this by-law.

People are subject to the criminal consequences of this law, even if there is no signage that tells them that there is a law affecting that particular area. Someone could commit a criminal offence by just driving through the Wanganui region. A person with no knowledge of this bill would still be subject to the provisions of it, and that could lead to a $2,000 fine. That is a significant breach of the human rights of New Zealand citizens.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I would like to focus on the purpose of the bill, which is to prohibit the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district. The Wanganui District is looking to specify places. There is not much difference between this legislation and the liquor ban legislation that local authorities have successfully embraced country-wide. It has been a huge success up and down New Zealand. We can go to public places and families can take part in New Year celebrations, and not feel vulnerable around people who are drunk. That is because of liquor bans in public places. This bill is no different from that sort of legislation whereby a council is taking an opportunity to keep its community and families and children safe. Good on you, Wanganui!

The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district—that is, the Wanganui District. But I say that other districts throughout this country will look to adopt this same legislation. The one problem with this bill is that it does not have a schedule whereby other local authorities can add their names to it and do the very same thing as Wanganui. I say, “Good on you, Wanganui! You are leading the way in making sure that you keep your community feeling safe and not so vulnerable, by prohibiting the display of gang insignia.” The definition of “gang insignia” does not exclude words—because words are also symbols—that might be related to a gang.

This legislation relates to specified places—unlike what was stated by the previous speaker, it does not apply just anywhere and everywhere. This is similar to the liquor bans implemented in specified public places in the district. If one reads the purpose—and I put it to Opposition members that perhaps they might like to actually read the purpose—it relates to specified places in the district. [Interruption] Look, we can tell! Members opposite are supposed to be focused on the purpose of the bill, but all the previous Opposition speaker could do was talk about another political party. He could not even focus on the purpose of the bill. I would be very interested to hear what Opposition members understand the purpose of the bill to be. Of course, this is a part of the nanny State complex that members of the Opposition have whereby they want to try to control everything and not allow communities to instigate their own forms of control and to act to safeguard themselves. That is what Wanganui is doing, but, oh no, the Opposition does not like that. It wants absolute control and to be the absolute arbiter of everything. I say “Good on you, Wanganui. You are taking proactive steps to look after your community, and you have the ability to do that through this local bill.” This is something that everybody—including all councils throughout this country—will be watching with interest to see what the outcomes are from the purpose of this bill, in regard to constraining the wearing of gang insignia in specified places within the district.

Although this bill is for the Wanganui District Council, there will be councils up and down the country that will look to the outcomes from this bill and want to do exactly the same thing in their district.

Grant Robertson: Make it a Government bill, then. Why isn’t it a Government bill?

SANDRA GOUDIE: Maybe that member might like to take a call—

Moana Mackey: He already has!

SANDRA GOUDIE: Well, he has, but he did not actually know what the purpose of the bill was. He did not focus on the purpose of the bill; he talked about other political parties. He might need to take another call to show the Committee that he actually has some understanding of it.

The purpose of the bill is commendable indeed. Wanganui is not alone in this problem. This problem is occurring in other urban environments, in other residential areas, and in other towns and cities throughout the country. That is why, in my view, this is going to be just one of the first steps for other local authorities around New Zealand.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Dearie me! Five minutes can seem like a very long time sometimes.

Paul Quinn: Do you people ever have any other sort of introduction?

MOANA MACKEY: I say to Sandra Goudie that when Paul Quinn is sitting there looking embarrassed, one knows that one is on the wrong track.

I commend Chester Borrows, and the Wanganui District Council, for this bill. We believe that local bills should go to select committees and get a fair hearing, particularly in relation to issues as important as gang matters. But I am afraid that that is where the Labour Party support for this bill ends, and it is for the simple reason that it will not do anything and it may actually cause more problems than it solves. I have great respect for Chester Borrows but I was bit disturbed to hear what I thought was his criticising of a patched gang member for being in hospital visiting his sick child. I hope that is not what the member was saying, because he comes from a party that would be very quick to jump to its feet and criticise any patched gang member who abandoned his child in hospital, and who did not visit that child in hospital. So I find it offensive that we are now saying that patched gang members should be kept out of hospitals and prevented from visiting their children and meeting their responsibilities as parents, because they are doing that—they are. I want to know whether Wanganui Hospital would be part of the area included in this bill, because what matters is what gang members do, not what they wear. This bill will do nothing.

Chester Borrows then stomped on his own argument quite nicely when he pointed out a recent case and said that this bill would be good because it would identify gang members, and when those members were in a car the police would be able to pick them up. But of course under this bill it would just be a car of people not wearing anything that identified them, and police would not see what they may have seen before. Previously people may have rung in to say that they had seen gang members, so an unintended consequence of this bill could be that that may now not happen. I think that the member promoting the bill has stomped on his own argument quite nicely in that regard.

His points about tattoos also highlighted the complete “unworkability” of this legislation.

Sandra Goudie: Oh, rubbish!

MOANA MACKEY: Sandra Goudie, the brains trust over there, says that is rubbish. Maybe she should listen for 5 minutes before she opens her mouth. Most people would tell her that the facial tattoos that gang members wear are amongst the most intimidating gang insignia there is. Of course, this bill will not cover that. Chester Borrows is putting up an amendment to say that, and I understand the reasons why he says it is not workable. But the fact is that we are taking away only some insignia. Some gang members will like the fact that they have now been made even more illegal—they are even listed in an Act of Parliament now as being something that society hates—and there will be others who will simply take off the patches, wear the colours, wear the bandannas, and go about doing exactly what they have always done. This Government has nothing in place to deal with the actions of gangs; it simply wants to deal with what they look like.

I want to know what the ACT Party thinks. What do Rodney Hide and Heather Roy think? At the time of this bill’s first reading Heather Roy said in the press: “The move to outlaw gangs, their patches and tattoos is nothing more than a ploy to give the appearance of action—a ploy that will yield no results or benefit to New Zealand society in the long-term struggle to deal with the country’s gang problem,”. I agree with her 100 percent. So why is Heather Roy now turning around and voting for this bill? I will tell members. It is because the ACT members have done a deal. They know that this bill will not work. They know that it would cause more problems than it solves. They know that because we do not know what areas these by-laws will cover, the rich parts of Wanganui will probably have by-laws banning gangs and the poor parts of Wanganui will not have these by-laws. But those areas will be areas where there are the kids that are most at risk of becoming gang prospects. Chester Borrows can shake his head but does he know that will not happen? I ask Mr Borrows where the by-laws will be. He does not know. It is exactly right that he does not know. We may end up in a situation whereby business owners in the areas that do not have the by-law have to deal with an influx of gang members in their areas. I ask Mr Garrett whether that is fair for business owners in those areas.

Should we not perhaps be doing things that actually solve the issue of gangs and that deal to gangs, like the proceeds of crime legislation that this Government is letting just float around? We do not know what the Government is doing with that. Why is that legislation languishing on the Order Paper when it would actually do something to deal with the financial base of gangs, and might actually do something to help us eliminate gangs? Why are we dealing with this flimflam bill that does nothing more than deal with what gang members wear and does nothing about what they do? I hope that Mr Borrows will take another call and answer that question.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): It is excellent to be speaking on this very good bill, the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, put forward and guided skilfully through the House by the excellent member of Parliament for Whanganui, Chester Borrows. As I understand it, he is the only member in this House who has been a police officer and has dealt with these issues on the ground. It is very, very good to have his expert words and practical experience on this bill, as well as his ability to guide it through the House.

I want to do something novel at this stage, and actually talk a bit about the purpose of this bill—seeing we are debating the purpose clause. I noted what Grant Robertson, the member on the other side of the Chamber, said. He said that this bill had some problems in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. On this side of the Chamber we take the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act seriously. We take it very seriously. We did not act like the previous Attorney-General, who did not even issue a report on the Electoral Finance Act. We did not railroad that Act through. We take rights seriously. It is good to see that in the purpose clause we are no longer talking about the prohibition of the wearing of gang insignia. We have taken note of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and some of the criticisms in that regard. The bill no longer prohibits the wearing of gang insignia; it merely prohibits the displaying of the insignia. So people will not be in breach of the law if a gang patch is worn underneath their clothes—that makes the bill more “bill of rights friendly”, and I think that is a good thing.

I want to talk about tattoos, as well. There are some extreme ironies on the issue of tattoos, because before the election—and I am sure I am right—Labour wanted tattoos included in the bill. Labour was in favour of criminalising the issue of gang insignia tattoos. I said at the first reading of this bill and I say again that it is something that we needed to consider, and that we have considered. We will be putting forward amendments. The reason why we got rid of tattoos in this bill is very clear. It is common sense. Tattoos are permanent; they are not transitory. One cannot, at least not with any ease, take them off. My father-in-law lives in England, not in New Zealand. He, as a 21-year-old man after a few too many drinks, had some Welsh leeks tattooed on his forearm. He cannot get rid of those, at least not with any ease. So it is right that we do not include tattoos in this bill.

This reminds me of a case I was involved in—on the peripheries, with a witness in the case. I think he intended to have “mongrel” tattooed across the top of his forehead, but he missed out the “r”, and it was “mongel”—there you have it. He will not be criminalised by this bill because we do, unlike Labour, take the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act seriously. We have an Attorney-General who is very much concerned about these issues, and who is doing an excellent job.

This bill and its purpose represent democracy in action. It is an example of the people of Wanganui bringing forward an issue that they are feeling strongly about. Chester Borrows is listening to the people of Wanganui, its mayor has been listening to the people, and we now have a bill that, as I understand it, the public of Wanganui were 65 percent in favour of in a referendum. We are respecting the views of ordinary people in Wanganui, and it is not difficult to see why when we hear Chester Borrows talk about some of the very real and very serious gang issues in this city. As Mr Borrows said, just recently the Wanganui Chronicle reported that the court heard that a man was killed with an axe, over a red hoodie. There are serious gang issues of intimidation and the like, and much worse in this case—a murder. What this bill does, what its purpose is, and what it achieves is the banning of insignia in a specified locality of a city. I come back to some of the things that Grant Robertson was saying.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I have been invited by Labour to stand and state our position on this bill. I have to say that it is not easy to do, because there has been considerable debate among our party, among our supporters, and among our caucus, on our position on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill—and for very good reason. I am afraid that as much as I like and respect my new colleague Mr Bridges, I cannot agree that it is a good bill. It is not a good bill for a number of reasons. It is not a good bill because it does not clearly define what gang insignia is. It is not a good bill because it does not spell out exactly which areas in the Wanganui District Council district can be designated as gang-free zones.

Before continuing, I would like to take up Ms Turei’s point. I find it rather saddening to have to say, for about the fourth or fifth time I have spoken in this House after Ms Turei, that it would be very helpful if she actually read the bill that she was debating. She just stated that there is nothing in the bill that prevents the entire Wanganui District from being designated a specified place. I thought she had trained as a lawyer—I did so. If the member read clause 5(5), she would see that it specifically states: “A bylaw must not be made under subsection (1)(a) if the effect of the bylaw, either by itself or in conjunction with other bylaws made under subsection (1)(a), would be that all the public places in the district are specified places.” So there is one point that is completely incorrect, and it would be very, very helpful if those who were going to debate this would actually read the bill.

The second point that Ms Turei made that I am afraid I must take issue with, and quite strongly—and I will explain why in a moment—is this absolute nonsense that the bill is aimed at Māori gangs. The bill specifically refers to a number of gangs, including Hell’s Angels, the Mothers, and the Magogs. During the adjournment week I was contacted by text by one Shagger Gilmour—he was stupid enough to write it—of the Magog Motorcycle Club. He made some fairly carefully veiled threats to me over speeches I had made on this bill earlier. Shagger is a senior member of the Magog Motorcycle Club, which, despite his claims to the contrary, is either entirely, or at least mostly, a white gang. He claimed, although he would not name who the member was, that a Māori had been a founder member for 32 years, and he suggested that I in fact knew nothing about it and had never been there. I named a few of the members and he went a bit quiet. Hell’s Angels is also wholly, or almost wholly, a white gang. So the claim that this bill is aimed at Māori gangs is absolute and utter nonsense. Perhaps Ms Turei, during her next call, may wish to refer to Rooter Johnson, Smasher Harris, or whoever is a Māori and a member of those named gangs.

But I get on to the guts of the bill. As I said, I am afraid I cannot agree entirely with my colleague Mr Bridges, or, I am afraid, with my colleague Mr Borrows. There are a number of things wrong with the bill. It will not make a noticeable difference to the criminal activities of gangs. It will not, sadly, make much difference to their presence in Wanganui. I have to say, in all fairness, that I agree with the point made by Ms Mackey and others—and, again, I feel rather bad about having to say this—in relation to the killing of the young fellow with the wrongly coloured hoodie: the bill is likely to cause, and not to solve, that kind of confusion.

The bill is a measure of the desperation of the Wanganui community. They have had enough. As a society we have been frozen in the headlights, like a possum or a deer, for 30 years, over what to do. Norm Kirk—well before Mr Hughes was born, I suspect—said he was going to take the bikes off the bikies. It did not happen, so we have had the problem since at least 1972.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): That was a very interesting speech from David Garrett in the Committee stage of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. It was very difficult to work out whether the member was supporting or opposing clause 3 of the bill. I ask Mr Garrett to just indicate whether he opposes or supports it.

David Garrett: Support.

SUE MORONEY: Oh, OK. When Mr Garrett spoke on the purpose of the bill, he said it was a very bad bill. I thought that meant that he was going to oppose this particular clause—the purpose of the bill. I think he is quite right; the purpose is actually wrong. The intent is right, but the purpose of the bill is quite wrong. It aims to prohibit the display of gang insignia in specified places in one district. That just will not work.

I congratulate Mr Borrows on bringing this bill forward, because—and I think Mr Garrett hit the nail on the head—people in that town are very worried. They are quite desperate about this issue, and Mr Borrows has made a reasonable attempt to bring something forward to actually address their concerns and their fears. But unfortunately what he is delivering to them will not work, and it will not deal with the fears that they have about the behaviour of gangs in their district. In fact, all it will do is drive the whole gang activity underground. It will create opportunities for gangs as they look for other ways of identifying themselves, of recruiting, and of going about their activities, which we in this House all abhor. We do not want them to continue, but this bill will actually make the situation somewhat worse.

