Wednesday, 8 December 2010

Wednesday, 8 December 2010

Wednesday, 8 December 2010

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

By-Election

Mana

Mr SPEAKER: I have been advised by the Electoral Commissioner that, pursuant to section 185 of the Electoral Act 1993, the name of the member elected to the House of Representatives for the Mana electoral district is Kristopher John Faafoi.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

Mr Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to Kris Faafoi, who then took his seat in the House.

Motions

Death of New Zealand Soldier in Afghanistan—Private John (Jack) Howard, British Army

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): I apologise to the House that I have not had a chance to talk to my colleagues about this, but I seek leave to move without debate and without notice acknowledgment of, and condolences for, the death of a New Zealand soldier, John Howard, in Afghanistan while serving with the British Parachute Regiment.

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

Hon PHIL GOFF: I move, That this House note with sadness the loss of New Zealander Private John Howard, serving with the British Parachute Regiment in Afghanistan, and offer its condolences to his parents, Roger Howard and Anne Scott, family, and friends.

Motion agreed to.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Tax System Changes—Effect on New Zealanders

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the “vast majority” of New Zealanders will be “better off” as a result of the tax switch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, because the combination of putting up GST, increasing superannuation, benefits, and Working for Families payments, and cutting income tax rates across the board have made people demonstrably better off. Of course, I guess the proof of this policy working is that there is not one political party that is campaigning on reversing the tax switch.

Hon Phil Goff: How are the vast majority of New Zealanders better off when the household economic survey released recently by the Government Statistician shows that the average household income in the year to June 2010 for New Zealand households dropped by $28 a week, and that individuals were each $17 a week worse off?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As we have been through this question several times before, I will give the Leader of the Opposition the same answer as previously, which is that it is a very broad measure of income and it is not solely normal income. It includes investment income and a lot of other issues.

Hon Phil Goff: How many New Zealanders got wages increases in the last year that matched the 5.1 percent increase in food prices in the year to October 2010 and the 20 percent increase in vegetable prices in the September quarter alone?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot answer in relation to what individuals got in pay increases; I simply do not see the pay packets of 2.5 million full-time New Zealand workers. But what I do know is that real after-tax incomes have grown by about 8 percent in the time that National has been in Government and grew by 3 percent in the entire 9 years that Labour was last in office. I also add that food prices, up until the point that I am looking at, at the moment, were actually down by 2 percent at 3 June, compared with much higher food prices under the previous Labour Government.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a Government document showing that food prices in the last year went up, in fact, by 5.1 percent, and that vegetable prices went up by 20 percent.

Mr SPEAKER: Could the member be more specific about what the document is?

Hon Phil Goff: The documents are both publications by New Zealand Government agencies—the Government Statistician, I think. I will have a look at the papers; I have them with me. Statistics New Zealand is the source of the figures. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: It is my fault, and I accept the blame for this exchange happening. It should not happen. We do not normally table current or recent releases from Statistics New Zealand, because every member has them.

Chris Tremain: Where did the idea for the tax switch come from?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am proud to say we thought of it all by ourselves, with a little help from some advisers. We did not have to google Ed Miliband’s statements and shamelessly plagiarise them, like Phil Goff did with his “squeezed middle” speech. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. Can we have a little order, please, so that at least the Speaker can hear the question?

Hon Phil Goff: Are the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, economist Bill Rosenberg, and Treasury’s own figures all wrong in showing that for middle and lower-income New Zealanders prices have increased, and continue to increase, faster than wages?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Stand up, “David Cameron”.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a start, no. I get my Davids right, I tell Trevor Mallard. I come back to the business at hand. No, the increase in real after-tax wages is 8 percent. But let us look at those middle-income New Zealanders, because it is quite interesting. When we look at middle-income New Zealanders and at the tax that they pay, we can see that under the National Government their personal tax rate has halved from 33 percent to 17.5 percent.

Hon Phil Goff: Are more than half of the New Zealanders in recent surveys wrong in stating that they are worse off after the tax switch, and is the Prime Minister telling them that, contrary to what they think, they are actually better off?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not one to go out and criticise polls. But if the member is quoting from the HorizonPoll, which he is, and if he seriously believes that Winston Peters is on 6 percent and he is on 28 percent, then he is underestimating even his performance in other public polls.

Hon Phil Goff: He’s very worried, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The House is having a bit of fun, but I ask members to treat question time with a little more respect than that.

Hon Phil Goff: How does he expect anyone to believe that real incomes are rising, when today’s figures show that manufacturing sales in this country are at a 10-year low and that housing consents are 20 percent down from what they were earlier this year, and retailers are comprehensively saying they are facing the worst situation in decades, simply because wage earners and salary earners do not have money in their pockets to spend?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am glad the member raised that, because there is an article on the front page of this morning’s “Business Herald” about Paymark and what it is seeing in terms of consumer spending. The article indicated that spending had increased by 5.5 percent. When Paymark was asked in November why that was happening, the answer from the chief executive was: “Oh, because New Zealanders have more money as a result of the tax cuts, and they’re out there spending it.”

Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that the Prime Minister has not seen, which shows that manufacturing sales volumes continue to fall—the lowest level for more than 10 years. It is from Statistics New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: There is a proper process for seeking leave to table documents, and it does not include comments about whether the Prime Minister may have seen them. The member should identify the source of the document before saying what is in it. The habit of saying what is in a document, when there is no real document to be tabled, is not good enough.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Members will be leaving the House. [Interruption] The member will be very careful. The member will leave the Chamber. I will not tolerate that.

Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: The House will come to order. What I was saying was being said for good reason. There are times when members seek leave to table a document that is clearly outside the current rules for tabling documents, but they want to get across a political point. That is why I require members to identify the source of the document, so that members can make a proper decision on it. I will allow the member to seek leave again to table his document.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the implication that I was seeking to table a document that does not exist. I have it in my hand. It was out of order for you to make that allegation.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will seek leave, if he wishes to, to table his document.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that your comments were out of order in implying that I wanted to table—

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. If he wishes to stay in the House, he will show the Speaker respect. I have invited him to seek leave again properly to table his document. He does not need to take that opportunity, but he is welcome to do so if he wishes.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do respect your role as Speaker, and I expect you to respect the members of this House and their integrity when you make comments like that, which reflect on it. I do not think that is good enough.

