Tuesday, 20 April 2010

Wednesday, 21 April 2010

Wednesday, 21 April 2010

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Sale of Public Assets—Mining in Conservation Areas

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Is it current Government policy that no State assets will be sold either partially or fully?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): This Government has said many times it is Government policy not to sell State assets in the term of this Government. That means not selling an ownership interest in State-owned enterprises or Crown companies, and we have stuck to that policy. If the member is referring to tenure review and land that is sold as a result of that, tenure review has been going on since 1948.

Metiria Turei: Does the digging up and selling off of publicly owned minerals in our national parks by privately owned firms benefit private interests?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a very unusual interpretation of the policy, but in respect of the schedule 4 consultation document I would think there is absolutely no prospect that in this term of the Government—even if we accepted her interpretation—there would be mining in any of those areas. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member Metiria Turei. She had not even got out a word of her question before there was an excessive level of interjection. That is unreasonable.

Metiria Turei: Is a 5 percent Government share and a 95 percent private share of the profits from the mining of State-owned minerals a full or partial privatisation of a State asset?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be interested in a word game around that. The fact is that mining occurs regularly on Crown-owned land. I have never before heard that described as any kind of privatisation. The previous Government gave out mining licences, because the Department of Conservation provided access to mining on the conservation estate. We do not regard that as privatisation.

Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister clarify whether the State-owned minerals that he plans to sell off will still be there for future generations to utilise, or will they have gone into private hands?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the answer to the question is obvious: if minerals are dug out of land owned by the Crown—which happens in a large number of cases right now—and they are sold, then those minerals are not there for future generations.

Metiria Turei: So the Prime Minister does understand, then, that when he sells something to someone else it no longer belongs to him, and that if he sells off a public asset, which is the mineral wealth belonging to the public, to someone else—

Mr SPEAKER: I have been listening very carefully, and I have been unable to discern a question in what the member has said so far. I do not expect the member to start with a question word, but I was waiting to hear a question emerge.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did start the question with the phrase “does he understand”.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I might be from the Hutt Valley and that might be an explanation for this, but I heard the member say “does he understand”. That is a question.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat her question. Please make it more clearly a question, because it started out “So, the Prime Minister does understand … that …” and then went on with a statement. I think we should really have a question.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister understand that when he sells something to someone else it no longer belongs to him, and that the selling off of publicly owned minerals to private interests means that they no longer belong to the public?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, he does understand that, and I am impressed with the sophisticated analysis that the Greens are applying to this complex issue.

Metiria Turei: Given the Minister’s answer that he does not expect there to be the selling off of State assets in this term, can he confirm that it has been National’s plan all along to have a fire sale of New Zealand’s State assets in 2012?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In respect of the position on State assets, the Government has stated many times that in this term of office it would not sell State assets. If that were to change, it would announce a position prior to the 2011 election and campaign on it.

Metiria Turei: How can the public have any confidence in this Prime Minister when, in breach of a promise he made to the electorate, he still plans to dig up and sell off a publicly owned asset, the mineral wealth of this country, destroying sections of national parks held dear to the hearts of New Zealanders across the country, and when he is attempting to dupe the public by saying this is not the privatisation of a public asset?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member has quite an interesting combination of conclusions that she has jumped to and assertions that she has made up in that respect. The fact is that the Government has put out a consultation document on whether there should be mining on some schedule 4 land, submissions are being made on that document, and the Government will then make decisions after it has heard public views. In the meantime, as I understand it, under the previous Government, which the member supported, there was a considerable amount—and there still is—of mining occurring on publicly owned land, generally to the benefit of New Zealanders, who get well-paid jobs, and of the service industry, and without a major impact on the environment.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Prime Minister’s Statements

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that “It is an expression of aspiration; it will have no impact on New Zealand law”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, and it is worth noting that other countries, such as Australia, announced their support for the declaration in recent years, and, despite the member’s dire predictions, Australia, for instance, has not been handed over in its entirety to its indigenous people.

Hon Phil Goff: What does he say to legal expert Mai Chen, who says that, to the contrary, affirming the principles of the declaration actually influences New Zealand courts and the Waitangi Tribunal?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Ms Chen would know that New Zealand courts have already imported reference to the declaration—in fact, the draft declaration—into judgments in the New Zealand courts. As the member will know, the Government is in constant negotiation with Māori about the regulation and ownership of resources and various other property rights. I have found the expectations of Māori to be pretty pragmatic and quite progressive, where they are keen to get on with creating jobs, lifting incomes, and getting better education. Actually, they are not that preoccupied with the declaration.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Government’s affirmation of article 4, which gives indigenous people the right of self-determination, autonomy, and self-government, mean that the Government will give to the Tūhoe what they are seeking, which are those exact same things; if not, what does it mean?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer to the question about Tūhoe is no. They will not be getting the right to self-government. The member knows that is a silly question. The member should understand the process: the Government has made a statement of affirmation of the declaration, and the degree to which New Zealand affirms that declaration is in the statements made by Minister Sharples and Minister Power, and by the Prime Minister.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Government’s affirmation of article 26, which gives indigenous people the right to land that they have traditionally owned, occupied, or used—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Or used?

Hon Phil Goff: —or used, which actually covers the whole of New Zealand, mean that individually owned land will now be subject to Treaty demands, or was that affirmation just an empty gesture?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the various statements from various Ministers have made plain, issues to do with land are determined within New Zealand’s legal framework, and the affirmation of the declaration does not make any change to that. However, we are very pleased to see that Māori are keen on the idea of running their own lives, which is completely different from Labour’s view, which is that the Government should run their lives, that they should be dependent, and that there is nothing that Māori can do about that.

Chris Tremain: Has the Prime Minister seen reports contradicting dire predictions of dangerous divisions between Māori and Pākeha?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not just reports that we have seen. As I said earlier, the Government is interacting daily, often on quite contentious issues, with a range of Māori groups, and doing so in a very positive and progressive manner. I think that the dire predictions by the Opposition are more to do with its loss of the Māori vote than anything else.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Government’s affirmation of article 17, which requires the Government to seek consent from indigenous peoples before passing laws, mean that Māori people have a veto over the laws; if not, what does it mean?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As we have said any number of times, all those processes carry on within the framework of New Zealand law. As it happens, the current Government is in coalition with the Māori Party, and we often seek its agreement to pass laws. That is democracy, and we do not see what is wrong with that.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does this Government have as its aspiration for New Zealand article 26 of the declaration, which states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I stated earlier, all those matters related to land are dealt with in the current New Zealand framework, which is not altogether straightforward, because a common law tradition, for instance, recognises longstanding traditional occupation of land. We are negotiating every day with Māori interests over control of land and resources, and we are doing so very productively.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is unusual for me to take a point of order on behalf of Rodney Hide, but that was a very clear question about whether the Government has an aspiration. In the answer was a whole pile of stuff to do with dealing with the issue, but the fundamental question as to whether that particular clause was the Government’s aspiration was not even addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: It is an interesting point of order, but it is my interpretation, listening to the Minister’s answer, that, in fact, he explained what the Government’s aspiration was with respect to the treatment of land. Although it may not have been exactly the answer the member wanted to hear, when a member asks that kind of question—about an aspiration—there is no specific answer to it. I do not think I can ask a Minister to give any particular answer to that kind of question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is an important issue. It may be that you, Mr Speaker, could understand that from the Minister’s explanation, but I think it is fair to say that most people in this House could not understand from his explanation whether it was the Government’s aspiration to hand land over to Māori.

Mr SPEAKER: I must say to the honourable member that it was a nice try, but, as the Speaker has to be the judge in these matters, I have to base my judgment on what I understand from what the Minister said. That is the way I see the answer.

Hon Phil Goff: Do any of the affirmations in the declaration that the Government has agreed to represent an extension of Māori rights; if so, where?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, all the issues that have been referred to here will be dealt with inside the current legal framework of New Zealand. That is not a radical view; we have heard today that the US has now stated that it is reviewing its position on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that that was a very specific question about whether any of those affirmations represent an extension of Māori rights. I would have thought I could get a direct answer to that question, rather than a fudged answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I have to agree on this occasion with the honourable Leader of the Opposition. It was a very specific question; there was no political loading in it. It asked whether the rights are extended in any way, and I believe there is a real interest in the answer to that question. I ask the Hon Bill English to—

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I answered the question quite directly to say that all the issues that the members have referred to are dealt with within the existing legal framework of New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question so that everyone can hear it. The issue is about rights. Within the legal framework of New Zealand there may be subtle changes in the rights people have—I do not know; I am not an expert in this area. But I think an answer that more directly addresses the question the member asked is on this occasion warranted.

Hon Phil Goff: Do any of the articles in the declaration that the Government has just affirmed represent an extension of Māori rights; if so, where?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer is the one I gave before: all Māori rights are subject to the existing legal framework in New Zealand, and that does not change as a result of this affirmation.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that answer was the answer that the Minister gave before, you already indicated to the House that that was not satisfactory.

Mr SPEAKER: The slight difference in the answer given this time was that the Minister, in answering it, said that the rights that Māori have in New Zealand are determined by the current framework of our law, and implied in that answer that there was therefore no change to the rights. If that was an incorrect interpretation, I am sure further supplementary questions will elucidate the matter.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister accept each and every one of the 46 articles of the declaration as an expression of aspiration for New Zealand, or are there some articles that the Prime Minister rejects?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The best exposition of the Government’s position on that is set out in the statement of affirmation that was read out by Minister Sharples in New York and Minister Power here.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe for a minute that that could be an answer in Parliament to a question of whether each of the articles is an expression of aspiration for the country. To say that something was read at 4.45 a.m. on the other side of the Earth is not a parliamentary answer to a question.

Mr SPEAKER: I have some sympathy with the member’s point of order, because members of this House will not necessarily be familiar with the statement made by the Minister in New York.

Hon Simon Power: It is the same statement; I read it yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, if in fact that is the statement read to the House, and if that is what the Minister is saying, then the Minister should be able to answer the question asked by the member. The member asked for elucidation on that statement, and the House has not heard any elucidation. I invite the member to repeat his question.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does the Government accept each and every article of the 46 articles as an expression of aspiration for New Zealand, or are there some articles of the 46 that the Government does not accept?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer to that, I suppose, is no. We have made it clear that the Government affirms the statement, subject to the existing legal framework of New Zealand remaining unchanged. The commentary on the declaration shows that some of the rights expressed in there are quite uncontentious—the right to freedom of religion, property rights, and so on—and some of them are more contentious. Whatever the nature of the articles there, they are all subject to New Zealand’s existing legal framework, which remains unchanged as a result of the affirmation.

Budget 2010—Tax Reform

3. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government’s objectives for tax reform in this year’s Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has two main objectives: to enable the economy to grow faster, and to give people more choices about what to do with their own money in a fairer tax system. Both are important and necessary. We can help to lift growth in the economy, and encourage savings and exports over borrowing and consumption, by making changes in the tax system. We can make it fairer if we apply even tax rates across different sectors and fix some of the glaring anomalies that currently exist.

Aaron Gilmore: What would be the impact on prices of any lift in GST?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This issue was addressed by Statistics New Zealand in a release back in February. It calculated that the lift in prices from a 15 percent GST rate would be just over 2 percent. For those goods already subject to 12½ percent, Statistics New Zealand says that the rise would be equivalent to a 2.22 percent lift in price. However, GST does not apply to all expenditure, and rents, mortgage payments, and school donations are exempt. When these are allowed for, Statistics New Zealand says that the overall increase is about 2.02 percent. This increase would be lower than the actual inflation rate in each of the past 6 years, and in 9 of the past 10 years.

Aaron Gilmore: How would the Government ensure that real incomes are maintained or increased, in light of a GST increase?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A number of tools are available to the Government. Firstly, income tax rates could be reduced for all levels of income by an amount that is at least as great as any GST rise. Secondly, there could be an immediate upward adjustment for beneficiaries, superannuitants, and those receiving Working for Families and other supplementary assistance. All of these are indexed to the CPI, which ensures that real incomes will be permanently maintained. In the case of national superannuation, as well as CPI-indexation payments, the rate would go up as a result of tax cuts.

Stuart Nash: Is it one of the Government’s objectives to ensure that the 91 percent of taxpayers who are earning under $70,000 a year will benefit fairly from the tax reforms in Budget 2010, after having missed out so badly in Budget 2009; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What those taxpayers missed out on so badly was the last Government’s squandering of a long period of economic growth, where those taxpayers got not one single cent until the month before the 2008 election. We will fix that.

I seek leave to table the media release by Statistics New Zealand on 21 January 2010.

Mr SPEAKER: This is just a media release. I think these media releases are available to all members. I do not think I will allow this.

Senior Citizens—Effect of Government Policies

4. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: What reassurance did he give to delegates at the Grey Power conference about his explanation of how Government policies were affecting vulnerable, older people?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I pointed out a number of the Government’s initiatives that have helped them. In health, the Government has delivered an extra 12,000 elective operations this year, which is a record annual increase. In law and order, we have provided for an extra 600 front-line police officers, and have given the police new tools, such as Tasers, to go after criminals. And I pointed out that since 1 October 2008 the New Zealand rate of national superannuation for a married couple has increased by $100 a fortnight in the hand.

Hon Phil Goff: Did his explanation to the delegates about his cleaning his own bathroom impress them, when they know that Ministers’ cleaning costs are paid for them and this Minister actually asked for more, and when people like Desmond Peat, a war veteran who has had a leg amputated and is on the waiting list for a heart bypass operation, has just had his home help cut by 1½ hours?

Mr SPEAKER: If I heard the question rightly, it asked about the reaction of an audience at a meeting. The Minister is not responsible for how an organisation may react. [Interruption] I am dealing with an issue. If the question had asked specifically about the speech, that would have been fine, but the question asked about the reaction of an audience. The Minister is not responsible for that. I would like the member to please rephrase his question to make it come clearly within the Standing Orders.

Hon Phil Goff: What I asked was whether the Minister had impressed the delegates, and he has an opinion on that because he gave the speech.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member would repeat his question. I accept the point he is making, absolutely.

Hon Phil Goff: Did his explanation about cleaning his own bathroom impress delegates, when they know that Ministers’ cleaning costs are paid for them and this particular Minister asked for more, and when people like Desmond Peat, a war veteran who has had a leg amputated and who is waiting for heart surgery, has just had 1½ hours of his home help cut, leaving him with nothing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually, the Prime Minister has removed cleaning costs; it was a privilege available to Labour Ministers that National Ministers do not receive. I thought the member had a serious intent behind his question, which was home care for vulnerable older people, but I see that he does not.

Hon Phil Goff: What does the Minister, in light of what he was told by the delegates at the conference, say, then, about the man about whom I received a letter today? Henry is 84, has heart problems and bowel cancer, and has difficulty walking, and his 1¾ hours of home care have just been cut. That is miserable. Why is the Minister of Finance allowing that to happen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: At the meeting with Grey Power, I outlined to Grey Power that we felt the system ought to deal with cases individually to ensure that vulnerable older people were not left without care. My colleague the Minister of Health has pointed out that people have the opportunity to bring those cases forward and they will be dealt with.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table the letter about Henry, which identifies his son’s name and his circumstances, and as Henry lives in or near the member’s—

Mr SPEAKER: The last bit was not necessary to seek leave to table a document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Jo Goodhew: What upfront compensation was provided to superannuitants and vulnerable older New Zealanders when GST was last increased, in 1989?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: When GST was increased 21 years ago by the Labour Cabinet, which included the current leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party—Phil Goff and Annette King—there was not one cent of compensation for superannuitants. I am not surprised, because Phil Goff has told the media and the public that he is against an increase in GST but will not roll it back.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the Grey Power delegates think it was fair that frail and vulnerable elderly people on low incomes have been stripped of their home—

Mr SPEAKER: The member asked whether Grey Power delegates did something; the Minister has no responsibility for that.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the delegates tell the Minister that they thought it was fair that frail and elderly people were being stripped of their home-care assistance while he, as Minister of Finance, has foreshadowed tax cuts that will give him and his Cabinet colleagues about $240 extra a week?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They raised the issue of home care, because we have an open and constructive relationship with Grey Power. Where they have raised legitimate cases that should be looked at, the Minister of Health has undertaken to look at them.

Jo Goodhew: How would superannuitants be compensated for any increase in GST as part of any tax package in the Budget next month?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, who has made a number of public statements that indicate he does not understand how New Zealand Superannuation works, let me explain. If GST is increased, there would be a once-only increase in the rate of inflation of just over 2 percent, and after-tax superannuation rates would be increased on the day of any GST increase by that amount. To meet other and ongoing price increases, the usual annual inflation adjustment would be made to superannuation rates, so that superannuitants’ spending power was preserved. Finally, any personal income tax cuts would also increase the amount of superannuation that people would receive in the hand, because there would be less tax on superannuation and because it would raise the floor of 66 percent of the after-tax average wage.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the delegates tell Mr English that they thought the Government had its priorities right in cutting home help, in cutting out funding for the Accident Compensation Corporation’s falls prevention programme, and in cutting orthopaedic surgery for elderly people, while this Government is giving a privileged and wealthy elite the biggest cuts in recent times to their income tax in the forthcoming Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In fact, no, they did not say that, because they understand what the Leader of the Opposition does not, which is that in the depths of a significant recession the Government has protected the elderly, as is indicated by the fact that New Zealand Superannuation for a married couple is now $100 per fortnight higher than it was in October 2008. They also understand that we need to lift growth in this economy if we are to give them a decent standard of living.

Hon Phil Goff: At the end of his discussion with the Grey Power delegates, did he have any better understanding of why they think this Government is looking after itself and its wealthy mates while slashing help to elderly people who have paid taxes all of their lives?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Coming from the leader of a party whose Government squandered 9 years of a growing economy—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called. That is unacceptable.

Hon Phil Goff: Mr Speaker, I think you know that it is not appropriate for the Minister to start an answer to a question in that way.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, you have previously ruled that if members ask questions that make outrageous assertions, such as those made by the Hon Phil Goff in that question, they should expect a hard flick back.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: This will be the last—[Interruption] People are offending all over the place. I remind them that a point of order is being heard, and it should be heard in silence. Please do not try my patience. This will be the last comment I hear.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition as part of his question was definitely political but not offensive, and did not invite that sort of reaction. If the member were trying to be offensive, he would have invited the Minister to pay the money back.

Mr SPEAKER: The only reason why I will not come down very hard on the Hon Trevor Mallard is that other members have offended under this point of order process, and it would be seen as being unfair. But that comment was very unacceptable. It was because points like that were built into the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition during this course of questioning that I did not object to the manner in which the Minister of Finance responded to the previous question. If members want to load into questions material that some Ministers may find offensive, then they should not seek my protection when a Minister responds in kind. That is why I did not intervene on that occasion. Members will have noticed that where members ask straight questions and a Minister makes gratuitous comments, I come down on the Minister pretty hard. But a series of questions during this question No. 4 have been personally pretty critical of the Minister, so we cannot blame the Minister for being critical in response to the previous question. I agree that he has to answer the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am surprised the member is so motivated about this issue, because despite Labour having record surpluses and a fast-growing economy, it cut home care, and that member never complained. He leads a party that squandered the opportunity to make important changes to support our older people, and they have not forgiven him for that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table in this House a copy of the request on behalf of Bill English for additional cleaning money.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this document a letter?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is either a letter or an email; I have it in my room.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Road Safety—Young People

5. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What improvements has the Government announced for road safety for young people?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): The Government has agreed on a package of measures that will improve road safety for young drivers in New Zealand and narrow the gap in our safety record for young drivers relative to those in Australia. These measures include increasing the driving age from 15 to 16; making the restricted licence test more difficult, to encourage 120 hours of supervised driving practice; improving the road safety education available to young people; and investigating tougher penalties for breaches of restricted licences. In addition, the Government is investigating vehicle power restrictions for young drivers.

David Bennett: What else is the Government doing for young drivers in order to reduce the road toll?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A second package of initiatives focused on the impact of alcohol on our roads will be discussed by Cabinet shortly. This package includes a proposal to reduce the youth blood-alcohol limit to zero.

Darien Fenton: What improvements has the Government been considering to cycle safety on our picturesque highways, given that the Minister has just increased the potential weight of trucks to 53 tonnes while reducing the funding available for road maintenance; and what will he do to counter claims by European tourists that our roads are now too dangerous for cycle touring?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are a number of incorrect assertions in the member’s question, including the one that we have reduced the amount for State highway maintenance. That is simply incorrect. The second point is that the increase in permitted limits for trucks will actually reduce the number of trucks on the road for the same weight of freight. The third point is that we have a number of initiatives in Safer Journeys, which I am happy to provide the member with a second copy of if she wishes to read the initiatives in relation to cycle safety on New Zealand roads.

Whānau Ora—Establishments of Contracts

6. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister responsible for Whānau Ora: What progress has been made towards the establishment of the 20 Whānau Ora contracts expected to start in July 2010?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister responsible for Whānau Ora): A Government group has been established to facilitate the implementation of Whānau Ora and provide leadership and coordination across Government agencies and stakeholders.

Hon Annette King: Will any of the 20 Whānau Ora contracts be located in the 58 areas that have Strengthening Families, which is a programme that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, said is Whānau Ora, or in the 13 areas where Early Years service hubs already exist, which are coordinating services where 98 percent of its families are Māori; if so, will these existing programmes cease or have their funding reduced?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Strengthening Families focuses on better coordination of roles between agencies when supporting families. Whānau Ora seeks to better position w’ānau to take responsibility for their own futures.

Hon Annette King: What plans are in place to evaluate the Whānau Ora programme using such methodologies as randomised control trials to compare the outcome of whānau receiving Whānau Ora - based services with an equivalent group that are receiving existing services?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: There will be research running alongside of Whānau Ora, but it will not be to compare them with existing failed services.

Rahui Katene: What does she expect will be achieved through a Whānau Ora approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Essentially we expect that w’ānau will be empowered to deal with the issues that confront them rather than be trapped in an environment of crisis. A Whānau Ora approach will enable people to focus on their own potential and opportunities to improve their situation. Some w’ānau will continue to need the support of service providers and also agencies to make that transition.

Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that after spending over $1 billion on Whānau Ora, if it does not work “we will try something different”; and because there is a large amount of funding at risk, when will she be in a position to present an initial statement on the success of the Whānau Ora - based approach compared with the outcomes from existing provisions?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: After 30 years of failed provisions, I think I can safely say—

Hon Members: Oh, oh!

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Do those members want to hear the answer?

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker wants to hear the answer.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I feel very confident, because right throughout the country the whole non-governmental organisation sector is so excited and highly motivated to make this work. The Labour Party members might laugh, but in the next election we will see how excited they are.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That might have been a nice answer to clap for, but it certainly was not an answer to the very direct question that I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: As I recollect the member’s question, it was a fairly direct question that asked the Minister when she might be in a position to report on assessment of the success of a programme. I invite the member to repeat the question.

Hon Annette King: I asked whether she agreed with the Prime Minister that after spending over a billion dollars on Whānau Ora if it does not work, as he said “we will try something different”; and, because there is a large amount of funding at risk, when will she be in a position to present an initial statement on the success of a Whānau Ora - based approach when compared with outcomes from existing provisions?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: At present we do not have an outcomes measurement in existing programmes. In fact, what is measured is a lot of outputs and activity. I think that after a year, we will be able to give some really good outcome measurements that show we are making progress with families rather than counting numbers and money.

Rahui Katene: How will providers find out what will be required with Whānau Ora?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The three key agencies—the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Social Development, and Te Puni Kōkiri—are engaging with providers through a series of hui across the country in coming weeks. This will ensure that providers are well informed about Whānau Ora prior to the expression of interest process.

Hon Annette King: In light of the Television One poll last night, which showed that 63 percent of New Zealanders do not feel they have a good understanding of Whānau Ora, does she believe that 10 meetings over the next month will be enough to improve that understanding; and who has been invited to these meetings?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: We can look at these polls and interpret them the way we like, because 57 percent of New Zealanders support Whānau Ora. I apologise; I cannot remember the second part of the supplementary question. [Interruption] It is a little bit more than 8 percent.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure the supplementary question was quite so specific. Does the member wish to seek a further supplementary question?

Hon Annette King: No, no, I was—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Hon Annette King: Yes. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Minister addressed it. I asked, in light of the fact that 63 percent in the poll having said they did not have a good understanding, and the Minister saying on television last night that she intended to hold 10 meetings over the next month, whether that was enough to improve understanding, and who had been invited.

Mr SPEAKER: The member asked a question in light of certain polls last night, and in her answer the Minister gave figures that perhaps question the selected polling information the member used. To ask the Minister to be more precise on that kind of question is a little bit difficult. I have already asked the Minister to be more precise on one answer for the member. If she has further supplementary questions, I invite her to pursue them.

Kyoto Protocol—New Zealand’s Net Position

7. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s latest net position report under the Kyoto Protocol?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The report shows that New Zealand is set to exceed its Kyoto target by 11.4 million tonnes, which is worth $233 million. That is a small improvement on the previous year’s estimate. The report shows that, although New Zealand’s gross emissions will be 23 percent greater than in 1990, over the Kyoto period, 2008 to 2012, that is offset by the growth increment of forests planted since 1989. However, the credits for those forests belong to forest owners. Foresters are expected to receive credits worth $1.8 billion; consumers and businesses, through the emissions trading scheme, are expected to pay approximately $1 billion; and taxpayers are expected to face a bill of about $570 million over the period to 2012. The $231 million surplus is the overall balance for “New Zealand Incorporated”.

Nikki Kaye: Has the Minister received any advice on the impacts of the Government’s emissions trading scheme on New Zealand’s net Kyoto position?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, the advice I have received is that New Zealand would be in deficit were it not for the emissions trading scheme. The emissions trading scheme is projected to reduce net emissions by 22 million tonnes as a consequence of the financial incentives it introduces to both reduce emissions and plant trees. In short, without the emissions trading scheme New Zealand would not meet its Kyoto commitment to stabilise net emissions at 1990 levels.