I know that a number of my colleagues have already addressed the issue, but I am particularly worried about the aspect that Mr Borrows himself addressed, and which Metiria Turei and Moana Mackey have spoken about: if gangs are prohibited in a defined area from displaying their insignia, they will find other ways to identify themselves. Another way that they will find—and they already do this—is to just use a colour.

Hon Member: They do it now; they do it already.

SUE MORONEY: Exactly. That is what they do already. So I say to Mr Borrows that I am sorry, but incidences like the example he gave about the young man being murdered because he was wearing the wrong colour in the wrong place at the wrong time, and because there was gang activity going on around him, are actually likely to increase under this bill. The gangs will not just go away. They will not just stop their activity because of this bill. Because of the way that they operate, they will need to find a way to indicate who they are and where they stand, and to continue their activity. They will do that—

Sandra Goudie: Oh, for goodness’ sake!

SUE MORONEY: Well, Sandra Goudie thinks that the gangs will go away. She believes that this will somehow stop gang activity. It is a nice thought—it is a really nice thought—but it is completely naive, I am afraid.

Gangs will wear colours, and the wearing of a red hoodie—or a blue hoodie, or any piece of clothing; it need not be a particular style of clothing—will take on even more significance if this bill is passed than what it already has. The colour will be what identifies that the gang is present and its activities are continuing.

Sandra Goudie: Another one who hasn’t read the bill.

SUE MORONEY: Well, I actually have read the bill. Mrs Goudie might be interested to know that from time to time I sat on the Law and Order Committee while the submissions were being heard on this bill. I saw and heard a number of people who were very involved in the issue of gangs, not because they were gang members themselves but because they were involved in policing gangs and trying to mitigate the effects of gangs on the community. Invariably they came forward to say that this is a nice idea, but it will just not work. It is not that simple, and, in fact, it might inadvertently drive up the wrong kinds of behaviours.

The intent of this bill is correct, but I am afraid that the purpose is not.

Sandra Goudie: Read the purpose.

SUE MORONEY: I will read the purpose out. Sandra Goudie seems to want it read out to her. It is very simple; it is one sentence, not like a bedtime story: “The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district.” It will not work.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I do not have too much time for the Mayor of Wanganui, but I do have a lot of time for people who try to put things right in their own communities. When we talk about insignia we are talking about images. We are talking about images that intimidate people and that over a period of time have grown to be an image of intimidation. They are not only images of ownership—they mean a lot to the Mongrel Mob and to Black Power and any other gangs—they also have a meaning of intimidation to the general public. That is what the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill tries to stop: the intimidation and the scaring of the community. That is what this bill tries to do. I think that to say it is racist because other gangs may not be captured by this bill is a wee bit wrong. The image of a Hell’s Angels jacket or a Filthy Few jacket—the insignia of those is just as intimidating to some people as that of Black Power or the Mongrel Mob.

Before we get too hung up about Black Power and the Mongrel Mob, I make a humble plea to my cousins and my whanaunga—who undoubtedly are members of both the Mongrel Mob and Black Power—that it is time to give it up.

Sue Moroney: This won’t make them give it up.

Hon TAU HENARE: This bill will not make them give it up. A bill outlawing anti-Semitism will not make people give it up. A bill outlawing the Ku Klux Klan will not make the Ku Klux Klan go away. Those hand-wringing liberals over there want just to wave a wand and hope that it will all go away, but there are people on this side of the House who live with it every day in their own whānau and in their own communities, and have been trying for the last 30, 40, or 50 years to do something.

I remember when the storm troopers were alive and well in South Auckland, where I grew up. My uncle Jim, who was the last leader of the Māori Battalion and who brought them home, could not understand why these young Māori people were wearing Nazi helmets with a swastika on the back. He could not understand it. My plea is that this is just a little step, this is just a step by the community of Wanganui to say that it has had enough of being scared in its main street and it has had enough of being intimidated. That is my plea. It might be a humble plea and it might fall on deaf ears, but the fact remains that if people do not try, then we will not get anywhere. If people do not attempt things in their communities, with Parliament’s assistance and Parliament’s say-so, then we are all doomed, for if we do not allow communities to govern themselves, we surely cannot help them to govern themselves. That is all this bill does: it allows Wanganui—or Whanganui, as the case may be—to try to deliver something for its own community with the help of the biggest court in the land, the House of Representatives.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I thank the member from across the floor for the impassioned speech. I have to first start by drawing out the commonality that existed there. Of course members on the Opposition side of the Chamber wish to see an end to gangs in our communities; there is no dispute there. Of course we wish to see an end to the intimidation that comes with gang membership in our community. I find it quite insulting when members on the other side of the Chamber try to create a division between members by claiming that we on this side do not know about the impact that gangs have. I find that insulting. I think there is awareness across all parts of this Chamber of the issues that gangs bring to our community. The sticking point is what will work, and that is the bit I want to dwell on.

But first, before I go on to that, I say to members that the member who represents ACT rose to his feet earlier and gave quite a harsh speech against the bill. He obviously has quite strong feelings—and I respect that, particularly because they are in line with my views on the bill. But still, Mr Garrett has clarified for us that ACT will, in fact, be voting in favour of this bill, and he has done so already. I think that probably highlights to the rest of the Committee the sacrifice he is willing to make in exchange for the “three strikes” bill. We already know that the reason he has openly spoken out against this bill but has still chosen to vote for it is that the ACT Party does not wish to see its “three strikes” policy fall to the wayside, and voting for this bill is the sacrifice that ACT is willing to make. The evidence for that is the 5-minute speech that Mr Garrett has already given.

We have already spoken of the symbolic nature of this bill, and some further evidence of that is the fact that this bill has not been adopted as a Government bill. If it was as sound as members across the other side of the Chamber claim it is, why is it not a Government bill? If, in fact, we are going to see this measure brought in in a piecemeal way, I look forward to seeing the member from Coromandel introduce a bill like this one for her region. I look forward, also, to seeing the member from Tauranga introduce a similar local bill. In fact, I am very happy to speak to the local councils in those areas to see whether they would support those members in such moves.

There has been a lot of crowing from the other side of the Chamber, calling for us to read out the purpose of the bill. I am very happy to do that now—as Ms Goudie has pleaded with us to do. The purpose as stated in the bill is: “This Act is to prohibit the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district.” Looking beyond that, we have to ask why Mr Borrows has chosen to put that purpose into the bill. What is he trying to achieve? He is trying to change the impact that gangs have in his community. And what is that impact? It is intimidation. What does that intimidation come via? It is via crime, violence, and all of the things that stem from them in a community. So there is an underlying reason beyond just the simple purpose of the bill, and that is what we are attempting to achieve through that purpose.

But the patch alone actually bears no relationship to intimidation and crime; those are what a gang member does. A Brownie does not create fear in a community; what she wears does not create fear. If someone is wearing a gang patch, it signifies to the people in the community that that person is involved with other things: that the person is involved in violence, crime, drug rings, and other things. This bill does nothing to change the gang activity that creates the intimidation. We know it is the intimidation that Mr Borrows is trying to change; we have to acknowledge that.

A gang patch is not the only signifier that someone belongs to a gang. We have already heard a discussion around colours. Colours are a major signifier that someone is a member of a gang. If Ms Goudie chose to visit my part of the community—Huntly, for instance, or Ngāruawāhia, where the Bloods and the Crips have a presence—she would find it is not a gang patch that people wear to signify their membership of a gang, it is a colour. It is blue and it is red. I would like to ask Mr Borrows whether a secondary impact of this bill will be that colours will be banned. I anticipate that he will stand up and say that that is not what he intends. What will stop gangs from simply reverting to colours that also hold representation? Just to make the point again, I say that if Ms Goudie was walking down the street in Coromandel, I doubt whether she would be intimidated by any one person wearing a shade of blue in the street. Yet that is one of the colours that some gangs choose to wear.

So what, again, is it that people would be intimidated by if someone happened to be wearing blue or—make a leap—a gang patch? It is more than the patch that is the problem, and that is what members on this side of the Chamber have been talking about. What are we doing to tackle the underlying issues that cause people to fear gangs? This bill does not address that, and that is what members on this side of the Chamber are calling for.

We have also talked a little bit about the impact of tattoos and the fact that there has been some debate about the possible inclusion of tattoos in the bill. I respect the point that was made both by the member from Tauranga and also by Mr Borrows that a person who has tattoos—perhaps through previous membership of a gang—but then chooses not to affiliate with that gang deserves to have the right to move on, and therefore tattoos should not be included. That again highlights a fact: a tattoo in itself does not actually represent the lifestyle that comes with gang membership, and the member does not wish to punish those who choose to move on from the gang lifestyle. What we should be targeting is the lifestyle that comes with gang membership.

Sandra Goudie: She’s not targeting anything!

JACINDA ARDERN: I can see Ms Goudie is very confused by the depth of the argument that I am presenting. She does not quite understand where I am going with this, because it is not symbolic and simple. It is not simple, because we recognise that tackling gangs, tackling crime, and tackling the crime that gangs perpetrate are not simple things to deal with.

Sandra Goudie: Hello! Get with the programme!

JACINDA ARDERN: I know it is complex. I ask Ms Goudie to stay with me; she might actually learn something.

We also need to ask whether, if we are not to include tattoos in this bill, that does, in fact, encourage tattoos being used as a means of substitution for patches. If I am no longer allowed to wear a patch when I am in certain parts of Wanganui—we are not sure which parts they are; not all parts, I imagine, but probably just the affluent parts—and I am not allowed to wear a T-shirt or a jacket on my back, do I tattoo myself instead? Is that considered to be acceptable within the provisions of the bill? I find it hard to draw that distinction. I think this highlights how difficult the workability of this bill will be.

Mr Borrows has also pointed out there has been a recent crime tragedy in his own community, when an individual was attacked for wearing a colour in and around a gang area. Again, we have touched on the issue of reverting to colours. This bill will encourage more incidents like that, because soon gangs will not look for patches. They will look for the colours that represent patches, which will put members of the community at greater risk and make them more vulnerable if they simply walk around in a colour that could be identified with any number of these gangs. We have to be honest about that.

In fact, I have seen some uncertainty from across the Chamber about this bill. That is not about its intentions. Again, I must highlight to Mr Borrows that we support the intention of this bill. We support the fact that Wanganui is trying to tackle the issue, but we believe that we have to go to the heart of the issue and that this bill does not do that. In fact, some National members have raised that. Richard Worth, in 2006, said that efforts to ban gang patches, although well intentioned, may in fact—

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

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): We are debating clause 3, the purpose clause. I raise two issues in connection with the purpose clause. The first is around the comments made by Chester Borrows about the intent and purpose behind the bill. He said that the bill was about addressing the intimidation that people in Wanganui were experiencing. Although I can certainly understand and sympathise with that point of view, the problem is that the intimidation will not go away when the patch goes away. In the end, this bill is, as stated in the purpose clause, about prohibiting the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district. If this bill is simply about prohibiting the display of gang insignia, it will not achieve the intent that Mr Borrows mentioned. Intimidation comes from the people who are wearing the patches and the actions they undertake.

Once again, we see that the purpose of this bill is, unfortunately, cosmetic. It is about the clothes that people wear, not the actions they take. I spoke earlier in the debate and quoted from a very interesting and very good speech made by the Hon Rodney Hide in the first reading. He said: “The concern that we have about gangs is not about what they wear; it is about what they do.” That was the view of the ACT Party when this bill was first debated—

Charles Chauvel: When they were liberal. They were the liberal party!

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right—when they were the liberal and principled liberal party. Mr Garrett spoke earlier in the debate, and he appeared to say that the bill was bad. He identified a number of areas on which he agreed with speakers from the Labour Party, but he confirmed for us later that ACT members will be supporting the bill, which is an extraordinary situation and, clearly, quite different from where they were. They have done a deal on the “three strikes” bill.

I return to the question of the purpose of the bill and the notion of addressing intimidation. In a sense, not only does this bill fail that intent—in terms of not actually addressing intimidation, because it does not and cannot address the actual behaviour and attitudes—but it also simply shifts that intimidation around the district. As the purpose clause states, this bill is about prohibiting the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district. This bill will enable the Wanganui District Council to specify those places by by-law. We know that the places specified will be central city areas. The council will certainly look at those areas, and possibly one or two other areas. The specified places will not be in suburbs like Castlecliff, where there is a lot of gang tension. In effect, the origins of the intimidation will not be addressed by this bill.

The purpose clause is not only about specified places but about specified places in the Wanganui District. That is one of the great limitations of this bill. All it does is move the problem around rather than try to address the underlying causes behind it. The overall intent of Mr Borrows in bringing this bill to the House is one we can all understand. We know that he did it on behalf of the Wanganui District Council, and that the people of Wanganui were interested. Obviously, Labour voted for the bill to go the Law and Order Committee for the very reason that the people of Wanganui deserve to have their concerns heard. But now that the bill has reappeared before us, the Labour Party is not able to support it because its intent and purpose will not be met. The bill is flawed and unfortunately offers false hope to the people of Wanganui—false hope that, somehow or other, this legislation will start to limit some of their problems.

I do want to say some positive things about Wanganui. It is a great city. It is a thriving community and has a thriving art sector. It is a city that people should visit. It has a beautiful river and a beautiful environment that people can enjoy. It is difficult for me to stand here and talk about Wanganui in a negative light, but that is, in a sense, what this bill is making us do. The people of Wanganui are being given false hope by a bill that is simply cosmetic and does not try to deal to the deep, underlying issues of attitude and violence.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: The people of Wanganui actually want this bill.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I tell Dr Mapp that the people of Wanganui want some solutions to the problem of gangs, and they are being given false hope by a bill that simply will not do anything to address those underlying issues. It is a cosmetic response to a serious problem. Everybody in this House who has spoken in the second reading and Committee stage debates has said that this is a serious problem that needs a serious response. This bill is not that.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): I too will take a short call on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, because I am deeply worried about it. I congratulate Chester Borrows, the member for Whanganui, on bringing it to the House. As the member for Rotorua no more, I understand that the member is trying to fight the good fight for Wanganui and is convinced that the people of Wanganui want a solution to the problem. Well, this is not the solution. This is flawed legislation, and the lawyers on the other side know that. If the Minister of Police, Judith Collins—I am pleased she is in the Chamber tonight—looked at the community safety order bill for Rotorua and at this bill, she would start to see that people want a solution. I admire Mr Borrows for bringing this bill to the House, but I am sure he knows—as I knew in Rotorua—that this bill will not solve the problem.