Mr SPEAKER: The member should just reflect on the way that he sought leave to table the document. The member, when seeking leave to table the document, made a comment about whether the Prime Minister had seen it. He then went on to say what the document contained—in other words, the points that he wanted to make—instead of first identifying where the document was from. That is not good enough, and that is why I clamped down on what the member was doing. If the member took offence at that, I apologise to him for the offence caused. But I am serious about the way that members will seek leave to table documents, and I am serious about the respect that will be shown in this House. Any further nonsense today will be treated just as firmly as I have treated the Hon Trevor Mallard—and that includes party leaders.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a document from Statistics New Zealand, the Acting Government Statistician, dated today, which shows that manufacturing sales volumes are at the lowest level for more than 10 years.

Mr SPEAKER: All members have the release from Statistics New Zealand. We do not seek leave to table those kinds of documents.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made that comment on two occasions today. I cannot remember your previously ruling out documents by Government agencies. You have ruled out press statements. Are you setting a new precedent today?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will know that the process for seeking leave to table documents, and for the House to consider the tabling of documents, is intended to provide members with information that they do not have. All members have been circulated that information today. All members have that information, so there is absolutely no point in wasting the time of the House. It is clearly an attempt to make a political point, and that is not what the tabling of documents is about. We have established that very clearly. It is about providing information for the House: providing members with information that they otherwise would not have access to. That is why I am not seeking leave for that matter.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification on this matter. If I interpret it correctly, your previous ruling was made because the release in question was available on the Internet to members, whether they had sought it or not. I seek your clarification of whether you are now ruling that any document released generally on the Internet, or available on the Internet, is unable to be tabled in the House, because that would be a significant extension of your previous ruling in respect of media statements.

Mr SPEAKER: I just ask members to look back at the relevant Standing Order. The provision is there to provide members with access to information that they otherwise would not have. Clearly, in the case of recent releases from Statistics New Zealand, all members have them, and that is why I am not seeking leave for that purpose.

Financial Performance, Government—Improvements

2. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to improve its financial performance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government is taking steps to improve its management of capital expenditure. Total assets of the Crown have trebled over the past decade to more than $223 billion at June 2010, yet the means by which those are funded and the way that the capital is used is not transparent to the Government, let alone to the taxpayer. Yesterday the Government released the first annual portfolio report, which is a concise summary of the financial performance of Crown financial institutions, State-owned enterprises, and Crown research institutes. Next week we will release the Crown’s first investment statement, which will show in full the Government’s balance sheet and its investment intentions over the next 5 years.

David Bennett: What does the 2010 annual portfolio report show?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The portfolio report sets out the performance of, in particular, State-owned enterprises. Excluding the rail and post enterprises, State-owned enterprises earned $500 million and declared dividends of $386 million. Crown financial institutions collectively returned 12.8 percent last year, following 2 years of losses. By the end of the year the Crown had $40 billion invested in financial investments, and the Crown has around $700 million invested in the Crown research institutes.

David Bennett: What will the 2010 investment statement show?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The investment statement will show the quantity of Government assets and the ambition of the Government’s investment programme to 2015. Net Crown assets are expected to grow by some $35 billion over the next 4 years, and total investment is around $70 billion of fresh capital investment over the next 4 years. About half of that relates to services such as schools, hospitals, rail, broadband, roads, and the electricity network. There is also a substantial accumulation within the Crown’s investments funds, which are expected to grow by about $20 billion of investments through to 2015.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can he claim to be improving the Government’s net financial position when his deficit has increased in the last quarter alone by almost $2 billion more than forecast?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, the figures I have been talking about are the asset values of the Government, whereas the deficit relates to our operating expenditure. But the member does make a fair point that the Government cannot continue to run very large deficits. This year it could be somewhere up to $11 billion. We have set out a path to reach a surplus by 2015. That will take some very significant fiscal discipline, which I know the member is opposed to, but it is the only way we will get there.

Hon David Cunliffe: Further to the Minister’s answer to question No. 8 yesterday, when he said he would not be surprised if there were some quarters in the last 2 years when annualised real GDP per capita had fallen, can he now confirm that, in fact, annualised real GDP per capita has fallen in every single quarter since his Government took office, meaning that average New Zealanders have consistently gone backwards, and are still earning less today, on average, than on the day he first took office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I disagree with the member’s last point. But as I pointed out yesterday, in a significant recession one would expect real per capita incomes to drop. The Government has set out a plan to turn that round. However, we are dealing with the legacy of a Government that managed to have negative growth in real per capita incomes even when the rest of the world was not in recession and the rest of the world was growing strongly. I do not know how he managed it.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table the statistical table from page 8 of the monthly economic indicators published by Treasury, which shows that real GDP per capita has fallen every single quarter since the Government took office up until—

Mr SPEAKER: 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.

David Bennett: Why does the Government need to lift the quality of its investment performance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because we are dealing with the legacy of 10 years when the previous Government spent large amounts on new capital. Much of that was spent ineffectively. The attention paid to it by the Public Service has been just about zero, so we are going through a significant exercise to make sure taxpayers get value for the $230 billion of assets that they own.

Point of Order—Withdrawal of Member

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek some guidance as to when Mr Mallard can return. I would seek that he be able to return at the end of question time.

Mr SPEAKER: No, he is out for the day.

Hon Annette King: That’s pretty tough.

Mr SPEAKER: No one will comment on a Speaker’s ruling. Members know that I do not throw many members out of this Chamber, but they are out for the day when I do ask them to leave.

Tax Cuts—Fairness and Impact on Economic Growth

3. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “Our tax cuts have been good for economic growth and fair for New Zealanders.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, the tax cuts were part of a fiscally neutral package, which was designed to tilt the incentives in this economy away from excessive housing speculation and excessive consumption, which were both funded by excessive debt, and to create more incentives for savings, investment, exports, and new jobs. We are satisfied that the package we put together, when we take into account the increases in GST and the decreases in income taxes, is fair for New Zealanders, and in the long run will be good for economic growth.