Nikki Kaye: Can the Minister clarify that there is a difference between New Zealand’s net position and the Government’s net position?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, that is a very important distinction. New Zealand is expected to exceed its Kyoto target by 11 million tonnes, but the allocation of carbon units to foresters, as promised by New Zealand when we signed Kyoto in Japan in 1997, means that New Zealand’s net position is actually a deficit of about 30 million tonnes. The claim that New Zealand does not need an emissions trading scheme because we are set to exceed our Kyoto targets ignores the reduced emissions that the scheme will deliver and the fact that the Government still carries a substantive liability from emissions growth.

Charles Chauvel: What advice has the Government received about the additional annual cost to the taxpayer of continuing to underwrite carbon-price risks by maintaining a 50 percent obligation under the emissions trading scheme after 2013, as the Minister indicated on 8 April he was considering?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is carefully balancing its Kyoto obligations with a real concern about the cost for consumers and for business. That is why we modified the scheme, which will halve the cost for consumers from 1 July this year. This Government has also indicated that if there is not significant progress internationally in countries like Australia and the United States, then it would be our intention—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a direct and quite precise one that asked what advice the Government had received about the additional annual cost to the taxpayer of continuing a particular policy. The answer has not yet even begun to address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: If I recollect, when the member carried on with his question he said the policy related to something the Minister said on a certain date.

Charles Chauvel: Yes, I was simply verifying that he had actually floated that proposal, so I was asking about the costing of it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is saying that he floated the proposal and now he is asking about the cost of a policy.

Charles Chauvel: That was the primary part of the question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: What I am getting is that the member is now expecting me to intervene when his question identified that the Minister floated a proposal, but he is now asking about costing a policy.

Charles Chauvel: I am asking whether it was costed when he floated it. I think it is a legitimate question. I can repeat the question if it was not heard as clearly as it might have been. I do not think there is any sting in the tail here; it is a pretty straightforward question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister having heard that, I invite him to carry on with his answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Certainly. This Government made a decision to halve the costs to consumers and businesses from 1 July this year. I have raised the prospect that in the event that there is not progress in Australia or the United States, we would reconsider lifting the cost for consumers and businesses on 1 January 2013.

Charles Chauvel: At what cost?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member asks what the cost of that would be. That is impossible to tell, for a very simple reason: there is no international agreement beyond 2013, so to determine the cost for New Zealand when at the moment there is no agreement beyond the Kyoto period to 2012 makes such a calculation impossible.

Finance, Minister—Statements

8. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his recent statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): That was such a good question that it should have been higher up the list. The answer is yes. In particular I stand by my statements about the mismanagement of the previous Government, which saw our tradable industries stagnate for a decade, Government spending soar, per capita GDP decline, and New Zealand go into recession a year before the rest of the world.

Hon David Cunliffe: Among his recent statements, is his claim to Grey Power that he will consider restoring New Zealand Superannuation Fund contributions sooner than had been expected an acknowledgment that the Dominion Post’s Vernon Small was right when he called the Minister’s policy “dumb” and “short-sighted”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Hon David Cunliffe: Amongst his recent statements, when he said yesterday that inflation was low, can he confirm that on top of another 10c-a-litre increase in the price of petrol, an increase in GST will unnecessarily push up the cost of living and make it more difficult for those who are struggling to make ends meet to get ahead?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member needs to wait and see the details of the tax package before he jumps to the conclusion that people will be worse off. In fact, as the Prime Minister has said a number of times, the vast majority of New Zealanders are likely to be better off.

Hon David Cunliffe: Among his recent statements, when he says the tax system is unfair, does he then agree with TradeMe founder Sam Morgan that the system is unfair because “The people that pay the most tax are working people”; if so, what measures will he take to correct that injustice?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the reasons that people like Sam Morgan can essentially pick their tax rate is the ridiculous tax structure that the previous Government put in place, which gives many opportunities to people to structure their affairs so that they can virtually pick their tax rate. I have invited Mr Morgan, if he feels uneasy in his conscience, to write out a cheque to the Inland Revenue Department and pay what he believes to be his fair share of tax.

Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Number of Retrofitted Houses

9. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many homes were retrofitted in March through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): I am pleased to advise the House that in March 3,837 houses were retrofitted with home insulation or a clean-heating device. Since the scheme started on 1 July 2009, the very large number of 37,532 houses has received assistance under the scheme. The target for the first year was 27,000 houses, so that record has been beaten by some 10,000 houses in only 9 months of the scheme’s existence to date.

Melissa Lee: How many houses retrofitted so far are occupied by people on low incomes?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This is one of the most pleasing aspects of the scheme. So far the uptake from low-income households has been about 60 percent of the homes that have been retrofitted—in other words, homes that are occupied by low-income earners. That is over 22,000 homes that will be drier, warmer, and healthier for the people who need that the most.

Chris Hipkins: What steps has he taken to ensure that the initial quality concerns with regard to Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart have been addressed, given that an audit of 570 houses that had been insulated under the scheme found that 359, or 63 percent, of them had insulation problems, half of which were regarded as serious; and what reassurance can he give to the 37,532 householders whom he has just mentioned that their houses have been insulated to an appropriate standard and have not had a slapdash job done so that he can trump up the numbers?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is a very serious question. Since the very start of the scheme we have insisted on very high standards, so the audit process—and every house that is insulated undergoes an audit process—has 100 checkpoints to ensure that all aspects of the job are up to standard. The issues that have been raised in some of the audits are considered to be easily rectifiable—

Hon Annette King: Every house is audited?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Every house is audited by the installer; that is right. Then there is the—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Those members can laugh, but the reality is that—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Are we going to have a go, or not?

Mr SPEAKER: Order. The Hon Gerry Brownlee is answering the question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The standards that are being achieved are extremely high compared with, for example, the situation in Australia. We have also held back payments from anybody who has a history of doing this work poorly, as well as from others who are in a position where they have had strikes issued against them. We are quite firm that if people do not rectify poorly installed insulation, they will be out of the scheme as providers.

Tertiary Education—Student Loans, Allowances, and Course Fees

10. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What advice has he received on those who are likely to be disadvantaged by recently announced policies regarding tertiary education with respect to student loans, allowances, and course fees?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education): I have received a range of advice on a number of possible changes we are looking at making to tertiary policy. For example, the idea of introducing a stand-down period for new permanent residents and Australians before they can access a student loan has been the subject of advice. It would, obviously, have an impact on a number of Australians and new permanent residents who access student loans. It would also bring student loans into line with other Government support packages, and more into line with what New Zealanders experience in Australia.

Hon Maryan Street: What effect will an increase of 2.5 percent in GST and an increase in fees have on the Government’s student loan liability, and does he think these increases will make it easier or harder for people to access tertiary education?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The proposed increase in GST, should it occur, would be accompanied by a compensatory increase in student allowances. Of course, fees increase every year. The previous Government had a maximum fee increase of 5 percent for most tertiary education courses, and many fees have increased on that basis for many years.

Hon Maryan Street: How does he think part-time students will be affected by the proposed time limit on access to student loans, and how does it fit with the Government’s agenda for growth in the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can inform the member that the effect on part-time students will be proportionate to the impact on full-time students. In other words, we would not be expecting part-time students to progress through their academic education to the same extent that we would expect full-time students to do so.

Hon Maryan Street: How will increased fees for the more expensive tertiary courses, such as medicine, encourage students to choose those programmes, and what effect will the increased fees have on the diversity and supply of highly qualified New Zealanders, such as doctors, in the future?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think that question assumes there would be a sizable increase in fees, and I think that is very premature. I point out that the effect of stopping increases in fees for courses that are expensive to provide, and allowing increases to occur for courses that are less expensive, has the impact of making the courses that are less expensive to provide subsidise the more expensive courses, which is hardly fair to those who are taking those courses. I also point out that the average time taken by a doctor in this country to pay off a student loan is 4 years, which is considerably less than the time taken by people in many other occupations, once they are qualified.

Legal Aid—Changes

11. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Justice: What changes is the Government making to the legal aid system?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): Earlier this month I announced a comprehensive reform of legal aid services, following on from Dame Margaret Bazley’s report on this area. New Zealand’s new legal aid system will include a new quality assurance framework for legal aid lawyers, improvements to the duty lawyer scheme, and an expansion of the Public Defence Service to Wellington, Christchurch, and Hamilton. I am confident this package of reforms will improve access to justice and help build the public’s confidence in the legal aid system.

Chester Borrows: What reports has the Minister seen on his recent announcement about changes to the legal aid system?

Hon SIMON POWER: I have seen a report from the New Zealand Law Society, which has welcomed the streamlining of administration relating to grants of legal aid, and the extension of the Public Defence Service. The president of the Auckland District Law Society has also welcomed the changes, stating “The society supports any efforts to improve access to justice for disadvantaged members of the public unable to afford the services of a lawyer.” I have also seen reports that the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Lianne Dalziel have described the changes as “useful” and “a good thing”.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Has he met with the members of the Manukau legal profession who had their reputations damaged as a result of Dame Margaret Bazley’s report, as he indicated to the House he would in December last year; if so, has he been reassured of the integrity of the overwhelming majority of those lawyers and their ongoing commitment to report those who are not meeting the high standards required of the Bar?

Hon SIMON POWER: As I said at the time, I am happy to meet the members of the Manukau Bar. I have just checked with my office in the last 15 minutes. To date I have not received an invitation or a request to meet them.

Local Government, Minister—Statements

12. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by all his recent statements on local government?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): Yes, of course.

Brendon Burns: Can the Minister tell Cantabrians how abolishing their vote for Environment Canterbury councillors can be reconciled with his comments on Monday that “when you are essentially regulating and controlling natural resources such as water and land, the people responsible should be subject to democratic control.”?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Very easily. The decision made to replace the councillors of Environment Canterbury was made by Cabinet and Parliament, the members of which, each and every one of them, were elected to their position to be in Government. My concern over the Waikato River is that half of the representatives on the Waikato River Authority will not be elected by the general population but appointed by local iwi. I also note this difference from the situation with Environment Canterbury: Environment Canterbury returns to democratic elections in 2013, at the latest. That does not happen at all in the Waikato; the co-governance arrangements are for ever.

Brendon Burns: Can the Minister explain how on Monday democratic control meant: “If the community does not like it, the community can sack them.”, when 3 weeks ago democratic control meant that if the Minister did not like it, the Minister could sack them?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Au contraire. The Minister cannot sack Environment Canterbury. It actually requires Parliament to effect that change. I am sorry the member was not awake through the passage of that legislation.

Phil Twyford: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call Phil Twyford, it is my understanding that the Labour Party has had its allocation of questions.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Government I am prepared to be very generous and seek leave for Mr Twyford to ask an additional question, because his questions are always so enjoyable.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Phil Twyford: How can he say that council-controlled organisations will strongly support local government transparency and accountability in Auckland when Local Government New Zealand said yesterday that under his model, Aucklanders cannot be sure where accountability lies, making it difficult for citizens and voters to know who to hold accountable for decisions?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Easy. I disagree with Local Government New Zealand on this matter, and we have had some discussions. I have to say that their understanding of the issue is growing by the day.

Phil Twyford: So you’re right and they’re wrong?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No. It is not about who is right and who is wrong; it is actually about understanding the issue. I have to say that Local Government New Zealand has a much better appreciation of the role of council-controlled organisations. I also note that the issue is before the select committee, and I am looking forward to the report back from the select committee to the House.

General Debate

General Debate

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: From time to time all of us make the odd mistake in this place, including me. That is no reason to make so much noise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether we should take another 30 seconds to allow the instructions to come in from New York.

Mr SPEAKER: I choose to ignore that.

HONE HARAWIRA: It was with a sense of enduring shame that when the rest of the world was signing up to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, the Labour Government of the time, without consultation with its own Māori caucus or with the wider Māori population, decided to oppose the declaration, thus sending a very clear statement to the world that as long as Labour was in power, New Zealand would oppose the fundamental rights and aspirations of Māori people. Labour openly declared that opposition, even though Māori had attended meetings all around the world for more than 20 years in support of the declaration, and even though the draft declaration had received the unqualified support of such national Māori icons as Sir James Hēnare, Dame Whina Cooper, Dame Mira Szaszy, Te Atairangikaahu, Sir Robert Māhuta, Hui Vercoe, Sir Paul Reeves, and Sir Hepi te Heuheu, as well as the Māori Women’s Welfare League and the New Zealand Māori Council.

So it was with a deep sense of satisfaction from within the whole of Māoridom that Labour was dumped from the Government benches 12 months later, and lost four of its precious Māori seats to an upstart party whose people had finally woken up to the fact that Māori aspirations were being strangled to death in a party of indifference. This cleared the way for the brand new Māori Party to open negotiations with the National Government, which led to yesterday’s historic announcement to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—a document opposed vociferously by the previous Labour Government in 2007, and still opposed by Labour in 2010.

Today I stand with pride to congratulate the Māori Party co-leader Dr Pita Sharples and his staff on the months of negotiation in the lead-up to yesterday’s announcement that New Zealand would be supporting, without caveat, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the opening session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York. On behalf of the Māori Party I congratulate Prime Minister John Key and National on the boldness of the Government’s decision to work with the Māori Party in recognising that Māori do hold a special status as the indigenous people of Aotearoa, and that indigenous rights and indigenous culture are of profound importance to this country and are fundamental to our identity as a nation.

Again, on behalf of the Māori Party I acknowledge the longstanding support of the Green Party for the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and its commitment to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I also acknowledge United Future for its support of the Government’s decision to adopt the declaration. For the rest of this House—those who would speak against this document—I have some very simple questions. Why is it that opponents in this House can so comfortably sign up to international covenants on the rights of women, children, gay people, and even dogs, but be so small-minded, petty, and mean-spirited in their opposition to an international covenant on the rights of indigenous people?

This declaration is aspirational in its wording, positive in its vision, and uplifting in its nature. The adoption of this declaration deserves a greater conclusion than I can deliver, so I leave my final words to the Hon Sir Edward Taihākūrei Durie, who emailed us this morning, stating: “My congratulations to the Māori Party caucus for the Party’s role in securing New Zealand support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Were nothing else done during the Party’s lifetime, this one thing would be enough to secure for it a treasured place in Maori history.

Notwithstanding the progress made through all the tribunal reports and court cases from the 1980s, and the consequential changes in legislation and official policy, I would still rank the day that New Zealand gave support to the Declaration as the most significant day, in advancing Maori rights, since 6th February 1840.

I do not overlook that the Declaration has only moral force. The same is said of the Treaty. Important statements of principle established through international negotiation and acclamation, filter into the law in time, through both governments and the courts, which look constantly for universal statements of principle in developing policy or deciding cases.

Most significant for the present is the statement that recurs throughout the Declaration that indigenous people should be dealt with through their own institutions, a matter with potent implications for the Office of Treaty Settlements”—

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee, I remind members that when the bell goes in the general debate, that is the end of a member’s contribution, regardless of who the member is.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): What do Rinso, Clayton’s, the DeLorean, Enron, Pan American World Airways, Ansett, Betamax, Cold Duck, and the Labour Party all have in common? They are all dead brands—all dead brands. They are all disasters in their own kind. And how do we know that the Labour Party is worried about that? Well, we have been made aware of the document I have here, which is probably from Clare Curran, called the Labour Brand Survey. It has been distributed to all Labour members and supporters throughout the country and asks some very important questions: do Labour Party members want to be known as non-confrontational people? Do they want to be known as memorable people? Do they want to be known as retro people? Are they desperate to be known as clever people? No; instead, they are choosing “Edgy”, “Out there”, “Funky”, “Fresh”, and “Cool”. Well, I think that if members have sat on the Labour front bench for 26 years, what better descriptions for them are there than edgy, out there, funky, fresh, and cool?

Chris Tremain: But not retro—not retro.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: But not retro. The difficulty is working out who wears what, because although I would admit that Annette King is cool, she is certainly not funky. And I think that it would be an absolute outrage for me to suggest that she is out there. But that is not all. The survey goes on to ask the question, on page 2—

Hon Member: Look at this.

Hon Member: It’s Phil.

Hon Member: That’s many years ago.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is right. I think that is Phil Goff, but I am not sure. It looks more like “Phillipa” Goff. But, anyway, the survey also goes on to ask members “Can you describe Labour in six or fewer words?”. Well, I have to tell this House that I cannot use the word, but I think I can come up with one word that has six or fewer letters to describe where Labour is at the moment.

I will turn now to two lovely pamphlets that the Labour Party is currently circulating around electorates. The pamphlets have inside them some simple, silly little questions that Labour is asking the public. On their fronts is a lovely picture of Labour’s current leader. They are the same pamphlets, so we would think that they would have the same information, but that is except for when it comes to their back pages. On one there is a lovely pōhutukawa tree, beautiful rolling green hills, and a lake in the background. That pamphlet is for electorates like Wellington Central, Auckland Central, and every other ritzy electorate in the country. But the other pamphlet has dirty old miners’ hats on the back page. That is for the West Coast, for Rongotai, and for all those hard Labour electorates.

So here we have a party, so hopelessly disorganised with no single brand, that does not know whether it is nice, tough, or naughty, or whether it is funky, retro, or out there. It has no idea on any of that stuff. Just to prove how confused the party is, going into his caucus yesterday Mr Goff, the Leader of the Opposition—the alternative position to the Prime Minister; the hard man who is supposed to take out the Government—said “Actually I think John Key’s quite good.” He said “I’ve got to give it to him: he is a very good politician, very slick, very professional at what he does.” Mr Goff stopped just short of saying “I want to vote for him.”, but I have to tell the House that that was not far off.

When we go through this document, we see that Labour members are looking for different sorts of branding that they might apply to the party in the months ahead. Well, I have found one for them. The brand is on this page. It is “PS”—I presume that is a Labour Party or a left-wing socialist party from some other country around the world—and I think it stands for two things. It has two letters and a picture of a hand outstretched with a rose in it, so we are looking here at the postscript for the Labour Party, and the rose on its coffin.

I think it will be very interesting in the next couple of weeks to see how things go, because yesterday, when it came to the issue of leadership, which we all know is on the agenda for Labour, Mr Mallard was good, and just as he used to be. He was good yesterday and said “No, no. We’re not discussing that stuff.” Mr Cunliffe, on the other hand, said “Oh, well, this is an important matter, and we will be having discussions in caucus.”—statesmanlike, and in perfect iambic pentameters, too, I might say. They are a brand that is dead.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēna koe, Mr Speaker. E mihi kau ana ki ngā kōrero puta ā-waha a Hone; tēnā koe.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. I commend Hone on what he said in his address; well done.]

I was glad to see that Hone Harawira was kept on his chain. He was playing poodle, and was under strict direction from his leaders. That was not Hone talking, and he knew that what he said was wrong. It was like that frumpy “big boy” over there on the National side, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who was barking in his speech. There is a poodle in the Māori Party seats and a bulldog in the National seats. Mr Brownlee was carrying on and nattering on about nothing. Labour is a party of all of those things he mentioned. We are a party that cares about all sorts of people, and I am not so selective as to pitch just at the rich boys, and never mind anybody else. But that is what Hone has fallen for, at the end of the day.

Let us go back to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I tell Gerry. This is what the Prime Minister said quite clearly and unequivocally: “I think it is important to understand that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is just that—it is a declaration. It is not a treaty, it is not a covenant, and one does not actually sign up to it. It is an expression of aspiration; it will have no”—and this is the important part—“impact on New Zealand law and no impact on the constitutional framework.” That is what the National Government is saying. Pita Sharples and Hone Harawira on his chain are telling us to celebrate—celebrate. Celebrate what? Celebrate nothing. I will tell him, because he said we were useless bastards. That is what he said on TV.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, and there will be no interjections. Normally when members are clearly quoting something, I would not object too much. But the implication was that some members of this House are as the member described, and I do not think that is acceptable.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What my colleague said was a direct quote from that member about members on this side of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: The point of order will be heard in silence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It was a quote—and I think part of it was translated; a direct translation—of what that member said about members on this side of the House. If we cannot say what he said about us, and refute it, we have some problems.

Mr SPEAKER: The point is that in this House there are some limits. I do not want to be too tight, because this is a robust debate. There are rulings that state that members cannot use a quotation to introduce unparliamentary language. I do not want to be too precious about that, because this is a place of robust debate, but when we start quoting inside the House things that have been said outside the House, that implies across the House that members might be as the member said, I think we need to be a bit careful. I ask the member to be a little cautious, and not to be too careless in what he says.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Mahi waha hukahuka, e Hone; tēnā koe.

[It is mouth-sweetening stuff, Hone; good on you.]

What did the Prime Minister mean when he said last week that there will be no rush to sign the declaration? Does the Prime Minister agree with the Minister of Māori Affairs when he said the sign-up was unconditional? That is what the Minister of Māori Affairs said. [Interruption] That is right, I say to Maurice. He is not yet back on the front bench, but that is dead right. At the end of the day, Gerry will make sure of that, and Simon will sit there and open up in the sense of the distortion that he spoke about yesterday in relation to the UN declaration. National members know that they have put the Māori Party asunder. They know that they are celebrating in disguise, and they know full well that they are using Māori Party members and milking them.

As Minister Turia said today, this is about next year’s election. Well, let us see about that, in relation to the Māori issues. I will tell Hone Harawira what the last Labour Government did. We raised the minimum wage eight or nine times. In the last period of time when National was in power, it raised the minimum wage by 37c. National is at it again with GST, accident compensation, and all those issues that are relevant to Māori. Labour brought in 14 weeks’ maternity leave. It did all of those things. Labour halved the Māori unemployment rate. What does Hone Harawira have to say about carrying one of the highest unemployment rates in North Auckland? That is even though the Minister, Paula Bennett, says that we have 11,000 fewer unemployed—that is benefit shuffling; we are down. What does she have to say to the 43 percent of Māori under the age of 24 who are unemployed? That is seven points off 50 percent, which would be half of all those people. It has nearly tripled since this Government has come into office. What does the UN declaration have to say about that? How will it make a difference? That is what is relevant. You know, Hone—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is an experienced member. He cannot point the finger across the House and say “you know”, because the member is then referring to the Speaker. He must not do that, as it leads to disorder.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That member knows that, and he understands it very well. It is hurtful, having worked over a period of time with Hone Harawira, to see him being led. That is what happened here today. I am thinking hard about what we can do. What has been done for Māori? I refer to tertiary qualifications, I say to Hone. It takes Māori 1 year and 3 months longer to qualify, for whatever reason. We could blame colonisation; we could blame Gerry for being a woodwork teacher; we could blame anybody else—but we will not. We are not like that. But what we will make sure of is that whoever does all this shuffling around—Paula Bennett—who at the end of the day will this affect? It will affect Māori, and it will affect Pacific Island people. That is what will happen.

I can tell those members over there what they are saying out on the road. People are starting to doubt, big time. We get around, out on the road. It is not about votes for the Māori Party. The people think there is a shemozzle going on. The majority of this country understands the patting-poodle stuff and what National tells mainstream New Zealand. They understand that its members are very wary that they do not damage their image and are watching the polls, and that those members over there in the Māori Party do not understand that they are being taken down the road.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): The major disadvantage about being speaking fourth in the general debate line-up is that the third speaker gets to use the material before I do.

It is worth taking just a bit of time to look at this Labour brand survey. It starts like this: “We want to hear your views on the Labour brand. What follows are a series of questions aimed at discovering: what you think is essential to the Labour brand, how you’d like to see the brand represented, and your views on a selection of existing brands. Thanks again for taking part. 1. Pick the values you’d like to see associated with Labour. Choose as many as you like.” What should be in brackets after that sentence is: “because we don’t have a clue.”

My colleague has set out a range of options, but she missed out a few that puzzled me. We have heard that some of the options are “Futuristic”, “Feel good”, “Bold”, “Inspiring”, and “Cheeky”. I thought “Cheeky” was an interesting option, as were “Dynamic”, “Cool”, “Modern”, and “Happy”. “Unusual” is one of the options, as are “Artistic”, “Edgy”, “Out there”, and “Funky”. But the one that got me absolutely flabbergasted, and that made it in halfway through the list, is “Sober”. It asked whether members think Labour is sober. I do not know what to make of that option or why on earth any organisation would put it in as one of its core messages for consideration as part of its branding.

When we look closely at this survey, we see between the various categories a direct contrast between issues relating to the past, such as “Retro”, and matters relating to the future, such as “Futuristic”, “Edgy”, “Out there”, and “Unusual”. Are they “Sophisticated”? I particularly liked “Memorable”. Is the Labour Party memorable? Other options are “Integrity”, “Innovation”, “Caring”, “People”, “Dependable”, and “Approachable”.

What does this tell us? It tells us that halfway through the term of this Government, there is a sense of deepening malaise in the Opposition ranks. Watching their faces during question time today when their leader was on his feet was a sad indictment. Clayton Cosgrove is a good little scrapper—he likes to get his teeth into the odd issue and is known for putting forward a view every now and then—but he was totally disengaged. His head was up; he was looking at the ceiling during question time. His eyes were wandering, he was looking at the top of the roof, and he was not the slightest bit interested in what was going on. I do not mind reading about Trevor Mallard’s cycling exploits from time to time; I just wish that he would not write about them during question time when his leader is on his feet trying to hold the Government to account.

One of the things that I found interesting about Mr Brownlee’s contribution was his mention of Phil Goff praising the political skills of the Prime Minister. Phil Goff at the moment reminds me of one of those dad characters from a 1980s sitcom, and not just because Family Ties first aired when he was in his first term in Parliament. He is following a well-used formula called the “centra eccentrics” formula, where one straight character is the anchor for all of the other characters, who ultimately upstage him. While Mr Goff is nervously describing his unpopularity, we see a range of characters appearing in larger-than-life formats.