The purpose of this bill is flawed, to begin with. The purpose clause states: “The purpose … is to prohibit the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district.” Well, how crazy. We in Rotorua also sat down to try to specify which bits of the district we were concerned about, as I am sure that Mr Borrows has done with the Mayor of Wanganui. How do we solve the problem by saying that an insignia can be worn in one area but not in another? It is a bit like the Mayor of New York’s broken windows campaign, which pushed everybody out of New York. Judges outside New York said that they hated the legislation because all the criminals of New York had moved out into their patches, and they did not want that. They thought that the criminals could be better managed more centrally in New York. It is a very principled issue that we are trying to grapple with here tonight, and this bill is absolutely flawed.

As we all know, there is a stigma attached to gang insignia. Our mentioning and naming of the gangs will make them so proud. The gangs will be emblazoned in the law. They will just change their names. We have the Killer Bees down in Wanganui now. I bet they are there and they will change their name to something else that we cannot predict as soon as they see their name mentioned in this legislation, and we will be back within 5 years looking at this flawed and faulty legislation. I heard Simon Bridges say that 65 percent of Wanganui’s people want this bill. Of course they want solutions to community and social problems in their city.

Simon Bridges: They believe that this is the solution.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I say to Mr Bridges that I do not believe that they have even read the bill, because it is so flawed. I do not believe that the member, who has a good, solid knowledge of the law, could honestly put his hand across his heart and say that this is a fantastic bill. In fact, if the member thought that then he would go to the Minister of Police and ask her to fix the situations in Rotorua, Rodney, Wellington Central, and across the country. Chester Borrows could hold his head high and say that he had the oyster in the shell that got a bit of sand in it, that he got the argument going nationally, and that he actually fixed the problem of dysfunction in communities and in society for the rest of New Zealand. Good, sincere attempts to fix things locally do not fix things nationally.

What about the good people of Pātea? Gangs will move to Pātea because the going is not so tough there. Is that really what the region wants? The purpose of this bill is fundamentally flawed. It is a very sincere attempt, but there is no way I can support this bill simply because it is faulty law. I am sure that the good Minister will be looking for solutions in towns throughout New Zealand. This is certainly not the right tool to use.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Before I call the next member I will make a little comment. From time to time this House gets a bit tied up over the appropriate name of members. The member in the chair is “Borrows” not “Burrows”. He has not asked me to do this but let us just try to get it right for his sake, seeing as he is the member in the chair.

Hon Steve Chadwick: My apologies. I would be the first to make that point myself.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, that is fine. There is no great angst about this matter.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): Every now and again in this Chamber, along comes a mighty fine bill that looks thoroughly good and rational, but it cannot work. The question is whether the assembled 122 members of Parliament in this Chamber will rise and say that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill is a good idea but it will not work so they cannot pass it, or whether they will hang their heads, shift their eyes a little to one side, and say that Chester Borrows is a good guy and Wanganui is a good city so we should pass this bill knowing that it will not work. That is really what is in front of us. We have a choice of either passing legislation that everyone knows will not work, or not passing it.

It seems to me that the appropriate thing, and certainly the principled thing, is to say to Chester Borrows and to the people of Wanganui: “Yes, we understand that you guys have a gang problem. You don’t have it on your own but you have one and it’s a baddie. Yes, we understand that members of the public are being intimidated. Yes, we understand that the majority of the people of Wanganui want to have some action, such as this legislation.” In fact, if I was asked to support this legislation without understanding what it meant, I would go for it myself. But we are lawmakers and our job is to understand, or to try to understand, as ordinary folk—I am no lawyer—the effect of the law and to make a judgment on behalf of the people of Wanganui, and the people of New Zealand, as the case may be, as to whether it is good legislation. This is not good legislation. That does not mean that the member for Whanganui, Chester Borrows, should not have brought it to the House. I might well have done the same thing. I might well have tested the will of Parliament and I might well have taken this bill to the House to raise the issue of intimidation by gangs in Wanganui or elsewhere. I might well have done that. But there is a difference between putting a bill in front of the House, and deciding that it will be part of our statute. There is a difference.

In this case, this legislation should not become part of our statute and there are myriad reasons why not. The first reason that comes to my mind is that gang names will become creatures of statute themselves. For goodness’ sake! Should we have the Mongrel Mob or Black Power written into our statute book? I do not think so. The second reason—the one that has been alluded to by earlier speakers and I think matters most of all—is that this legislation, if passed, will give false hope to the people of Wanganui, because it will fail. Let us follow that through. When it does fail—and in a minute we will explore how it might fail—are the people of Wanganui not entitled to say: “What the hell did you pass that legislation for? We have had a look at the debates, and at least some members of the House said it would not work. It didn’t work. You passed it. You set us up. We thought this legislation was going to achieve something and it turns out it didn’t.”?

Let us explore why this legislation might not work. Again, plenty of speakers have given lots of speeches on why this legislation might not work. I will make just one point. Let us imagine that this bill moves into law on any particular Tuesday. Come Wednesday, a group of people who used to be members of a gang can put on their boy scout scarves and wander up and down the street, without their insignia, menacing people. If that does happen then no doubt someone will try to test the legislation in court. My best guess is that it will not catch them. We would then have a situation where the gang members, who are supposed to be the bad guys, have just put it up the authorities. They will have gone to court and won, and we think this is a good idea? I do not think it is remotely good; I think it is an outrageous idea.

I would prefer to take the approach of a National member of Parliament. Let us see what the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power—

Sandra Goudie: Oh, come on! Doesn’t the member realise they’ve got a liquor ban? Talk about liquor bans. What do they do with liquor bans? Exactly the same thing.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will quote—for the “Orange Roughy”—what the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, had to say about National’s ideas to curb gang activity. Let us read a few of them out and see whether they might be more effective in Wanganui and elsewhere in dealing to the issue this bill seeks to deal to. Here is the first idea: “National is looking at changing the criminal laws to: Nominate gang membership as a factor in sentencing.” In other words, membership of a gang will be taken into account—one assumes adversely—as a factor in sentencing. The second idea from National, only 2 years ago, was to “Strengthen the ability of the police to remove and storm gang fortifications.” The gang fortifications legislation was strengthened back in Muldoon’s times. The Minister of Justice is saying that it may need to be strengthened further. Does that sound like a good idea for the people of Wanganui? Let us take a look at the next idea: to “Make it easier for police to intercept gang communications.” This is an issue about privacy and there are some issues around that. But let us say it was easier for the police to intercept gang communications. The police could be ahead of the game much more readily than they would be otherwise. They would be able to get to the gangs’ point of congregation before the gangs did.

Another idea was to make it “an offence to be a member of a criminal organisation.” There is a difference. If a gang is considered to be a criminal organisation, then that, in itself, becomes an offence. That is an interesting idea. It is nothing to do with insignia and nothing to do with what people wear; it is so much more to do with how people behave and whether they cause strife to ordinary folk. “The key”—said National 2 years ago—“is to take the status, the money, and the power off the gangs.” The idea was to leave them their clothes but take off the status, the power, and the money. What does this bill do? It leaves the status. In fact, it enhances it because it makes gang members creatures of statute. It leaves them with the money. It leaves them with the power, including new enhanced powers to dick around the justice system, to wear their boy scout scarves or whatever it is they choose to wear to cause confusion, to lead to a court case, and to win it and have the people of Wanganui say: “What the hell was all that about? Why did Parliament waste its time? Chester Borrows did a good job in taking it down there, but the collective went the wrong way on it.” Well, I am not going to be part of that collective. Labour will oppose this legislation.

One other thing needs to be said about this legislation before I resume my seat. The ACT Party has behaved in a most unprincipled manner in this issue. The ACT Party sets itself up to be the party of principle. Well, in my eyes it is not the party of principle any more. It used to be a party of principle. It had a principled stand on things that I disagreed with—many things that I disagreed with. Now I do not see that it has any principle, at all. Its position earlier on when this legislation was introduced was liberal, or libertarian, or whatever one might expect from the ACT Party. But, no, it has itself a new hard line on law and order. David Garrett wants the “three strikes” legislation through and hopes he can get a deal with National—some sort of quid pro quo—so that ACT members can speak against this legislation but vote for it. That is exactly what Mr Garrett did. He spoke against the legislation but said he will vote for it. That is not what I would expect from the ACT Party. I never expect to agree with the ACT Party, but I do expect consistency from it. That has been the nature of the ACT Party since its inception. It has been consistently wrong, in my view, but it has been consistent. Not any more. Now it has a situation where it will have some members voting in one direction and some members voting in another direction, at least if the ACT members can arrange it and regulate themselves—these regulation busters—enough to get themselves voting in two different directions, just because they think they will have an improved opportunity to get ACT’s “three strikes” legislation through.

I am opposed to this bill, but I congratulate the member on bringing it forward. He is doing what a local member should do, and I think he has done it well. This legislation should not pass, and the ACT Party needs to discover whether it ever wants to be a party of principle again.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): E te Waha Kōrero o te Whare tēnā koe i tēnei pō. Ā, kua tū ake e te Whare nā runga i te āhuatanga o te taenga mai o te Kīngi o te motu, a Kīngi Tuheitia, ki waenganui i a tātau. Ehara i te mea he whānui ngā kōrero engari ko tāku, he mihi ki a ia, he mihi ki te kāhui ariki kua tae mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata o te motu. Nau mai, nau mai. Tēnā kōrua me koutou i hara mai i te pō nei. Otirā, ki a tātau e noho atu nei, kua tae mai a Kīngi Tuheitia, ka mihi ki a ia nā runga i te āhuatanga, koia tērā e noho i runga i te ahurewa tapu o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna. Huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

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

[Thank you, Mr Chairman, and greetings. To the House, I rise to take this brief call to acknowledge King Tuheitia’s presence in our midst and to welcome him on your behalf into Parliament House of the land. Welcome, welcome. Greetings to you two, and to those of your retinue who came here tonight. To those of us seated about in the Chamber, Kīngi Tuheitia, the reigning monarch of the King Movement, and of those who carried that mantel in the past, is before us. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and to us throughout the House.]

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 Interpretation

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Clause 4 is the interpretation clause of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. There are a number of points that I want to raise as we work through the different interpretations in the bill. In this clause we will find the nub of some of the concerns that have been expressed on this side of the House. It is when we start to delve into the meaning of terms such as “gang”, “gang insignia”, and “public and specified place” that we actually find the difficulty for Labour in this bill. The difficulty is not the intention of the bill. As we have already discussed, the intention is one that we can all sympathise with, but in terms of the interpretation, it is a difficult area for us.

Let us start to work through the clause. The first area I will talk about is the meaning of “Council” and “district”. Here “Council” means “the Wanganui District Council”, and “district” means “the district of the Wanganui District Council”. As we have already said, this presents us with a difficulty. By using those interpretations of the meaning of “Council” and “district”, the bill sets up a situation where we are making criminal law for a specific region. Making criminal law for a specific region is a very, very difficult and dangerous area, because all we do at that point is move a problem from district to district. As we have noted a number of times in this debate, the Wanganui district does have a gang issue, as do a number of other districts.

If we are defining and interpreting “Council” and “district” to mean “the Wanganui District Council”, what will the good people of Palmerston North be thinking tonight, when they are listening to and watching this debate?

Simon Bridges: A victory for democracy!

GRANT ROBERTSON: They will be wondering whether, by this bill and by this interpretation, Parliament is simply shifting the problem from Wanganui to Palmerston North. The gangs might even find their way to Tauranga to see Mr Bridges, but a number of problems are created when we create laws like this. It pushes us as a Parliament towards the notion that we can make criminal law on a district by district basis. We have seen internationally that that creates difficulty: it moves crime around; it creates definitional problems about where boundaries are and where they are not. That shows that in the interpretation clause we are, in fact, creating a problem for ourselves.

The next interpretation in the clause is around the meaning of “gang”. We have already heard tonight a number of contributions on this issue. In the bill at the moment, we have a number of gangs named. As has already been said by my colleagues, that is effectively a badge of honour for those gangs. We have already heard stories of people saying: “I want my gang to be in there. I want my gang to be named in the Act. That’s the badge of honour for me.” As my colleague Mr Hodgson, who has recently resumed his seat, said, it is a very, very bad thing to have a part of legislation that names a gang and puts a gang on our statute book. I do not want to see gangs on our statute book. I do not want to see gangs in our communities. This bill is effectively giving them that badge of honour by putting their names into the bill.

Then we move to paragraph (b), which opens up the question of how the Wanganui District Council will define other organisations. In this paragraph, “gang” also means “any other specified organisation, association, or group of persons identified in a bylaw made under section 5”. Well, here we go. The Wanganui District Council is about to start deciding what is and what is not a gang. We will come to that when we get to clause 5 later in this debate. I think that is also an extremely dangerous path for the Wanganui District Council to be going down in trying to define what is a gang. We are already naming some of those gangs, but we are also opening up a separate can of worms when we have to define which organisations are gangs. I think the Wanganui District Council is being placed in an incredibly difficult position by this bill.

Sandra Goudie: It’s their bill!

GRANT ROBERTSON: It might well be the council’s bill, I say to Mrs Goudie, but that does not mean that we as a Parliament should accept every single idea that comes from a district council into this Parliament. Our job is to make law, to stay here, and to show some leadership. We welcomed this bill coming from the Wanganui District Council, and referred it to the Law and Order Committee, but now—

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I am not quite sure how a lecture on what our job is supposed to be has anything to do with clause 4 and the interpretations.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I do not need any assistance. I will overrule that point of order.

GRANT ROBERTSON: The issue that we have here is that we could simply rubber-stamp every bill that came through from a district council, or we could look at it and say that we understand the concerns that the people of Wanganui have, and that we want to try to limit and prevent the intimidation they are feeling, but that this is not the bill to do it. The definition of “gang” in this clause is not a part of the bill that will actually help people. “Gang” is defined here in a way that I think is problematic both because of the organisations named, and also because of the people whom the district council is now able to name. I think that is very problematic.

Then we move on to the interpretation of “gang insignia”, and this really is the nub of the problem in this clause.