Metiria Turei: Will the Minister consider extending Working for Families tax credits to families who are reliant on benefits, as a way of both stimulating the economy and promoting fairness; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, the previous Government extended Working for Families considerably and introduced a mechanism that ensured that people with children who went from benefits into work were better off for being in work. By and large, the Government has left that mechanism in place and has not seen a strong case for making significant changes to it.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware of the evidence from the US Congressional Budget Office that putting more money in the back pockets of beneficiaries has the biggest stimulus effect on the economy because low-income households spend all the money they get on essentials?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I am aware of that evidence. The Government has worked to strike a balance between the need to protect New Zealanders as much as possible from the sharp edges of recession—and in the case of beneficiaries we have made sure there have been adjustments to benefits regardless of the economic situation, including compensation for GST increases—and on the other hand the need to make sure we do not end up in the situation of a country like Ireland, where we lose control of our economic destiny because we have not lived within our means. So the Government has stimulated the economy in the recession, but now has a path back to surplus.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree that extending Working for Families tax credits, as proposed in the Green Party’s Mind the Gap plan, would inject $300 million into the economy, and give 130,000 low-income families a much-needed income boost?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not dispute the facts with the member; I am sure she has done her research. As I have said, though, we have tried to strike a balance between supporting people through the recession, and on the other hand showing a path back to surplus. There is any amount of spending we could do right now, but we would simply have to pay it back later, and on any significant scale it would pose a risk to New Zealand’s economic future.

Nikki Kaye: Has he seen any reports on economic support for middle-income New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I have seen some reports. One was a speech entitled “The Squeezed Middle”. Another was a statement that says: “My aim is to show our party is on the side of the squeezed middle …”. The first one was the title of a speech by Phil Goff; the second one was a statement made about 9 weeks before by Ed Miliband in the UK, and I do not think it was an accident that they used the same language.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by his statement made in public session to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 27 October 2010 when he said, in relation to a question about fiscally irresponsible tax cuts: “Despite the recession, we implemented the first tranche of that because we said we would”, and can he confirm that he admitted to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that “this has had a $1.5 billion impact on tax revenue”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a matter of fact that National promised a series of tax cuts in the 2008 election. We implemented the first tranche of those and we cancelled the next two, because between announcing the package and the implementation date Lehman Brothers crashed and the world went into a global financial crisis. So we chopped off the last two tranches of that tax cut.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Respectfully, I do not believe that the Minister has addressed the essence of that question. The question was not whether he passed $1.5 billion in tax cuts, but whether he did so knowing that that would be irresponsible because of the recession. I do not believe he has answered that point.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think, though, that the member can expect the Minister to give exactly the answer the member might want. The member asked him about the issue of those tax cuts, specifically, and the Minister replied with why the Government had implemented the first tranche, and why it had not implemented the rest. The member has further supplementary questions if he wishes to pursue the matter.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister not agree that every child should have the essentials this Christmas, regardless of whether their parent relies on the benefit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, that would be desirable. One of the reasons we set up the Welfare Working Group is that there is a strong correlation between child poverty and people who are long term on benefits. That is why I hope the Green Party will give full consideration to the recommendations of that working-group when they come forward early in the new year. We all have an interest in ensuring that the large proportion of New Zealand children who are raised in child poverty can have more hope than a lifetime of dependency.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a paper from the US Congressional Budget Office on policies for increasing economic growth, dated January 2010, showing that increasing aid to the unemployed has an impact on GDP.

Mr SPEAKER: 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.

Metiria Turei: The second document I am seeking leave to table is a White House paper on the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance, showing that low-income families are most likely to spend additional money that they receive in creating jobs and helping growth, dated 7 December 2010.

Mr SPEAKER: 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.

Work and Income—Changes to Unemployment Assistance

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent changes have been made by Work and Income for people on unemployment benefits?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We have changed the way Work and Income case management works by letting people on the unemployment benefit access the first available case manager for standard inquiries. Work and Income has reduced waiting times and allowed case managers to see 32 percent more beneficiaries. This is just one example of how we are helping more people into work.

Hon Annette King: Does she stand by her statements that those who are looking for work but cannot find it will not be penalised and that she is taking great care to be reasonable in implementing the new work-test requirements; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, and I have obligations and incentives in place that I think make it a fairer system. There are obligations on people on the unemployment benefit to make sure they turn up to appointments and to make sure they are work-ready wherever possible.

Hon Annette King: Is it reasonable to require a recently unemployed person to seek at least three job interviews per day in order to comply with the new work-test requirements or else have their benefit cut, particularly in places like South Auckland where there is high unemployment and few jobs available?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The difference is that I believe that people can find work. I support them in that and back them to get out there and to go to interviews. I am very optimistic that they can find work if they are looking.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that that answer addressed the question put down by the deputy leader of the Labour Party. It was a specific question about the reasonableness of the requirement for three interviews a day. The Minister said she believed in people finding work—I do not think there is any member of Parliament who does not—so her answer did not add anything to the question asked by Annette King.

Mr SPEAKER: The question asked whether she thought the requirement was reasonable. That is asking for an opinion, and there is no precise answer to that. The Minister’s answer clearly implied—and correct me if I am wrong here—that she thought it was reasonable, or she would have said it was not reasonable. The Minister’s answer clearly implied that, and if that is not the case she had better correct the answer. She does not appear to wish to.

Hon Annette King: Is it reasonable to require a recently unemployed person to apply for 10 jobs—that is, put in 10 applications a week—otherwise have their unemployment benefit cut, even if they do not have the qualifications and experience for those jobs; or does, for example, a 22-year-old unemployed person with no qualifications applying for a job as professor of maths at Auckland University meet her work-test criteria?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I say to the member that people cannot find a job unless they are looking. I support those people to look for work. I am quite pleased that Work and Income is showing them jobs that are available and suggesting they apply. I am sure that a level of reasonableness is expected and that people apply for jobs they are qualified for. The odd mistake may be made, but people cannot find a job unless they are looking, and that is a key policy for this Government.

Hon Annette King: What is fair about a situation where some people have to comply with unrealistic obligations for the Minister’s work-test requirements, yet in other cases a Minister can go overseas for 6 weeks on full pay and fail to meet her obligations as a Minister, such as responding to the Speaker’s request to answer written questions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will tell members what is not reasonable. It is not reasonable to leave people to a lifetime on the unemployment benefit and not work test them, which is what happened for 9 long years under the previous Government. This Government will stand up and put people into work wherever possible. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I do not know whether the member could hear the answer.