David Cunliffe was understandably moved by his visit to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, but his Dominion Post column yesterday suggests that he is forgoing his finance role for one presenting the History Channel. Some of his prose in that article reminded me of some of his earlier work from “I am Harvard”. I have also come across another delightful piece, entitled simply “Seasons”. I am no literary critic—I will leave those matters to the House—but it goes like this: “Almost without warning, branches that just a few weeks before were dead, dry twigs, are crowned with the lushest green foliage. Spring is brief. As a delicate balance between irresistible forces wrestling for control—it gives way, explosively, to Summer.” It sounds decidedly like the leadership crisis in the middle of the Labour Party. He is a lead actor in his own show.

As for old Mr Jones over here, his continual calls of “hōhā” in the House every time he gets to his feet remind me of Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. He has refused to rule out a leadership challenge, stating: “that lies somewhere between our caucus and providence,”. Providence is also known as the work of God, so I guess that is his natural modesty continuing to come through!

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): In June of last year Environment Canterbury paid a visit, accompanied by the police, to the property of Mr Tim Smith, and 21 charges were subsequently brought against Mr Smith, who has subsequently pleaded guilty on all counts. Mr Smith’s brother is the Hon Dr Nick Smith, the Minister for the Environment, who has recently sponsored legislation through this House sacking Environment Canterbury. A conflict of interest, therefore, arises. The conflict arises because the Cabinet Manual says so. It says so very clearly.

Let me quote paragraph 2.60. Paragraph 2.60 states: “A conflict of interest may be pecuniary … or non-pecuniary (concerning, for example, a member of the Minister’s family.) A conflict of interest may be direct or indirect.” So a conflict of interest is there all right, but the question is how the conflict was handled. Again, the Cabinet Manual gives us some guidance. It states that when a conflict of interest arises and it does not impinge on the Minister’s own portfolio, then the Minister should declare the conflict of interest. It then states: “Having declared the interest, the Minister should either withdraw from the discussion or seek the agreement of colleagues to continue to take part.” So if it is not within the Minister’s own portfolio that the conflict of interest arises, the conflict should still be declared, and the Minister may or may not choose to leave the Cabinet meeting.

In this case, the conflict of interest directly impinged on the Minister for the Environment’s portfolio. Indeed, it was probably the most important thing on his plate at the time. At the time there was probably no bigger issue in the environment portfolio than whether to sack a rather large regional council. Again, the Cabinet Manual gives guidance as to what to do in those circumstances. Paragraph 2.70(c) states: “A Minister with a conflict of interest concerning a particular issue within his or her portfolio may, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, transfer responsibility for that issue to another Minister.” I know, because I have had issues transferred from me or to me on many different occasions—more than a dozen, I would think.

I do not think that that happened in this case. I do not think that the Minister for the Environment transferred the portfolio; I will say why in a minute. It is important to note that a conflict of interest does not cause the Minister to behave badly. The fact that a conflict of interest arises does not mean that the Minister necessarily performs badly in pursuit of that conflict of interest, but what does matter is that the Minister cannot say that he did not behave badly because he did not take himself out of the action in respect of this conflict of interest. That is bad Cabinet practice—pure and simple.

How can I be sure, when I do not sit around the Cabinet table, that the Minister did not transfer responsibility to another Minister? Well, because legislation resulted, and the legislation was in the name of the Minister, and the Minister involved was the Minister in the chair in this Chamber during the Committee stage and was the predominant Minister shepherding the legislation through. That is really bad practice. It is not just a sort of bad manners thing; it leaves the Minister vulnerable to the accusation that he did behave badly, and it leaves him vulnerable to not being able to prove that he did not.

That sort of thing is becoming a feature of this Government. We saw it just yesterday in the House with the Minister of Agriculture and the response that the Prime Minister gave to a series of questions from a member of the Green Party. I am putting on the table my concern about the slackness of Cabinet processes in this Government. I do not think that conflicts of interest have been managed at all well in this Government. They can be very awkward. They can be very awkward. When dealing with Māori land issues, sometimes half the frigging Cabinet used to get up and leave, including a bunch of Pākehās. That certainly was the case with the South Island Landless Maoris legislation I was responsible for. Certainly, if something involving Brierley’s arose 10 years ago, there would be a bit of a railway station effect as Cabinet Ministers left. I do not think that is happening in this Cabinet.

I think that this Cabinet is taking an easy approach to managing conflicts of interest, and I am putting this on the record now because I intend to question the Prime Minister as time goes on about the management of conflicts of interest in this Government. I do not think it is up to scratch. I do not think enough attention is being paid to the propriety of governance decisions.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Now that we have heard from “Angry Smurf”, we understand why the Labour Party is so desperately—

Mr SPEAKER: Did I hear the member use a name that is not a member’s name to refer to a member?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, I—

Mr SPEAKER: If the member did so, then I ask her to withdraw. That is not acceptable.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I withdraw. For the last 18 months we have seen the Labour Party desperately trying to reinvent itself. We almost heard the conversation around the boardroom table when Labour members were telling Phil Goff that he was not making any traction and he needed to reinvent himself. They told him to wear more leather, get on a bike, and get out there into the heartland. They told him to visit pubs on that bike, and they would see how it went.

My advice to Phil Goff is quite simple. It is called being true to oneself, and it seems to come through each time. I would say to Mr Goff that he should be true to himself about the fact that he is an “SPM”—a stale, pale male—and that it is nothing to be ashamed of. We see people all over the world embrace their inner selves and get away with it. As Mr Goff travels around the country, desperately trying to reinvent himself and sending out a Labour survey that says things like: “Let’s see ourselves as retro and edgy.” and “Do you see us as funky?”, we see that it is not really working for him.

First of all, we saw Phil Goff “The Paratrooper”, who came sailing in out of a plane, and that did not really work for him. Then we saw him as “The Farmer”, when he stuck a lamb on his shoulder, and we all remember that. Quite frankly, any farmer knows that when people stick lambs on their shoulders, all that will happen is the lambs will pee down their backs. But Phil Goff went for that angle. Then he went for the “Biker Dude”. We saw the leather and the cruising up and down the country. I can hear the conversations. I wonder whether he is like the Lone Ranger. If Phil Goff is the Lone Ranger, then I wonder whether there is a Tonto uniform for Shane Jones. That is where we are heading. It is about ditching the spin and embracing who one truly is, and, we never know, Labour members might find that being true to themselves means people believe them.

I can see Phil Goff and “Slick” Rick Barker pulling up on their bikes to the pubs with Annette King in the car in the background, trundling along behind, and the people in the pubs saying: “Woohoo! Here they are to change our lives.” Those people will be sitting there filling in a Labour survey about whether Labour is retro, funky, or all that. Quite frankly, is it any surprise that we are seeing such an absolute display? On Facebook, in conjunction with this, Phil Goff put up a nice photo of himself as the young, hip, new face of the Labour Party. The photo shows how truly retro and funky Phil Goff really is. It is a great start to the programme. It was a nice way to reinvent himself and to find out who he can be.

I simply say that when we hear the rhetoric and the questions that are coming from the Labour Party, we see that there is something simple in all of the messaging. It is that we cannot continue the way we are. We cannot continue to pour extra millions and millions of dollars into our communities, like we have for the previous 10 years, and expect to see different outcomes. We are seeing dysfunction in some of our families and communities that is getting worse and more serious. I say to those people who think it does not affect them—and there are some New Zealanders who sit back and say: “That is them, this is us, and we are sitting here.”—that it does affect them. If there is such dysfunction in a family that they are hurting each other and hurting their children, then imagine what they are doing to their street, to their community, and to their country because they simply have nothing invested in it.

To say that we are going to do some stuff differently, and to say that we will take some of the power out of Wellington and put it back into our communities and let them decide how they do it through programmes like Whānau Ora, and contracting—

Hon Annette King: That’s where it has been for years.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member opposite yells out that that is how it has been. For 10 years we saw more money going in and we saw more box ticking required from Wellington, but we did not see outcomes. We have more children being abused and neglected than we have ever had, we have more dysfunction in our families, and we have had 10 years of increases in benefit dependence, and that has driven society backwards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What nonsense!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let me give the member some evidence of that. In December 2000 there were 33,560 people on the sickness benefit, and in December 2008 there were 50,896 people on the sickness benefit. Over 45,000 people have been on the invalids benefit for 5 years or more. That is entrenched welfare dependency. This Government will not sit back and let it happen.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): We clearly have a problem in New Zealand when we have just announced the Government’s ratifying of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but even within the Government, even within this Parliament, we have such a widely divergent view of what it means. On the one hand, the Prime Minister says that it is of no practical effect, and that it is aspirational. On the other hand, MP Hone Harawira says that it is of enormous impact because, as Mai Chen says, it will inform the courts, it will inform the Waitangi Tribunal, and it will inform political discourse for years to come.

I believe that Mr Harawira is right, because words have to mean something. The words of the articles of the declaration are very, very clear in what they say, but I do not believe for a minute that the majority of New Zealanders agree with the sentiment set out in that declaration. I do not believe they want to live in a country where we are divided into two: those who are indigenous and have a separate set of rights and privileges, and everyone else. I certainly do not want to live in such a country. It is very clear when we read the articles that they say that indigenous people should be able to have political autonomy. Well, the Prime Minister says that that is an aspiration, but is it truly an aspiration for New Zealand that Māori people within New Zealand can have their own political structures, their own State? I say no.

Article 26 says that indigenous people have the right to the land and the resources that they traditionally owned or occupied. Clearly, if we look at that, we see that that is all the land and resources of New Zealand. We have followed a process where that land has been alienated, sometimes unjustly, and we are working towards fixing that through the Treaty. But this article does not allow for that; it says all the land and resources traditionally owned or occupied should be returned to the indigenous people. That is why Helen Clark as Prime Minister refused to ratify the declaration. She would sign up to anything from the UN that was put in from of her, but not this declaration; Parekura Horomia said it was incompatible with the democratic processes and the fundamental laws of New Zealand.

We cannot get around this by saying: “Don’t worry. Nod, nod; wink, wink. We will ignore it.” What sort of integrity do we have as a country and as a Government to sign something that we do not believe in, have no intention of honouring, and do not accept? And what sort of approach do we have to Māori in New Zealand when we sign something without meaning that it sounds a bit like 1840 all over again? I believe that the fact we have such divergent views on this matter is a cause for division in New Zealand. Hone Harawira clearly has a view of what it means, but the Government has a different view. Well, that is a cause for discord and disharmony. Why would we sign up to something that would cause such discord and disharmony? And why do it under the cover of darkness, covertly?

The ACT Party has been shocked and appalled, because when we signed up to support a National-led Government, it never occurred to us that National would depart so radically from its founding philosophy, and its election manifestos over many years, of having one law for all New Zealand with everyone being treated equally. I believe that that was a founding principle of the National Party, and that is why we are so concerned. Thank you.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): Taking a completely different tack from that of the previous speaker, I will talk about economic growth. For me, ensuring there is economic growth is absolutely vital for New Zealand, because that is how we will provide the jobs that will keep our young people here, which is what we need in order for there to be a strong future for New Zealand. We want to keep young people here, because we also want to pay for our health, education, and law and order, and for the care of our environment. People need to start thinking seriously about how we can achieve that. Do they really want to leave a financial millstone around the necks of their children and grandchildren, or do they want to get behind the more aspirational leadership of the Prime Minister, John Key, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English? They are holding New Zealand steady during the most serious, tough economic times that we have experienced.

We inherited empty coffers, which were absolutely savaged and ravaged by Clark, Cullen, and their cronies, supported by Phil Goff and the rest of the Labour members who are here still in the House. The Labour members did not have a care or a thought about securing the future for New Zealanders and for all of the young people whom we so desperately need to stay in this country. Clark and Cullen, supported by Goff and all their other Labour cronies, spent up large, and it was a case of to hell with the consequences. So it is no wonder that Labour has no message.

It is no wonder that Labour members are out there trying to re-brand themselves. What are they doing? They are even asking questions about what people think are the essential elements of Labour’s visual identity. They are asking whether that identity is a red flag or other symbols. I suggest the Labour members look at some other symbols. They are also talking about essential graphic elements: the flag, fern, green, blue, stars, Pasifika, and Māori. I cannot believe it. We all know about the moon and the stars. Labour just does not have a message.

The Prime Minister, John Key, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, are two of the most outstanding political managers that New Zealand has ever had. I hate to think where we would be today if it were not for their outstanding leadership. Frankly, we would be up the proverbial creek. Labour does not have a clue about how to manage money; everybody knows that. I would not even put Labour in charge of a piggy bank.

Phil Goff does not understand how superannuation works. The Minister of Finance, Bill English, has taken great pains to repeatedly explain it to him, but he just does not get it. So I will explain yet again that a combination of tax cuts and other adjustments has seen New Zealand superannuation payments increase significantly: by $100 a fortnight in the hand for a married couple. I will repeat that, because Goff does not get it. I think everybody else does, but clearly Labour does not get it. That means an additional $100 a fortnight in the hand for a married couple receiving New Zealand superannuation.

The Hon Bill English went on to explain the situation further for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly has no idea what he is talking about on this issue. Let me explain once again that it is quite clearly evident that people understand that the current Labour leader has no understanding of what is happening with regard to New Zealand superannuation. If GST is increased, there would be a once-only increase in inflation of just over 2 percent. After-tax New Zealand superannuation rates would be increased on the day of any GST increase by that amount. Do those members get it? In order to meet other and ongoing price increases, the usual annual inflation adjustment would be made to superannuation rates, so that superannuitants’ spending power was preserved. We have to say that in quite simple, clear, plain English for the benefit of simple minds, but it does not seem to reach through to the Opposition.

Finally, any personal income tax cuts would also increase the amount of superannuation that people received in the hand. Therefore, superannuitants who rely on New Zealand superannuation would be better off.

Labour members should listen up and understand the message. I take Trevor Mallard as an example. What does he blog about to the New Zealand public? All that he does is to think about the time at which the Prime Minister and his Ministers actually turn up to work. I tell members to look at one of his blogs.

Chris Tremain: Yeah, very focused.

SANDRA GOUDIE: That is the level of focus of Trevor Mallard. What does that say about the Opposition?

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour): For members of the public who are listening, that was the state of the nation speech from Sandra Goudie, the member of Parliament for Coromandel. It is impossible, almost, not to like her in a lot of ways, for her substantial contribution in that respect.

Today in the general debate we have heard from the Minister for Economic Development, at a time when our economy is still very fragile. We have heard from the Minister of Justice, at a time when law and order is out of control and we have a record number of murders in our country. We have also heard from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, at a time when the employment rate is the highest it has been in 10 years. But from those three Ministers we have not heard anything at all about the policies they are pursuing for the country to try to address the crises that exist in their particular portfolio areas. All we have heard from them was their obsession with the Labour Party’s rebranding exercise. If, after 18 months in Government, those members have run out of talking about their policies, and if all they want to do is talk about the Labour Party, then we know that we are absolutely on the right track.

That is not the first time that political parties have looked at their brand.

Paul Quinn: You need help so we’re helping you.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I remember—long before Mr Quinn took an interest in politics, so at least 2 years ago—the National Party taking on the Coldplay song “Clocks” from Chris Martin, without any permission or copyright from the band Coldplay. John Key was being introduced all around the country as that song was being played on his DVD. His DVD was bright and shiny but hollow in the middle, which I always thought was quite reflective of the Prime Minister’s political principles in that particular respect.

I will take up some of the issues that Mr Hodgson has come up with today, with regard to conflicts of interest. But before I do I will touch on the issues that some speakers have mentioned with regard to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We have seen no better example in the last 2 days of the troubling matter of this policy than the responses of the Government itself. Catholics believe in three Gods in one—the Trinity. In New Zealand we have three parties in one, in the Government. But one of the points about three in one is that they are meant to speak with one voice. In New Zealand we have the Māori Party, who has said that signing up to this declaration is the most amazing victory for Māori people ever, and that Māori should be swinging from the lamp posts in the streets, so happy should they be about it. Another member of the Government, the ACT Party, has told us that it is the end of the world that the Government has signed up to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Prime Minister himself, from the National Party, has said that it does not matter, it is aspirational, and it is non-binding. But he was not able to answer Mr Goff’s question about a single thing that would change for life in New Zealand as a result of our taking on that declaration.

That goes to the heart of the problem. If something does not mean anything, why sign up for it? If we sign up for something, we should have a consistent view about what it means. I say to Mr Harawira and the Māori Party—and I would say to Mr Te Ururoa Flavell, but I know that he is in other places at the present time—that when things actually count for Māori on policies, that has an effect on Māori people living in New Zealand every single day. An example is representation every single day on the Auckland super-city, on which the Māori Party was rolled by the National Party. The Māori Party failed to change the mind of the National Party. Māori members cannot point to a single thing in this declaration that makes any difference for Māori in work. The declaration does not put a single unemployed Māori back into a job, it does not lift a single dollar an hour in a wage for Māori in our economy, and it does not improve Māori representation around council tables or here in Parliament. That is why we are saying the declaration does not mean anything; that is where John Key is right. He has agreed to ratify something he does not believe in.

We know about the National Party; it was the great party of “Iwi/Kiwi”. It was the great party of “no deals: the beaches are for everyone”. When Bill English was Leader of the Opposition he paid for Parliamentary Service - funded billboards outside every airport in New Zealand. That party also campaigned on “one standard of citizenship for all”. I listened to Simon Power give his speech in Parliament yesterday. If a Labour Government member had got up and said those words, the National Party would have been right out there; they would not have even bothered with the dog whistle. They would have gone right on to talkback radio and said that the Labour Party was giving New Zealand away to Māori. Paul Quinn laughs and smirks because he knows that that is absolutely right. National members are statesmen when they are in Government, but when they sit in Opposition they are divisive. That is why they sign up to these deals that mean nothing for Māori. And for Hone Harawira and the Māori Party to act as thought they have achieved some great thing is absolutely unbelievable given the record and what is happening for policies in this country.

I have written to you, Mr Speaker, about a matter that I do not want to go into today. It is a question of privilege with regard to the declaration of pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. I do not want to go into the details of that until I have had a response from you. But there is a wider issue that has been reported in the media, which I do want to touch on, and that is the funding of legal expenses for members of Parliament by the Parliamentary Service. Section 4.53 of the Cabinet Manual makes it clear that if a Minister has been represented at the expense of the Crown and costs or damages are awarded in the Minister’s favour, then those monies should be regarded as public funds and paid into a Crown or departmental bank account unless Cabinet directs otherwise. That is a very good principle under which we are governed, and an example of what should be happening in the National Party.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak during this general debate. We have just got the Labour Brand Survey, and as I turn to the first page I see that the first question is: “Can you describe Labour in six (or fewer) words?”. In describing Labour, I would say that it wasted and squandered the best times. That is why the Labour Opposition is in the doldrums. Labour is doomed. It is destined for political oblivion because of the way it wasted and squandered the very best times that New Zealand has experienced over the last 30 years.

When that member on the other side, Darren Hughes, resumed his seat, he had really identified the problem on the Opposition benches. Labour is very much like an empty drum. When it is beaten it creates confusion. What we see in the House is that there is a clear choice for New Zealanders. Do people want focus, direction, and purpose, or will people look again at what Labour offers?

Let us look at what Labour offers. There is no clear message or direction. What we saw over the last 9 years was a waste and squandering of the very best times. It would be easy to go into how that occurred when we look at the areas of education, health, and law and order, but, really, the problem the Opposition has is at the top. We know that when there is confusion and disarray, it is all at the top.

The problem for Labour is that it has a demoralised leader who has difficulty with identifying himself, and it is likewise with the front-benchers. Phil Goff used to lead off the debate when Labour was in Government. He was considered a big hitter, even though he was outside the country most of the time. However, leadership does not necessarily fit well with people when they move into another role. What we have seen is that Phil Goff came in like a lion and he has gone out like a lamb. He has reduced his own persona to mediocrity. He accompanies demonstrations; he does not lead demonstrations. He rides on buses and motorbikes. He is so much the average man that he goes around totally unnoticed.

The other day we got a bit of an insight into how Phil Goff is thinking on the inside. He is quite envious of the Prime Minister, John Key. He praised John Key’s political skills and he nearly went as far as saying he would vote for Mr Key. So we can understand that there is a lot of disarray over on the Labour benches—they are in a demoralising situation. One thing about Phil Goff is that he is willing to learn, but when we look at the rest of the Opposition front bench, we see that they have not yet realised that they are in Opposition. What are left are the remnants of a visionless, failed Labour Party. Labour was lazy in Government and it is lazier in Opposition. On this side of the House is a Government that has clear messages and well-designed plans. This Government is working on those focus plans to restore this country’s economy. Who is doing that? Of course, it is a National-led Government.

Let us have a look at taxation. In my view, there is no better way to leave money in the provinces and the regions than to leave it with the people who worked hard to earn it, whether they be wage earners, employers, or investors. When we send money to a Government department, we expect, with blind faith, that it will be used in the best possible way. We are looking forward to 20 May and to a Budget that will reset the incentives for taxation so that it is about enterprise, hard work, investment, and saving—everything that is contrary to what Labour did in Government. It encouraged speculation, sloth, and poor practice.

We are very enthusiastic with regard to 20 May, when we will see a major step forward. Unfortunately, because of the problems that Labour faces at the moment, it puts off all the hard decisions. The Resource Management Act is one of the things—now it is benefiting the regions immensely.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): When I need to buy laundry powder, I go to the supermarket. I go to the right aisle and I check out all of the products that are available. I look at the effectiveness, the environmental and ethical dimensions, and the price of each product, and I choose the one that best meets my needs. How dumb would it be if all of the laundry powder manufacturers queued up to offer me their products one by one? If the first one came and I said yes, then all of the others could go away; if I said no, then the next one would come, and I could continue that way until I bought something. It would not make sense for soap powder and it does not make sense for power generation schemes, yet that is precisely the method that we use to determine power generation schemes.

The problem in the soap powder example is that I would have no way of knowing which is the best of the products that are being offered to me and no way of knowing what the total range would be. That is precisely the problem for power generation. The only schemes that get to be considered are those that best meet the purpose of profit maximisation of the power companies, not those that best meet the public good. Very often those two purposes will not be aligned. Furthermore, it is currently forbidden rather than encouraged for the merits of, for example, two competing schemes to be compared.

It is a ridiculous situation and it is currently well illustrated on the West Coast and northern Buller, where a company called Hydro Developments Ltd has received resource consent for an ingenious power generation scheme that involves dropping water from the Stockton Plateau down to sea level and using the drop to generate electricity. The scheme that is proposed by Hydro Developments would have a net positive environmental impact. If that scheme goes ahead, along with the Arnold Valley scheme, which is already consented, and the existing generation the West Coast would be self-sufficient in electricity.

It is a worthy goal, but the consents have been appealed, most notably by two State-owned enterprises, Meridian Energy and Solid Energy. In both cases the grounds of the appeals look spuriously weak. Understandably, members of the public have come to the conclusion that both of the appeals may have more to do with rival schemes owned by those two State-owned enterprises. Solid Energy’s scheme is broadly similar to that of Hydro Developments, and it is a matter of extreme regret that the State-owned enterprise has refused offers of mediation from the chief executive of the Buller District Council. I would like to hear from the Minister for State Owned Enterprises as to what mechanisms he has in place to rein in the apparently unethical behaviour of both of these State-owned enterprises.

The shortcomings of our current decision-making framework are best illustrated by the Meridian Energy scheme. Its plan is to desecrate one of the most valuable and treasured places in the entire country, the Mōkihinui River. Meridian Energy intends to build an 85-metre-high dam and a 14-kilometre-long lake. It intends to inundate around 300 hectares of our most precious forest ecosystem in New Zealand. According to Meridian Energy’s own assessment, the conservation values and recreation values are second to none in the New Zealand conservation estate and cannot be offset. The impact of this scheme can never be reversed.

A rational decision-making framework would say that, given that either of these schemes would make the West Coast self-sufficient, we should be able to compare the one that has the net positive impact on the environment with the one that has a catastrophic, irreversible impact. Kate Wilkinson has this matter in her hands. She has the chance to refuse the land swap that is proposed by Meridian Energy and that is recommended against by the local conservation board. I have heard her say that she loves the conservation estate of this country as much as anyone. This is one of the most important parts of that estate, and I say to Kate that it is time for her to show the love.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I do not know whether it is just me, but I am feeling a little edgy at the moment—sober, but edgy.

Chris Auchinvole: You’re looking very edgy.

SIMON BRIDGES: Maybe it is the brown suit and the branding; I do not know.

I want to talk about how lucky we are in New Zealand to live in this great country, which has a mature democracy. It is a democracy where the big parties—Labour and National—can come together on big issues and we can agree. We can get cross-party consensus on things like our antinuclear policy and international free trade.

It has been very pleasing to see this week that we have come together on a core plank of the Government’s policy and success. Phil Goff has made it very clear what a great Prime Minister we have in John Key. He said: “Look, we can learn a lot from this guy.” I agree with Phil Goff. John Key is a great leader. He is a great Prime Minister. Why is that? What is making Phil Goff look to John Key? It could be something to do with the 54:33 lead in the polls—about 21 percentage points. They are probably 21 good reasons why Phil Goff is feeling a little down at the moment. Another figure we could go with is 54:8, but that would be a bit mean. I agree with Paula Bennett that we are talking about someone who is trying to reinvent himself. Phil Goff has been getting out on the Triumph motorbike and trying it with the big red bus. The National Party has a bit of advice for this guy. He needs a bit more than a big boys’ toys campaign to be the leader of an Opposition that is doing very well.