Simon Bridges: A great definition. Brilliant.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I will read what it says: “gang insignia (a) means a sign, symbol, or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of, an affiliation with, or support for a gang; and (b) includes any item of clothing to which a sign, symbol, or representation referred to in paragraph (a) is attached”. I can understand why Simon Bridges is so supportive of this particular clause, because it is a lawyer’s paradise to have this definition of “gang insignia”. What do we mean when we say “a sign, symbol, or representation commonly displayed to denote membership …”? What does that mean? Is that a scarf? Is that a T-shirt? Is it a particular coloured T-shirt? A red or a blue T-shirt? What is it?

Moana Mackey: A bandanna.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Is it a bandanna? These are the things that will then be debated and questioned in the courts, giving yet more promotion to the gangs that are associated with some of those things. Fundamentally, this clause gives a false hope that knowing and being able to say what is “gang insignia” will fix behaviour. In the end, people will find ways around it. Once the courts define it as, perhaps, a bandanna or a scarf, we will move on to another item of clothing, another kind of badge, or another colour. It will not help solve any of the problems to simply keep redefining “gang insignia”. Paragraph (b) of this definition of “gang insignia” refers to “any item of clothing to which a sign, symbol, or representation referred to in paragraph (a) is attached”. Well, what will that be?

Hon Steve Chadwick: “I love Mum”.

GRANT ROBERTSON: An “I love Mum” badge, or a piece of embroidery. Whatever it is, we will have an endless round of legal debate on what “gang insignia” actually means. It is not a suitable interpretation.

Then we move on to the definition and interpretation of “public place”. What is a public place? According to the bill, a public place “(a) means a place—(i) that is under the control of the Council; and (ii) that is open to, or being used by, the public, whether or not there is a charge for admission;”, a “road”, or “any part of a public place.” That is very good. We know and we have defined what we are talking about. We are talking about areas in public, but a public place is a specified place. That is the thing. It is a specified place that the district council decides on. That means that the district council will begin looking around. We know that they want to take people out of the central city. They do not want the image of gang patches in the central city. What does that mean? Once again, we move the problem around. We shift the problem, rather than actually trying to solve the problem. We know that the problem will be shifted to those suburbs where there are already gang issues. It will not be shifted to the rich areas of Wanganui; it will not be shifted to the central city. We can guarantee that a specified place under the Wanganui District Council will not include those areas such as Castlecliff where we know there are already gang problems.

Right through this interpretation section we can see difficulties, legal wrangles, and problems that have been shifted from place to place. It is quite simply an unacceptable clause for us to be passing as a Parliament, no matter the good intent of the member who has brought it before us.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am happy to stand up and take a call on this interpretation clause. I agree with a lot of what my colleague Grant Robertson has been saying. I think he has outlined Labour’s concerns about this bill particularly well. I reiterate the concerns that Labour has.

Simon Bridges: Then why is the member talking?

MOANA MACKEY: Well, if National members think that this is such a great bill, why do they not pick it up as a Government bill and make it apply to the whole country?

Paul Quinn: We don’t need to; it’s before us.

MOANA MACKEY: OK, I have to explain something to Mr Paul Quinn: this applies only to Wanganui. Does the member realise that? My point is that if National members think that this is such a great bill, why do they not pick it up and make it apply to the whole country?

Paul Quinn: Because only Wanganui wants it.

MOANA MACKEY: I am looking forward to seeing the survey tabled from Mr Paul Quinn from which he takes the piece of information that only Wanganui wants this legislation. I suspect there is none, because one of the concerns we have about this legislation is this passing of criminal law, district by district. I do not think that that is an avenue we want to go down, at all.

I come to the definition of a public place. Another concern I have about this bill is that we are being asked to pass legislation when we do not know where it will apply in Wanganui. We do not know what the legislation will look like when the by-laws are passed. I congratulate the Law and Order Committee; I think they have done a good job of trying to come up with the best they can for a very bad bill. We do not know where that provision is going to apply. As it stands, the bill basically provides carte blanche to put it anywhere. But I think I know where it will apply. This legislation will not apply in the poorest parts of Wanganui. It will not apply in the parts of Wanganui where people living there are citizens with the least power to oppose this kind of thing. It will apply to some of the wealthier areas—some of the nicer areas, if you want to put it that way—in Wanganui. Once again, we will end up with our poorest communities—those already struggling to deal with the realities of gang activity—having to put up with even more because this legislation is being driven into their area. I want to know how any member of this House can vote for that and say that that is an OK thing to do.

We should be doing a lot more to eliminate the activities of gangs, but pushing them into the poorest parts of our communities, where they can cause even more trouble, is not the way to do it: that is going to make it worse. How will local business people in the public areas where gangs are going to be pushed into, feel, when suddenly some business people in Wanganui are protected from having any gang members but they are not? How will those business people feel when they are not in an area that is covered by a by-law? One of the issues I have with this bill is that we are being asked to pass it without knowing the actual impact that it will have on Wanganui and its citizens. It is very, very difficult for this Parliament to do that, in an area of criminal law.

I come to the definition of gang insignia. We have amendments on the Table that both do pretty much the same thing. They seek to take tattoos out of the definition of gang insignia. We appreciate the reasons why that provision has been put up. It is difficult—

Paul Quinn: You people put it in there!

MOANA MACKEY: Once again, I might have to educate Mr Paul Quinn. On select committees Labour members like to work constructively to write the best law that we can—we do like to do that. We have decided that this is not a law, in its entirety, that we want to support, but that does not mean that we will not be constructive at the select committee and try to come up with the best law that we can.

I do not see the point of banning gang patches if we are not going to ban tattoos. That creates an incentive for people to go out and get their faces tattooed with their gang insignia because they can no longer wear it on their T-shirts. I want to know how that is a good outcome of this legislation. I think that if we were to talk to people, they would probably tell us that they find a facial gang tattoo—an insignia—one of the most intimidating things. I think that that is more intimidating than a red or black T-shirt or a red or black bandanna. If this amendment goes through, we are being asked to pass legislation that says to gang members that they are allowed to go into a certain area with no gang patches except for tattoos—they have to take their T-shirts, jackets, or whatever, off, but their tattoos are OK. So if people want a permanent gang patch that they cannot be made to take off, they can go out and get a tattoo. I do not necessarily think that that is the kind of signal we want to send.

In the end, Labour is voting against this legislation because we do not think it is going to work at all, anyway. But if we are looking at the details of these amendments, I think that that is probably quite an unintended consequence that we should avoid. If we look at the definition of gang, as my colleague has already pointed out, we see that it is a badge of honour to be put up—I will not take much longer, at all, if my call is extended, Mr Chairperson—

Paul Quinn: Promise?

MOANA MACKEY: —unless Mr Paul Quinn keeps interjecting on me, and then I am going to take another 5 minutes after this. He has so much to say. Maybe Mr Quinn might want to stand on his feet and take a call, if he is allowed to—if his whips will let him.

Paul Quinn: I can’t get in; you’re taking up all the time.

MOANA MACKEY: No, he cannot get up. He has been told to stay in his seat and not to say anything. His whips are saying “Your mouth is working for the Opposition; please, just stay quiet.”

If we briefly come back to the legislation, we see that—

Paul Quinn: Why don’t you sit down and give us a chance?

MOANA MACKEY: —settle down, Mr Quinn—it is a badge of honour to be considered, in this respect. These gang names are merely names, but if we think that the only things that matter to gangs are their names and their patches, then we will never come to terms with gang activity in this area.

I am really surprised the ACT Party is voting for this part of the bill. Surely after everything that Rodney Hide and Heather Roy said at the time of the first reading of this bill, this is really where the rubber hits the road for ACT. Do the ACT members, who have voted for this legislation all the way through this Committee stage, really truly believe that this is going to change anything? ACT is the law and order party—it is tough on law and order, so we would think it would be interested in a definition of gangs, gang insignia, and areas gangs will be banned from. Does the ACT Party really believe that this bill will make a difference? As my colleague Pete Hodgson pointed out earlier, there is the bigger issue of whether a libertarian party really believes that people should be told they cannot wear a particular T-shirt. We would think, given some of the things ACT members were saying during the Electoral Finance Act debate, that that would be something they were against.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Or a yellow jacket.

MOANA MACKEY: Or a yellow jacket, for example. Do they really think that banning colours, or anything that might be construed as a gang thing, is something the ACT Party should be supporting? I am very interested to hear what the member Roger Douglas has to say on this issue, because it seems to me to go against everything that party has always claimed that it stands for but apparently—clearly—does not.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Only for some.

MOANA MACKEY: That is quite correct; as my colleague says, only for some. I think we need to be very careful about this legislation. It is full of loopholes—absolutely full of loopholes. If the bill does not have perverse outcomes, it will be completely avoided by the people we are deliberately trying to catch with it. We have other legislation on the statute book. The proceeds of crime legislation should do far, far more to tackle gangs than this ever will. Why is that not being advanced?

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I have an amendment to clause 4 in my name that looks to explicitly ensure that tattoos are not included in the definition of gang insignia. I see that Chester Borrows has a Supplementary Order Paper doing the same thing, and I expect that whichever of them goes first will pass.

I am pleased that Mr Borrows has put forward that Supplementary Order Paper, because we have been particularly concerned that by not excluding tattoos from the definition of gang insignia, Māori, in particular, who have a tradition—an ancient, thousand-year history—of tā moko, will be targeted unjustly by the council and the police through the use of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill.

This is an area where I find Labour’s position on the bill difficult to understand. Notwithstanding that Labour members have said they are opposing the legislation, if we look at the select committee report we see that there is no indication whatsoever that Labour opposes it. The select committee included New Zealand First, Labour, and National members. In particular, Labour and New Zealand First members were concerned to make sure that tattoos were included in the definition of gang insignia, thereby increasing the risk of prejudice and discrimination, particularly against Māori. It would be nice to get some clarity from Labour about what its actual position is on this issue, because it is not clear from the bill and it is a bit difficult to get a sense of where that party is really going.

There is a real issue here about the definition of a public place. I said earlier that nothing prevents a council, essentially, from being able to declare the entirety of the Wanganui district area a specified place, and therefore as subject to this law. Mr Garrett pointed to a provision in clause 5—which I am sure we will get to—that states that the council is not supposed to do that, but nothing actually stops it from effectively doing it.

The definition of a public place includes any area that is under the control of the council, whether or not that area is being used, or is open to being used, by the public. The definition in clause 4 also includes “a road, whether or not the road is under the control of the Council;”. The Wanganui district area is a very large area, and a particularly rural area, so there will be lots and lots of places that the council will not necessarily know about. The council may provide a set of rules that essentially covers the main thoroughfares of the city and the region—the areas that are most likely to be populated—miss out just a few individual roads, but be covered by the provisions of this bill and not therefore breach clause 5, as Mr Garrett read out. But the council would have effectively closed off the entire district.

There is no indication in the legislation of the consequences for the council if it were to close off the entire district. The bill does not state which parts of the council rules would then not be in effect, or whether all of the rules that breach that provision would not then be valid. It does not state that. It does not state how the determination is to be made or who will make it. I know the making of by-laws is restricted, to some extent, and there are controls around that, but nothing in this legislation indicates what they are or what the sanctions might be. So my position—that this bill will allow the Wanganui District Council to effectively close off the entire region and make it subject to this legislation—still stands, because there is nothing that will prevent the council from doing so in a practical or practicable way.

That is a very serious concern, especially when it is placed alongside the power of the police to stop and search vehicles. The provisions, in the main, are about the display of gang insignia in a public place—a public display—so we can understand the logic behind the provision. We might disagree with it, but we can understand the reasoning behind it. But when we start talking about the police being able to stop and search the cars of people who may or may not be displaying gang insignia inside the car, which is a private place—it is not a public place that is subject to the council rules—we ask, then, where in the rules that power to stop cars and search people for gang insignia makes sense, given that the purpose is to stop the display of gang insignia in a public place.

A car is not a public place. The police do not have to know that there is a display of gang insignia in a public place by a person who is currently in a car; they have only to suspect that display. So they can stop the car on any grounds, and what they will actually do in practice—and what Māori know they will do in practice—is stop a car full of Māori. It does not matter what those Māori have been doing—[Interruption]—and Paul Quinn knows that that will be the case.

Paul Quinn: You can call me Paul.

METIRIA TUREI: Well, I have to use the member’s proper name; I am just trying to be well-behaved. The member knows that that will be the case. The Māori members in this House know that that will be the case. The police will simply stop every car that has a significant number of Māori people in it, using this provision, in order to search them. The police do not have to have reasonable cause to stop and search the car; they have only to suspect that someone may or may not be wearing gang insignia, which is a very broad description. There is the kind of obvious gang insignia we all think about, but what about something like a swastika, for example, which actually has multiple uses and multiple meanings? I understand that for a Hindu a swastika is a symbol of love, harmony, intelligence, and strength. But if the council decides that a swastika as a single symbol is a gang insignia, then anybody can be stopped in his or her car by the police because the police have decided they want to search that car for a swastika.

Members might want to suggest that perhaps it would be only skinny, bald guys with big boots who have swastikas. Buddhists do not have a lot of hair. There is just no way that a rule can be set around the display of these things that makes any practical sense, that is properly enforceable, and that is sufficiently constrained so the rule actually meets its purpose. That is where this bill fails the process of making good law that is enforceable, that has a sound basis, and that we know will be enforced in a way that makes sense for the community and deals with the issues in it.

Of course, gang violence is a big issue, but this bill, as we have heard, will not do anything about it. What it does do, which is even worse, is create a great deal of uncertainty in the community about colours, which will lead potentially to a great deal more violence around the wearing of colours. It gives the council enormous powers to outlaw symbols and make their wearing a criminal offence. Some symbols are ancient symbols that have multiple levels of meaning, but the council’s actions will be based on its own prejudiced views about what those symbols might mean and about the people who carry them.

The bill gives the police extraordinary power, which they do not have anywhere else in the country, or even under existing criminal law, to stop and search people in a car whom they suspect potentially of displaying gang insignia, thus giving the police the power to search that car and those people for a great deal of other kinds of things, justly or unjustly.