Hon Annette King: I could not hear a word—but she was showing off anyway.

Mr SPEAKER: It is my fault that that happened. I say to members that there is nothing wrong with showing support for an answer, but the level of interjection was totally unreasonable there, and it is not fair on the person asking the question. Under the circumstances I am prepared to give the member another supplementary question if she would like to have it. Members have to realise that the House deserves to hear an answer. If the Hon Annette King would like to ask an extra question, the Speaker has just said that she can.

Hon Annette King: Do I take from the Minister’s answer that she believes it is reasonable for a person to apply for a job they have no hope of getting—for example, as professor of maths at Auckland University when they have no qualification—because it meets her work-test requirements and therefore makes it right?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No. What she can take from my answer is that we think it is reasonable that people look for work, that we think it is unreasonable to leave them to a lifetime of benefit dependency, and that, yes, Work and Income will be case-managing and working alongside those people who are on the unemployment benefit. I learnt a lot on my trip away—I thank the member for asking—to the point where I got to have lunch with her former Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: The final supplementary question that was asked by the Hon Annette King did not contain anything about the member’s trip or lunch appointments. What is more, the Minister will resume her seat when the Speaker gets to his feet.

Katrina Shanks: What has been the effect of the Government’s unrelenting focus on work for young people?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The proportion of young—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: There is no way I could hear what the Minister was saying then, at all. I ask, please, for a little more reasonableness in the House.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The proportion of young people on the unemployment benefit continues to decrease. It is now at about 30.3 percent of the total. That is down from 32.1 percent this time last year, and it represents a drop of 736 young people in the last month. That is great news, no matter which side of the House one sits on.

Hon Jim Anderton: Can I ask the Minister to be very clear about what she said. As I understand it, she is saying that all people who are unemployed are looking for work or are not looking for work—or that all the people who are unemployed and have looked for work have got a job because they looked. Is that what she is saying?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I can understand that that member might be looking for work, and I wish him well in that.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It cannot be in order for a Minister to begin an answer with such a gratuitous put-down of the member asking the question, particularly a member as senior as—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Some other members will be leaving this Chamber soon if the place does not come to order. Members know I am pretty tolerant of a robust session; there is no problem with that. But the House is being unreasonable today, and I will not tolerate that. The Hon Darren Hughes has raised a point of order about the answer that was given, but had he listened to the supposed question, he would see that as Speaker I could have ruled the question out of order, because it was not really a question at all. It is very difficult for me to clamp down on a Minister faced with a statement that was masquerading as a question. I think there has to be balance in these things. With that kind of question, I cannot be too hard on Ministers. But I ask the Minister to please not be gratuitous in answering the question.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I suppose the policy is quite clear that people on the unemployment benefit should be work-ready, should be able to attend interviews wherever possible, and should be able to make themselves as available for work as they can, as the circumstances arise.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the implication of what the Minister is saying that the threefold increase in unemployment beneficiaries under her watch is because people are not trying hard enough; if so, how does she explain the fact that 2,700 people in my electorate were looking for 150 jobs at a new supermarket that opened?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, not at all. In fact, I am pleased to say that 2,250 people came off the unemployment benefit last month. I believe, though, that there needed to be a balance of incentives and obligations for people, and that is what we have done.

Rahui Katene: Does she agree with—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. I ask the Hon Darren Hughes and Chester Borrows to please stop this interjection exchange across the House. It is totally discourteous to the member whom I have called to ask her supplementary question.

Rahui Katene: Does the Minister agree with Ministry of Social Development chief executive Peter Hughes, who suggested that the most recent statistics will show a marked reduction in unemployment benefits and that half of the placements Work and Income New Zealand is making are with young people; and what place has Community Max played in such improved outcomes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. The Community Max programme has played an important role in keeping young people attached to the workforce during this recession, especially in our rural communities. However, long-term outcomes for young people depend on getting jobs, and as the economy grows out of this recession, our priority is to get them into work.

Broadband Roll-out—Progress

5. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What further progress has been made on rolling out faster broadband around New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Further to yesterday’s announcement of the first partners of the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative, this morning I announced the short-listing of tenderers for the Rural Broadband Initiative. This follows quickly on yesterday’s announcement of the partners that will help to roll out ultra-fast broadband around Northland and through cities and towns in the central North Island. The rural initiative received a number of high-quality bids, and three have now been placed on a short list. I expect the final partner to be announced early next year.

Louise Upston: What are the economic impacts of the broadband roll-out?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Delivering much faster broadband will greatly improve telecommunications, lift productivity, and provide for faster growth in New Zealand relative to that of the rest of the world. Of more immediate benefit, the two deals announced yesterday will directly lead to the creation of an estimated 300 jobs across the ultra-fast fibre roll-out in Taranaki, Waikato, and the Bay of Plenty, and the Northpower roll-out will see an extra 50 people employed. In addition, the Rural Broadband Initiative will see hundreds more people being employed in developing and deploying the network to rural schools and communities.

Clare Curran: Is it the Government’s intention that legislation for a regulation-free period until the end of 2019 for successful bidders will apply to the Rural Broadband Initiative as well as to the ultra-fast broadband scheme; if so, will that regulation-free period apply only to new fibre or to other technologies that have not been laid yet and that are agreed to in those schemes?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Firstly, I do not agree with the member that it is a regulation-free period, at all. The pricing will be set by contract between Crown Fibre Holdings and the bidders for the ultra-fast broadband. The rural broadband will be different. It will not have the same regulatory mechanism as the ultra-fast broadband, as it also differs from it in a number of other ways.

Louise Upston: What feedback has the Minister received on yesterday’s broadband announcement?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yesterday’s kick-off of the urban broadband roll-out generated some excellent feedback, including from the local councils in the coverage areas, which universally welcomed the announcement. In addition, InternetNZ stated: “Ultra-fast broadband is a game changer” and “The services will be affordable and really will drive uptake of fibre”. Even IDC analyst Rosalie Nelson said “it is encouraging to see the emphasis that is being placed in the two regions on making fibre accessible and affordable.”