During this debate we have heard a lot about “DRIP”.

Paul Quinn: Oh!

SIMON BRIDGES: I say to Paul Quinn that I am not talking about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am not talking about something that has only a symbolic effect.

Todd McClay: What are you talking about?

SIMON BRIDGES: I am talking about the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff. What does “DRIP” stand for? It could be that “d” stands for “don’t”, “r” for “really”, “i” for “ideas”, and “p” for “polls”—“Phil I don’t really have any idea what to do about the polls Goff”. I say to Phil Goff that that is all right, because neither does anyone else in the Labour Party. If they did, he would not be the leader for very long. What we have here in “DRIP” is more than a policy and it is more than symbolic, it is actually a condition that could be with the Labour Party for quite some time yet. Labour members may have “DRIP”—“I don’t really have any idea what to do about the polls”—for some time yet. Of course, I could be wrong.

Todd McClay: No, they’re out organising a barbecue.

SIMON BRIDGES: Well, they probably are. As I say, they are not really sure which drip should replace the current drip. But “DRIP” could stand for other things, such as “devastated really at how invincible the Prime Minister is”. Of course, the “i” could stand for “infallible” or for all sorts of other things, but it is clear that we have some drips in the Labour Party.

I do not want to be cruel, and I have already made the point that it is good that there is cross-party consensus on these things, but I refer to some of Labour’s allies. The Standard, which is a well-known left-wing propaganda blog, has been getting in on the act. Today’s blog states: “Call in Malcolm Tucker, we’ve got a live one”. It goes on to state that Phil Goff is “Too busy heaping praise on John Key. Calling him a ‘good politician’. Saying he deserves ‘credit where credit’s due’. One News asks if Goff is losing his marbles. 3 News wonders if he’s voting National in 2011.”—that is a very fair question—“Me, I wonder if he’s angling for a job with the Herald.” We can see quite clearly that the Labour Party is adrift. It is a rudderless ship on the ocean of politics, if you like.

Here in National we are not worrying about whether we are retro, cheeky, edgy, sober, futuristic, or any of those things; we are just getting on with the business of running this country. We are a party that has a credible plan. We have a plan for the future of the economy of this country. We want to take this country forward. As a first-term member, if I could give Phil Goff some advice about what to do, it would be to emulate John Key, to get out and talk to people, and to do things in a straightforward—actually, I am letting the secret out.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 17 March.

PAUL QUINN (National): In the remaining time I have, I want to address the report of the Attorney-General in respect of this bill. In so doing, I preface my remarks by saying that the Attorney-General is a man of great integrity, courage, and enormous intellect. He may prove to be one of New Zealand’s finest as time passes. Certainly, he is the best Attorney-General we have had in the last 10 years. But like all good Celtic Catholic men, there are times when we agree to disagree. In paragraph 11 of his report he says that the bill appears to suggest that anyone sentenced to any period of imprisonment is a serious offender.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I wouldn’t actually refer to Celtic Catholic men at the moment.

PAUL QUINN: I say to Lianne Dalziel that in paragraph 12 he goes on to claim that the above statement is questionable and that non-serious offenders will be disenfranchised; for example, fines defaulters.

What the report leaves unstated is that the only reason fines defaulters end up in prison is because they refuse to pay their fines. A former Minister, the Hon Rick Barker, answered a question for oral answer on behalf of the then Minister of Corrections and said that the number of offenders being given custodial sentences in lieu of fines reflected the importance the Government puts on offenders being held to account for their actions, and that a custodial sentence is obviously a harsh sentence for serious fines defaulters. The simple fact is that terms of imprisonment are imposed for some offences that one might consider minor, but people are not imprisoned for those offences unless they become serious, such as not paying, on a serial basis, fines that are due. One might say that there are many people who have committed serious crimes—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member’s time has expired, but he does get a reply.

PAUL QUINN: Is that right? We look forward to the debate.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to advise the House that the Labour Opposition will be opposing the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I do not think any mock outrage on the other side of the House will cut any mustard on this side of the House. We know why this bill is being introduced: it is called dog-whistle politics. There is nothing worse in this House than to see matters of substance raised in a debate such as this. I take the strongest possible exception to using an amendment to electoral law to argue this dog-whistle position to attack people who are in prison at a particular time.

This matter has a very, very strong history to it. It was the subject of consideration in 1986 by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System. During the royal commission’s consideration of our electoral system, it raised the issue that no prisoner could vote when that prisoner was in jail on election day. That is how the law applied at that particular time. That was the concern that the royal commission addressed, and it was ahead of its time. The royal commission was several years ahead of the passage of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is what led to the Crown Law Office writing the opinion that the member seems to think Chris Finlayson wrote all by himself, but that is by the by. The point I make is that the royal commission, which considered this issue in depth—and did not have the benefit of New Zealand being subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—decided that it was not correct to say to people that they do not have the right to vote if they are in prison on election day.

The question was raised in 1993, when changes to the Electoral Act were being proposed. In fact, the Solicitor-General at that time, John McGrath, advised the Government that denying all prisoners the right to vote was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act by that stage. So the Government of the day—a National Government—under a very good Minister of Justice, Doug Graham, considered the whole question in the light of our obligations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It was said that imposing a limitation across the board on those rights could not be justified. The limit was arbitrary.

Paul Quinn: So why did it give 3 years?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The member should read the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It says that a limit cannot be arbitrary. In this case, the reason that it was arbitrary was because it did not take into account the seriousness of the offence. A person convicted of a minor offence, simply because of timing, lost the right to vote for 3 years, whereas someone convicted of a more serious offence might not have lost the right to vote at all. That was the unfairness of the situation.

I will talk about the right to vote. People talk about the right to vote. May I recast that a different way? I ask this House to think about the duty to vote, not the right to vote. Let us recast it as a duty. We have an obligation under our law to be enrolled to vote. Paul Quinn says with this bill that prisoners should not be allowed to go on the roll, yet we require by law everyone else to be on the roll. So we would say to people who have committed an offence and who happen to be in jail during the period of time when there is an election that they cannot be on the electoral roll, and yet we require by law everyone else to be on the roll.

Paul Quinn: The current law says that.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The current law says that, because it was changed in 1993. The way the current law was changed was to ensure that there could be a distinction made between those who were convicted of more serious offences. The position was adopted of choosing the time frame of more than 3 years, which was a parliamentary term, and which actually solved the problem—drawing those people into the group of people who lose the right to vote because they go overseas for more than 3 years and have not been back within that 3-year period. So, actually, the whole thing makes logical sense. The only way that Paul Quinn can argue what he is arguing is if he does not accept that there is somehow a moral duty to vote. I do not think any person should stand or sit in this Parliament who does not believe that it is a duty to vote as opposed to merely a right. I think a duty is far stronger than a right.

The member Paul Quinn is saying that we should take prisoners off the electoral roll, which means that if they are in jail at the point that they are seeking to re-enrol, they will come off the electoral roll. I say that getting marginalised people in our society on to the electoral roll is one of the hardest things that we have to confront when we try to sign up people during the election campaign. Every member of this House will know how much resource we put into the Electoral Commission to make sure that people are on the roll in the lead-up to both the local-body elections, which take place this year, and the general election, which takes place next year. I think that people should think very carefully about what this bill really means. It is not about punishing people; it is actually about minimising the duty that goes with electing our members of Parliament and also electing our mayors, city councillors, community board members, and regional council—if we still had one in Christchurch.

I think that the fundamental issue is that the member Paul Quinn is using this as a dog whistle to those who want to see the Government as having a tough stance on our prison population, and who are saying let us get tough on prisoners. My view of that is that this idea is completely out of date and out of time, because it was considered in 1986 and it was implemented in an appropriate way by a National Government in 1993. The point I make is that the situation has become even stronger. The explanatory note with this bill says that the Royal Commission on the Electoral System failed to consider prior convictions before a custodial sentence was imposed. By the time one gets to a custodial sentence there are more serious offences that have been committed in the past. That was before the days of home detention, which in my view makes an even stronger case for the royal commission’s position. This bill states that if an individual gets home detention they are allowed to vote, but if they are in prison they are not allowed to vote.

Simon Bridges: Well, there’s a less serious offence.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Oh, now the member has just given me the answer to that question! I tell that member that there were two young men convicted in Christchurch last year of exactly the same offence. One lived in Fendalton with a very supportive family. One lived in Aranui with a very unsupportive family. What happened? The one from Fendalton got home detention and the one from Aranui went to jail. So, why should one be taken off the electoral roll and told that he cannot be on the electoral roll when the other one from Fendalton is allowed to stay on the electoral roll?

I think that the Government has got this completely and utterly wrong. They need to work out that the underlying issue is much more important than this dog-whistle political bill. This bill will undermine what I believe every person in this country should accept: it is a duty to vote. It is not a right to vote; it is a duty to vote. It is a duty to be involved in our political system, whether it is local government or central government. All that this bill is doing is telling people who have been convicted for 3 years and who have to spend their time in jail, as opposed to home detention, that the Government wants to differentiate between those two. I say shame on the members opposite. It is an absolute shame that this bill is allowed to come before this House and bring this House into disrepute by not seeing this as the important issue that we are entitled to see it as. It is a duty to vote, and I believe that this bill undermines that very duty.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I will start by talking just briefly about the previous speech by Lianne Dalziel. It was not bad really; I agree with some of it. But I take issue with her view on the duty to vote. We do not have a compulsion to vote here, unlike in Australia. We are obliged to be on the electoral roll—we are duty-bound to do that—but we are not obliged to vote. Voting is a major right. It is a right that people have fought and died for. I am unaware whether any suffragettes died in this country, but certainly they did in England, in the early part of last century, in order to obtain the right to vote. That right was considered to be so important that women were prepared to go on to racetracks and be trampled to death in order to get the right to vote. There can be no democracy without voting; one inevitably follows the other.

I am afraid I disagree with Ms Dalziel’s view regarding criminals in prison, but she has made a good point: there are disparities in treatment between those who are in prison and those who are on home detention. Perhaps that could be addressed at the select committee, because on the face of it, certainly, someone who receives a sentence of home detention—

Simon Bridges: It is for a less serious offence, David.

DAVID GARRETT: Yes, well, they can theoretically get home detention for a serious offence, so perhaps that disparity can be looked at. But by and large, contrary to what Ms Dalziel has said, people are in prison for very serious offending. They are deprived of their liberty, which is a right not much less important than the right to vote, perhaps. They are there for repeat violent offending, very serious violent offending, or for having stolen a lot of money. They have broken the social contract that we all make to abide by the laws that we make in this place. They are there for a reason. The question to be asked is simply why such people should be allowed to exercise a right that people have died for. That is not a melodramatic question; it is a very serious one.

Although this is a member’s bill, in my view it is part of a sea change that this Government has embarked upon in the law and order field. Along with measures to combat drug abuse and the other drivers of crime, the National-ACT Government is making it very clear that prison ought to be a place that people do not want to return to. Although it is incorrect to say our prisons are five-star hotels—I have visited seven or eight of them, and I know that is not the case—neither are they hellholes or particularly unpleasant. That is changing. This Government, with the full support of the ACT Party, is introducing container cells. Now, the party opposite wails and moans about the inhumanity of that. If members had a bit of life experience, they would know that anyone who has worked in a mine in Australia or on an oil rig has lived in something very similar to what is proposed for Rimutaka Prison. Container prisons will not be like the so-called “Milton Hilton”, the centrally heated prison in the South Island. They will not be like the Ngāwhā prison, which was opened under the previous Government. They will not have a large sculpture, at a cost of a couple of million dollars, to indicate the spirit returning to the sea.

Last week I was speaking to a Rotary group in the North Island near Ngāwhā about the “three strikes” bill, which is soon to pass in this House. After my speech, I took questions. One of the audience members was a doctor, and he asked me what I thought about prison conditions. I said pretty much what I have just said: prisons are not five-star hotels, but neither are they hellholes, and they should be places that people do not want to return to. Afterwards he came up to me and said that he treated all the prisoners from Ngāwhā prison who had ear, nose, and throat problems. Purely from his own interest, he had asked them how they found conditions there, and what they thought about life there. He said that every single one of them said that they were very comfortable, thanks, the food was great, they were not required to work, and they were very happy. Either that man was lying—and he did not seem like a liar to me—or we have made our prisons too comfortable. That is changing, and I applaud that change, as does my party. This bill is symptomatic of that change and is part of it, and we are proud to support it.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): The Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill is nothing more than the latest in a long line of dog-whistle attempts to make the Government, the National Party, and its ACT Party fellow traveller over there seem tough on crime. This House should be gravely concerned that some of its members can come in here and propose legislation for those reasons, without any regard for its practical implications. Those members would place political image above fairness, above the value our society places on the civic duty of voting, above the effectiveness of our electoral roll, and above prisoners’ reintegration into society upon release, and in ways that would be impractical to implement for all the reasons that Lianne Dalziel set out in her very fine contribution to this debate.

As well as this bill being completely impracticable, the Attorney-General has notified the House that the bill is unjustifiable because it is inconsistent with the electoral rights affirmed by section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Simon Bridges: This from the party that had Michael Cullen, who didn’t even put one forward for the Electoral Finance Act.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Unlike some of the members opposite, who are interjecting, I think it should be a matter for serious concern when this House receives a report of inconsistency from the Attorney-General.

Clearly Mr Quinn does not know what the process is relating to these reports. I will explain what that process is. The Crown Law Office looks at the legislation. It looks at overseas cases and comparable provisions in international agreements and legislation to consider whether courts or international tribunals have considered whether similar provisions are consistent with fundamental rights and freedoms. Let us look at the advice this House has received on that point. As far as a blanket ban on prisoner voting is concerned, it breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it is inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the High Court decision in Re Bennett, and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and the European Court of Human Rights.

The advice states that inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act can be justified where the provision serves an important and significant objective, and where there is a rational and proportionate connection between the provision and the said objective. The stated objective of this bill is to disenfranchise the most serious offenders. The Attorney-General does not express an opinion on whether that is an important and significant objective but, regardless, he concludes that the objective to disenfranchise the most serious offenders is “not rationally linked to the blanket ban on prisoner voting”.

There are three reasons for that, which are worth having in the record of the House. First, not every person serving a sentence of imprisonment is necessarily a serious offender, and people who are not serious offenders will be disenfranchised.

David Garrett: Wrong.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Mr Garrett knows better than the Attorney-General on this point, judging by his interjections! That is the advice on the record from the Attorney-General. The example given is a fines defaulter, who may be imprisoned, but who hardly qualifies as a serious offender. Secondly, an irrational inconsistency is created so that mentally impaired prisoners who are detained in a hospital or secure facility for less than 3 years could vote, while all prisoners serving sentences of less than 3 years in prisons could not vote. Currently both groups are treated the same. Nothing in this bill deals with that issue. Thirdly and finally, the advice states that the blanket ban on prisoner voting is both under and over-inclusive. It is under-inclusive in that a prisoner convicted of a serious violent offence who serves 2½ years in prison between general elections can vote, and it is over-inclusive in that someone convicted and given a 1-week sentence coinciding with a general election would be prevented from voting. There is a complete inconsistency there, which a select committee would be simply unable to resolve.

This bill has no intention other than to make the Government look tough on crime. In doing so, it is proposing impractical changes. If the Government were really tough on crime, it would not be taking police cars off the street, decreasing firearms training for the police, and slashing $21 million of funding from the police. Most of all, it would not be coming to this House every day to implement the sort of outdated economic policies that create inequality and impoverish our communities in such a way that creates crime in the first place. This is a bad bill. It is window dressing and it is offensive. It will not work, and that is why Labour opposes it.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

David Garrett: It will offend them. It will offend the communists, all right.

DAVID CLENDON: Thank you, Mr Garrett. The Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill has one single and very simple purpose.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are various Speakers’ rulings about people moving to other seats to facilitate interjection. I know that in this House we have a fairly flexible regime in that regard, but we have seen several examples of it from Mr Garrett both in the previous speech and even before Mr Clendon was able to get a word out.

Todd McClay: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I do not need any assistance, thank you. I have cautioned members. This is a members’ day and one would hope we have a slightly better standard of debate in that regard than a partisan-party operation. Mr Quinn has a right of reply; he might like to contain his interjections. Interjections are part of this House if they are rare and reasonable, and we have gone beyond rare and reasonable.

DAVID CLENDON: As I was saying, this bill has a single and quite simple purpose, which is to deny the vote to anyone who is currently serving a prison sentence. That is quite a significant shift to the current arrangements, yet there is very little in this bill in the way of argument or justification for that proposed change. It leaves us to speculate on the underlying purpose. I must agree with some of the speakers who have already noted that it seems to be a response to the very simplistic, populist call for longer sentences and tougher punishment for criminals. Allegedly, that will solve our problems but, of course, we know they will not.

Putting people in jail is punishment for a crime. There is nothing to be gained from punishing them further by stopping them from voting. Further marginalising prisoners from our society—and denying people the vote will contribute to that extra marginalisation—will contribute to the growing underclass that this Government pretends it is concerned about. Very well-founded and credible research from the US shows that depriving prisoners of the vote is not good for their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It further alienates people from the norms of mainstream society. How far does this Government plan to go? We hope we do not get to a situation similar to that in the United States, where ex-prisoners are denied the right to vote. Currently some 5 million Americans—something like 14 percent of, or one in seven, African-American males—are disenfranchised. Let us hope this Government’s somewhat irrational approach to justice issues does not take us too far down that road.

The bill’s explanatory note acknowledges that it ignores the advice of the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, which was supported by advice from the Solicitor-General in 1992. However, it does not provide an argument for what this bill will achieve. The 1986 commission noted that the disqualification of prisoners was not uncommon internationally and that “Its origins lie in the view that voting is a privilege rather than a right, to be extended only to people of substance and standing on the community.” The Greens reject absolutely the notion of voting as a privilege to be doled out by who knows who. We see voting as an absolute right in regards to the franchise. It is a right of every citizen, with a very few exceptions, to vote. The State’s right to coerce citizens—and imprisoning citizens is perhaps the most obvious and extreme example of that coercion—depends on its legitimacy as an elected body with power and authority supported by an electoral mandate. The right to vote ought only to be withdrawn in the most exceptional circumstances, and a prison sentence of less than 3 years falls far short of any reasonable test.

The Attorney-General’s assessment, tabled in the House on 17 March, concluded that “the blanket disenfranchisement of prisoners appears to be inconsistent with s 12 of the Bill of Rights Act and that it cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” It is true that the first draft of any bill can contain an error, a drafting error, or some reason why the Attorney-General might pick up a provision in breach of that Act. The core purpose—the core principle—of this bill is clearly in breach of the Bill of Rights. That in itself should be sufficient to stop the bill in its tracks.

Deterrence is often rolled out as a rationale for populist and ineffective punitive measures. This, indeed, is intended as a justification. Very few people think rationally before committing a crime. Very few people will stop at the point where they are about to commit a crime for fear they will lose their right to vote. It is simply not a reasonable expectation. The prison system is imperfect and not always just. We know that people are incarcerated while others committing similar crimes are allowed to serve a sentence in some other way, or escape conviction all together. That point has been made.

In summary, it is our belief that the proposal in this bill is not helpful. It will take us nowhere in terms of reducing offending or, indeed, recidivism in this country. It will not reduce our prison population. It will not make us a more peaceful, secure, or cohesive society. For those reasons, the Greens will continue to oppose the passage of this bill.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I speak to the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill. If the bill is enacted, the law would revert to what it was prior to the implementation of the current Electoral Act 1993. All this bill does is remove the right of a person to register as an elector if he or she is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 3 years. The bill is very simple law. It says that if people do a crime, they do the time and give up the electoral right that normal citizens have. The legislation gives supremacy to a person’s moral obligation not to commit a crime, rather than to the moral obligation of that person to vote. The Labour Opposition is saying that it is a moral obligation to allow these people to vote. But do these people not also have a moral obligation not to commit crime? If they want to commit a crime, they have to do the time, and they have to give up all the rights and privileges that law-abiding citizens have. If they want to do the crime, they give up those rights and privileges. Their moral obligation is not to commit crime; they have to have that responsibility in the first instance. If they want to continue to vote, then they will not commit crime. If they want to give up their rights and privileges, then so be it—they give up the right to vote. I would rather that the moral obligation not to commit crime had supremacy over the moral obligation to allow those people to vote.

Members should look at all of the thousands of New Zealanders who went to war, as David Garrett quite rightly pointed out, to protect our democracy. The biggest part of that democracy is the right to vote. Well, if people are going to commit crime, which they have a moral obligation not to do, then they can give up the rights and privileges that they can expect as New Zealanders.

What do the Greens say? They say that that is an irrational approach—to expect New Zealanders to have a moral obligation not to commit a crime is an irrational approach! That is being just totally soft on crime. What is the Greens’ other interpretation? The Greens’ other interpretation is to call the law of locking up criminals extreme coercion. I mean, you know, duh! This is about keeping New Zealanders safe, yet the Greens call the law of locking up New Zealanders extreme coercion. I guess if this were a communist country those members would be in the top seats, but it is not a communist country; it is a democracy. We expect a moral obligation of New Zealanders not to commit a crime, and if they commit a crime then we expect that the laws will deal to them in the appropriate way; this is just another way in which we can curb their rights and obligations.

We need to send a very, very strong message to people who might think about committing a crime. We need to make them think about all the rights and privileges that they would lose, and we need to make sure that they do not enjoy their time in incarceration or in fulfilling their sentences. Of course, we hear all about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and those people’s rights. Well, in my view, the moment they commit a crime they abdicate their rights.

What about the rights of the citizens of New Zealand not to have crime perpetrated against them? We are not going to be like the Labour members. They said they are not going to not condone the actions of criminals, so by definition that means they condone the actions of criminals. Labour members are clearly soft on crime, but National members are sending a very strong message that we are not soft on crime. We want to make sure that every single criminal understands that they will get dealt to. If they want to break the law, they will get dealt to. We have made very sure of that.

We have totally supported the police with the changes that we have made under the excellent leadership of Minister Judith Collins, who is Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections. We have given the police Tasers, we have given them more police on the front line, and we have given them more powers to deal with crime and methamphetamine. We have enabled them to act to recover the proceeds of crime; we have taken $7.2 million from that. Bring it on!

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare.

Paul Quinn: Hey, brother.

HONE HARAWIRA: Tēnā koe, parata. If an election were held today, some 3,200 sentenced prisoners—those with a release date between now and 5 March 2011—would be able to take up their democratic right to vote. Another 1,800 prisoners on remand would also be eligible. That makes up about 5,000 people in prison who can legally vote at a general election. Under the terms of the Electoral Act 1993, because they are serving a sentence of less than 3 years they are eligible to vote. But today we have the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill, which seeks to deprive those 5,000 people of their legal right, and to punish them again for the crime for which they have already been prosecuted, sentenced, and incarcerated. I have to wonder about the motivation of targeting people who are already isolated from our society, who are already alienated from everyday life, and who are already serving the time to pay for their crime. I ask what on earth could be the motivation to deny them even more of their rights, except to punish them, to prove how nasty and vicious society can be, to show that we do not care about those who have fallen by the wayside, and to show what a callous and depraved society we really are.

This bill is a backward step. It takes us back to the time before 1993 when, based on a recommendation of the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, the Solicitor-General agreed to the 3-year rule. This bill will take us back to the days when, on conviction, anyone in prison was disqualified from voting. This bill will take us back to the days of prejudice and ignorance, and of a society ruled by fear rather than freedom. Kim Workman, director of Rethinking Crime and Punishment, said the provisions of the bill would affect the 90 percent of prisoners who would be out of jail in 2 years, and it would also actively disenfranchise the families and the communities that those inmates come from. Communities like Ōtara, Flaxmere, and Cannons Creek would stand to lose a significant number of their voters. It does not take very much consideration to realise that with Māori and Pasifika constituting the great majority of prison inmates, the Polynesian voice would be the voice that was silenced by this legislation.

The history of the right to vote in this country is one of confronting prejudice and challenging exclusion. Our history has been one of opening up the right to vote to women, to Māori, to people who were not British subjects, such as the Chinese, to people living on the Chatham Islands, to 20-year-olds, and ultimately to 18-year-olds, as well. This bill, along with a range of bills of a similar nature, aims to take us back to a time when exclusion defined us as a society, and to reset us on the track of slowly but surely rebuilding the walls of denial and racism. That would see this country plunge into levels of hatred and violence that would make today’s problems look like they were a bun fight. We shudder at the thought of what might come next, and we signal quite clearly that we will most certainly not be supporting this bill. Kia ora tātou.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Every so often Parliament gets to debate questions of pure principle. The issue here is whether serving prisoners should have the right to vote. My answer, at a principled level, is absolutely not. Some would say that voting is not a right, it is a privilege. I disagree. It is a right; it is a fundamental right, but it is not an absolute right. In fact, if we consider all the rights we like to think of, they never are absolute.

But with all rights, even with fundamental ones, go responsibilities. If we like, we can put it this way: there is a social contract between individuals and the State. The State makes the rules. It compulsorily takes taxes and does all manner of things. In return, we receive all sorts of things: warm shelter sometimes, hospitals, schools, and of course the power of the ballot to elect or “unelect”, and, in our privileged case in this House, to be elected. Prisoners, however, have opted out of that social contract. They have not gone just against the State’s and society’s basic rules, they have gone against the big ones, which means that incarceration has resulted.

A central debate here concerns the matter of how easily imprisonment is imposed. I say to members from experience that it is not imposed easily, at all. In this country we do not take away someone’s right to liberty and imprison them at all lightly. Indeed, the previous Labour Government increased the many sentence options that judges now have, and that they must consider, before a person is incarcerated. There is a spectrum, and a wide one at that, of offences before we get to the most serious penalties in our system of imprisonment.