A large number of court cases will come out of the use of that power, in particular, because it is such a significant extension of the police powers of search without warrant. I know that Mr Borrows has a lot of experience in the police and in the law. He understands how these things are put out in practice. I am sure he knows that police are out there who will stop and search cars full of Māori simply because they can, and in the Wanganui area this bill will make it much, much easier for that to happen. It will lead to perfectly ordinary, probably Māori, men, who would otherwise be entirely law abiding, becoming extremely frustrated and angry with the police, and being subject to extraordinary police harassment for no reason other than that they might be wearing a red jumper, a black jumper, or a yellow jumper inside a car full of other Māori wearing other kinds of coloured clothes.

That is not the kind of law this Parliament should be passing; it is very bad law and very unenforceable law. It will cause enormous problems in the community itself and create higher levels of violence between communities, and higher levels of prejudice, thereby increasing police harassment. I urge this Committee to oppose this legislation for all of those reasons, and for the other reasons we have heard today.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): Moana Mackey wants to know whether the ACT Party truly believes that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill will make a difference. The answer is a categorical yes. If we did not believe that this bill would make a difference, we would not be supporting it, and I would not be supporting it.

Moana Mackey talked about ACT as being a libertarian party. She may not realise that there is a party called Libertarianz, which stood at the last election. We are not that party; we are the ACT Party. We are a party of choice; we stand for choice. In this case, the ACT Party will be supporting a bill put forward by the people of Wanganui. They want this bill, and that is one of the reasons we have considered it and will be supporting it. I say to the sponsor, Mr Borrows, that if 58 members of the National Party vote for this bill, it will be passed into law.

What did Mr Hodgson have to say? He said that the ACT Party is consistent. It might be “consistently wrong”, in Mr Hodgson’s words, but at least it is consistent. Well, I ask Mr Hodgson to cast his mind back to last month. He and his party voted to repeal the Electoral Finance Act, a law that was passed by the Labour Government despite widespread opposition from people throughout this country. What did Labour do less than 15 months after it had passed that Act into law? It voted for its repeal. I tell Mr Hodgson that that is a very smart move. He talked about the ACT Party being consistent; well, if any party has been inconsistent on an issue in the last 15 months it has been his party. Thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): There is no need to look around before giving the call, Mr Chair; no one else is jumping to his or her feet. Mr Quinn over there has been very vocal, but apparently is not confident enough to stand up and give a speech in this Chamber and actually put his words on the record.

That was a very, very interesting speech from Mr Boscawen. It was basically the exact opposite of the speech that his colleague David Garrett gave on the purpose clause of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. Mr Garrett said that this was a bad bill and it would not do anything.

Paul Quinn: He is supporting it. He said he was voting for it.

MOANA MACKEY: He did not actually say in his speech that he was supporting it. We had to ask him afterwards whether he meant he was supporting it. He said yes, but members should watch this space. Mr Garrett pointed out how bad this bill was. For Mr Boscawen to now come to the Chamber and say that ACT thoroughly supports this bill, and would not be voting for it if it did not totally support it, very much contradicts what his colleague said. I suggest that maybe they need to talk to each other a little more before they come to the Chamber and give their position to the Committee. They have shown the complete inner turmoil within the ACT Party about this legislation. The five ACT MPs in this Chamber cannot even get it right, so how will they get it right amongst their members across the country? We know that the members across the country are writing to the five ACT Party members and telling them that they do not want them to vote for this bill, and that they will leave the ACT Party if they vote for it.

I will respond to some questions put by my Green colleague Metiria Turei about Labour’s position on this legislation. I apologise for perhaps not being clear and not clearly outlining our position. Labour will not be supporting the amendments put up by Ms Turei and Mr Borrows, for the reasons outlined in the commentary on the bill: “We are concerned that this might cause an increase in the use of tattoos by gang members to intimidate the public. We do not consider that every tattoo should be covered by this legislation; it should capture only those that denote membership of, affiliation with, or support for a gang.” We think this is a stupid bill and we will not be voting for it.

The Labour members of the Law and Order Committee worked constructively and worked very hard to try to make a very bad bill as good as it could be. The people of Wanganui feel very strongly about this bill. It went to a select committee. We all have an obligation to work as hard as we can at the select committee, which, of course, is where a lot of real work takes place and where a lot of the silly antics that we see all the time on TV do not happen. We feel that if we are going to ban gang insignia, then we really cannot leave out tattoos, otherwise that would tell someone to take off their T-shirt and get a facial tattoo because a tattoo is the one type of gang insignia that is not covered by this bill. We stand by that.

We do not think this bill will work, at all. We do not think it should pass. We know now that Mr John Boscawen thinks that this bill is great, that the ACT Party should support it, and that it fits in. I am sorry that I called his party “libertarian”; I meant “liberal”. It was a slip of the tongue, although I have heard many ACT Party members call themselves libertarians, but that is another issue. We know on the record that John Boscawen absolutely thinks this is a great bill. He thinks it is wonderful and fantastic. He now needs to have a conversation with his colleague Mr Garrett, who said exactly the opposite about this legislation. Mr Garrett, of course, was the star law and order candidate—

Paul Quinn: You said that before.

MOANA MACKEY: I tell Mr Quinn to take a call. He should stop sitting there, chipping away. He should tell his whips that he wants to take a call. He should stand up and say something, rather than just sitting there and yelling at everyone.

Mr Garrett has just come to the Chamber to talk to Mr Boscawen. They can have a little kōrero—a tête-à-tête, kanohi ki te kanohi—over there and actually find out what the ACT Party’s position is.

I stood to respond to the question raised by Metiria Turei. The answer is no. Labour members will not be supporting either amendment, but more important, we absolutely will not be supporting this bill. We do not think that it should go ahead. We think that if every member of this House was allowed to vote with his or her conscience, was allowed to vote the way that he or she believes, and was not being mustered and forced to vote for it like the ACT Party is, then this very bad bill would not pass.

The passing of this legislation will not make anyone safer. Mr Borrows raised the issue of a young man who was murdered for wearing a red T-shirt. Of course, as Ms Turei pointed out in her speech, this bill may make the situation worse. There may be more people out there wearing red T-shirts because they cannot wear gang insignia. How will people who want to go out and cause those people harm know whether the person wearing a red T-shirt is a gang member who cannot wear his or her insignia, or is just someone wearing a red T-shirt? We may see more of these senseless and tragic accidents.

Meanwhile, this bill is a smokescreen for a Government that is not doing anything about gangs. It wants to be able to say: “We passed this bill. Is that not a great thing?”. But it is not passing the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, which is languishing on the Order Paper. It is not doing anything else that will make a difference in the battle against gangs. This bill is nothing but a smokescreen, and I reiterate that Labour will be opposing it. Who knows what ACT is doing?

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of Chester Borrows to clause 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 73

New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 44

New Zealand Labour 43; Progressive 1.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): There is an amendment in the name of Metiria Turei, but it is out of order because in substance it is the same as the amendment we have just dealt with.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Clause 4 as amended agreed to.

Clause 5 Power to make bylaws designating specified places or gangs

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I might just seek a clarification quickly, as part of this call. We are dealing with clause 5, and then clause 5A separately? Is that right?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Can I respond to that. There will be several questions, under clauses 5A, 5B, 5C, etc. They are separate clauses, and there will be separate debates.

METIRIA TUREI: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to reiterate our concern that the council has a great deal of power under the bylaw-making powers in clause 5. The council does have some guidelines, I guess, over how it might identify or define a gang for the purpose of the legislation. There have to be some kinds of general characteristics, such as a common name or identifying signs, symbols, or representations, and the gang’s members, associates, or supporters must collectively promote, encourage, or engage in a pattern of criminal activity. I think there are some real legal issues there relating to how that is going to be defined.

I know that the bill itself identifies some gangs already, including the Hell’s Angels. It is worth noting to the Committee that in the US, the Hell’s Angels took a case against a very similar legal provision that tried to ban them as a criminal gang. My understanding of the outcome was that the Hell’s Angels argued that they were a motorcycle club, could prove they were a motorcycle club, and could not, as a club, be held responsible for the criminal activity of individuals within that club. And in the US—which is not exactly an easy place to deal with these issues—the Hell’s Angels won their case. They were not able to be persecuted—as they might put it—by that legislation.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, they need to be.

METIRIA TUREI: Judith Collins can chatter away on the side. She is not making a reasonable contribution to this debate on legislation that will cause some very serious restrictions to the movement of citizens, particularly through the Wanganui District. I know she can chatter away all she likes, but it would be quite useful to allow the debate to proceed on some kind of sensible line, as opposed to the nattering that is going on.

There are some real issues about whether the legal provisions within this bill are sufficiently enforceable, and whether we can be certain that the council can make decisions about identifying gangs not already listed—I know that the Hell’s Angels are already listed—and not suffer from considerable costs from taking action against organisations that it may want to identify as criminal gangs, but in respect of which it may find itself in court fighting very lengthy and very expensive battles.

Hon Judith Collins: Good!

METIRIA TUREI: I am sure that Judith Collins would not mind paying for those expensive battles, but I do not think that the people of the Wanganui District would be particularly happy about paying vast sums of money to battle these kinds of provisions in the courts.

This is where the bill, I think, fails. It fails because it does not make any difference to what gangs actually do but only to how they look. Again, I say it is very poorly thought out legislation in that respect, because it does not provide any certainty to the council—much less certainty than most other laws that are passed—and it does some give some room for well-resourced organisations to fight this legislation in the courts, forcing the council to spend vast quantities of ratepayers’ money on defending these provisions. If the provisions were better thought-out, if they were narrower, and if the intention of the council was to deal with behaviour, which is more certain and could be more readily dealt with under the existing criminal law, then perhaps there would not be this kind of risk for the Wanganui District ratepayers. But as it is, this legislation provides a significant risk to them.

I again reiterate that the bylaw-making powers provide a loophole for the council, so much so that despite the provision of clause 5(5), it is possible for the council to effectively rule the entire district as coming under this legislation, thereby causing very severe restrictions on movement for people who live in that area—people who are not at all part of any kind of criminal organisation and have no involvement in such an organisation.

PAUL QUINN (National): It is indeed a pleasure to stand here to support and acknowledge the outstanding work that my colleague and friend Chester Borrows has done to get this very worthwhile bill before this Committee of the whole House, through his very hard work with his community in Wanganui. I also want to reflect—and we are talking about clause 5—

Hon Shane Jones: No, wrong clause.

PAUL QUINN: —clause 5—that I am bewildered because speaker after speaker from the Opposition has spent most of his or her time addressing us on the basis that this is bad law. My response to that is that, firstly, those members would know, because they have had 9 years of drafting bad law. At the top of that list was, of course, the Electoral Finance Act, and most of them gave us a “mea maxima culpa”. But also there is the mere fact of their contradictions. Earlier we heard about contradictions from Moana Mackey. When I look at the members of the Law and Order Committee who were responsible for reporting this clause 5 back to the House, I see that three of them were Labour members and that one was a New Zealand First member. I would have thought that that made a majority on the committee.

Clause 5 has come back to the House with the full support of the select committee, including the changes made to the definition and interpretation of “insignia”, “gangs”, and all of that, yet members opposite spend all night saying they are against it. They should make up their minds. Moana Mackey should not give us a lecture on a contradiction in terms. I am bewildered about this. A mythical character called Martin Gallagher was one of the members on the Law and Order Committee. I have never actually met him but apparently he was an outstanding servant of this House. But there are other members who are still here. Darren Hughes sits amongst us. He gave his stamp of approval to this very worthwhile bill that is now in its Committee stage. He gave it full support, yet what do Labour members say now? They say they are against it. Talk about making up one’s mind! Labour members have no idea where they are.

Clause 5 gives effect to the purpose of this bill. I point out clause 5(5) to Tariana Turia and the Green Party. It seems to me that this is another case of someone who has not read the bill, given her previous—I would not call them speeches—comments that this is carte blanche licence to block out gangs from the whole of Wanganui. If members read the provision very carefully, and I will read it to them so that they understand it fully, it states that the effect of the by-law—[Interruption] I know that Chris Hipkins is having trouble with the English language and that he struggles with it from time to time—

Grant Robertson: Take lessons from that member!

PAUL QUINN: I thank Grant Robertson for helping his colleague out. I know that it is all a bit beyond him and that he is still bewildered about being in this Chamber.

Aaron Gilmore: That’s why we need literacy and numeracy in schools.

PAUL QUINN: Yes, but let me read this provision. The member probably cannot lip-read so I will have to speak up so members can hear. Clause 5(5) states: “A bylaw must not be made … if the effect of the bylaw, either by itself or in conjunction with other bylaws made under subsection (1)(a), would be that all the public places in the district are specified places.” So the law states that one cannot carte blanche wipe out the whole town. I am happy to give the Green Party members a lesson in how to read and write the law, but it may take a little longer than we have time for.

Much of what we have heard tonight has been a lot of hogwash—

Aaron Gilmore: Rhetoric!

PAUL QUINN: —rhetoric—opposing for the sake for opposing.The simple fact is that we hear, time and time again, from the Opposition about consultation. I just want to take the members to another subclause of clause 5, subclause (2A), in terms of having to go through a consultation process. The members on the opposite side of the Chamber should be falling over themselves at the lengths that Chester Borrows has gone through to make sure that proper process is followed when these sorts of measures are being considered, and full consultation—

Chris Hipkins: Ha, ha!

PAUL QUINN: Would the member like a copy of the Local Government Act? No? So it is a very democratic process. This is exactly the sort of measure you call for, all the time: “Democracy! We want to see democracy!”. The people of Wanganui have called for this, and you now want to deny them because you know better. I say to you that you should come down from the ivory tower and get down to where the people are—

Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sure the member opposite, as he is educating us, needs to be educated that you are being brought into the debate, and I am sure that you do know better. He implies that you do not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It was hardly necessary to emphasise that. The member just needs to mind his pronouns. I know he is enthusiastic.

PAUL QUINN: I am sorry to have brought you into the debate, Mr Chairperson. As I was saying, time and time again we have had the need for consultation. The people of Wanganui want this to happen, and we are following their wishes. At the same time, it will not be carte blanche. It will not bring everyone into the debate and cause everyone to be wiped off the street, because a process is set out in here and it has to be gone through in terms of the legislation. We have absolute faith in terms of the discretionary powers that allow the Wanganui District Council to do the job that its people want it to do. But if those members are happy to deny them that, then let it be on their heads—be it on their heads.