Hon Darren Hughes: And what did Rod Oram say?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Rod Oram said nothing. The combined urban and rural initiatives mean we are now on the way towards ensuring that New Zealand is well equipped for the future.

Health Services—Taihape

6. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Will he act to prevent the closure of health services in Taihape?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): As was said yesterday, the Whanganui District Health Board has acted to prevent the closure of a large number of services in Taihape as a result of the trustees deciding to put the Ōtaihape Health Trust into liquidation. The district health board will help retain the general practice services, primary maternity services, day services for older people, home-based support services, radiology services, specialist outpatient services, palliative care services, the mobile surgical bus, and more. I am keeping in close contact with the district health board as it works to get the best possible outcome for the people of Taihape.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why does he think it is OK to force Taihape people aged in their 80s and 90s to move out of their home in the community they have lived in for years, and live somewhere else not of their choosing?

Hon TONY RYALL: Well, of course it is always a very concerning time when a provider cannot carry on and there is uncertainty. What is important is the fact that the district health board is making arrangements to support those families who may be affected, but what is clear is that with the liquidation, changes had to be made in Taihape, and the district health board is working to do that.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Has he picked up the phone to explain to Mrs Wendy Campbell that having health services closer to home actually means in her home, when she picks up her 94-year-old mother, Joan, and 96-year-old father, Les, from Ruanui House in Taihape this Saturday?

Hon TONY RYALL: Of course, no one is happy that people’s lives are disrupted in this way. But the fact is the trust has gone into liquidation and the public health service is doing its level best to make sure that we can maintain as many of those services as the trust was providing.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does he think the community will notice “very little difference”, as Simon Power, the current member of Parliament, claimed in a letter, and is that why the people of Taihape and the district have been pleading for the Government’s help and finally protesting outside this Parliament because there has been no help from Simon Power or the Minister, and they know services are being removed from their community, and staff are losing their jobs?

Hon TONY RYALL: The real priority here is to make sure that we can secure as many services for the people of Taihape as the trust was providing. The fact is that the member opposite has been making claims about what services may or may not happen in Taihape when she says that one thing will not be provided, when we know quite clearly it will be provided. So I would rather rely on what the Whanganui District Health Board is actually going to provide than what that member chooses to make up.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does he care that family members will from this Sunday have to travel for up to 2 hours each way in order to visit the older family members who have been, up until now, living in their own community; if he does care, when will he act?

Hon TONY RYALL: No one wants older people having their arrangements disrupted. But the fact is the trust has gone into liquidation, despite the fact that the district health board was trying to put in another $1 million worth of services and in-kind support. A number of those residents are being moved to another rest home. Some, in fact, are getting closer to their family members.

Bowel Cancer Screening—Pilot Programme

7. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made regarding the 4-year, $24 million bowel cancer screening pilot announced in this year’s budget?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): After years of no progress, yesterday this Government announced that the Waitematā District Health Board has been selected to run the 4-year bowel cancer screening pilot. It is international best practice to foolproof new screening programmes with a pilot. The Waitematā board was chosen because of its strong focus on screening and its commitment to working closely with its neighbouring district health boards, primary care, and the Northern Cancer Network to ensure that as many people as possible participate in the pilot. Up to 130,000 people aged 50 to 74 who live in the Waitematā District Health Board area will be invited to participate.

Dr Jackie Blue: What is being done to support the health sector to deliver the services that support detection and treatment of bowel cancer?

Hon TONY RYALL: The member is quite right to identify the need to support the services that underpin a screening programme. That is why I can advise the House that in the last year nearly 38,000 New Zealanders had colonoscopies to investigate for bowel cancer and other serious bowel issues. This was an increase of almost 2,500 colonoscopies over the previous year. These record numbers build on earlier increases and show that the sector is growing capacity for this important cancer test. The Government is fixing public health services with a concerted effort to make colonoscopies more freely and fairly available to New Zealanders who need them.

New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill—Access to Hearings

8. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Prime Minister: Why is he not supporting public hearings for submissions on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Up until yesterday the advice I had received was that such hearings were properly done in private. However, last night I received advice that led me to ask the director of the SIS to reassess the issue and provide me with new advice on what the situation should be. I will discuss that advice with the Intelligence and Security Committee in due course.

Keith Locke: When the Prime Minister is considering that advice, will he take into account that in February 1999 Prime Minister Shipley chaired 2 days of public submissions on a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill that even included a public submission by the former head of the British spy agency MI5, Stella Rimmington?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and I will also take into account that Helen Clark in 2001 chaired the GCSB committee in private.

Keith Locke: Will the Prime Minister also take into account that most committees in this Parliament have open hearings, but if there is sensitive information, it can be heard in private or secret, as has happened with the Intelligence and Security Committee in the past?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, but I am also aware of the advice I have received in the past, which is that open hearings on this matter, in relation to this part of the SIS, could lead to truncated and sterile debate, which would not necessarily lead to a robust process that we would all want to see.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a couple of documents. I take your ruling, Mr Speaker, that news media reports are generally not tabled, but in this case it is not so much the content of the reports that matter—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document?

Keith Locke: It is an article by Guyon Espiner from the Evening Post of 9 February 1999, reporting on a hearing of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. It is over a decade old. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article dated 11 February 1999 from the New Zealand Herald, showing that the Green Party submission by Rod Donald and Keith Locke was presented in public session to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

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

Police Resourcing—Minister’s Statements

9. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her answer to my question in the House on 24 November about whether Deputy Commissioner Viv Rickard was correct when he confirmed to the Law and Order Committee that, as at September 2010, the current Government had contributed just 30 new police officers nationwide since it came into Government, “That is not, in fact, what Deputy Commissioner Rickard said.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table an audio recording from 24 November, provided to me by an independent media organisation—so it is not an uncorrected transcript from the select committee that has not been released—of the police financial review hearing, which includes the comments referred to from Deputy Police Commissioner Viv Rickard confirming that the current Government had contributed just 30 new police officers nationwide as at September 2010.