Moreover, the right to vote is not just a fundamental one; it is a precious one. Millions of men and women have shed blood and lost their lives for the right to vote. I simplify to some extent, but I say that arguably any war we like to think of that New Zealand has been involved in has been fought in the name of, among other things, democracy. I am certainly not saying to this House that all wars are right. Indeed, often they are fundamentally misguided. Nevertheless, as I say, to some extent they are in the name of democracy.

My grandfather fought in a world war, but did he do that so that serving prisoners could vote? Voting is a fundamental right, but it is also a precious one. By committing serious crime, prisoners opt out of the social contract between citizens and the State, and they lose the right to vote. When they have served their time and they are out, they can re-enter society. They can regain their precious right, that hard-earned, with blood shed, right to vote. That is how it should be. This bill, in principle, is the right thing to do. I commend it to the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I will begin by, for the first time—and possibly for the only time—endorsing 100 percent the comments made by Hone Harawira in the speech that he just made on the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill. There was nothing in the speech he made that I disagreed with; there was much in the speech he made that I strongly endorse and think members on all sides of the House would be well advised to listen to. I think we should take on board much of what he has to say, not just in this debate but in many other debates, when it comes to law and order and the incarceration of prisoners.

With the possible exception of the last contribution, from Simon Bridges, the common feature and common characteristic of all of the other contributions from the other side of the House is that the speeches have been filled with anger and hatred. I can understand that, to some extent, when it comes to debates about law and order. I can understand it when it comes particularly to serious criminals and their serving of time in prison. But the problem is that when it comes to debates about law and order, anger and hatred seldom advance matters very far, at all. In fact, the point that Hone Harawira made, which I totally endorse, is that so many of the people in our prisons feel nothing but anger and hatred from the society around them, and often know no different from that. Often they have never felt anything other than anger and hatred from the society around them; they have become so disenfranchised. That is a contributing factor to their offending.

This bill will disenfranchise them from society even further. Voting is a duty that all citizens should have, with the exception—and I accept this exception—of the most serious criminal offenders, who are already prevented under the law from voting. There have been many reviews of this law, including a royal commission, a review by the Solicitor-General, and comments recently on this bill by the Attorney-General—the National Government’s own Attorney-General—all of which have said that it is not justified to remove the ability to vote from somebody who is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of less than 3 years. I totally agree with that. We cannot treat people differently depending on when they are sentenced and when they serve their sentences. People who would never have the opportunity to vote anyway, because there may not be an election during the time they are in prison, could be removed from the electoral roll. Somebody may be in prison for 6 months between elections, and they would never have the opportunity to vote even if they were out in public. Yet they would be removed from the electoral roll.

We spend so much time getting people on to the electoral roll in the first place, and some of the people who are the most difficult to get on to the roll in the first place are the people who are disenfranchised from our community. We struggle to get the people who are more likely to go to prison on to the electoral roll in the first place, yet this bill removes them from the electoral roll. It is not justified. It will further marginalise them from our community.

Tough on crime rhetoric is the easy part. Dealing with the underlying social causes of criminal offending, the disenfranchisement from society, and the total feeling of anger that exists within many of the people in our prisons is something we have to think long and hard about. We do not do a good job of this, because the political rhetoric is too hard on any side of this political debate. It is very difficult to deal with this issue in a way that will look good on the news and will make people likely to vote for us. Yes, there are votes in being seen to be hard on criminals. There are very few votes, unfortunately, in dealing with the root causes of crime and criminal offending, because they are not easy and they do not fit on a bumper sticker.

We have to get past that, because New Zealand already has one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world. We have nearly twice as many people per capita in prison as Australia does. The gene pool of its population was hand-picked by the best magistrates in the United Kingdom, yet Australia apparently has a lower level of criminal offending than New Zealand. I simply do not accept that. I believe and accept that the political rhetoric in New Zealand has gotten to the point where we can no longer have a rational debate about this issue. We have to step back from that rhetoric. The tough on crime rhetoric has to stop. We have to take this matter much more seriously, and this bill is not the way to advance these issues.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill, presented to the House by Paul Quinn. I will read the middle part of the title again—“disqualification of convicted prisoners”.

I congratulate Paul Quinn on having a little bit of the Green Party’s luck. I heard a member of the Green Party suggest one day that a bit of karma is involved when it comes to having a member’s bill drawn out of the ballot, and we recognise that over the last year the Green Party has had many bills drawn. Well, if anybody deserves karma in this area it is Paul Quinn, and I want to recognise that fact right here.

I support this bill very strongly for a number of reasons. The right to vote is an important right. It is a right that is exercised and enjoyed by all law-abiding citizens throughout this country, and it is considered by law-abiding citizens to be a very important right. When people break the law in this country—and in many others—there are consequences. People who break the law lose a number of the rights that law-abiding people in New Zealand enjoy. The right to freedom is lost. I think everybody in this House would agree that people who commit crimes should lose their freedom. The right to association is also lost because of incarceration.

Someone mentioned earlier that the right to stand for election to Parliament is lost. I believe that it is only proper that people lose their right to exercise their voice in society through their vote when they have been sentenced to a period of time in prison. I say to all those who hold their right to vote as precious to them that there is a simple way to retain that right, and that is to not break the law. If they do break the law, if they do commit a crime, then I hold the right of a law-abiding person to vote to be more important.

I have listened closely to the debate, and I have enjoyed some very good interventions. I note that Hone Harawira spoke with some wisdom in some of these areas, and I look forward to this bill going to a select committee, if today’s vote allows, so that we can hear more from others and from members of the public about their thoughts on the matter.

After listening to the rhetoric from Labour members, I say that Labour has shown again that it is soft on crime. Those members opposite are more concerned about the rights of the criminal than they are about the rights of the victim. If there was a way to give the criminals’ votes to their victims, then I would very seriously consider supporting it. I say to members opposite that if Labour members were an effective Opposition, in touch with the concerns of law-abiding citizens who hold the right to vote as being very important, then they would be supporting this bill. But we have heard today, of course, that they are not an effective Opposition, and they will not be supporting the bill.

I believe that the majority of people in this House are committed to tackling crime and making our communities safer for Kiwi families. I believe that the majority of people in this House believe that the rights of law-abiding citizens should come before the rights of criminals. This bill makes it clear that our democratic rights as citizens include obligations to obey the law. When people break the law and are sentenced to prison, they have not met their obligations to society and they therefore should lose the right to vote while they are in prison.

I reiterate for the benefit of anybody who was not listening earlier that I support this bill very strongly. We have heard from others about a royal commission report some years ago, and there are always different interpretations of it, but, very clearly, the commission’s analysis is notable for its omission of any consideration as to the level of serious offending most prisoners have been convicted of prior to their eventually receiving a custodial sentence. The select committee will have an opportunity, should this bill move beyond its first reading, to look at that. It will have an opportunity to decide and to converse with New Zealanders about what they think is an appropriate level.

I have read the bill and looked at it closely, and I congratulate Paul Quinn. I think he has the level right. If people want to keep their right to vote, if voting is an important right to them, they should think about victims and not go out and commit crimes. I say to Paul that he will have my vote on this issue. Thank you.

PAUL QUINN (National): The Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill is quite a simple bill. All it sets out to do is to remove the vote from anyone who is imprisoned on the day of an election. I am quite happy for the bill to go through the select committee process to work out any procedural issues. If the Opposition is hung up on the fact that it removes people from the electoral roll, then let us just leave them on the roll and say that if they are in prison, they do not get on a bus to go and vote. [Interruption] I know that the bill does not say that, but that is what the current Act says. All I have done is extend that provision. The simple fact is that the select committee is charged with finding the most appropriate mechanism to achieve the aims of the bill.

Labour has accused members on this side of the House of practising dog-whistle politics. Talk about rhetoric! Those members have talked about anger. Most of the anger and most of the rhetoric has come from them. In fact, probably the best contribution to this debate, the most civilised and the most thoughtful, I thought, was an outstanding contribution from my colleague Simon Bridges. There is a man who has been at the coalface of crime. I think that his contribution to this debate was very worthwhile of being listened to.

It was suggested by Lianne Dalziel, and again by David Clendon, in the contribution from the Green Party, that this was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The fact of the matter is that section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act allows, in exceptional circumstances, section 12 of that Act to be overridden. This debate is all about whether there are exceptional circumstances, and, if so, what they are. Already both the royal commission and the Solicitor-General, in his opinion of 4 or 5 years ago, confirm that at some point in time there is an exceptional circumstance. What this debate is about is where the line in the sand is around exceptional circumstances. That is all the debate is. I suggest that if Lianne Dalziel had read the royal commission report more fully, she would know that the only reason the provision for 3 years is there is that the commission thought there should be some exceptional circumstances. We have said that people who go overseas for more than 3 years lose their right to vote. The commission thought that sounded OK, so it applied the same ruling to prisoners. If she had read the report she would understand that that was the basis for the provision of 3 years.

No other reason was given in the royal commission’s report. Someone who makes the choice—his or her own choice—to go overseas for 3 years or more loses the right to vote, and therefore prisoners should be treated on that same basis. Yet we are talking about people who have transgressed against society. They have abused the rights that the community values and that the people who fought in the wars commemorated by the memorials in this Chamber fought to defend. But, no, Opposition members want to stand aside and not have that conversation. Well, I say that it is an appropriate time for this conversation to occur, because we are faced with, and challenged by, the fact that the community can go only so far in being able to defend people’s rights. I believe that the community has the right to decide when it will no longer provide the protection that it offers when it protects people’s right to vote.

That is what this conversation is about. I hope that this bill is referred to a select committee so that we can have an informed debate, rather than the rhetoric and anger that came from the Opposition. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 59

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

Bill read a first time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 64, Noes 58.

Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.

Bills

Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I move, That the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. First of all, I thank my National Party colleagues for allowing me to put this bill in the ballot and for then supporting me—hopefully—when the time comes to refer it to the select committee. The bill’s title is the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. In a nutshell, it amends the Employment Relations Act 2000, to require unions to hold a secret ballot vote of their members to approve a strike before undertaking any strike action.

My key message to the House is that National has always believed that employment law should treat all parties fairly, with the focus on protecting employees and employers. National has been committed for a long time to creating a positive work environment, and I think that this bill supports that priority. I will not take up too much of the House’s time, but I will say in an overview that our nation is at a crossroads and that we need to get this nation back on a footing where we are concentrating on productivity. I think that the raft of measures that National has seen in, in the 18 to 20 months that it has been on the Treasury benches, has done that.

This bill requires unions to hold a secret ballot for their members when voting on strike action. Strikes can be incredibly stressful for both sides, both financially and mentally. One of the reasons why I suggested this bill to my colleagues was that one such person felt that he was under pressure when it came time to decide whether he would be part of the withdrawal of labour at his workplace. Not all workers will be in the same personal circumstances, so it is fair that any decision they make is free from judgment by anyone else. This bill will provide a protection mechanism for workers who may feel intimidated through the voting process. People must feel at ease with the process, whether it is about choosing to withdraw their labour or choosing their representatives every 3 years.

Chris Hipkins: Did New Zealand First have a ballot when they walked out of the National Government?

Hon TAU HENARE: That member was about 7 when that happened. This bill will ensure that a secret ballot before strikes is a legal requirement for all unions. It is nothing new. Actually, all that this bill does is to codify and standardise what is already occurring within some of the major unions of this country. I want to make it quite clear that this is not about a fight between right and left, or a fight between National and Labour; it is not even a fight between employers and employees. This is not an attack on unions. Rather, it enhances the processes that many unions already have in place.

Sue Moroney: What about employers?

Hon TAU HENARE: We will get to that; we will get to the little squeak from the Opposition members.

I had a meeting today with Peter Conway from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and it is very clear and apparent that the Council of Trade Unions does not have any problem with this bill. But it is also very clear and apparent to me that it wants to couch some issues in the select committee process, and I cannot wait for the council to come along—and for anyone else to come along—to make a submission on this bill. I think that the wars we used to fight have been won and lost. I will not say who won or who lost, but let us just say that those wars have been fought; those wars have been won, and those wars have been lost.

Hon Trevor Mallard: There’s nothing wrong with a bit of history.

Hon TAU HENARE: Absolutely; it makes us better people if we understand that history. It makes us better people if we know—

Hon Trevor Mallard: It would make your colleagues very well informed.

Hon TAU HENARE: No, no. Again, you see, this is not about right and left; this is not about National and Labour. This is about protecting a person’s right to make a decision without fear or favour. Protecting a person’s right to make a decision without feeling that he or she is under the cosh, so to speak—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The cosh or the bottle?

Hon TAU HENARE: The bottle, as well. We have all done things in our pasts that we rather regret; I ask Trevor Mallard whether that is not so.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I have never bottled anyone.

Hon TAU HENARE: No, some people never regret what they have done. They continue to make the same mistakes as they have in the past. But that is different, and not what we are here for.

We are here to protect a person’s right to withdraw their labour in a way whereby they are fully informed and not under any threat, either physical or mental. So I have set out today, and in my talks with various people, to make sure that the bill is non-controversial. It is all about transparency; it is all about democracy. It is all about the rights of the individual person who is being asked to withdraw his or her labour. In fact, that is the only real tool that workers have in their kitbags, so to speak, to further their interests.

As I said, I will not speak for very much longer, other than to say that I received a very, very nice letter concerning legal advice in respect of the consistency of my bill with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I am glad to inform the House that there are no issues with my bill going forward. It certainly does not contravene, I believe, any of the rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I leave the House to consider and make up its mind.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I will state right at the beginning that Labour will be supporting the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is a pity that the member in whose name this bill is had not consulted his nephew, the list member for the Hutt Valley, in order to make sure that the bill was similarly consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Maybe his nephew could give him some lessons in that area.

It is an unusual position for Mr Henare and me, but there was almost nothing in his speech that I could disagree with. He summarised the situation pretty well. His bill will do effectively nothing. He is enshrining in legislation what is already codified in the vast majority of union rules. Again, I will do something unusual and take the language of Ruth Richardson to ask “What is the mischief in that?”. There is no problem in sending the bill to a select committee. I have a question in terms of whether Parliament would be better dealing with some other issues. I think there are some bigger issues in industrial relations and other areas, but this is an issue that would be good to get to a select committee. I think that as far as the member goes, there will be a degree of unanimity. I hope there will be a degree of unanimity in the House about the legislation, because all it is doing is reflecting the practice of modern unionism, something that has changed a bit in the time since the member and I were more actively involved in the union movement.

There is an area in the bill, though, that Labour will look to amend, or to see whether the bill is a vehicle for amendment—that is, a reflection or mirror image for employers, an area to make sure there are proper processes for employers before they lock out workers. I think there is a lot of unevenness in the employment relationship legislation at the moment. Generally in our industrial relations law we have rules that apply to employers as well as to employees. What the proper approach for employers should be, I am not entirely sure, but I think certainly for companies it will be appropriate for at least the board of directors to make a decision before workers are locked out.

Darien Fenton: What about the Business Roundtable?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, it might be good for the Business Roundtable to take a secret ballot on some of its own policies. It is interesting, as one goes around the Business Roundtable, to see how different the individual members’ positions are from the positions that have been put forward by Mr Kerr. But, as I say, that area is something that we will be happy to look at.

I say to the member that over a number of years there have been some real changes in practice from the time when we were both actively involved in the union movement. In that time there were probably a significant number of unions that did not have secret ballots, and people had different methods of enforcement—both employers and employees. They had different methods of dispute resolution over that time; I ask Mr Henare whether that is so. I think it is fair to say that people had different attitudes to transparency at that time, because when there were incidents within the union movement those incidents tended to be covered up, and some of the people who behaved badly, as Mr Henare did, tended to be protected. I do not know whether it was because of the union brotherhood that they were protected, or whether there was a special deal even in those days, under the United Nations or some other arrangements, which meant that Mr Henare had protection rather than prosecution in the way that everyone else would have had, if they had behaved in the way that he did as he exited the union movement.

Mr Henare knows exactly what the story is; he introduced the importance of transparency in union matters here. I am sure that over the next period of time we will enjoy him telling us the story of the way that he exited the union movement. I tell members that it was not a matter of ballot fixing. He did not get caught for his ballot fixing, although I think the union might have had a trouble or two in that area at one stage or another around the time that he was an official. But that was not the reason that he decided to resign from the union movement; it was something that was much more serious than that. I look forward to transparency.

As I said at the beginning, we are supportive of the bill. It will have almost no effect in its current form. It might be a bit of a waste of time. It is likely to get widespread support, but we hope to improve it so that it will be fair and will mirror the processes available to employers before they use their power to lock workers out.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is gives me great pleasure to support my very good colleague Tau Henare. He was once a union organiser and he has a particular interest in workers’ rights. For many years he has been advocate for those who need assistance. The Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is part of his delivering legislation to the House for the people of New Zealand. This member’s bill will assist workers and given them the democratic rights that he knows they deserve. As a result of his very good experience in that field, we see this solid legislation coming through from a good member of the House who has an impeccable record and a future in this institution. He is also a good member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. If the bill gets through its first reading, it will go to that great committee and we will endeavour to look at all options, including those put forward by Labour, to see what can be done to make this legislation the best it can possibly be in the circumstances.

Basically, the bill gives fairness and equity to people in a ballot situation so they can have secrecy in making their decisions without feeling pressured in any way. That is crucial in a vital decision such as whether to undertake a strike action because not only is it possible that one might get some kind of pressure from colleagues, but also there is the potential pressure from those outside of the group who would be looking at the strike. It is important to have that secrecy so people can make a fair and independent decision because making the call to go on strike is a big decision. It can affect the livelihoods of many families, and many businesses can suffer dramatically from strike action. It is not an easy decision in any circumstance. If we can make that decision as fair and as equitable as possible at the time, then I think that is in the best interests for everyone. It is important to make the proper decision, one that is reflective of the circumstances, not one that has been pressured on to people for any other ulterior motive.

I congratulate my colleague Tau Henare on bringing this legislation before the House. It is something that the select committee will take a great deal of interest in, and we will work tirelessly to make sure we have the best legislation coming forward to the House for future readings. It is in the best interests of New Zealand workers, our business community, and our industrial relations to pass this bill. I commend it to the House, and I wish my colleague all the best as we progress it through the House.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): During my euphoria I forgot to mention which select committee I was going to send the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill to. I seek leave to move—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for this purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think what the member is trying to do—and I will be helpful—is to seek leave to indicate which committee he will move the bill to at the appropriate time.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I intend at the appropriate time to move that this bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I seek leave for what the House is about to agree to to be incorporated in the first reading speech of the Hon Tau Henare.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I think it is very interesting that we are debating the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill on a day when it has been announced that work stoppages are at their highest level in 5 years.

Hon Members: Oh!

DARIEN FENTON: Oh! So the National Government, the friend to business, is presiding over the highest rate of industrial action that we have seen in 5 years. It is no wonder the member Tau Henare is keen to have the passage of his bill. But it is very good to see that that member and the National Government have finally come out to support workers’ right to strike—because I have not been sure of that, particularly since the 1990s when that right was so curtailed—even though the timing of the bill is a little bit unfortunate. We are pleased to have a piece of industrial relations legislation that is not viciously attacking workers’ rights, because everything else we have seen from this Government does—for example, the 90-day fire-at-will bill, the Holidays Act review, and the pitiful minimum wage increases. They have all been about pandering to business and sacrificing the rights of Kiwi workers.

Although we are supporting this bill, we have to question whether there are not more pressing issues to consider. There is no demand or need that I am aware of for this legislation. Tau Henare said in the paper that the idea came from his time as a union organiser in the 1980s. I mean, things have changed quite a lot since then. Poor old clerical workers! What did they do to deserve that member as an experienced union organiser?

Hon Tau Henare: I will have you know that we were a great team.

DARIEN FENTON: That is right. I have to tell that member of the National Government that there are not legions of union officials going around the country pushing reluctant workers into strike action. As a union leader over many years, I never had one complaint from one member about that. The member said he had one person come to him, so it seems like a pretty small and minor issue.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Could’ve been one of the other National members’ bills.

DARIEN FENTON: Well, it could have been, too; that is right. I think, also, that in a modern union movement, workers make many decisions as union members, not just about whether they will strike or take industrial action but about whom they will elect as their workplace leaders. They also decide on collective agreements, which is usually the most important thing; the thing they are most interested in is what their pay rise will be. They vote on union rules. There are things such as union rules that are covered by the Employment Relations Act, and unions are required to have those rules. And they vote on the democratic governance structures. Workers are not stupid. They cannot be pushed into doing things they do not want to do. Anyone who thinks so should just catch up, because it is so different from what it was in the 1980s.

Hon Tau Henare: Tell that to the Service and Food Workers Union themselves.

DARIEN FENTON: I have, and those workers are right behind me. If Mr Henare goes to talk to them, they will tell him that, and particularly the cleaners in this workplace whom that member has never supported.

I will raise some issues, though, because there are many issues in this bill, and I think, perhaps, that the member has not thought them through. Apart from the fact that the bill does not do anything, there are some issues, like the lack of balance that my colleagues have referred to. Why is there a duty on workers to have secret ballots for strikes but not one on employers, including a secret ballot of shareholders? When employers lock out workers it is vicious; lockouts are shocking and they take away the economic livelihood of workers. They have had absolutely enough. There are a whole lot of questions about this. As I said, I do not think that the member has thought through how this will work.

How will the secret ballot be conducted? Will it require a new army of labour inspectors to supervise these ballots? How will the Government pay for this out of its ever-decreasing public service funds? What will be the rules around the conducting of a ballot? How will the votes be counted? Will there be restrictions on the questions that can be asked? How will we make sure that employers do not interfere in the ballot? How will we stop that happening? What will happen if an employer says the workers cannot get together to have a secret ballot? What if they cannot meet? Will they be forced to use their paid stopwork meetings? Most important, what will happen to workers in health and safety situations? They currently have the right to go on strike if they are facing a hazard, and can walk off the job. Will they have to stop and say “Oh well, we’ll just take a secret ballot, and we won’t worry about the hazard.”? There are many questions that I look forward to addressing in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party will be supporting the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. But whether we support it beyond that will depend on whether it is proved in the select committee that there is a real need for such a bill, and a way to handle some of the downsides of the bill that have already been explained by speakers, including the previous speaker, Darien Fenton.

The bill seeks to codify practices that already exist in unions to conduct secret ballots before engaging in industrial actions. In order to promote a legislative framework for that and, as Darien Fenton said, an army of bureaucrats becoming involved in the work of a voluntary organisation—and unions are voluntary organisations—a reason has to be provided. What is the problem that now exists that requires such legislative intervention? We do not make laws just for the sake of it. Sometimes National goes on about a nanny State; well, this would be a nanny State if we enacted a law for no good reason.

I think Tau Henare in his introduction indicated what lies behind this. He talked about the need to protect people from intimidation, and things of that manner, without providing a single bit of evidence of intimidation in the current union situation, and not a single bit of evidence has been provided by any of the National speakers. Essentially, this bill and the talk around it, without providing any evidence, are creating a prejudicial attitude towards unions, serving to soften up unions and workers for more attacks on them, and to create a public climate where they find it more difficult to resist those attacks. David Bennett talked about an ulterior motive for going on strike, but it is quite clear that when workers take the democratic decision, as they do, to go on strike, they are thinking and canvassing all the issues; nobody voluntarily takes a reduction in income for nothing.

Other negative problems are also associated with this bill, and they have been brought to light by unions such as the Service and Food Workers Union, which says that already employers sometimes try to take injunctions against unions to either prevent or slow up industrial action and to put unions off their stride, by saying “Well, you’re not obeying this union rule or that union rule.” The more we put a legislative framework into the union situation, the more likely it is for employers to try to use injunctions to say that “According to this law you did not conduct the ballots quite right. Were all the members informed?”, and all the rest of it. I think it is right, as Darien Fenton pointed out, that this debate is in the context of more industrial action caused by Government policy—for example, court workers in the Ministry of Justice went on a series of rolling industrial actions over the last 6 months and finally won their dispute, which originated in the Government not giving enough to the ministry to pay court workers properly.

The bill does not address the other side of the equation, which is that of employer lockouts. As has been pointed out—and the Greens would address this in the select committee as it would help us to determine whether we supported the bill beyond that deliberation—there should be a procedure to stop lockouts. There have been very damaging lockouts recently, in the dairy industry and so on, that have hurt workers and employers. In these days of computer technology it would not be at all problematic to email each shareholder of a company and each member of a board, to ask if they supported a lockout and to give the reasons, argue it out, and have a debate over email or in some form. There could be a special meeting and a secret ballot of shareholders before workers were ever locked out. It is probable that at the moment most lockouts are done autocratically by the chief executive officer, and even the board is not informed or brought fully into the discussion, in most cases.

With those few words, I say that the Green Party will be supporting this bill going to the select committee. But our support is conditional on proper justification being provided for it and on alterations being made.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. The Māori Party supports the right of workers to be treated fairly and with dignity, and we support their right to a safe and healthy workplace.

We are keen to hear what workers think about the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, which requires unions to hold a secret ballot before undertaking strike action. We understand that the Council of Trade Unions has said it would support the bill because that is what is happening in the workplace anyway, but we have also heard that the Service and Food Workers Union does not support the bill and that it has criticised the Council of Trade Unions over this issue.

We have some concerns, but we will support this bill at its first reading to ensure that it goes to a select committee for a wider consideration of the submissions from affected parties, and because Tau Henare said I had to. Kia ora tātou.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of Tau Henare’s bill, the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. Like my friend and colleague Darien Fenton I say that it is nice—and I do not share the view of a previous speaker that this bill should not be supported—to see a bill that relates to workers that does not deal to workers. I congratulate Tau Henare on that; I think that is really commendable.