I now move on to talk about gangs, as they are referred to in clause 5(1)(b) “for the purposes of this Act”. We have heard a lot about gangs, and race, and that this is a racist bill. Again I point out to my friends and colleagues in the Opposition the definition of gangs—some of which are European, but it is not an exclusive list. If the members read paragraph (b) of clause 5(1), they will see that it states, any “organisation, association, or group of persons”. So members can rest assured that it is about people and it is about making sure the proper process is followed, because in the end we want to reduce crime. I know that the members on the opposite side of the Chamber do not want to reduce crime. But this bill is just one measure in the suite of processes that we are offering the people and the police to be able to deal with the gang problem. The irony of it all is that we sit here repeatedly being lectured about gangs by the list member from up north somewhere, Mr Jones, who lambastes us all and does nothing about it, just like the rest of his party in the last 9 years. They did nothing about the problem. National is bringing in a suite of instruments, a suite of measures, and addressing the problem right from the start. Clause 5 is just one of these measures. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia ora tātou. Greetings, Mr Chair. I accept the wisdom that lies behind your ruling that I should wait for a turn and that we should suffer the foolishness of Mr Quinn. I now know that that man, Mr Quinn, is related to Keith Quinn, because when he stood and gave his delivery he reminded me of some of the lesser-known speakers in the Māori world. The tauparapara goes on and on. It disappears into the valleys covered with mist, into the blackberry, into the trees where the tūrehu are, before it finally gets to the point. There was no point—no point whatsoever—in Mr Quinn’s speech. Fortunately, he ran out of things to say before the bell was rung. Mr Quinn came into this House with so much promise, until a small level of due diligence revealed he has single-handedly destroyed Māori rugby. That is why we have so many people being driven to the gangs—because that option has been taken from them.

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I fail to see what Māori rugby and sports activities have to do with clause 5.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): There is no need for this point of order. Let us address the bill, thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES: On page 5, if that member had taken the time to look for just a short period of what is generally just a wasted day on his part, he would see that the Labour members believe that the opportunity should be taken to consider the related legislation in South Australia, and that the bill should not proceed until such an evaluation has taken place.

We know—and this is with particular reference to clause 5—that Simon Power has been to South Australia. He sought an audience with and was invited to meet three or four middling bureaucrats. He eventually got—during a coffee break, I am told, with stale wine—a very short meeting with those who count in that particular state. He would have been told that there are many practical challenges in implementing the statute that South Australia has on its statute book, yet we see a similar provision in clause 5.

I acknowledge that the council is doing the best it can, and I acknowledge that I have quite a bit of time for Chester Borrows. He has brought this bill forward, but he needs to make sure that his old colleagues, members of the police force from Wanganui, when implementing this legislation, do not lose paperwork or hand paperwork containing the names and addresses of enforcement officers to the very same gang that they are trying to chase out of town. Those officers will be cursed with the task of trying to breathe life into the diseased limb, otherwise known as clause 5, of the ailing body, otherwise known as this foolish legislation.

Clause 5(1) states: “The Council may, from time to time, make bylaws … identifying an organisation … as a gang.” But, of course, the definition of a gang is riddled with difficulties—there are signs, symbols, and representations. Gang members may turn up with red hoodies or handkerchiefs, as I have said to my whanaunga Tau Henare. People from Moerewa may be having a holiday in Ngāwhā, or they may be digging kūmara in Kaipara. They need only take a red handkerchief, red toothpaste, or be wearing yellow. If there ever was a dreadful term and a debasement of the Māori language, it lies with the notion of gangs being tribesmen. They are not tribesmen. They are corrupt. They are weak. They prey on our children. They abuse their women. But, unfortunately, this bill will not protect anyone.

According to clause 5, this bill may designate “any public place as a specified place for the purposes of this Act:” I can see great debates already emerging in the courts as the Treaty lawyers move from one trough to another, trying to breathe life into this, and wondering whether a marae or a bit of land under section 439 of the Māori Affairs Act, a trust, or some other sort of reserved land that Māori might have influence over is a public place. Paul Quinn understands that.

Hon Tau Henare: No.

Hon SHANE JONES: No—he does. He understands that space and place are related—and both are absent from his mind, as is evident every time he stands and talks.

But let us bring some seriousness back to this debate. Let us move away from Paul Quinn, who has demonstrated that the more he talks, the sooner and the quicker the people in his party will realise that they have to pay a great deal more attention to their party list compilation next time around. It is a bit like Mr Garrett. He is entitled to bring his views to this House, but the more he speaks about this bill, the sooner we will see their disappearance, which will be a great thing for this House and a great thing for this country.

Hon Steve Chadwick: And a yellow jacket.

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, well there is a point: was Rodney Hide a gangster by dint of his clothing, and by the fact that he has decided to buff up? Was it an act of gangsterism to drop that woman on her head during the dancing competition, and did he derive much pleasure from that? Well, that is for another discussion.

The reality of the matter is that during the course of implementing this failing, defective, foul piece of legislation there will be an opportunity to review the by-laws. But members should think about the costs and about the people who will be unfortunately and unwittingly caught up in this short-sighted, but nevertheless well-intentioned, attempt to stamp out gangs. Costs will go up.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon SHANE JONES: It is well intentioned. It is short-sighted. It is unlikely to work. OK, I accept that people will be required to go around and put up notices saying that people cannot have a gang there, and the council will need to hire security officers. That will be a new stream of jobs in Wanganui. The difficulty, however, with that is that just as dogs visit lamp posts, so the gangs will visit a similar level of attention on those posts. They will need to be replaced, and it will soon become evident that this is not a bill that, once enacted, can actually be turned into effective law.

The reason that the bill cannot be turned into effective law—quite apart from its flaws—is that it has been born out of a dangerous compromise. In order for the National-led Government to continue to enjoy the attention and support of the ACT Party, it will have to vote according to the ACT Party for the successful passage of the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation.

Hon Member: No, no.

Hon SHANE JONES: No, Rodney Hide stood and said that he knew he had abandoned his principles—although he had very few of them to start off with—and he knew that he had said very strong things, but he is now cuddling up under the National Party korowai with his friends from the Māori Party. The funny thing about the ACT Party members, which is why they like this bill, is that they are busily trying to criminalise Māori youth. The Māori Party, for reasons best known only to its leaders, is trying to privatise the misery of Māori youth through having Māori run private prisons. Neither will work. National is in the middle, manipulating both of them.

Hon Tau Henare: Oh, you don’t want Māori to run things?

Hon SHANE JONES: Tau Henare had his chance in 1996. He is my whanaunga. He is up to tahi, rua, toru, whā—whā parties. Of course, we know what the Māori word “whā” means—far too many, e Tau. He has had his chance, e hoa.

Let us come back to other reasons why this bill will not work. Will the signposts be bilingual? If they say “Wanganui”, will it have an “h” in it? It is highly unlikely. I can see Michael Laws trading on this bill as evidence that he is fit to be the mayor of the potential mega-city of Auckland. But he is using this bill for short-term triumphalism. The gangs will simply change their attire, get their whanaunga who are reasonable lawyers, and—as Tariana has already said—pay not a blind bit of notice to this bill and the eventual Act. Of course, the other foolish thing members opposite think this bill will do is to actually change behaviour. All the gangs have to do tonight is to look at Paul Quinn; they do not need to change their behaviour. In fact, it is like a cracked mirror: part of the refraction actually shows a bit of them. No, it will never, ever work.

Why do we not agree with this bill? It is not that we are against the Wanganui District Council and it is not that we are against Michael Laws, although a number of us might think that his pollution on the airways is at an insufferable level. It is because the bill is poorly conceived and is written in a flawed way, and at the end of the day it will not work—it will not. Of course, what will happen for New Plymouth and Palmerston North is the gangs that are really troublemakers will simply move out of Wanganui and take their foul deeds and their vicious ways to other nearby cities. That is why this legislation will never work.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I came to Parliament believing in the parliamentary process, that the executive did not, in fact—as the cynics say—dictate everything, and that the debate in this Chamber was actually meaningful. Since I have been here people both inside the Chamber and outside have laughed at that naivety and told me not to be silly, that I was right in the first place and it was all irrelevant, and that what happened here was all hot air and did not much matter. Well, who would have thought it? I have discovered that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill has proved that the parliamentary process—and by the parliamentary process I mean this House—is relevant. I have been listening not just to this debate but to the earlier debates, and I have spoken in all of them, and sensible things are coming from almost all sides of the Chamber.

There are lots of arguments both for and against this legislation that have merit. On one hand, the people of Wanganui have clearly indicated their desire for this bill—more than 65 percent of them—and that is worthy of respect. I believe that while I was absent from the Chamber someone told Mr Boscawen, my colleague, that we were the libertarian party. Well, we are not. We have a libertarian wing, but we are the party of choice, so we respect the choice of the people of Wanganui. We promote freedom of speech. Many in our party are almost obsessed, I will say, with freedom of speech, but freedom of speech has limits. People cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. People cannot walk down the street with certain things on their T-shirts or they will be arrested. It has nothing to do with gangs. These groups—gangs, or whatever—are criminal organisations whose purpose is intimidation. Much of the recent debate has completely neglected the part of the bill that requires gangs to be identified as being criminal.

But there are problems of interpretation. I am a lawyer. There are problems in defining “insignia” and problems in defining “display”. All of those things are there. We could spend all night on the pros and cons, and the yin and yang. Members opposite have—with fairness and justification—asked where we stand, because we have created a little confusion. In fact, I will take responsibility and say that I have created some. I said at the outset that we were going to listen to the debate. I am afraid I have to say that what Mr Borrows, whom I respect greatly, thought was the coup de grâce—the story of the young man killed because he wore a red hoodie—in fact deeply disturbs me, and I am afraid that in all conscience I have to say that what the Labour members have said about that issue rings true.

So where does the ACT Party stand on this bill? Well, we stand right here. We are listening. It has been a very vigorous debate—probably not quite as vigorous as here— in our caucus and in our party. I am going to be honest and perhaps again prove my naivety and my newness, and say that much of what I have heard tonight from members opposite makes sense. Much of what I have heard from the National side has always made sense. So I wish to keep listening. I think our caucus wishes to keep listening and to discuss and debate what is being said, because the parliamentary process has proved itself in this debate not to be irrelevant, not to be hot air, and not to be controlled by an executive or someone else. Mr Chair and fellow members, our position is this: we will vote in favour of the bill at this Committee stage, but that does not presuppose that we will support the bill at its third reading. The only way we can continue to listen to the contributions from all sides is to vote in favour at this stage, and that is what we will do.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am happy to take a call on clause 5, because it is a very important part of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. The first question I have for the member in the Chair is: how vocal publicly have district councillors been about this bill? This is a serious question. We know that this is a big issue in Wanganui. The mayor has spoken out publicly very strongly about what he wants to do in terms of this legislation, and I assume that district councillors also have spoken publicly about this.

The issue I have relates to clause 5(2), which states: “In making a bylaw under subsection (1), the Council must use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.” Part of that special consultative procedure requires that people show no predetermination of any decision, and that they excuse themselves from any vote on any issue they have spoken out publicly on. I think this might be an issue. It is often the case when councillors do not necessarily know at the beginning that they are going to follow this procedure that they are very vocal about an issue. They then find themselves at serious risk of judicial review when they make a decision. People who do not like that decision may say that it is not fair, that the councillors did not go into it with an open mind, that they did not go into it prepared to consider both sides of the debate, and that they went in with a predetermined point of view.

In fact, judicial reviews can overturn decisions made by councils on that basis alone. I do not say this lightly: currently a case is before the court awaiting the outcome of a judicial review on exactly this matter. It was taken by the Whakatāne District Council against the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. The judge took specific interest in the fact that a number of public statements and, actually, private statements—she was prepared to listen to private statements that were made and conversations between individuals—suggested predetermination by some councillors, and therefore she needed to consider whether those councillors should have to excuse themselves from the vote.

Labour is opposing this legislation. When I read this part of the bill and saw that this particular procedure—which I agree is probably the right one—had been picked out, I thought that there might be difficulties. The council needs to be aware that any appearance of predetermination, real or otherwise, may cause a problem for this legislation and may cause real cost for the Wanganui District Council further down the track.

One of the issues that we have raised is the difficulty under this clause—where by-laws are able to be made to designate certain areas “specified places” where the display of gang insignia is prohibited—of our voting to pass this legislation without really knowing what the shape of this clause will be in Wanganui. It is very difficult because it is very much my concern that the poor communities in Wanganui will not get this by-law. It will be OK for gangs to be in these communities—not the wealthier communities, which know how to go through the council procedures. It is not about being biased against the poor communities. The fact is that the wealthier communities are more likely to, one, know that there is a process going on, two, know how to engage in it, and, three, know how to form a lobby group to make sure their part of the city is included in the by-law. Communities where people do not read the newspaper and may not listen to the local radio, so they do not know there is a process going on, and where, even if they knew there was a process going on, they would not know how to engage, how to interact with the council, or what they are meant to do—and may be too scared to do anything anyway—may feel that their point of view does not really count and that the council will not listen to them. That means it is likely that overwhelmingly the poorer communities will not get these by-laws and gang bans in their area, while areas that are used to engaging with councils and that are used to having lobby groups will be able to have gangs banned in their area. That means that this bill is intrinsically unfair from the start, and I do not think any member of this Committee would say that that is OK. I do not think anyone thinks that is fair; I think this bill should have tried more readily to address that.

If this bill passes—and we are not sure now what will happen at the third reading; who knows—I really hope that the Wanganui District Council makes every single effort available in respect of these council procedures, which are very foreign to a large proportion of many of our communities. These communities will be most affected, and these communities are most at risk from having gangs come in to pick up prospects. The businesses in these areas will be affected. The by-law will undoubtedly make the central city a gang-free area, but these people will be trying to run a business in an area that is not considered to be gang-free.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): I want to respond to some remarks made 10 minutes ago by the member of the ACT Party Mr Garrett, and offer him an apology. I think I was one of those members who said that the ACT Party was libertarian. That was careless language. The member was kind enough to remind us that the ACT Party has a libertarian wing, or a libertarian philosophy. We can probably agree that the ACT Party stands for personal liberty—as we all do—but more strongly than other parties in the House. Probably somewhere around that piece of language we can agree on what the ACT Party stands for.