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

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that I have an audio recording of the Law and Order Committee hearing referred to—which I will make available to the Minister despite the leave being denied in terms of tabling it, and its being blocked—confirming that Deputy Police Commissioner Rickard said “Yes”, when I asked him to confirm that “between that period June 2009 to September 2010 there is an addition of 30 officers only”, does she still stand by her answer referred to in my primary question?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are several questions there, but, yes, I stand by my original statement, and the reason is that the question the member has just—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: So he’s a liar?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, the question the member has just asked is different from the one he has put down today.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before I seek leave of the House, I ask you for your ruling. The primary question has to be authenticated by your office, and the information therein. It was accepted by your office, so therefore it must be fact and it must be true.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe there is anything for me to rule on.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The Minister denies that that is a fact.

Mr SPEAKER: But as I heard it, the member asked a supplementary question and it seemed to me that the Minister’s answer applied to the supplementary question the member just asked. There is nothing for me to rule on; the Minister replied.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave, and I will make a detailed description as per your rulings, to table a transcript of the relevant part of the audio recording from the Law and Order Committee hearing that confirms that in answer to my question “If we look at the number of police officers as at June 09, not one of those officers was funded by the current Government, the answer to that has to be ‘yes’, correct?”, deputy commissioner Rickard responded “Yes”.

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a bit unclear from the start of the member’s leave as to whether the transcripts related to the recording he referred to earlier that was from an independent recording or from the official recording of the select committee.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to clarify that for the House.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Absolutely. They relate to the independent recording that I have in my possession, not the transcript.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: So long as it is to do with clarification on the document.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, no, not really.

Mr SPEAKER: I will deal with this. Leave is sought to table that document, is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that she claimed in the House on 24 November that “We have already delivered over 380 police.”, and given deputy commissioner Rickard’s statement to the Law and Order Committee, can she now explain how many of her 380 police were funded by the current Government as opposed to the previous Government?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As we said in our policy at the 2008 election, 250 police officers were funded in Budget 2008. That was, in other words, by the previous Government. We said we would deliver 600 police officers on the front-line by the end of next year, and that would include the 250. That member is quite wrong in what he said about deputy commissioner Rickard. I suggest that he gets his ears checked, because that was not what he actually said.

Dr Cam Calder: How much additional funding did this Government provide for new officers and how many extra officers will be on the front line by the end of 2011?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Good question. In May 2009 this Government injected an extra $162.4 million of operating funding over 4 years into police recruitment, training, personnel costs, and deployment. This funding will ensure that we put 600 new officers on the front line by the end of next year. We have already reached our goal of 300 new officers for Counties-Manukau. It is helping police pilot new policing policies, which are already producing great results. I am sorry that member cannot—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I think the banshee might be—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will just ask his question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Which is correct: her statement of 24 November that this Government has “already delivered over 380 police” or deputy commissioner Rickard’s statements, as verified by the audio I have in my possession and also witnessed by journalists and reported publicly, recorded on the same day confirming that the National Government had delivered only 30 police as at September 2010?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That member is quite incorrect. What we have here are the correct figures that the police have provided to the select committee. The growth from the end of November 2008 to the end of this month is 384 police officers delivered; 384 by 30 November.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister confirm that Deputy Police Commissioner Rickard’s honest and straightforward answers to my questions at the select committee did him no good at all when it came to appointing the new Commissioner of Police?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This Government values constabulary independence, and I have to say it is not something I have seen from Phil Goff and the terrible point-scoring he has tried to make against the designate commissioner Peter Marshall, a man of absolute integrity. I can tell him—

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to make a personal explanation about what the Minister has just said.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation about that matter. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

Hon Phil Goff: At no time have I questioned the integrity or the suitability of Superintendent Marshall, whom I know well and I have worked with. What the Minister said is absolutely wrong. [Interruption]

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition knows exactly what I am about to say. He cannot accuse a member of being a liar in the House, and frankly I am surprised that a member such as Mr Goff—

Mr SPEAKER: There was such noise in the House that I could not hear what went on. I can only ask the honourable member whether he accused another member of being a liar.

Hon Phil Goff: I did accuse her of being a liar. I withdraw and apologise, as I must.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He has to do it properly. He knows that that was not the right way to do it.

Mr SPEAKER: One of the difficulties is when there is background noise and I cannot hear exactly what members are saying. I did not hear the last words that the Leader of the Opposition said. It makes it very difficult for me when I cannot hear what is being said. The Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged that he did call a member a liar, and I ask him simply to get to his feet to withdraw and apologise, with no other words.

Hon Phil Goff: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order when a member makes a personal explanation to correct another member who has said something that is wrong, for that member then to carry on, as she did from her seat, which provoked my response?

Mr SPEAKER: We will not take this any further. The member makes an absolutely fair point. I am on my feet. Members do not make comment when a member is granted leave to make a personal explanation. That is the end of the matter. What, I must say, led to this period of disorder was a question that perhaps I should have ruled out of order, but I did not. It was my fault, because it certainly led to the disorder I expected when the question was asked. The member knows who asked the question. The member should not look puzzled. Maybe I should have ruled the question out, but that is what led to the disorder and I think the House should come back to a semblance of order.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. My first point of order is one of consistency, and I ask for your ruling on it. You required the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw and apologise for a term that was used that was unparliamentary. You allowed, in a previous question, the Minister of Health to say to my colleague, the opposite number, that she was making it up, which is tantamount to exactly the same thing, and you let that fly. I ask for your ruling on that, first.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me deal with that. I invite the member to go back and look at the Hansard of the question asked by his colleague. He will find that the member inserted into the supplementary question a lot of information for which there was no authentication. A Minister is perfectly at liberty to question the accuracy of such information in a question. I would ask that Ministers do not do it in a gratuitous way, but they are perfectly at liberty to question the accuracy of such information and that is what I believe the Minister did. If there is a further point of order, I will listen to it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: As you are fond of teaching us in this House—and I mean that in a positive way—and giving us the odd tutorial, which is appreciated—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will just make his point of order.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What I would like is for you to advise me as to why the final question I asked, which was simply whether the Minister could confirm something, is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to go back and look at the Hansard, because he implied in his question that the Minister had interfered in the appointment of a senior official because of something said at a select committee. That is verging on the kind of thing that could be argued to be outrageous and could be ruled out. I did not rule it out, because I felt the Minister was capable of handling it, but it led to the disorder I expected. Members need to be mindful of that when asking questions. To make that kind of innuendo in a question is totally outside the Standing Orders.