Members on this side of the House have been very supportive of Tau’s notice. Indeed, Trevor Mallard was very helpful in terms of supporting the member. With all sincerity, I ask that the member consider supporting another workers’ bill that will be coming to this House very soon. It is the bill about supporting the right of every worker to redundancy compensation. If the goodwill that I can feel flowing across the Chamber can be replicated for that bill, it would be a very happy day in this House. I do not think we see many happy days in this House at the moment.

This bill is nothing short of aspirational. It is not non-binding, but, in a funny way, it has that same feel about it. It is aspirational in that it does what is already happening in practice, and there is nothing wrong with that happening.

I also want to put on record—and I say this very sincerely to the member—that I remember that he was as renowned in the union movement for his contribution, his diligence, and the work he did, as he is in this House. Everyone on this side of the House—and I can see affirmation from other members—thinks that Tau Henare’s contribution is certainly up there in this House with what it was in the union movement. I say that with all sincerity to the member. [Interruption] Kia ora.

I wonder when the last time was in this House that we have been able to say anything positive about any of the National members of Parliament. Certainly, there is no time that I can remember. This may not be a huge issue, but it is something that is deeply felt by the member. It is something that he has held close to his heart since the 1980s. It is probably what drove him to stand for Parliament. I will make sure that I hear his speech at the end of his career, because I know that this bill will be up there as one of his achievements. It will go down in history. It is disappointing that the Māori Party is not supporting this bill at this stage.

Sue Moroney: They are supporting it.

LYNNE PILLAY: I apologise. Despite the workers unions, the Māori Party is supporting this bill. Apart from, perhaps, the ACT Party—although, maybe even their members will support it—there will be a meeting of minds in the House. The aspirational member Tau Henare has brought this House together under this bill and it is very commendable.

It seems rather sad that I have to say this when we are being quite positive, but there are things that have come before this House in terms of workers’ rights that are not so aspirational and not so good. Those are things like the 90-day bill, which is now an Act. I wish that Tau Henare had applied his heart and soul and had stuck up and convinced his caucus, as he has with this bill, that it was something that should not have been done. Although we have seen the minimum wage go from $12 to $12.50 an hour, the cry is to get that wage to $15 an hour. There was the slashing of pay equity, which—hello, déjà vu—is exactly what happened in 1991. I urge the member—and I can see that he is listening really intently—to reconsider his position on some of those issues. In the future, I hope that we can see more of a meeting of minds on bills for workers’ rights. Thank you very much.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am delighted to speak in the first reading debate of the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, in the name of my colleague Tau Henare. The bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to require unions to hold a secret ballot of their members before undertaking any strike action. I understand that this is current practice in the larger unions. I absolutely support that this is current practice, but it may not be the case in smaller unions.

I respect the work of unions and organisations such as the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. Their philosophy and driving force is that everyone has the right to decent and productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security, and human dignity. Who would not support that sentiment?

When this bill was drawn from the ballot, it was somewhat controversial. Some Labour members and others said that it was not necessary as it was already current practice. When the bill was drawn from the ballot, the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union said that it was out of touch and not needed as secret ballots are already practised. That may well be case for the large unions and those affiliated to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, but it does not represent all unions. It represents only 80 percent of unions, and it does not speak for all.

However, I am pleased to see that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has come out in support of the bill in principle, and it is to be commended for that. However, it is concerned that the bill is not balanced and believes that it must be changed to also require employers to follow democratic procedures, including a secret ballot with shareholders prior to a lockout. That is what a select committee process is for. It is the right place to hear all the arguments and the evidence. The select committee will invite public submissions, work through the issues raised, and decide what changes, if any, should be made to the bill. The bill will be a better bill when it comes out of the select committee, as that is the place where amendments can be made to improve it.

I am pleased that our Labour colleagues are supporting the bill, as are our Māori Party colleagues. I am also pleased to see that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has indicated that it will be making a submission when the bill gets to the select committee. There is no point in making legislation for the sake of making legislation. Parliament needs to make laws to improve the current situation, and I am sure this bill will do exactly that.

Although this bill’s provisions may be current practice and no would disagree with that sentiment, why should that practice not be enshrined in law? No worker should be made to feel intimidated or under pressure to vote, or not to vote, for strike action. No worker should feel coerced to vote in a certain way. It should be a free vote, and it must be a personal choice. That is the democratic way, and I am sure no one would disagree with that. There is no doubt that when strike action is contemplated emotions run high and both sides feel aggrieved. Strike action is the last resort when all avenues have been exhausted, the parties are at a dead end, and no agreement has been reached.

The stakes are high when strike action is contemplated, and it is a tense time for all concerned. Objectivity can be lost in situations like that, and it is not hard to see that if there was not a secret ballot a worker could feel intimidated into voting in a certain way. Also, let us not forget that strikes can be stressful financially and emotionally for a worker. Not every worker will have the same personal circumstances, so it is fair that any decision a worker makes is free of judgment from anywhere else. People must feel at ease with the process, and this bill will ensure it is a legal requirement for all unions. I commend this bill to the House.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is my pleasure to speak on this member’s bill, the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, although I am quite perplexed as to why we are taking up the time of Parliament debating an issue that is already fixed. I think that everyone who has already contributed to the debate has said that unions, because they are democratic entities, operate in that way, anyway. None the less, it is good to see a National member standing up for the principles of democracy, because that has not been the case lately. Democracy has seemed to take second place to what the Government thinks is right for communities such as Canterbury, for example. Democracy has taken a back seat when it comes to the good people of Canterbury and the environmental needs of their area. But, moving on from that, I thank the member for bringing this matter to our attention. This is about saying that when workers make the very, very important decision to go on strike—and it is the course of last resort—when they make the decision to go without their income, to not to be able to pay their mortgage, to not to be able to be sure that they can put food on the table for their children, that very, very serious decision should be one where they can ask themselves, through a secret ballot, whether they really want to take that course of action.

Today we heard that, sadly, more and more frequently under this Government workers feel forced to make exactly that decision. It was announced just today that under this Government the number of industrial disputes is at its highest level for 5 years. That is the issue that really does need addressing. Tau Henare can play around with the right of people to cast a secret ballot in order to make this terrible decision, but it is a terrible decision, and it is one that is happening more and more frequently under this Government. Workers feel forced to cast their vote to go on strike and to go without an income in order to fix up an inequity and unfairness in their workplace. No worker takes that lightly.

I speak from experience, not as far back as the 1980s—although some of it was during the 1980s—but I have more recent experience than that. The era that weighs particularly heavily on my mind—and I hope that one day I will get to bring in a member’s bill that will fix up some of the things that I have been harbouring for 20 years—was my experience as a union organiser during the 1990s for the nurses union. I know that employers stood over union members and forced them to sign pieces of papers saying they resigned from the union. They were then faxed through, one after the other, to the union office from rest homes. That was so that those rest home owners could ensure that they could take penal rates away from people who worked weekends and nights during the 1990s under a National Government, so that they could make more profit out of the care of older people and not pay for the people who had to work those unsociable hours to care for them properly.

It is important that we continue to discuss industrial relations issues, because the rights of workers to get fair pay for the work that they do is fundamental to this country going forward. We have not always done well in that regard in this country. Sadly, we are seeing more and more situations in this country where workers are voting to go on strike. It is not because they feel like going without pay, not because it is a great lark for them, and not because it is a holiday, but because something their employer has done under this Government has caused them such grief that they are prepared to stand up and fight for it. They are prepared to put their mortgages at risk, and they are prepared to maybe not be able to feed their children, because the inequity going on in their workplace under this Government is so serious that they will take that course of action. I say to Mr Henare that that is the real mischief that needs fixing.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I want to take just a quick call in support of this bill. I think that we may have unanimity on the bill, although I was not quite sure where the Greens were coming from.

I want to touch on a point that Ms Moroney made about employers standing over union members. In my experience in the health sector, that has occurred, but so too there have been union members standing over other employees, influencing their decisions and coercing them into supporting industrial action when the financial consequences on their families may be greater than the benefits of striking.

One of the other things I was surprised to learn was that, although we quote ILO conventions quite frequently, the right to strike is not set out in the ILO conventions and recommendations. A number of documents do set out the conditions for the right to strike, and they include the obligation to take strike decisions by secret ballot. So in introducing this bill we are lining up our legislation with that noble cause, and for that reason I support the bill.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I am absolutely overawed with the 100 percent support that my bill will achieve tonight. It is something that has not happened for a long time. It is a very moving part of my parliamentary career. I will not say much. I could say a lot about the criticisms that have come my way from some people, but let us not ruin the moment. Let us all bask in the glory of the unification of this House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

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

Bills

Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT): I move, That the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, if it is given a first reading—it does not appear likely—I will move that it be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

This bill is about two very simple things. The first thing is jobs. The second is helping young people find their footing in the labour market and giving them a start.

Since the previous Labour-led Government abolished the youth minimum wage in 2008, youth unemployment has soared. Since 2008 youth unemployment for 15 to 19 year-olds has almost doubled. The number of unemployed youth has risen by more than 18,800 people. The recession has had an obvious impact, but the youth unemployment rate is far higher than usual in a recession. University of Canterbury economist Eric Crampton has demonstrated that there was a large rise in the youth unemployment rate relative to the adult rate after the youth minimum wage was raised to the adult level.

The youth unemployment rate today stands at 26.5 percent—a national disgrace. The rate for Māori youth is even worse: it stands at 38.7 percent. Almost two out of every five young Māori people in this country are unemployed. To put it in another way, for every 1½ young Māori people who are in employment, one person is unemployed. Yet the Māori Party, as I understand it, intends to vote for this situation to continue. It intends to vote against this bill.

Why do National, Labour, the Māori Party, and the Greens keep pretending that the abolition of the youth minimum wage has helped people in New Zealand when it has, in fact, stopped many young people from finding work? Labour and now National tell us that they care about the young people of this country. But the people of New Zealand should not be fooled: it is those parties that are responsible for the large number of young people who cannot find work. Labour and now National have forced thousands of young people to go without gainful employment.

Why does the youth minimum wage have this unintended consequence? Businesses are not charities. They respond to prices just like the rest of us. The abolition of the youth minimum wage has priced young people out of the market. That has occurred because many young people are just starting out on their career. They will be searching for their first job. Their lack of training and experience means that they have few skills. What Labour and now National have forced young people to do is to compete with adults. They are forced to compete with those people who have had a lot more time to gain experience and who have more skills.

I find it hard to believe that the National Government will not support this bill when it has conceded that the abolition of the youth minimum wage has led to unemployment. Then again, the National Party has always been bold in Opposition, but has proved to be spineless in Government. As Wayne Mapp said when debating this issue in 2006—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to do this, but, in the interest of decorum in the House and despite the fact that the National Party did not take objection, I note that references to members of Parliament or a parliamentary party being “spineless” have been ruled out of order on a number of occasions. I can remember back to when comments made by the Rt Hon Sir Robert Muldoon including that particular word were ruled out of order.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: Speaking to the point of order, I think that that reference was related to one individual member and not to a party as a whole.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that that is an important distinction. Where a member accuses another member of being gutless, spineless, or lacking in courage, it is clearly out of order. But had National members been worried, it would be up to National members to object if they found it offensive.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: As I was saying, Wayne Mapp stated: “The problem is if one artificially boosts minimum wages to levels that are, frankly, too high, one ends up reducing profitability, reducing opportunity, and reducing the ability to put more money into approving skills.”

When National is in Government, it plays the numbers game. Those thousands of young people who are out of work do not, in general, vote. Some of them are too young. It does not matter to the pollsters in the National Party. When in Government, National is happy to help out the unions, who want to erect higher and higher barriers for those who are out of work. In Government, National clearly does not believe in principle or in bold implementation. The only question it appears to ask is: “How do we stay in power?”.

What is the alternative offered to unemployed youth? The law makes it illegal for a young person to be hired on anything less than $12.75 an hour, or $510 a week. In other words, unless young people have a productive value of at least $510 a week, they are unemployable. That is what John Key, Phil Goff, and Pita Sharples are saying. The people who say that they care for young people are saying to the 16-year-old who could earn $400 a week that he or she is not allowed to do that. They have made it illegal for him or her to work at that rate.

John Key and National care so much about their short-term images that they will stop young people who have the capacity to earn $400 a week from doing so—that is, from having a job that pays them that amount. Instead, John Key and National, supported by Labour, will force those young people to collect a benefit of $160 a week. They care so much for the young people of this country that they will make many of them unemployed, and in the process they will make them $240 a week worse off.

But even worse than that, the National Party, the Labour Party, the Greens, and the Māori Party all say to unemployed young Māori of 16 years of age not only that they cannot accept that job paying $400 a week but also that they cannot get the job in the first place. They say that they cannot start developing their skills and cannot get work experience. We failed many of those young people who do not have a productive value of $510 a week. We failed them through the education system, and now we intend to fail them once again in the labour market for certain. Instead, we are saying to the young person who could get $400 a week at the Warehouse or at a grocery store that he or she cannot accept that $400 a week; he or she has to go on the dole for a $160 a week.

We are saying that young people should sleep in until 11 o’clock and sit around playing the PlayStation, and if that $160 is not enough, then they can supplement their income in some other way. We are saying that they should not get a legitimate job, because we will not allow them to get a legitimate job. No, we will not. “Go and join a gang”—that is what we are saying to the young people of this country. We are saying that they cannot have a legitimate job earning $400 and that we will pay them $160, so they should go and supplement their income. I had such a young person talk to me today who is doing exactly that: joining a gang.

It is increasingly clear to those New Zealanders who are economically literate that if they want a Government that is genuinely different from Labour, then they should not vote for National. National may get things right when it is in Opposition, but it will always be weak in Government.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): In this debate I think we will see most members of the House, especially members of the two main political parties, unified in their opposition to the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill. I will start by responding to some of the issues that have been raised by the presenter of this bill. In the context of looking at the youth of New Zealand and at the future this country has available to it, of which this Government is very much aware and which it wishes to promote, we see a bright future for our young people. We see our young people getting education, skills, and training, and having a direction and purpose in life, and we see a positive, successful, and dynamic future for New Zealand’s youth. Those things are essential if our country is to achieve its goals.

The fundamental proposition this bill puts up is that we need to pay people less to get them into their first job so that they can have an unskilled future. That is what this bill essentially will do to New Zealanders. We see a different future for New Zealanders. We want those young people to get into training and skills so that they are not talking about getting the lowest-paid job they possibly can, but instead are looking to get the best-paid job they possibly can. If we can achieve that, we can make the dynamic change in our economic base that will give New Zealand the growth potential we need. I think that is the fundamental point that the ACT Party has not grasped. It is looking at things in a historical perspective. Well, the world has moved on. At this stage we need to create an economy that has a strong and successful workforce, and to do that those young people need to get the best skills they can, at the youngest age they can. We should be promoting to them the need to get education and training, not encouraging them to take the easy option of temporary employment, which may provide some financial gain at an early age, but will not deliver long-term benefits for them as we go forward as a country.

That is the dynamic that I think the ACT Party has not grasped. It is looking at it from the perspective that we can just give lower rates of pay, and therefore people will be happy. It is also scaremongering by talking about things like youth gangs, taking the dole, and all that kind of “work”. That is not the reality. The reality is that youth want to achieve and get a decent start in life. Where do we set the rate? Where do we set a youth rate, if we are to have one? What is the value that would be put on a young person, under the ACT proposal? I imagine that if we were to take ACT’s logic to its full extreme, it would be detrimental to have the youth rate that ACT is proposing. ACT should not propose a rate if it really wants to get young people into employment, rather than into the gangs or on the dole. To set a rate is to set a line, and the fact of the matter is that the line is set at the minimum wage. I think we will see agreement on that between the main political parties, because we probably share a common vision of what we want for those young people going forward.

I encourage those people who are listening and members in the House to look at this issue in the wider perspective of what we want to achieve in setting some incentives and some direction, and not try to scaremonger or create perceptions that if we have a lower rate of pay at the first level of employment, those opportunities will necessarily be provided. That is not the signal we need to send to young New Zealanders as we go forward.

I think it is important to look at the situation we are in at the moment. I do not think anybody out there is under any illusion about how difficult it is to get a job. The most difficult and harrowing situation for a student leaving school, university, or polytech is achieving that first start in the employment cycle, or, for someone who has lost his or her job, finding that next job. Many New Zealanders are living that nightmare at the moment. That nightmare has been brought about partly by the nature of our economic position, which is partly caused by world circumstances, but also because we need a stronger and more vibrant economy that can deliver opportunities for our young people going forward. That is the crucial problem, and we as a Parliament should be looking for solutions.

We should be looking for solutions so that New Zealanders, and especially young New Zealanders, can see a future in training and in employment so that they can achieve personal growth and the desire that comes with getting a job. That is what this Government is focusing on. It is focusing on the economic fundamentals that will provide the environment whereby employers can hire young people and deliver them the incentives to get ahead and succeed. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has debated the issue of youth employment rates and unemployment many times. One of the key points that always comes through is that we have young people appearing before the select committee who are attaining very high levels of management expertise and success at a young age. It is difficult, when we see the logic of this member’s bill, to compare that with the reality of the success of a lot of young people. We are denying them their success by holding them at a lower rate than their ability shows as individuals. It is a tremendous shame if we dumb down our young people, who can provide successful and strong services and can be paid for that at a rate that demonstrates their capability and their ability to do a job well. It is important that we do not set the bar too low, in the sense that our young people who work hard must not find that they get no reward for their efforts. That is something that I think this legislation could have a problem addressing if it goes through this House.

In essence, there is a new way of looking at these issues as we go forward. There is a way of building an economy that is strong, and that delivers the skills and enterprise for our young people to take advantage of that strength. The Government is committed to creating that economic environment. We do not believe that this measure will create the environment that the ACT Party says it will. We believe that the true measure of success for New Zealanders as we go forward is a strong economic environment, where we deliver skills and enterprise, we back our young people, and we give them the right direction and rewards so that they know they can succeed. They will then build themselves into even stronger and more successful New Zealanders going forward.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): For the second time in a day I find myself in the unusual position of following the speech of a National member of Parliament on industrial relations legislation and just about agreeing with it. I think I can agree with the vast majority of what my colleague David Bennett from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and Tau Henare; the pair share a hairdresser—said on the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill. David Bennett is right. He has got it. If I were Sir Roger Douglas, I would be slightly insulted that a junior backbencher was sent to the House to deliver the Government’s position; the tradition is that a Minister takes the first call on this sort of legislation to state the position for the Government. A Minister is part of the Government, and a backbencher, of course, is not. I know that procedural niceties are not as important as that as far as this Government is concerned and I think that Sir Roger is not as sensitive as that anyway. He probably would not realise that Kate Wilkinson is a Minister at the moment.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Who is?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Kate Wilkinson, I understand, is the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Conservation.

I ask Sir Roger Douglas what happened to his principles. He knows he does not believe in minimum wages, at all. Why did he bring into the House something that he thinks is a half-cocked, halfway approach? Why did he not stand up in the House and say what he really believes, which is that there should not be any minimum wages for anyone? That is what he believes. He believes that it does not matter whether the people who come in to clean up the pig farm are adults or kids, he should set their rate—he, as an employer, should decide what the rate should be. That is his position. He believes in the total power of the employer, rather than having a fair and balanced employment relationship.

There are a few fairly simple arguments against this bill. One is that we are all waiting for the evidence from Sir Roger that massive problems have occurred as a result of the introduction of youth rates. That evidence just has not come. The reason it has not come is that he could not find evidence that problems have occurred. There is a clear argument in equity for paying people properly, and most people in New Zealand accept that. Most New Zealanders believe that all people should be paid in a dignified and proper way for their labour, and it does not matter whether it is a younger person, an older person, or a person in the main section of the workforce. I say again to Sir Roger that a few of us would have thought more of him if he had come down to this House and said what he really believed, and if he had told the full truth as to ACT’s opinion on the minimum wage, rather than the half-truth or part-truth approach that he took with this bill. Most of his colleagues, funders, and mates in the Business Roundtable actually would not agree with him, but I am certain that Mr Kerr and others who helped draft the legislation would say that from their perspective this is not the best approach.

The final point I make is that I do not think that National went far enough. My view is that having decent wages forces employers to train. They have to make their workers productive and earn their money. It forces them to invest in proper capital equipment because if they are paying someone a decent wage, they need the right gear in order to make sure they get the return. We have a choice in New Zealand: do we want a high-wage, high-skill economy, or do we want to compete at the bottom end with India and a number of countries like that? Roger Douglas wants our wages to go down; Labour wants them to go up; and National says it wants them to go up, but in real terms it is keeping them down.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am pleased to speak to the first reading of the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill. This bill will provide for differing levels of minimum wages for youth and other workers. National will be opposing this bill. We do not feel that it is helpful in keeping the focus on growth and growing the economy, which is needed to create jobs, and which this Government has made a top priority for this year. That will be crucial going forward. Getting the economy right is absolutely fundamental and the rest will follow. I agree with the Hon Trevor Mallard’s argument that we need to be a high-wage economy. Importantly, this Government is focused on keeping youth in education or training, and we have introduced a number of measures to achieve the same. This Government is committed to giving youth every opportunity to achieve and meet their potential. We value our young people.

We know that not every young person is suited to mainstream education, and that is why the Government is committed to opening trade academies. These are a key part of our Youth Guarantee policy and they will keep more students engaged in learning. They will provide more career choices for 16 and 17-year-olds, and give them greater opportunities to develop their knowledge, skills, and talents through trades and technology programmes. National’s Youth Guarantee is about creating thousands of places at tertiary and training institutes across the country to help 16 and 17-year-olds to stay engaged in learning. We know that the longer youth are engaged in learning, the less likely they are to fail in life and the greater the chance that they will be in work and be productive. We want to see every young person succeed and reach his or her full potential.

This Government is committed to giving young people the opportunities they need to succeed. Yes, we know that young people have been hit hard by the recession, and there are a number of reasons why we have a recession. Our Job Ops package has proven to be hugely successful. Job Ops is about backing businesses that create work opportunities for young people. We asked firms to provide up to 4,000 young people with an entry-level job for at least 6 months. The Government paid a $5,000 wage subsidy for each placement. Job Ops is about giving incentives to local businesses that hire low-skilled under-24-year-olds for 6 months. It was such a successful programme that an extra 2,000 places were announced in February this year.

Community Max, another policy, has also been very successful. Community Max is about inviting local councillors, mayors, community groups, and iwi to play a role creating up to 3,000 work opportunities. We wanted community organisations to come to the Government with local projects that could employ young people and engage them in our communities. The Government paid the minimum wage for 30 hours a week for up to 6 months, a training payment, and for one supervisor for every four participants. Those 3,000 places have now been filled. National believes that every young Kiwi should be able to find his or her way on to the path to success. We are concerned that for young people starting out in their working lives, a long period of unemployment could be very damaging. We know we cannot afford to leave young people languishing on a benefit and risk diminishing the potential of an entire generation of Kiwis. That is why the Government has been proactive in keeping our young people in work, education, and training.

National has not seen any evidence to show that young people are losing their jobs because of youth rates. We are not convinced that this bill will reduce youth unemployment. We should be focused on growing the economy and providing opportunities and jobs for young workers. This Government is doing exactly that. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill. I have to say, how the worm turns! I was in the last Parliament, under a Labour-led Government. We had this very same debate about youth minimum wages, and National voted against it. It is really pleasing to know that National has seen the error of its ways, and has actually accepted that what Labour was saying about youth minimum wages being discriminatory and not having any impact on youth employment was accurate. We have seen from the figures that the minimum wage makes no difference to youth employment. We can argue about research—and the member Sir Roger Douglas will argue about that—but the fact simply is that if someone is working, it should not matter whether that person is young, a Māori, a woman, or whatever he or she may be. Someone who is doing a job should be paid a decent wage for what he or she does.

This bill seeks to return young workers to the scrapheap of the youth minimum wage, and, as I said, that is not a new argument to have in Parliament. The arguments that Sir Roger Douglas has put for his legislation are well rehearsed. I know that the member was not here for the last Parliament, but I tell him that we went through them then and they were rejected. They were rejected. We went through a select committee process and we heard from all kinds of people, but the arguments were rejected because there was no evidence that increasing the youth minimum wage or young people’s wages has any impact on employment levels, just as there is no evidence that increasing the wages of women has any impact on wages. I think we have seen arguments about that in the past.

I do not want to be disrespectful to the member—I welcome him back to Parliament—but I ask him whether this is really what he came back to Parliament in order to do. I ask whether this is really what he came back to Parliament to do, because I would be interested to hear a response on that. We had debates on this issue in the last Parliament, but no one can remember what life was like in the 1980s, when that member was in Parliament. No one can remember that, actually.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I can; I can.

DARIEN FENTON: Oh, Mr Mallard can remember that, but many of the young workers who would be affected by the provisions of this bill were not even born then. They were not even born when that member was last in Parliament. I am sure that he is genuinely concerned about youth unemployment, as is everyone, but I think that his economic arguments just do not stack up. I think we have moved past the economic rationalist arguments that we have seen from the Business Roundtable and from his supporters.

We can look at the record of what happened under the previous Labour Government to New Zealand wages when we removed the youth minimum wage. We progressively moved the adult minimum wage upwards. When we came into Government in 1999, the youth minimum wage applied to young people under 20—I mean, many of those people were not only holding a job but had family and other responsibilities—and we progressively moved the minimum wage upwards. There were significant increases to it, but during that period the rate of youth unemployment kept falling, as did the rate of unemployment for all workers. Everybody knows that the previous Labour Government moved the minimum wage significantly.

So we can all come up with research on this issue, but I think we have had enough time now, in this Parliament, to know—and certainly National acknowledges this—that moving the minimum wage does not actually have the impact on young workers that the member suggests. I know that the ACT Party’s position is that there should not be any minimum wage, and that wage levels should be left up to the market. The member can correct me if I am wrong. I ask the member to correct me if I am wrong, but that, I understand, is where that party is still at.