Mr Garrett also reminded us that the ACT Party does not know what to do. He said that in a very open and straightforward way and I wish to acknowledge that. But the fact remains that the ACT Party does not know what to do; it sets out to listen to the debate in the Chamber and then make up its mind, which is a thoroughly legitimate thing to do, and happens from time to time in the House. But in this debate the ACT Party has found itself on more sides than one. It is small enough that it is difficult to get a split or division within the ACT Party. I am not suggesting that is just within the caucus; I think probably it is wider than that. The member was generous—or frank—enough to acknowledge that within the ACT Party caucus there had been rigorous debate, and I suspect that what he is not telling the Committee, but what I am going to opine, or propose, is that within the membership of the ACT Party there are also some splits and divisions around the merits of this case. And so there should be.

I want to repeat some remarks I made earlier on an earlier clause—clause 3—where I pointed out that the ACT Party had, in my understanding of its management of itself over the years ever since it came to this House, always been consistent. I suppose it is a bit like the Business Roundtable. It is always consistent. One always knows what the Business Roundtable position on this or that will be. In my instance I rarely agree with it, and indeed I rarely agree with the ACT Party position on this or that. But there is consistency in the ACT Party position, and in the earlier days the ACT Party was almost famous for it. It was famous for being a party of principle. [Interruption] It was famous for taking a principled stand on this or that position. I respond to the person who purports to be the member in the chair that I am speaking broadly in response to the broad remarks from Mr Garrett. I just say to Mr Garrett that his party has always, in my view, taken a position that has been predictable and that has been based on principle. I have to say that it has been, in my view, almost always wrong. I have almost always found myself on the opposite side of some debate; but that is politics.

The thing that troubles me about the ACT Party—and in a sense I am lining up the member over this—is that its principled position and coherence appear to be at risk now. I think the ACT Party needs to be very careful about its position on this legislation. It needs to be very careful in particular about whether it thinks a trade is worthwhile, because a trade on this legislation, with all the shortcomings—

David Garrett: There has been no trade. I have said that 10 times, Mr Hodgson.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member might have said it 10 times; regrettably, his leader said on television precisely that there was a trade. So, you see, the divisions within the ACT Party that I am gently trying to lay out can now be laid out a little more assertively in response to the member’s interjection. He is right, but his leader takes an opposite position. Sir Roger Douglas takes a different position again, and Mr John Boscawen, who recently resumed his seat, took—in my view—a fourth position that is not the same as the member’s position. So we have the ACT Party quietly unravelling over this matter.

It is important for the ACT Party to realise—if it wants to be a party of principle, and it is sufficiently small to be so—that unless it operates on principle it will not make any progress at all. It is important for the ACT Party to decide whether the position it takes on this legislation is one of principle or one of convenience. Of course we can all agree that Chester Borrows has done the right thing in bringing this local bill to this House. He has done the right thing in bringing it into this collective—this House of Representatives—for getting it judged. We are the judges, and sooner or later we must make up our minds. Best we do that on the basis of principle.

AARON GILMORE (National): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 5 be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Clause 5 agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call clause 5A, I remind members that this is the Committee stage; this is not a second or third reading. The Committee is, unusually, discussing a bill clause by clause, so members should focus on the clause in particular and give that their attention. Wide-ranging, sweeping statements starting with philosophy, the nature of life, and global geopolitical issues are outside the scope of this debate.

NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National): I seek the leave of the Committee for clauses 5A through to 5F to be taken as one debate, but voted on clause by clause.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for there to be a single debate but voting clause by clause. Is there any objection to that? Objection is taken, so we will deal with this clause by clause.

Clause 5A Signposting of specified places

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is a delight to speak very specifically to clause 5A, “Signposting of specified places”. Earlier in the debate we discussed what a specified place is. A specified place “means a public place designated as a specified place for the purpose of this Act …”. In turn, a public place, as we have already discussed, is “a place—that is under the control of the Council; and that is open to, or being used by, the public, …”. It includes roads—and we have already heard from Metiria Turei tonight about the dangers of such a wide definition of a public place—and, indeed, any part of a public place controlled by the Wanganui District Council. We have, in clause 5A, specified places within the definition of public places—

Sandra Goudie: Specified.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I thank Mrs Goudie for her commentary. It is a very broad ambit for the Wanganui District Council, and now it is asking what the specified places are.

Clause 5A states that specified places have to be signposted. Well, what do we in this Chamber think will become the badge of honour in any gang headquarters in the Wanganui District? It will be one of these signposts. The moment that gang members in Wanganui come across a place where there is a sign that states and directs that they cannot wear their gang patch, the sign will automatically become a badge of honour. In fact, I expect that many gangs around Wanganui will begin a contest to see who can get the greatest number of signposts. That is the problem with this bill: it creates a badge of honour for, and increases the status and mana of, gangs by making their patches something they can choose to use, in competition with one another, to show their pride in being a gang member. The signposts will just become an image of that. I can see that the Wanganui District Council will have to budget an enormous amount of money to constantly replace the signposts that will be torn down, taken into gang headquarters right around the Wanganui area, and used as badges of honour.

The signposting of specified places really serves just to emphasise why this bill simply will not work. We have already said that the intent of the bill is a good one, and Chester Borrows deserves to be congratulated on bringing the will of the Wanganui District Council to us today. But this particular clause shows us why this bill will not work. The very thing that the bill aims to do will be undermined, because, straight away, the signposts will become badges of honour to be ripped down, and away we go again. Under this well-intentioned but poorly-thought-out bill, the Wanganui District Council and the good ratepayers of the Wanganui area will be forced to shell out, time and time again, for signposts.

Subclause (2) states: “No prosecution … and no arrest or seizure under section 7, may be challenged on the ground that a notice was not affixed in accordance with subsection (1).”

Paul Quinn: Problem dealt with.

GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I say to Mr Quinn that the problem is not dealt with. All that provision will do is increase the desire of the gangs to play cat and mouse with the police.

Unfortunately, none of this legislation will change the behaviour of those gangs. This bill is about reducing intimidation, but the intimidation is committed by the people, not the patch. Unfortunately, in this symbolic and cosmetic bill, this is the most cosmetic moment. The signposts will point gang members to where they can go to prove themselves. That will be where they can go to tear down a sign that tells them they cannot be in a place, and to challenge the authority of the Wanganui District Council and the police. This clause is symbolic of the problem with this bill.

I return briefly to the question of a specified place, because I think this is the provision that Labour members are particularly concerned about. The Wanganui District Council will be making decisions about specified places on the basis of the wide definition of “public place”. We know where the specified places will be: they will be in the central city, because we know that that area is partly behind the intent of this bill, and we also know they will be in the rich areas. We definitely know that the poorer areas of Wanganui will not be places where this law will apply. We know that the gang problem will simply be shifted out of the central city area and into the poorer areas of the city. The notion of a specified place under this bill effectively shows the people of Wanganui which areas the Wanganui District Council cares about today and which other areas it does not mind the gang problem continuing in.

Clause 5A should not be passed; it is, in fact, just a signpost for gangs.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I have put an amendment to clause 5A in the pile of amendments on the Table. My amendment is to delete subclause 5(2), which states: “No prosecution under section 6, and no arrest or seizure under section 7, may be challenged on the ground that a notice was not affixed in accordance with subsection (1).”

My problem with this bill is that it is very unusual. It is very different legislation from what we would otherwise find anywhere in the criminal law book. It provides for a particularly serious level of criminal sanction for a comparatively minor act, which is the wearing of a certain kind of clothing. So it is very, very important that not just the people of the Wanganui District but anyone who is driving or passing through the district are aware that within a certain boundary there is a law that provides for a criminal offence that is not found anywhere else in this country, and which has very serious consequences. If the council is able to include a very broad range of areas under this provision so that that criminal offence applies to a very broad range of areas, then it is absolutely essential that in those areas there is signage to tell people that if they wear a certain kind of specified clothing, then they are committing a criminal offence.

Generally speaking, in New Zealand law we have a provision that if something is not legislated against, then it is permitted. There is a great deal of criminal law that is well understood by the community. It has been built up over a number of years. Most of it—some of it—applies equitably across the whole country, so people know that if they are committing a certain kind of offence in Invercargill then it will be an offence in Wellington, Northland, and Palmerston North. This bill, however, is very, very different, because of the by-laws creating a criminal offence. Everyone knows that there are different by-laws around this country, but not ones that are as Draconian as this measure, providing that a criminal offence is committed by the wearing of certain clothes. There should be no excuse for the council being able to impose that kind of restriction and criminal sanction without advising the community—and, in fact, the entirety of this country, really; people from anywhere may find themselves in the area—that they may be subject to those criminal sanctions.

Subclause (2) gives the council an excuse to do nothing. The council need not ever post any signage anywhere if it does not think it is reasonably practicable to do so. It can impose this by-law, impose the criminal sanctions, have the use of the police to back it on this legislation, and not provide any public signage or indication that the criminal offence will apply in certain areas. By allowing for subclause (2), there is a real risk that the community simply will not know that they risk committing this criminal offence and will be subject to it. That is grossly unfair. We are not talking about gang members here; we are talking about people who may unwittingly be caught up in that process.

I know, for example, Michael Franti has a band with a type of insignia that looks very much like the Black Power insignia—the “power to the people” insignia. The band’s insignia is not a gang insignia, but it is very, very similar to it in look and style. It is quite possible for an overwrought policeman—and Mr Borrows must have met a few of those in his time—to get a bit overexcited about seeing something that might look like gang insignia but is not necessarily gang insignia. A person who wears such insignia is potentially subject to police searches without a warrant. If the police do not believe that person—perhaps that person is a young Māori man, for example; and we know that young Māori men are particularly subject to the criminal law under these circumstances—it is quite possible that that young person could find himself or herself being processed before the police come to their senses and realise that, in fact, no criminal offence has been committed. The police might also use this law to stop people, search them, and then find some other reason with which to charge and process them, thereby creating a great deal of hassle and cost for the police, but also creating for such young people—

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): It is important to make a number of points in respect of this particular clause.

Various speakers have spoken about an underlying intent of the Wanganui District Council to somehow ban gang insignia from the areas of the town that are well off and to leave the poorer areas of the town languishing, with gang members allowed to be there uninhibited. When the process of bringing a local bill before the House is initiated, one of the things that have to be done is for a copy of the bill, as intended, to be put up for public display in a number of areas. At the back of the copy of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill were a number of maps, photographs, and street descriptions of where the gang patch bans could be, or are anticipated to be. That information was open to the public, so that they could have some communication on it and give some feedback on their thoughts. If the members who have given speeches on the bill and spoken in such a disingenuous way about the Wanganui District Council and its intent had taken the time and effort to get that document, they would have seen that the spread of the ban across Wanganui is broad and includes large tracts of parks and reserves around the poorer areas of the town. It does not include residential streets but does include council property within those areas.

I think it is also important to note that one of the saddest things about debate in this Chamber is that at times people speak out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand we have people standing up and commending the Wanganui District Council for caring enough to promote this bill: for putting up its hand and taking responsibility. They are saying it is a worthy move and all that patronising stuff whereby people pat us on the head for having done so. Then those people are speaking out of the other side of their mouth—for instance, the Green member who has spoken suggested that there was a conspiracy between the Mayor of Wanganui and myself to hide from the public exactly where these bans would be put in place. Well, people cannot have it both ways. The speech was made before tea, and the suggestion was made that the mayor had done that and that I was somehow part of the conspiracy.

Another point is that time and time again we hear speeches about the disingenuousness of the police in stopping and enforcing laws against young Māori men as a matter of course. I find that incredibly difficult to stomach, given the role that the police take within our society. I am not so green as to be cabbage looking, and I understand that amongst every big box there are a few rotten apples. Where we have 8,500 employees there are those who will abuse any legislation, just as there are now.

A suggestion was also made that in the notified areas cars could be stopped, and the contents tipped out and searched for gang insignia. Of course, cars can be stopped under the transport legislation. They can be randomly stopped for anything—and frequently are. The fact that this legislation enables a police officer to stop a vehicle from which gang insignia is displayed to the public is the nature of the definition of section 2 of the Summary Offences Act. That is where this definition of “public place” comes from, and it provides that people who are in a vehicle in a public place, so defined, are in a public place. When they are in that vehicle, within this legislation, the gang insignia would have to be visible in the banned area from outside the vehicle.

It is important to make those points. Yes, we do accept that from time to time rules are bent and rules are broken. That is the nature of human life; it is the nature of living in a society. But let us get back to the point. These people in Wanganui took legislation—the Local Government Act—and used it in a way that it was intended for: to be able to create legislation that deals with a problem that is not only theirs but is a problem broadly across the whole of our country. Those of us who represent constituents understand that that is true. The people of Wanganui have put up their hand, accepted they have a problem, and have taken some flak for that in bringing this bill before the House.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I thank the member who is sponsoring the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill for taking that call. I hope the Chair recognises that the speech was slightly wider than clause 5A and that we may be able to respond in kind. I thought it was good that the call was taken, but I say to Mr Borrows that the speech was much wider than clause 5A, and we were specifically asked to keep our speeches to that clause.

I will respond to his speech, because it was never implied that the Wanganui District Council wanted to attack poor communities. The reality is that there are many communities in our society, I say to Mr Borrows, that will not read that bit of paper. They will not read it. They will see it and will have no interest in it. They will not know that it is relevant to them. They will not necessarily know the impact it might have on their community. I was simply saying—and I hope this is not going to be politicised as my saying that the Wanganui District Council hates poor communities, which I never said—that for something as serious as this, the council needs to ensure that those communities that are going to be affected really understand what the by-law means. That is simply all I was saying. I appreciate that the Wanganui District Council had its draft by-law proposal, but we all know that there are many people in our communities who will not read that piece of paper. They will not know what to do if they read that piece of paper and do not like what they read there. They will not know how to form a lobby group or how to influence district councillors to vote so that their views are represented. I was simply asking that that be considered so that if this bill does pass through this House—and I hope it does not—those communities that are most at risk will be assured that the council will make every effort, beyond what is required of it by the bare minimum of the Local Government Act in terms of by-laws, to make sure that communities understand that. That is all I was saying.

Chester Borrows: Like a referendum?

MOANA MACKEY: What was that, I say to Mr Borrows?