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Minister of Māori Affairs’ Statement

10. HILARY CALVERT (ACT) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his statement “the focus will be on finding the best balance of customary rights and the interests of the wider public.”, and what concerns, if any, has he raised with the Attorney-General over the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Yes, indeed, I do stand by that statement. As Minister I have not raised any concerns with the Attorney-General about the bill, but I have made representations to the Attorney-General in other capacities.

Hilary Calvert: Does he share Ngāi Tahu’s concern that the bill “would revisit on us the injustices of the past because it is built on tests that exclude us from our rights, based on past injustices.”; if not, how are Ngāi Tahu wrong?

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek some clarity, and I suppose it goes to the issue of responsibility for answering these questions. In this case, questions in respect of the pire takutai moana sit firmly and squarely with the Attorney-General. Although in the past you have accepted that it is OK for Ministers to give opinions and to say how they feel about particular things, it must be within the realm of a particular portfolio. In this case, the Hon Mr Finlayson is in charge of the bill and therefore would be the appropriate person to answer the question, which seeks a view about Ngāi Tahu. Mr Speaker, I ask whether you could consider that, please.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made a very good point of order. It is quite correct that supplementary questions must relate to the Minister’s responsibilities, and questioners need to be careful not to ask about the detail of the bill, which is the responsibility of the Attorney-General. I invite the member to restate her question, bearing that in mind. Her primary question was perfectly OK, because it asked whether the Minister stood by his statement and what concerns he had raised with the Attorney-General, but she cannot question the Minister about the detail of the bill, because that is not that Minister’s responsibility.

Hilary Calvert: It was asking whether he had any concerns about Ngāi Tahu’s—

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to restate her question, and I ask for silence so that I can hear it properly, because it is an important matter.

Hilary Calvert: Does he share Ngāi Tahu’s concern as stated in the submission they made to the Māori Affairs Committee that the bill “would revisit on us the injustices of the past because it is built on tests that exclude us from our rights, based on past injustices.”?

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask again for your clarification in respect of the seeking of an opinion, particularly about the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. The question seems to be heading in the same direction, and therefore should be fairly and squarely in the hands of the Hon Mr Finlayson, surely.

Mr SPEAKER: It is an interesting issue. The question asked whether the Minister shared the concerns of Ngāi Tahu, who made submissions on the bill. Ministers, especially the Minister of Māori Affairs, can be asked for their opinion about matters affecting Māori, without the need for them to comment on the detail of the bill. The Minister is definitely not responsible for the detail of the bill. I believe that the Minister, in so far as he is able, given that he is not responsible for the bill, could attempt to answer that question.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The problem might be, firstly, that the Hon Dr Pita Sharples was not at the select committee hearings and is unable to offer an opinion on that submission, because he has not seen it. Therefore the question is pretty much out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made a perfectly good point—that would be a perfectly good answer. That is the thing. In answering that kind of question, Ministers who are not responsible for a bill can answer in that way.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Although I am not responsible for the bill, it will come before me after the select committee has finished with it; then I will deliberate.

Hilary Calvert: Does the Minister of Māori Affairs agree with Māori Party MP Hone Harawira that the bill is “not what we marched for in 2004”?

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect again—the question is in the same line as the first question—that any reference to the bill itself must surely fit with the Attorney-General, who has responsibility for this particular bill. Of course, that is where it should fit.

Mr SPEAKER: These are important issues, and I would like to suggest that a member cannot ask a Minister who is not responsible for a bill whether they agree with a particular statement such as the one quoted, because it is inviting the Minister to accept some responsibility for the bill, and it is not the Minister’s bill. I have to rule that question out, but this is the member’s last supplementary question, so I will give her another chance to ask a supplementary question. But she must remember that the Minister she is questioning is not the Minister responsible for the bill. The question cannot, in any way, cause him to act as if he is responsible for the bill. That makes questioning quite difficult, but I do not want to rule out the member’s opportunity to ask a further supplementary question.

Hilary Calvert: Has the Minister of Māori Affairs received advice concerning any of the submissions made to the Māori Affairs Committee on the bill relating to Hone Harawira’s statement that it is “not what we marched for in 2004”?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: No.

Pansy Wong—International Travel

11. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: Did he approve Pansy Wong having private time on any of her ministerial trips to China and did her husband accompany her on any of those trips?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and no.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Is he satisfied that in all of those instances no personal business was carried out by his colleague the Hon Pansy Wong; if so, why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Hon Pete Hodgson: When did he first become aware of the link between Pansy and Sammy Wong and Lianyungang Supreme Hovercraft Ltd?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When I first met Pansy Wong she introduced Sammy as her husband, so I was aware of the link then. In terms of the question the member asked, I have no recollection of that date.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does he recall having dinner with Sammy Wong in New Zealand on 19 September 2008 and receiving a progress report on Liangyungang Supreme Hovercraft Ltd at that time?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Is he aware that in June 2005 Sammy Wong travelled, using taxpayer funding, to Fujian Province, that on the morning after arrival he helped former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley launch a $40 million investment into a biotechnology centre, in which Mrs Shipley has shares, but that he told Mr McPhail that the reason he went to Fujian Province was for genealogical research?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and as I said in the House yesterday, if any members have any information that they want to send off to the Auditor-General, they are free to do so.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I have a number of documents to table. I will try to group them. The first document I seek leave to table is off the Lianyungang Supreme Hovercraft website, which is no longer existent. It is both in English and in Mandarin, and it refers to the dinner between Sammy Wong and the Prime Minister on 19 September 2008.

Mr SPEAKER: 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.

Hon Pete Hodgson: The second document consists of a bunch of stuff off the New Zealand Companies Office website linking the Alpha Group, and various other holdings, back to Jenny Shipley.

Mr SPEAKER: These documents are off what website?

Hon Pete Hodgson: They are from the New Zealand Companies Office website.