For me, the issue comes down to some simple things. If we look back in our history we see there was a time, at the beginning of the last century, when we discriminated against Māori workers. They were paid less than Pākehā workers. And there was a time, up until the early 1970s, when women were paid less than the minimum wage—less than men. Could anyone imagine that we would ever go back to that sort of discrimination? Would we ever do that? We cannot discriminate on the basis of gender or of race, so can we discriminate on the basis of age? Well, the member is proposing that we should. Should we discriminate on the basis of someone being older than other people?

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As the youngest member of this House, it was not that long ago that I was pushing supermarket trolleys, delivering pamphlets, and serving up fish and chips, and being paid at a lower wage than the minimum adult wage. Back in the late 1990s when I was a high school student working after school, I, like many Kiwis, was discriminated against by the youth minimum wage, which applied to 16 to 19-year-olds and was set at 60 percent of the adult minimum wage. In my case, I was actually supervising adult workers, yet due to the law I was being paid less.

The Green Party wants to look after Aotearoa New Zealand and all of its people. We believe in a fair go for everyone, young workers included. Everyone deserves a decent living wage, but this bill sets to undo the success that the Green Party, and in particular Sue Bradford in her last term in Parliament, achieved through her Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill. The Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill, put forward by Roger Douglas, wants to take New Zealand back to the past. Perhaps we would not go back as far as he would prefer—the 19th century and rampant, unregulated capitalism—but as far back as the 1980s and the 1990s. It would be back to the bad old days of the previous National-led Government and its neo-liberal Labour predecessor, in which Sir Roger himself was a key player.

This bill seeks to reinstate a discriminatory youth minimum wage. It is discriminatory. Why should young people who are doing the same work get different pay? In a fair society we are not paid depending on our gender, our sexual preferences, or the colour of our skin. As The Standard points out, as a parody, the word “youth” could be replaced with “Māori” in this bill. The point is that we would not discriminate based on ethnicity, so why should we on age? Ever since the Equal Pay Act back in 1972, discrimination in rates of pay based on gender has been unlawful, yet the one piece of legislation where discrimination should not be setting guidelines, the Human Rights Act, condones setting up discriminatory wages. Members may have noticed my first member’s bill, on youth human rights, which proposes repealing section 30(2) of the Human Rights Act to make this type of age-based discrimination unlawful.

The bill we are debating is misnamed. It is called the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill, but that is just a front, a Trojan Horse for the real issue. ACT’s buddies in big business want to pay young workers low wages, to keep wages down in general and profits for a few up. The Green Party wants to give everyone a fair go, and thinks it is a tragedy that near to 30 percent of the unemployed are aged 15 to 19. Youth unemployment is rising, but that is because of the recession, not because businesses cannot discriminate based on age. A Treasury report from 2004 said that there had been no negative impact on youth employment from the 2001 changes. In fact, youth were more employed and working longer hours. This bill has nothing to do with lowering youth unemployment; it is about lower wages for workers and higher profits for shareholders and owners. It is tragic that this Government is making moves to make further tertiary studies harder to access and more expensive for our young people. From raising fees to cutting 40 to 45 percent of New Zealand tertiary courses and reducing student loan access, this Government is making it tougher, not easier, for unemployed young Kiwis to train, to get skilled, and to contribute to an innovative, prosperous, and growing economy.

In summary, the nation’s young are beset on all sides. Our young people are growing up in an increasingly unequal society, an increasingly uncaring society, and an increasingly dangerous one. Those with jobs are threatened by work conditions that breed mistrust, fear, and conflict between workers and employees. The 90-day fire-at-will bill, miserable minimum wage increases, and looming GST rises send all workers, but our youngest and most vulnerable workers in particular, a strong message: this ACT-led, John Key - led Government is standing up for private profit, not for a fair go for all. Last month National somewhat slowed Sir Roger Douglas’s dreams of returning New Zealand to the 1990s, then to Victorian England, when it announced that it will not support this bill. It is a rare piece of good news out of the Beehive, but let us face it: the bill was a bad idea to begin with.

The Green Party believes in a fair go for all, not in discriminating and setting pay based on age, or on any of the other prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act. The Green Party believes in finding real solutions for unemployed young people, like supporting upskilling and increasing access to tertiary education. That is why the Green Party is opposing this bill.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): The Māori Party has a longstanding concern about the specific issue of youth unemployment. In particular, we have been devastated by the grinding consistency of the rate of Māori unemployment, which tends to be approximately 2.3 times the non-Māori rate, and by the fact that Māori have lower labour-force participation rates than non-Māori. But we take great heart from the strength of our people, who never give up, and who remind us of the need to keep fighting the fight to ensure that the potential of our young people is enabled and that they are empowered to thrive.

It was for that reason that the Māori Party duly recognised the significance of our co-leader, Tariana Turia, being delegated responsibility for Māori and Pasifika employment, a challenge that she has taken on at full steam. It is within this context that Minister Turia has pioneered the Community Max programme, which has been immensely successful in its short duration. In fact, at last count some 3,200 positions had been filled, and, of those, approximately 1,900 were taken up by young Māori. That has been an incredible endorsement of the success of the programme. It is an endorsement that we see and hear about right throughout our electorates.

There have been two ground-breaking media releases in the last 10 days that give us room for hope, although they have received very little media attention. Two days ago Minister Bennett announced there was an overall increase of 9.5 percent in job vacancies between January and March of this year. In the previous week, we learnt that the number of New Zealanders receiving an unemployment benefit dropped by almost 4,000 in the last month. Most significant of all, in our mind, was that 2,500 Māori cancelled their benefits in March because they had found employment, as did 546 people from Pasifika communities. That is great news, and we hope to hear and see more of the same.

We come to this bill with some cynicism about the allegation that 20,000 young people have lost their jobs as a result of introducing minimum wages for young people. The explanatory note of the bill paints a grim picture that implies that because the youth wage rates were abolished and aligned with the minimum wage for adults, mass unemployment would occur. It goes further and suggests that equitable pay for youth workers at the minimum wage for adults is detrimental to their employment prospects. Our concern is that we simply have no evidence or analysis to suggest that such spurious claims have any factual basis. The more likely reason is the global economic downturn that has ravaged the employment sector generally.

I want to make it absolutely clear that the situation of job seekers is of immense concern to us in the Māori Party, and it was in this context that we absolutely supported Community Max. The challenge for the Government, however, is to determine what the next step of engagement will be to ensure that those young people do not enter or return to unemployment. I know that every member of this House and every electorate has seen incredible progress in connecting young people to the positive work already going on in our communities through the Community Max scheme. The reason the programme was so successful is that, along with receiving the minimum wage for 30 hours’ work a week, those Community Max graduates achieved a great sense of self-satisfaction.

The answer does not lie in short-changing our young people by giving youth a few extra dollars on an hourly basis, when that amount does not even match the rate of inflation. We want solutions, not bills that create more problems. The Māori Party will not be supporting this bill.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I am somewhat bemused to be in the Chamber again debating another bill introduced by the member the Hon Sir Roger Douglas that, I think, fundamentally attacks the rights of young people. I find it bizarre, also, to be agreeing with some of the contributions made by the Government. But I still find it a bit rich for the Government to claim that it is against the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill because it values the young, and because it is interested in youth unemployment as an issue.

The Government’s scorecard on youth issues is dismal. I was reflecting on those issues as I was preparing my contribution to the House today. The list looks something like this: failed boot camps for young offenders; treating child offenders as adults; targeting students who are struggling to pay loans after completing tertiary education; capping enrolments in polytechs and universities, and turning away 8,000 young people; trashing youth health centres; and cutting funding to the youth workers association. If the Government goes ahead and supports voluntary student union membership, I will be adding that to the list of lost services also. But I also have something to say about the absence of the Government’s action on some critical issues, and I add youth unemployment to that list.

This bill, naively I think, purports to address the issue of youth unemployment. It is an antiquated and discredited argument to claim that if youth are paid less, that will fix the issue, rather than simply perhaps shifting unemployment around. We have an evidence base from within New Zealand to discredit that argument with. Labour increased the youth minimum wage by 126 percent and 81 percent for the two different age groups. At the very same time, youth unemployment in New Zealand fell to 11.8 percent—one of the lowest levels that we have seen. No one in this House is denying that youth unemployment now is high, and is a significant issue that we should all be concerned about. In fact, it is an issue that the entire OECD is struggling with, but only nine countries have looked at lower youth minimum wage rates as a potential way of addressing it.

The member raised the significant youth unemployment numbers we face. When was the last time that youth unemployment was as high as it is now? It was in the 1990s, when the youth minimum wage was in full swing. I have spoken to people who work in the New Zealand labour market at an academic level. They tell me that moving around minimum wage rates for young people is simply not the answer, from an evidence-based perspective. What will fix the situation? There is no point saying that these young people would have jobs if we simply paid them less, if the jobs are not available in the first place. Job creation in New Zealand is a significant issue. Skills training for our young people is a significant issue, as is making sure that they are educated in areas where we have gaps in New Zealand. Did I hear anyone say that the Skills Strategy may have contributed to answering that? But the Government decided it was best suited to the shelves. All of that would have contributed to fixing our youth unemployment issue.

Instead, the only response that we hear on this from one party in Parliament, through Sir Roger Douglas, is that we should simply pay young people less. In fact, one of his arguments was that, somehow, paying young people equal pay for equal work—paying them equitably across the board with peers doing the same job—would contribute to their choosing to join youth gangs. That is a completely abhorrent argument to make, that somehow we are sending a message to young people that we do not value them. It was certainly the message that I took when as a young person I was paid less for a job I was doing that was exactly the same as the job of an older peer—that I was not valued as a young person. That was the message I received.

I have asked young people their view of this bill. I have asked young people about it. One young person told me that he agrees with this member’s bill. When I asked him whether he felt that having a different minimum wage would give him a decent wage to survive on, he said yes. I asked him how he would pay the rent, and he pointed out that his mum and dad covered it for him. I do not believe that this is a realistic bill that addresses the significant issues that young people are facing. I hope that we come back to this House and debate the real issues around youth unemployment.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I read in the New Zealand Herald this morning “Apathy towards jobless issue does us no credit”, and that 38 percent of Māori aged between 15 and 19 are unemployed. I do not totally pooh-pooh Sir Roger Douglas’ idea, although we will not be supporting his move.

I want us to cast our minds back to the last time we had such a scandal in terms of unemployment. I do not lay the blame at anybody’s doorstep. Unemployment is what it is: unemployment. But I find it abhorrent that we would pay somebody the dole to do nothing. I find it abhorrent that we would pay anybody anything to sit at home and to do nothing. I think there are better ways, and this country has seen better ways, of dealing with unemployment, especially in those high unemployment zones, as I like to call them. They are basically the north, the East Coast, and pockets of the suburbs.

One of the things that I think we should be seriously looking at, along with what we are doing with Community Max and our other programmes, like Job Ops, is putting all of our energies—

Hon Trevor Mallard: When was the last time anyone went into one of those?

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, the member should just listen and stop being captured by the old-style dogma that he likes to talk about but does not really believe in. He wants to—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Come on, “Bottler”.

Hon TAU HENARE: I have given up those days, I say to Mr Mallard. I have given up those days. I am not like that member, who lives in the past all the time, trying to live off past glories. The only thing that the member does right these days is to ride a bike, and that is all he is famous for.

But, anyway, let us talk about those zones that I was talking about. Why are we not saying to ourselves right across this House that we should designate the East Coast and the north as special economic zones, where we get in there, boots and all, and help? Some of the things that Sir Roger Douglas says speak the truth, such as that it should be a national scandal that 38 percent of Māori aged between 15 and 19 are unemployed. I ask why we are not jumping up and down. As the article in the New Zealand Herald said this morning, it is most probably because when 95 percent are employed, nobody gives a toss about the other 5 percent. But if we break that down, we will see some horrible statistics.

I am saying that maybe we should be thinking outside the box. Maybe we should be designating places like the East Coast and the north as special economic zones. This is not just for Māori; this is for everybody in those areas. One unemployed Pākehā and one unemployed Māori are the same, because they do not contribute to the region’s economy.

I do not want to get up and say that I support the reintroduction of work schemes, but I will tell members about work schemes. The great thing about work schemes was little communities—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The member’s on a west Auckland work scheme.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, no. Little work schemes were great for places like the Hokianga and Ruatōria. I know that the member really does not give a toss.

But at the end of the day, we can talk to any people who served their time on a work scheme, whether it was a Project Employment Programme scheme, a Temporary Employment Programme scheme, a JOVTP scheme, or a TOPTT scheme, and they will tell us that what they got out of it was a bit of pride and a bit of money in the bank, and the little community of, say, the Hokianga would have been a special zone to them. John, Mary, Frank, and whoever else who was on the scheme—it might have been only 30 people—would have been able to get that community cracking. Although I am not advocating a return to the Project Employment Programme schemes, I say that it is time we used our initiative and the forces we have to look at this matter more seriously than just getting rid of minimum youth rates.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT): It was an interesting debate: not one solution to the unemployment rate amongst young people was put up by any speaker. The fact is that National has already conceded the principles of my Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill. It did that when it said that the abolition of the youth minimum wage has led to unemployment. That is why the National Government has implemented the Job Ops scheme, giving businesses $5,000 to hire someone between the ages of 15 and 24. It has done that because it knows full well that the businesses could not afford to hire those young people without that subsidy. Instead of facing the truth and reversing this silly policy, the Government’s solution is to spend more taxpayer dollars trying to restore to youth the ability to get a job that was taken away by the Government in the first place.

The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. Whether or not we want to deny it—and everyone in this House was denying it tonight—there is one economic reality that we cannot overcome, and it is that wages will always reflect the productivity of the worker. Regrettably, thousands of young people do not have a productive value of $510 a week, and to those young people who do not have a productive value of $510 a week, we have said that we will put them on the scrap heap. We have said we will throw them on the scrap heap. In my area a decile 6 school had a test for young people coming into that school. One of the questions asked if we have 36 apples and we eat 27, how many we have left. Guess how many people got it wrong. It was 23 percent. One in four got it wrong. The school system has failed these young people, and what this House is doing is making damned sure that the labour market will fail them, as well.

What we are doing—the National Party, the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party—is saying to young Māori people of 16 years of age that they cannot accept the job. Even if they are offered one at $400, they cannot actually take it. We say that by law they cannot take that job. They cannot go into that job and develop the skills they did not get at school. They cannot get that work experience. They cannot get their foot on the ladder. We fail them in the education system and we are failing them in the labour market. We are saying to those young people that we will not help them. They could get $400 in the workforce, and guess what we say to them? We say they cannot have $400, they cannot earn $400. They have to go on the dole and we will give them $160. We would prefer them to be $240 worse off than they could otherwise be, and somehow we are claiming we care for these young people. Do not talk rubbish. We should be ashamed of ourselves, and, frankly, that is why New Zealand is in the cart. It is because we in this House do not have the courage to do what is right. We do what we think is best politically, and that disgusts me.

A party vote was called for on the question that the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The rules of this House are very clear that members have to vote in the first instance before they can call a division. No one said Aye for this bill.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that no one whom the member might have heard said Aye, but we cannot be sure who might have whispered, or what have you. When a member calls for a party vote, as Speaker I have to respect that the member wants to exercise his or her right to see a vote taken.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 5

ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 117

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Head of State Referenda Bill

First Reading

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I move, That the Head of State Referenda Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. This is an important moment in our constitutional history. It is the first time that Parliament has had before it a bill that would enable the people of New Zealand to decide whether to continue to have a member of the British Royal family as head of State, or move to having a New Zealand head of State selected by democratic process.

The bill provides for a referenda process where, in the first ballot, New Zealanders would choose between three options: the present system, with the monarch remaining as our head of State; a New Zealand head of State determined by a 75 percent majority vote in Parliament; or a New Zealand head of State directly elected by the people via the single transferable vote preferential system, where the successful candidate would be the first to reach 50 percent of the votes as the preferences are distributed. I have put all three options in the first ballot so that New Zealanders can have a full discussion of them and make an informed choice. If none of the three options gets 50 percent in the first referendum, there would be a run-off referendum between the two leading options. The two alternatives to the monarchy in my bill are the two main types of non-executive President that we see around the world. The German President, for example, is selected by a committee from the Houses of Parliament, whereas the Irish President is directly elected.

I want to make it clear that a change from the monarchy would not, under my bill, result in a change in the technical powers of our head of State. That said, a head of State selected by a democratic process might feel that little bit more independent of the Government of the day than the Governor-General, who is both appointed by the incumbent Government and can, in effect, be sacked by that very same Government. You could call my bill a minimal change bill; we would not end up with an executive President like the American President. Some people have said “Well, why bother?” if any change from a monarch would be minimal in its constitutional input. The answer is that I am responding to a significant body of New Zealand opinion, particularly among those favouring a republic, that we should get on with a referenda process. They do not want us to simply tail the Aussies and wait until they have another referendum.

The main argument for a republic in both New Zealand and Australia is one of national identity. The question many New Zealanders ask is why we should have a head of State living on the other side of the world who is not a citizen of our country. There is also concern about whether our head of State should remain a monarch—that is, somebody who inherits the job, rather than gets it through a democratic process. The rules of inheritance for the monarch in Britain are also controversial. At present, the succession rules discriminate against female heirs and Catholics in a way that is contrary to New Zealand’s human rights legislation. At present, no one can ascend to the throne and become Queen or King of New Zealand if he or she is Catholic or even married to a Catholic.

I stress that this debate is not about whether we like or dislike the Queen or any member of the Royal family. The present Queen has been competent in the performance of her duties, and she turns 84 this very day. I wish her a happy birthday.

However, the Queen is in a difficult position as head of New Zealand. Firstly, there is an inherent conflict of interest in the Queen being the head of State of two independent countries, Britain and New Zealand, that do not share the same foreign policy. For example, when Britain sent troops into Iraq, the Queen, as Queen of Great Britain, went down to the barracks in military dress to support the soldiers. That was in conflict with her role as Queen of New Zealand, a country that opposed that same war.

Secondly, it is very difficult for the Queen to keep tabs on developments in a country on the other side of the world that she is not able to visit very often. Sure, her representative, the Governor-General, lives here and is more hands-on. But the Governor-General is not fully independent, because he or she is appointed by the Government of the day and can be sacked by that same Government via a Government recommendation to that effect, which the Queen is in no position to refuse. Governors-General taking the Government’s side can be a problem, as in Canada where, 2 years ago, the Governor-General suspended Parliament for a time when the Conservative Government was facing a no-confidence motion. Having a head of State who can operate with true independence is particularly important in our multiparty MMP system, with its constitutional complexities.

There is nervousness among some New Zealanders about changing from the present system. That is natural, but let me allay some of the fears. The first fear is that a change might affect our commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi. I do not believe that is the case. Long ago, the responsibility for upholding the Crown commitments to the Treaty was devolved to the Parliament and Government of New Zealand. The King or Queen of New Zealand is part of the mix, but since 1947 that position has been constitutionally independent from the position of King or Queen of Great Britain. The Queen, as Queen of New Zealand, takes advice solely from the Government of New Zealand. The agency that signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the British Crown, no longer constitutionally has any influence whatsoever on the domestic affairs of New Zealand, including commitments to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Another fear that people sometimes have is that if our head of State is the subject of direct election, we might end up with a pop star, a celebrity, or a political hack. I believe that we should trust Kiwis to vote responsibly for such an important position. This is what happens overseas. Ireland has a directly elected President with minimal powers, like those proposed in my bill, and the Irish people have elected appropriate heads of State, like the internationally renowned Mary Robinson, who went on to become the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights.

Members may have noticed that the Attorney-General has issued a report that my bill offends the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in one respect: by keeping the same electoral role for the first head of State referendum and the run-off referendum, my bill discriminates against those people who turn 18 in the 6 months between the two referenda. I will propose to the select committee an amendment to correct that infringement.

I appeal to those MPs who are not sure right now whether they support such a referenda process to at least allow consideration of it by the Justice and Electoral Committee. Even though the bill is a conscience vote in the Green caucus, and we do not all see the issues in the same way, all of the Green MPs will support this bill being referred to the select committee to allow both MPs and the public to fully debate the important constitutional issues embodied in the bill.

I do not see this as a left or right issue. People across the political spectrum and across the community have formally endorsed my bill. They include Sir Robert Jones, Dr Ranginui Walker, Peta Mathias, C K Stead, Rob Hamill, and Terence O’Brien. Whatever the fate of the bill tonight, the issues we are debating will not go away. The momentum for change and the momentum for a referendum on our head of State are building every year. It would be a tribute to this House if it faced up to the reality now and allowed this bill to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Finally, I pay tribute to the many people in the community who are keeping this debate alive, from the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand, to Monarchy New Zealand, to many concerned citizens and legal experts. I will continue to work with them on these issues, whatever the result of the vote tonight. Thank you.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Monarchism and republicanism can stir strong feelings in people. I can understand why that is so. In centuries gone by, people could be murdered for being one or the other. Today in New Zealand I accept that there are Kiwis who have strong views on the institution of our head of State, but I also suspect that many New Zealanders feel the way that I do. To the extent that they think about the issue, they are agnostic.

I, for example, accept in theory that an appointment on the basis of who one’s parents are is an anachronism. But I also, in practice, have respect for the Queen. I was chuffed, like I think many New Zealanders were, to see Prince William, who seemed like a good bloke, having a beer and a barbie with our Prime Minister. In truth, I do not concern myself much with the question of our head of State.

This nation has so many more pressing and real issues to grapple with, such as Government deficits in an age of ubiquitous entitlements; funding issues for schools, hospitals, fire stations, and libraries; job creation in the face of unemployment; safer communities—we have taxi drivers being killed for a few dollars, dairy owners being robbed for a packet of ciggies, and an elderly woman being badly assaulted in broad daylight for seemingly no reason at all—and a nation that deserves to be more prosperous than it is. Over time, New Zealand may look more seriously at becoming a republic, but many New Zealanders will share my view that now is not the time. Today our nation has so many pressing and, frankly, real issues to grapple with that a head of State debate may well be a divisive distraction.

I want members to be in no doubt that a distraction is what it would be. Becoming a republic is necessarily a far more complex issue than replacing a figurehead with a crown with one without a crown. A debate on a different head of State will almost necessarily involve the need to examine our broader constitutional arrangements, including issues such as the place of the Treaty of Waitangi and tangata whenua within our system of Government. National is not averse to these debates, but they need to be taken carefully and responsibly.

In addition, we would need to think through what the referendum questions would mean in practice. In moving to a different head of State, would we be moving by stealth from our Westminster parliamentary system to something much more presidential? Even if what we move to is not entirely like the American set-up, it may be that, as I think Keith Locke has acknowledged, a head of State elected in whatever way would feel more independent, and the dynamics of our entire system would subtly, but potentially substantially, change.

I do not raise these questions to pretend that I have the solutions but to demonstrate that this issue is not an easy swap between a head of State with a crown and one without. It will throw up bigger issues and complexities. Through this bill Keith Locke raises an interesting debate, but not one, I think, to be resolved by a member’s bill that goes to a select committee one day and becomes law the next. In conclusion, when there are more pressing issues let us not get caught up in the spur of moment in a divisive and potentially wide-ranging distraction. If we are to change our head of State, let us do it more carefully and responsibly than the member’s bill process allows.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I begin by congratulating Keith Locke on bringing the issue of the republic before this House, and to say right at the outset that Labour will be voting in favour of the Head of State Referenda Bill. We think the bill should go the Justice and Electoral Committee so New Zealanders can have a say on the important issues that it raises.

It is high time for the debate. There is no reason why the debate should be divisive or acrimonious, as the member who has just resumed his seat, Simon Bridges, suggested he fears. There is no reason why a civilised and intelligent debate should not happen on this question. That debate ought to raise many important questions, some of which will need to be addressed immediately, and others of which will require longer-term thought. Some of the immediate questions include whether, when, and how to have a resident head of State; the method by which he or she is appointed; and that person’s tenure, titles, and powers. There are wider, longer-term questions about our symbols of nationhood and our relationship with the rest of the world that ought to be part of the debate. They all involve careful thought about our unique identity and values as an independent, vibrant, diverse, prosperous, stable, egalitarian, Pacific nation.

The bill also needs to go to a select committee so that the sole inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, identified by the report of the Attorney-General, can be rectified. The inconsistency is minor, and the bill’s sponsor has already indicated that he intends to move an amendment to remedy it, if he is given the chance. The inconsistency is that clause 32 provides for the same electoral roll to be used in both the referenda contemplated by the bill, which would inadvertently exclude those who come onto the roll as new voters in the period between the two referenda. Accordingly, the electoral rights of young people who become eligible to vote in the intervening period would be prejudiced without demonstrable legal justification in a free and democratic society. That is an erroneous provision. It should go, and it will, if we give the bill the chance to go to select committee. But it is noteworthy that, in a bill as substantial as the one that we are now considering, it is the only inconsistency identified.

On a personal basis, I am committed to seeing New Zealand become a republic. We should have a resident for president. The bill would need only one or two National or ACT members to vote for it in order for us to start down that path tonight. I still hope that we will see that happen, although the last speech and some of the interjections from members opposite give me little hope as far as National goes. I hope this is our opportunity and that there will be a mature debate that is not marked by spurious claims. If we follow the course mapped by the bill we can remain a member of the Commonwealth. We can and we will continue to honour our traditions, including on days like Waitangi Day, Dominion Day, and Anzac Day. The State will retain all the obligations that have been inherited by the Sovereign in right of New Zealand concerning the Treaty of Waitangi, and otherwise. We will remain a democracy, and, in fact, democracy will be strengthened because we will be required to take responsibility for the final and perhaps the most important aspect of it, the choice of our head of State.