Chester Borrows: Like a referendum?

MOANA MACKEY: Mr Borrows fails to understand what I am saying. What was the turn-out for referendums? Can we be sure that the communities that are involved really know what is going on? That is simply what I am saying. If we sit up here in our ivory tower and think that every community takes notice of every word we say in central and local government, knows everything that is going on, and knows the exact processes they should follow under the Local Government Act to remedy anything they do not like, then we are very, very bad representatives for the country. All I was simply pointing out is how important it is to make sure that all communities in Wanganui understand, especially if they are in a community that will not be part of the by-law—

Paul Quinn: They understand it.

MOANA MACKEY: Well, Mr Paul Quinn says they understand it. Of course, he claimed that every part of the country apart from Wanganui did not want this bill, and that is why the Government did not pick it up as a Government bill. Actually, I think Mr Quinn is just speaking off the top of his head, and has no evidence to back that up.

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has, in fact, misrepresented me. I take objection.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order. The member knows that.

MOANA MACKEY: I apologise to Mr Quinn. I did not realise he was so sensitive. I thought he was able to withstand robust debate. Clearly, he is not.

The Labour Party will be supporting the amendment moved by Metiria Turei to delete subclause (2) of clause 5A. We agree that it is rather unfair to tell people that they can be prosecuted for being in an area where there is a sign saying that they cannot be in that area with gang insignia, then telling them that there is no defence when there was not actually a sign there. This comes back to the point that my colleague Grant Robertson made, which is that gang members will want to steal those signs. In fact, a whole lot of people will want to take those signs and hang them up in their bedrooms, as they do with traffic cones and all those kinds of things. Anyone who has been into a university flat knows the array of street signs that can often be found there. This will be one that people will really want to have. I do not believe it is fair that someone can be prosecuted under this bill for going into an area while wearing gang insignia, as provided for under this bill, when there is no signage telling them that they are in that area.

I hope that the ACT Party will be supporting this amendment. Even if the party does go on to vote for the bill—I do not think it should, but, clearly, it is under some pressure to do that—I hope it at least supports this amendment. I do not think the ACT Party believes that it is fair that someone can be prosecuted for committing a crime when they are not told that it is a crime to do it in that area. I really do not think that the ACT Party believes that that is fair. If ACT supports this amendment, it will be agreed to, and at least we will be one tiny step closer to fairer legislation when it comes through.

I want to know what this might do in the communities that do not know how to engage in this process—and I still believe those may well be our poorer communities. What will it do to the value of their houses, when they know that in certain parts of the district there will be big signs up saying it is OK to buy a house in that area because it is a gang-free area, but the rest of Wanganui is a gang-intense area, an area where we have told gang members they can wear their insignia? I wonder what that will do to those communities, to any tourism ventures they may want to have in those communities, and to house values for people who own homes in those communities. I would appreciate the member in charge of the bill taking a call on that issue. Obviously, I think we will have to have some kind of signage if we go through with this. I ask whether the impact has really been thought through. What might be the, obviously, unintended impact on those communities that will be known and signposted as areas where people can go and see patched gang members and gang insignia, and where it is OK to be intimidated by gangs, even if it is not OK in other parts of the district?

Again, this comes back to the point that if the Government feels this is something that might work and that needs to be done, why is it not being done across the whole country? Why is it not being done in a uniform way so that we do not pick winning suburbs and losing suburbs, and winning cities and losing cities? Mr Borrows claims that we are being disingenuous when we say that we appreciate the work that the Wanganui District Council has done. For myself I say to Mr Borrows that I am not being patronising to the Wanganui District Council when I say that. I genuinely mean it. I think that we can thank the council for the hard work that it has done on this legislation, and for the manner in which the legislation came to the House—clearly, the council cares about its community and wants to do something about the issue—but respectfully disagree that this a pathway by which a solution can be achieved.

Labour supported this bill’s referral to the Law and Order Committee. I am sure Mr Borrows will concur that our members on the committee worked hard to try to come up with a workable bill. But when it came back after the select committee process, we just could not support a bill that would not do anything, and that might actually have unintended consequences. If the National Government wants to put this up as legislation that covers all areas, so that we do not have to have signposting because everybody would know that it applied everywhere, and so that people who travel from outside the city would know that the law applied across the whole country, then, of course, the Government can come back and talk to us, and we will make a decision based on the merit of that legislation.

I would like to hear from the member in the chair on his view on Metiria Turei’s amendment. I think it is a fair one. I understand that Mr Borrows will probably stand up and say that gang members will take the sign down and walk into the area. I do not believe that is as likely to happen as their taking it down just to put it up in their gang headquarters or a student’s taking it down to put it up in a university flat. I think that at some point we have to come down to a fundamental principle. That principle is that if signposting is the way people know those areas are where they cannot wear gang insignia, then we cannot say that if the sign is not there, someone can still be prosecuted. There is no way people can know about that unless they go down and read a document at the council. Why would they do that if they did not know that it would be an issue?

The first place I go when I visit Wanganui is not to the council offices to check all the by-laws so that I can make sure that I do not break any of them while I am there. That is what we are actually saying people have to do, because if those signs go missing, people will be committing a criminal act without even knowing it, and will be subject to a $2,000 fine. I do not believe that anyone in this House should support that or say that it is OK. Maybe the signs that are outside Wanganui—and we could put this in by amendment—should say: “Please go to the local council and check the by-law, because you may be breaking the law without knowing it if the signs have disappeared.”

I would be interested in the member in the chair taking a call. I hope National members will support the amendment moved by Metiria Turei. I hope the ACT Party will support it.

Grant Robertson: They’ll have five positions on it.

MOANA MACKEY: They probably will have five positions on it. Maybe after Mr Garrett has given us his position, Mr Boscawen can give us his position, and then we can get a better idea. I think that will be one small step towards making this a much fairer bill. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā tātou. Mr Chairperson, I crave a small modicum of forbearance on your part, so that I may stray very briefly from time to time during my short and hopefully sporting contribution to the import of clause 5A of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill.

I respond to one of three things that were said by the member who is shepherding this local bill forward, Chester Borrows. I made a reference to the police. I appreciate the difficult role the police have, especially in relation to gang management and gang engagement. I am very aware of the role that our Māori police have in maintaining cordial relations with certain gang members so they can maintain contact and uncover information. In actual fact, I support that. Indeed, one of my whanaunga, Paddy Whiu from Ngāpuhi, was here this evening and he played a key role in that. I would not like the member for Whanganui to form the view that those of us on this side of the Chamber who are not going to agree with this bill have an impoverished view of the police.

The reality is if the police are going to police and execute this bill to the black-letter meaning of the law, then they must improve their performance and conduct in terms of what we saw with the Pōmare residents being tossed out on the road—in particular the mokopuna, the children, and the women. I am talking about the suburb out in the Hutt and the drama visited upon them—especially the children—by Housing New Zealand Corporation. I want to assure the member Chester Borrows that I am supportive of the role the police have. But, just like MPs, the police are not above the law. If their conduct—as our conduct is constantly challenged—is not beyond cavil and is not compliant with the law, then they should expect to be called to account for it.

I fear that when the police are asked to determine whether a council has been reasonable or practicable in terms of identifying a place where the information will be made available about whether a place is suitable for banning gang insignia, they will be embroiled in a very difficult situation. Part of dealing with gangs is maintaining contact and engagement with them. I probably share a lot of the views of the Pākehā and Māori of Wanganui who have had a gutsful of being seen to indulge or acquiesce to this ongoing gang violence. The reality is that in dealing with bodies like that, information is power. If gangs can be suborned to unwittingly provide information to the law enforcement agencies, then they will have multiple arrows to the quiver. I have no doubt in my mind that prosecutions in this regard will be challenged and inevitably found to be wanting. It is just not tolerable for people to suffer for doing something wrong when there is just no way within a defined space that they could have reasonably known that they were treading into territory where they were not wanted.

Of course we do not want their bad ways in public spaces. I recently read about the affairs of the gangs in Sydney and elsewhere in Australia, and no one wants to see those imported into our airports, etc. But this bill is about the machinery of local government being used to eradicate a problem that has spread throughout rural and urban New Zealand. It is not solely about the broad threats that gangs represent; it is about whether the mechanisms that we are placing in law this evening through the passage of this bill are going to work.

The bell is about to ring, so I make a short reference to the ACT Party’s law and order spokesperson, David Garrett, who is a person full of zeal—not passion, but zeal. Occasionally, he reminds me of the inquisitorial board of the early stages of the Catholic Church in Europe. That zeal has been found to be built on shifting sands. It depends on whether ACT believes that the major party—the National Party—is going to support its foul legislation known as the “three strikes” bill, as to whether it will vote with us.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 5A be agreed to:

to omit subclause (2).

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Noes 59

New Zealand National 58; United Future 1.

Abstentions 5

ACT New Zealand 5.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 5A be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Clause 5A agreed to.

Clause 5B Public notice of bylaws and availability of copies

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am pleased to take a call on this bill. It is my first call on this bill, but, unfortunately, it will be a little technical and dry—not unlike me, I know.

This is a very important bill, though, and clause 5B, regarding the public notice of by-laws and the availability of copies, refers to section 157 of the Local Government Act 2002, and states that this section will apply “to a bylaw made under section 5 …”. So I went to the Local Government Act 2002—which, ironically, I believe National voted against—and looked up the relevant section, section 157. Subsection (1) states: “As soon as practicable after a bylaw is made, the local authority must give public notice of the making of the bylaw, stating—(a) the date on which the bylaw will come into operation; and (b) that copies of the bylaw may be inspected and obtained at the office of the local authority on payment of a specified amount.” Section 157(2) states: “A local authority must—(a) keep copies of all its bylaws at the office of the local authority; and (b) make its bylaws available for public inspection, without fee, at reasonable hours at the office of the authority; and (c) supply to any person, on request and on payment of a reasonable charge, a copy of any of its bylaws.”

The reason I have alerted the Committee to the contents of that particular section of the Local Government Act is that when we compare what is required by clause 5B with what is required by clause 5A, and when we consider the overall intent of the bill—which is to potentially ban the display of any gang insignia—we realise that, first of all, we have an issue with somebody potentially not being aware that an insignia has been banned from a specific place, if that person has not seen the sign. It becomes an issue where the local authority, the place where these by-laws are kept, is within the area in which the gang insignia may be banned from being displayed. If the sign is not seen, or if the sign is not there, people would need to go to the local authority in order to find out that information. Members of a gang who were displaying their patches might inadvertently break the law in order to find out what the law is. In order to access the by-law, they would need to go to the local authority to read the by-law, and they would not necessarily know that by going there they were breaking the law.

So this issue is very important, and that is one of the reasons why it was really important that we supported Metiria Turei’s amendment to clause 5A(2), which basically removed that subclause. At the moment, as the subclause stands now—unfortunately her amendment was not passed—no prosecution under clause 6 and no arrest or seizure under clause 7 may be challenged on the ground that a notice was not affixed in accordance with subclause (1). So it means that people could be completely unaware they were breaking the law when they went into the council to find out what the law was. Under this bill, they can actually be arrested for that.

Hon Steve Chadwick: It’s crazy.

CHRIS HIPKINS: It is absolutely ridiculous. And that highlights, overall, another reason why this bill simply does not make sense.

I come into this debate particularly sceptical of gangs. I am not a fan of gangs. My view is that public safety has to be the primary consideration. But we have to focus on what will work, rather than on something that, maybe, sounds good in theory, but simply will not work. Ultimately, we actually know that National knows that this bill will not work. If those members thought this bill would make a difference and would work, we would not be discussing a local bill on a members’ day; we would be discussing a Government bill, and it would apply to the whole country, not to just one district. But we are not. We would be fixing it across the land, and not in just one small part of it. Of course, we are not doing that, because ultimately the Government knows that this bill will not work. The Government is happy for us to take up the House’s time to discuss it on a members’ day. The Government’s legislative agenda is not being compromised as we go through this bill clause by clause. But the Government is not willing to say: “Yes, we think it is a sufficiently good idea that we’re going to put it on the Order Paper as a Government bill and apply it to the whole country.”

I come back to clause 5B. This clause highlights the technical problem with the bill—there are many technical problems, but this is quite a key one—which is the fundamental idea that if someone is going to be arrested for breaking a law, that person has the right to know what the law is and a right to know that he or she, potentially, is going to break it. As it stands in this bill, people do not know that.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 5B be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Clause 5B agreed to.

Clause 5C Review of bylaws

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Clause 5C looks at the review of by-laws. I think it is important, as we go through this bill, to reflect again on the process under clause 5 for making these by-laws. Clause 5C states that by-laws will need to be reviewed “no later than 5 years after the date on which the bylaw was made.” The question is whether 5 years will be the right length of time. I come to that question by looking at clause 5(3), because we are talking here about some fundamental issues for the people of Wanganui as to the way these by-laws are made under that clause. The council, in making the by-law identifying a gang, will have to be satisfied that that gang has certain characteristics, such as “(a) a common name or common identifying signs, symbols, or representations, and” that “(b) its members, associates, or supporters individually or collectively promote, encourage, or engage in a pattern of criminal activity.” Of course, the provision is for the gangs that are not named in the bill already.

This will be the area where lawyers will have a field day, but it is also the area where in a review, as called for under clause 5C, difficulties will arise. The types of symbols and the types of signs that gangs use will change and evolve quickly under this legislation, because gangs will seek to avoid being captured by it. They will change the way they do things. They will change their names. As well, they will also change the way they work, potentially. That is where clause 5(3)(b) talks about people engaging in “a pattern of criminal activity.” That will change quickly over time, in response to this bill. So my feeling is that clause 5C, which calls for a review, and the reviewing of the by-laws, is a good thing in principle. I think it is important to have a review. I think the review could be done as quickly as a year, or 2 years—

Hon Steve Chadwick: 18 months.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —even 18 months later; we could be looking to review this by-law. Inherently, clause 5 puts the Wanganui District Council in a very difficult position. Clause 5 asks it to make a range of judgments about the kinds of things that constitute a gang, which I think potentially could lead the council into the courts quite quickly, as people seek to say that either they are, or they are not, a gang. We have already discussed this evening that gangs potentially want to be part of this. They want to be recognised; they want to be named in the first part of clause 5—

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.