If, as I fear, having heard the speeches so far, tonight does not mark the occasion on which we begin the republican journey, the reality is that the day surely does not lie far away. Speed that day, so that we can take the final logical step towards repatriating the New Zealand constitution.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): National will be opposing the Head of State Referenda Bill. Within our communities, there are people who hold strong views both for and against New Zealand becoming a republic.

The present system is working very well. The head of State is the British monarch and the Governor-General is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. There seems to be not much public support for New Zealand becoming a republic. At another time New Zealand may look more seriously at becoming a republic. A referendum is a very expensive exercise, and holding such a referendum during such hard times does not seem to be sensible. There are more critical issues before the country that need to be focused on, like creating jobs, economic growth, and creating safer communities for New Zealanders.

This bill provides for the holding of two referendums to reconsider the matter of New Zealand’s head of State. If the majority of the votes in the referendum are for the proposal to retain the present head of the State, there will be no further referendum. If not, the two options receiving the highest number of votes will be subject to a final binding referendum. I oppose this bill.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): I rise to speak in support of Keith Locke’s Head of State Referenda Bill. As my colleague Charles Chauvel said, Labour supports the bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We believe that it is time that as a nation we have the conversation about becoming a republic. There are some very important issues to be discussed, and this is not the kind of issue that any Government or party would want to advance by stealth. It must be discussed openly so that New Zealanders can form a view and forge a consensus about our constitutional future. Sending this bill to a select committee would be an excellent way to begin that conversation.

I will not repeat the explanation that members have already given about the basic mechanism set out in Keith Locke’s bill, but I will say that it takes a minimalist approach to constitutional change. It simply sets up a democratic decision-making process for determining how we select our head of State. It does not address the myriad other issues that usually come up when republicanism is discussed. This is no technical bill. How we choose our head of State cuts to the heart of our constitutional status: constitutional monarchy or parliamentary republic. The head of State is the most powerful symbol of our nation we have. These are huge issues that deserve to be taken seriously. The late Bruce Jesson said that republicanism was not merely about making a nominal change to the head of State, but about reviving and extending the concepts of citizenship and democracy, and combining the issues of national identity, egalitarianism, and democracy. If we take those issues seriously, we must surely recognise that how we choose our head of State is important.

To me, it is an anachronism for the Queen of England to be our head of State, for the living embodiment of our nation to be a hereditary position. That is the opposite of democracy. The living symbol of our nation is someone the people never get to choose. Our head of State can never be a New Zealand citizen; he or she lives 12,000 miles away, and he or she represents the British Crown, not us. It was noticed, as Keith Locke said, that the British royal family did not send anyone to attend the funeral of Sir Ed Hillary, the greatest New Zealander of our time. It was noticed that our head of State farewelled British troops when they went off to take part in the illegal invasion of Iraq, an invasion that this country declined to take part in.

To those of us who ask what does it matter, I say that symbols are important. What does it say about our nation’s values when our head of State cannot be a Catholic—in fact, the head of State would be relieved of the role if he or she were to marry a Catholic—and the male heirs to the throne always take precedence over their female siblings? The process of choosing our head of State is an archaic, feudal institution that is rooted in a land on the other side of the globe. It says nothing of the vibrant, diverse South Pacific democracy that we have become. Symbols are important. They denote values and values inform debate. I say that because the themes of egalitarianism, democracy, and nationhood underpin almost every debate that we have in this House.

There is a view that it would be a mistake to change the way we choose our head of State without also addressing all other constitutional issues that touch on it. Former Prime Minister Mike Moore argues for a constitutional convention. I am not persuaded that we cannot move ahead in changing the way we choose our head of State without also addressing all those other issues. I think our constitution is most likely to evolve in a piecemeal way. If we tried to solve all the issues at once, I fear it would mean that none would be resolved.

It is often commented that New Zealand will inevitably become a republic one day, but not tomorrow. I call it the Simon Bridges argument. Many people who say they support a republic quickly add that we do not need to rush the process because there are many more important issues. I like to think that as a nation we are capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time.

Others say that we are already a de facto republic and that we already choose our Governor-General, who is selected by the Government of the day. That argument overlooks the importance of symbolism. The Governor-General is not the head of State; he or she is merely the Sovereign’s local representative.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): If the Standing Orders were relaxed for this one night, I would have had the perfect T-shirt to wear to this debate on the Head of State Referenda Bill. I am thinking of the T-shirt that says “Honour the Treaty”. Honouring the Treaty means a great deal to this nation. It means for our indigenous people that we will, as we did before the signing, be able to exercise our sovereignty, our mana motuhake, over all things that are ours. However, to draw on the wisdom of Sir Edward Taihākūrei Durie, the Treaty is not just a Bill of Rights for tangata whenua but also a Bill of Rights for those who belong to the land by right of that Treaty—tangata Tiriti. Despite the policy and legislative changes that have taken place to better recognise the Treaty of Waitangi, shortfalls remain that adversely affect the lives of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and they compromise our potential as a nation.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s June 1988 report on the Muriwhenua fishing claim of June 1988 expressed this concern most clearly when talking of the issues around the practical application of the Treaty for the modern world. The report stated “Any impracticality today results not from the Treaty but from our failure to heed its terms.” The important point is that there was, and still is, room for an agreement to be made. These shortfalls also affect the quality of cross-cultural relationships and the operations of society more generally. Despite those limitations, the answer does not lie in disregarding the Treaty and embarking on a debate to establish a process by which the House of Representatives appoints the head of State.

The sole purpose of this bill is to provide for the holding of two referenda on proposals to reconsider the matter of New Zealand’s head of State. The key concern for us in the Māori Party is that the proposal is not grounded in the Treaty of Waitangi, but is separate from it. As such, we believe that the bill has the potential to make the Māori-Crown relationship obsolete, which would be a major concern for all iwi. It is our utmost belief that enhancing respect for, and giving better effect to, the Treaty of Waitangi will enhance the quality of life for all. The ratification of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the ideal that has come through the words and actions of generations of Māori leaders. It was written into the Kohimārama Covenant, agreed to by some 200 chiefs in 1860. Indeed, every iwi has their leaders and their legacy bound up in the commitment to enshrining the Treaty in law. We believe that the time is right to entrench Te Tiriti o Waitangi in all legislation so that decision making on matters concerning Māori, and Māori and the Crown together, is shared with us all.

As an example, the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act would be redrafted to reflect articles 1 and 2, which guarantee our mana and rangatiratanga, and the ability to exercise power-sharing on all issues that affect us as tangata whenua. Therefore, the Māori Party has a major concern around embarking on a process of debate about the head of State in terms of its potential to create vulnerability around the status of the Treaty.

The Māori Party is the only political party where the Treaty underpins our actions through kaupapa tuku iho. The Māori Party is calling for open and informed debate on constitutional change. It was part of our manifesto that we would establish a constitutional commission to begin a constitutional review aimed at, among other things, drafting arrangements to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. It was also a key policy objective of ours to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Treaty of Waitangi. Accordingly, as part of the confidence and supply agreement between National and the Māori Party, both parties agreed to the establishment of a group to consider constitutional issues, including Māori representation.

There has been much talk about documents of aspiration in the last 24 hours. What better precedent do we have for understanding aspiration than the promise articulated in Te Tiriti o Waitangi for a new relationship between Pākehā and Māori? It articulated a relationship wherein the rangatiratanga of Māori would be enhanced and our respective cultures and autonomy would remain intact. It is an aspiration that we will continue to uphold, and it is in that context that we must vote against this bill. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I welcome the chance to start the conversation on our head of State. I believe that it is time for New Zealand to have the conversation. Changing demographic trends, the monarchy’s growing clash with our culture and sense of egalitarianism, and our cherished democratic principles all mean that constitutional change is inevitable. Tonight we have maybe a once-in-a-lifetime chance, and what do we gain from putting off the inevitable debate?

The Green MPs will tonight be voting in support of Keith Locke’s Head of State Referenda Bill, which will give Kiwis the chance to vote on whether we should investigate changing our constitution. I pay tribute to Keith in what has been a 7-year journey up to this evening. A few months back I was sworn in as an MP and recited an oath pledging allegiance to the Queen and her heirs. It was so jarring as a Kiwi to pledge loyalty to a foreign lady, albeit a nice, grandmotherly one, who lives on the other side of the world. I have never met her, never seen her, and never voted for her, yet because of a quirk of history she is our head of State and I had to declare allegiance to her if I wanted to take my seat in this honourable House. For years we have avoided the conversation. Let us have an informed discussion at the select committee now that we have the chance.

New Zealand with the Queen as our head of State is like the stereotypical adult still living at home with his or her parents. We are like those grown-up adults who talk about maybe getting their own place, who maybe concede that it is one day inevitable that they will move out. Those stereotypical stay-at-home adults, even if their mates who left the nest earlier laugh at them and say they are not independent, argue: “Hey, it’s all pretty cruisy being at home; it doesn’t mean much.”, or as Simon Bridges said: “It’s not really that pressing to be leaving right now.”

Like those stereotypical stay-at-home adults, New Zealanders have their independence in practice. We can stay out as late as we want, do our own washing, even bring our partner home, but, hey, it is embarrassing to bring her home to the place where we are under our parent’s roof and where their rules rule. New Zealand’s situation is just like that. New Zealand is not regarded as a fully independent nation that is independent of the United Kingdom. It is time we start that conversation. Do we stay or do we pluck up the courage to step out on our own, get a flat, get some furniture, and be master of our own house, or do we want to stay with granny? It is time to have the debate; it is inevitable. I am sure that most members in this House would agree with former Prime Minister Jim Bolger that it is inevitable. All the trends point towards constitutional change one day. Why avoid talking about it now?

Our current head of State clashes with our sense of place in the world. We are no longer the Britain of the South Seas. Our links to Britain are in decline. Britain has not been our largest trading partner since 1973. At the last census 879,000 people, or just 22 percent of our total population, were not born in New Zealand. We are an independent, multicultural nation in practice. We should have a debate as to whether we should be that in theory. Our current head of State clashes with our young people’s vision of the future.

A new generation is growing up that sees New Zealand as a proud, independent country that is more Pacific than European. My generation has grown up with Britain in the EU, with New Zealand out of ANZUS, and with our biggest trading partner now being China. Research from 2008 shows support for the monarchy was lowest in those aged 15 to 39, and strongest in those aged over 60. That means that constitutional change is inevitable.

Lastly, our current head of State arrangements clash with our culture and egalitarianism. Our head of State institution is discriminatory. Since only recently, and with provisos, could Catholics and women become a head of State. It goes against the Human Rights Act that protects against discrimination on the basis of sex, age, religion, and ethnicity.

Let us ask the people whether they want a head of State 1,600 miles away who has been here only 10 times since 1954 and who leads a very different life from anyone in this country. Let us have the debate on how this will impact Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Let us be open that the Queen has devolved all responsibility to the New Zealand Government but that a special relationship exists between the Crown and iwi. Let us have the discussion and be sure that there is no risk that Governments could use republicanism to evade Treaty responsibilities. We can delay this important debate for another few years or decades, but why? I urge members opposite to pluck up the courage and give us the chance to have this important debate at a select committee.

In summary, this is an important debate about who we are as a nation. We are a democratic nation and we should be emphasising that power should come from the people, from tangata whenua, not governed by a foreigner 1,600 miles away. I will vote for Keith Locke’s bill and support opening the discussion. It is time for Kiwis to decide. Let us have that debate.

PAUL QUINN (National): I think it is appropriate that all of us recognise that people hold different views on republicanism, and I think we should respect that. I have been disappointed in listening to the debate so far from the Labour benches. Charles Chauvel’s view is that, if people are not republican they are wrong, full stop. Phil Twyford talks about this matter progressing under stealth. Who is progressing matters under stealth?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Show some spine!

PAUL QUINN: I am happy to go into a rugby game against you, Trevor. Gareth Hughes talked about plucking up the courage.

I back my spine against the member’s any day he wants on the rugby paddock or anywhere. The member should not worry about that. My own view on this is driven by the issues raised by the Māori Party member’s contribution—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that interjections are allowed but a constant barrage of yelling and screaming is against Standing Orders.

Hon Trevor Mallard: If the member responds as he did, then the rules are very clear that members can respond. If the member had ignored it, he may have had a point, and if he was in his own seat, he would have another one.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I remind the member interjecting not to use the word “lies”. He mentioned it a couple of times. I ask members to keep the noise down. Interjections are fine, but continual barracking is not. If I cannot hear, then the level is too high.

PAUL QUINN: In respect of my own view, first and foremost—

Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ve got a very good view from Roseneath.

PAUL QUINN: If the member listened he might hear it. First and foremost, I personally believe that there is not an urgent and pressing desire by the community at large and the public at large to have this debate right now. Therefore, I am not persuaded that we should do it just for the sake of it. But, more specifically, I do not proclaim to be an expert on tikanga Māori. My contribution to progressing and advancing Māori causes—my skill sets—are in other areas, and I do not profess to be an expert in tikanga. What I can say is that my koroua and my kuia hold very dear the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi that their ancestors signed was a pact between them and the Crown. It is their wish to hold the Crown to account in respect of the Treaty of Waitangi. I take my guidance from that. I pay my respect to my father, to his father, and to his father before that; because they are the people who have been responsible for trying to advance in partnership with the Crown the cause of Māori. For that reason alone I will uphold that desire of theirs. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am a staunch and proud republican. I believe New Zealand must, and will, one day have a New Zealander as its head of State. I thank Keith Locke for his work on the Head of State Referenda Bill, and I congratulate him on having it finally drawn from the ballot after 7 years. The Labour Party, as we have heard tonight, supports this bill being referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Politics is about timing, and the time for New Zealand to have a New Zealand head of State may not be now, but it is time to start a discussion about it. It is important to respect everybody’s views on this issue, and I do. I think also it is important to stand up for what one believes in. In principle, we believe that New Zealand should eventually become a republic, but there are many issues that we need to work through first as a country. Those issues include whether we believe that the head of State should be elected by the people or appointed by Parliament, and how the Treaty of Waitangi will fit with a new set-up.

The time is right, as we have heard a number of times tonight, for a public conversation about this important issue. If anything comes out of this debate tonight, that will be the most important thing. As members may already know, I have a strong view in favour of New Zealand becoming a republic with an independent head of State, which will allow us to become a truly independent nation. I believe that it represents New Zealand growing up as a nation. My views have been public on this issue from day one; I talked about it in my maiden speech in Parliament. In January this year I somewhat controversially stood alongside the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand at the opening of the Supreme Court building.

Labour leader Phil Goff has expressed the view that we will and should have a New Zealander as our head of State one day. Members of other political parties have expressed similar views, including the Prime Minister. In order for that to occur, we should have a public debate, and now is a good time to start that. I would like New Zealanders to start to honestly debate the issues that need to be discussed, because I have always taken the view that talking about issues is a lot better than not talking about them.

My friend and colleague Charles Chauvel recently reminded me that Labour has a proud tradition in the gradual move towards independence. Peter Fraser caused the adoption of the Statute of Westminster to be proposed from the Speech from the Throne in 1944. In 1946 he was responsible for the appointment of the first Governor-General to have spent most of his life in New Zealand, Bernard Freyberg. Norman Kirk amended the 1852 Constitution Act in 1974 to make it clear that Parliament could legislate extraterritorially and to ensure that the Queen’s titles were updated to reflect her role as Sovereign of New Zealand. Geoffrey Palmer repatriated the constitution, reformed parliamentary procedure, and introduced the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Helen Clark abolished appeals to the English Privy Council, New Zealand membership of that body, and the awarding of titles to New Zealanders.

There is a pressing need to confront the question of a resident head of State—a resident for president, as my colleague Charles Chauvel said—because the reign of the present Sovereign is approaching an end. The Australian republic referendum in the mid-1990s demonstrated the need to have a viable alternative model that embodies democratic principles and that will garner public support. New Zealand deserves a head of State who is a New Zealander—someone who lives here and somebody who reflects New Zealand values. New Zealand should have a head of State who reflects New Zealand’s position as an independent nation.

There are many more pressing issues at this time and there always will be, but the head of State should be a unifying symbol of our nation, because symbols do matter. New Zealand’s head of State should be democratically accountable. The idea of a monarchy clashes with our sense of egalitarianism, especially given that no New Zealander can ever become head of State, no matter how much ability they have. New Zealand does not need to rewrite its history in becoming a republic; we can retain our flag, the Treaty can be honoured, and we can remain part of the Commonwealth. These are the reasons that Labour supports this bill being referred to select committee.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I happen to be a huge fan of Prince Charles. I could even say he is one of my heroes, and why would he not be? He is against genetic engineering—passionately against it—he is in favour of organic farming, he is in favour of using natural therapies, and he is opposed to ugly architecture. I could go on and on. I am a huge fan of Prince Charles, but I am not in the least a fan of having him as our head of State if one day he becomes the King.

It is ludicrous that we in New Zealand are seriously submitting ourselves—as we will be if the Head of State Referenda Bill is defeated tonight—to for ever having a faraway hereditary head of State. It is completely ludicrous. I believe that Prince Charles is embarrassed at the concept of being the head of State of New Zealand—he has said as much. It is ridiculous. Every now and then, the head of State comes to New Zealand, pays us a little visit, and rather awkwardly wanders around New Zealand. The head of State feels as uncomfortable as we do about having an ancient, hereditary monarchy as head of State of New Zealand. It is completely ludicrous.

I realise that there are issues that need to be worked through, particularly with tangata whenua and the relationship between the Crown and Māori. But I find it rather depressing to hear the Māori Party say that it will oppose even debating this issue because of its relationship with the Crown. Does that mean that we as New Zealanders are forever doomed to have a hereditary, faraway monarch living on the other side of the Earth as our head of State because of the Treaty relationship? Keith Locke has addressed that issue. Those sorts of issues should be being debated in a select committee.

I find it tragic that National is vetoing even having a debate on this issue. Frankly, the National members’ interventions were half-hearted and completely lacking in conviction. Most of them did not take a call. One member spoke for about 30 seconds; the other, Simon Bridges, clearly did not believe in it. His heart was not in it. He was given orders by his leader to oppose the bill. We know that many National members support having a republic, but they are simply forced like cannon fodder to vote against the bill, because, for some reason, the Government is afraid of this debate. Why is the House afraid of debating these issues? What is there to be afraid of? Frankly, the refusal to debate this issue is a tragic reflection of New Zealand’s lack of genuine independence. How can our nation be proudly independent if a faraway monarch on the other side of the Earth is our head of State? It is completely ridiculous. I find it offensive, and a growing number of New Zealanders do, too. They will find it offensive that this Parliament will not allow even a debate on this important issue. The House is shutting down debate. What is the House afraid of? Where is the free speech in this country?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has 5 minutes in reply.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): This debate has been a good discussion. I think that people have dealt with the issues in a range of ways, which shows that a debate on this question around my Head of State Referenda Bill, particularly if that bill went to a select committee, would not be divisive. People have been listening to each other and expressing a wide range of views.

There are different sections of society with regard to the issue of our head of State. There is the 30 or 40 percent of people in the polls who regularly support a republic; the number goes up and down a bit. Then there is the category that Simon Bridges represents. He described himself as being an agnostic who is not quite satisfied with the present situation. He said it is a bit of an anachronism that the head of State should be there because of who his or her parents are. Those two blocks together, the agnostic, dissatisfied people and the republicans, make up the majority of our community. The people who are monarchists are a very small proportion of society. If we are not satisfied with the present situation—and most people in this House are not—why should we not have a discussion on my bill in a select committee?

As for the idea that somehow the bill is a distraction, I say we discuss a range of bills in this House, and we do not get people standing up and saying this bill or that bill is a distraction. We discuss a bill on its merits and go forward. As for the issue of whether the bill is minor or not very important, I say this afternoon in this House we had a bill, which we all supported referring to a select committee, on whether there should be compulsory secret ballots for unions that are engaging in industrial action. The unions said they already conduct secret ballots. Was that a minor bill or a major bill? We could say it was quite minor if nobody could see much reason for it, but we supported the referral of that bill to a select committee for discussion there. Why should we not do that for my bill?

The question of the Treaty of Waitangi is a sort of a contradiction. Simon Bridges said he did not want this bill to go through to a select committee because it might bring up issues related to the Treaty of Waitangi. I understand that the National Party and the Māori Party are setting up a body to discuss the constitutional nature of the Treaty of Waitangi. That will happen fairly soon. I ask why we should not refer this bill to a select committee. What is the Māori Party scared of? I ask how the provisions of this bill would undermine the Treaty of Waitangi, and why the Māori Party will not respond to my point, which I have made very directly, that since 1947 there has been zero—and I repeat the word “zero”—constitutional relationship between the Queen or King of Great Britain and the Treaty of Waitangi. That was severed in 1947, so how can discussing this issue undermine a relationship with the Treaty?

Yes, the Crown is important, but the Crown is in this room. The Parliament and the Government are the Crown, and that determines the relationship between Māori and the Crown. It is a relationship between Māori and what is represented in this room, which is Parliament and the Government. If the Māori Party refuses to accept that reality—and it seems that the Māori Party is, strangely, refusing to accept that—it is actually undermining the Treaty, because it is not directing its relationship towards the people who are responsible. The Queen of New Zealand is completely separate, constitutionally, from the Queen of Great Britain. They are totally separate. The Queen of New Zealand has to obey the advice of the Government of New Zealand; the Queen of Great Britain plays absolutely no part in that constitutional relationship. The Māori Party is misleading Parliament by saying that the Treaty is in any way in danger. In fact, it is misdirecting people over the nature of the relationship between Māori and the Crown.

As for Simon Bridges’ fear that the new head of State might be more of an executive President, that is a pretty weak one, really. Clearly, although there might be slightly more independence shown by an independently elected, New Zealand - based President, the powers in my bill do not allow that person to override Parliament whatsoever.

The real question is one of national identity. We are an independent, bicultural, multicultural nation in the South Pacific, not off the shores of Great Britain. We need to have an independent, New Zealand - based head of State who is selected by a democratic process. It is tragic that so many MPs in this House do not accept that, and it is tragic that parties like the National Party, the Māori Party, and the ACT Party, in spite of the fact that all of them have in their ranks people who support this bill, have whipped those people into opposing it. There is a majority in support of my bill in this House. It has been denied by the party whips and by a fear of really facing up to the issue. I think that is quite disgraceful.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Head of State Referenda Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; United Future 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Reports

Investigation into Securities Amendment Act 2002 Commencement Order 2009 (SR 2009/10)—Consideration of Report of Regulations Review Committee

John Boscawen: Mr Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry. The only person who can move a motion on this matter is the chair of the Regulations Review Committee, who is present in the House, or, in his absence, another member of the committee. I refer the member to Standing Order 247.

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 5 for consideration of the report of the Regulations Review Committee on the investigation into the Securities Amendment Act 2002 Commencement Order 2009 (SR 2009/10) was discharged.

Briefing on the Tamil People in Sri Lanka—Consideration of Report of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 6 for consideration of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the briefing on the Tamil people in Sri Lanka was discharged.

Investigation into the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 Commencement Amendment Order (No 2) 2009 (SR 2009/51)—Consideration of Report of Regulations Review Committee

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 7 for consideration of the report of the Regulations Review Committee on the investigation into the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 Commencement Amendment Order (No 2) 2009 (SR 2009/51) was discharged.

Report by the New Zealand Delegation to the Australia - New Zealand Scrutiny of Legislation Conference: Scrutiny and Accountability in the 21st Century—Consideration of Report of Regulations Review Committee

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 8 for consideration of the report of the Regulations Review Committee on the report by the New Zealand delegation to the Australia - New Zealand Scrutiny of Legislation Conference: Scrutiny and Accountability in the 21st Century was discharged.

Activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2009—Consideration of Report of Regulations Review Committee

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 9 for consideration of the report of the Regulations Review Committee on the activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2009 was discharged.

Briefing from the Rt Hon Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Fund—Consideration of Report of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 10 for consideration of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the briefing from the Rt Hon Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Fund, was discharged.

Briefing on Bariatric Surgery and Its Benefits for Māori—Consideration of Report of Māori Affairs Committee

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 11 for consideration of the report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the briefing on bariatric surgery and its benefits for Māori was discharged.

International Treaty Examinations

Agreement Between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the United States of America on Science and Technology Cooperation Contributing to Domestic and External Security Capabilities—Consideration of Report of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 12 for consideration of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the international treaty examination of the agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the United States of America on science and technology cooperation contributing to domestic and external security capabilities was discharged.

Reports

Report from the Controller and Auditor-General on Central Government: Results of the 2008/09 Audits—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 13 for consideration of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the report from the Controller and Auditor-General on Central government: Results of the 2008/09 Audits was discharged.

Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Monetary Policy Statement, March 2010—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 14 for consideration of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Monetary Policy Statement, March 2010 was discharged.

Points of Order

Sittings of the House—Leave to Rise Early

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House, since we have made such fantastic progress this afternoon, for the House to rise early for the day.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I speak to the report on the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I have already dealt with that. We are now on members’ order of the day No. 15.

International Treaty Examinations

Agreement Between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of Singapore for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 15 for consideration of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the international treaty examination of the agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of Singapore for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income was discharged.

Reports

Alterations to the 2009/10 Appropriations for Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and 2010/11 Draft Budgets for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, the Office of the Ombudsmen, and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—Consideration of Report of Officers of Parliament Committee

No member having risen, members’ order of the day No. 16 for consideration of the report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on the alterations to the 2009/10 appropriations for Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and 2010/11 draft budgets for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, the Office of the Ombudsmen, and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was discharged.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National): We have made even more progress now, and I again seek leave of the House for us to adjourn for the day.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

The House adjourned at 9.30 p.m.