Hon Simon Power: Could we get a date, for example, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: The House perhaps needs a little more information to be able to make a decision.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Well, I am be very happy to give it, Mr Speaker. It was yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon Pete Hodgson: The third group of papers is off the New Zealand GanoPoly Health Products website, and it refers to the Alpha International biotechnology campus foundation laying-stone ceremony. It is in a mixture of New Zealand and Mandarin. The original Mandarin is attached, as well, in case anyone wishes to try a third translation. I have two translations.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the date of these documents?

Hon Pete Hodgson: The date of the blog on that website is 27 July 2005. The date of the download is unknown to me.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Cultural Sector—Private Philanthropy

12. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What has the Government done to encourage private philanthropy in the cultural sector?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Last year the Government established the Cultural Philanthropy Taskforce to investigate new opportunities to encourage private investment in the arts in New Zealand over the next 5 to 10 years. The task force reported back on 2 December. The Government will now analyse and consider its recommendations, before making decisions.

Nicky Wagner: How does private philanthropy fit into the Government’s vision of the arts?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: To quote the task force itself, the Government has done its bit directly through grants and indirectly through establishing a favourable tax environment for charitable giving that requires very little refinement. Government support can only ever be one part of an overall strategy for the sector. The task force investigated best practice in philanthropy around the world. It consulted within New Zealand with organisations and individuals—

Hon David Cunliffe: There goes the holiday!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Could “Mr Caygill” shut up when I am speaking. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am trying to deal with an important matter, and throughout the answer he has just been bellowing like an oaf.

Mr SPEAKER: The House will come to order. I guess interjections can get responses, so members who interject do take risks. But I ask the member to please finish his answer without being unnecessarily reactive.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, the interjections were directed at me. The task force—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The first transgression that the Minister made was to be aggressively gratuitous, and you pulled him up on that. When my colleague Mr Mallard interjected on you, he withdrew from the Chamber. But once you had given your ruling, the Minister, unable to let the issue go, had to have another little chip as he began his answer, in direct challenge to your ruling. When other members have challenged your ruling today, Mr Speaker, they have not remained with us.

Mr SPEAKER: In fairness, I have to say that I think the degree of challenge to the Chair was somewhat greater earlier on. When members interject, Ministers are perfectly at liberty to pick up on their interjections, but I ask the Minister to please just finish his answer without further comment.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The task force consulted within New Zealand with a number of organisations, it consulted around the world, and it drew on the extensive expertise of task force members like Dayle Mace and Dame Jenny Gibbs.

Rahui Katene: Is the Minister aware of the statement made by Tu Williams and David Robinson that in the broader society Māori today are virtually invisible in philanthropy, in part because the philanthropic sector has failed to market itself as being relevant to them; and what will the Government do to correct this gap?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, I am not, but I can understand where that particular person is coming from. That is the very reason why we have this report and why I am keen to get it out there so that people can, in a very positive way, contribute to philanthropy.

Question No. 1 to Minister

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek your clarification about an intervention that occurred earlier in question time around the process when a member takes offence. Earlier in question time Mr Phil Goff took offence at a statement that the Speaker himself had made. In normal circumstances the member who made the offending comment would be asked to withdraw that comment without qualification before the House moved on to other business. I am aware that this was an engagement between Mr Goff and the Speaker, but I would ask for your clarification of whether that same requirement for an unreserved, unqualified withdrawal applies to the Chair, as it does to other members.

Mr SPEAKER: It definitely does not. If members wish to raise questions about the Speaker, they do so by a notice of motion. That is the proper way to do that. The member may have noted, though, that the Speaker did apologise to the member for having caused him offence. Speakers have not always done that in the past, in my experience. I am always prepared to apologise, especially where I get things wrong. Speakers are not beyond getting things wrong; I fully accept that. My concern at the time was simply in relation to the tabling of documents, which has improved enormously during the rest of the period of this question time, so some good did come out of it. But I do apologise for the offence that I caused at the time.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Mr Speaker, you regularly offend members of the House, and I know that you regard it as an important part of your job.

It is happy days in the Labour Party. Trevor Mallard lost his pills, Phil Goff lost his marbles, the caucus is losing its temper, David Caygill lost his respectable place in Labour Party history by being mixed up with David Cunliffe, and Kris Faafoi almost lost the unloseable seat. This is the Labour Party that set out with the “Axe the Tax” campaign, and in the Mana by-election it buried the axe in its own back. What was meant to be a referendum on the Government ended up with the people of middle New Zealand—and there is no seat more middle New Zealand than Mana—sending the Opposition a message. But Phil Goff did not get it. He did not get it, because he decided that rather than listen to the people of Mana, he would google the Labour Party in Britain. He came up with—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy Prime Minister, but I have just been made aware that he used a phrase at the beginning of his speech that made reference to a member having not taken his pills. That phrase has been ruled out at the request of National members, for reasons reasonably close to home, in that respect. If National members are to object to that phrase being used by Labour members about one of their members, then I do not think it is in order for them to use that phrase about one of our members. We take objection to the use of that phrase, in order for there to be consistency with regard to the sensitivities on that point.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the member asking that he withdraw—

Hon Members: Withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: It is an unnecessarily gratuitous comment; I fully accept that. I ask the member to withdraw the comment. I do not think members should be using that comment.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I withdraw. Well, Labour will need some other explanation for Trevor’s extraordinary behaviour, which I suggest is that he did not attend his anger management course the other day.

How did Labour manage to almost lose the Mana by-election? I think the first reason is that no one is listening to Labour, and the reason that no one is listening to it is that 2 years on from the 2008 election, Labour still thinks the voters were wrong. It is highly unlikely that the voters of middle New Zealand, even in a recession, would listen to Labour telling them: “Mate, we were right. You were wrong.” That is why the voters are not listening.

The second reason is that if voters were to listen, then what they would hear would not make any sense. I will just use a couple of examples. [Interruption] Well, that is why they are saving themselves the trouble, because it would not make any sense. I will give a couple of examples. David Caygill—sorry, David Cunliffe—has said that he is against asset sales. He said that Labour’s policy now is that the Government will go into partnership with private shareholders and Government companies, as long as it does not dilute taxpayers’ ownership.

Hon Judith Collins: How does that work?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The private owner is allowed to buy shares in the asset, but the Government still owns it, 100 percent.

Hon Member: Socialism.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is modern social democracy, I think. That is actually impossible. Labour members need to decide—well, actually, they have decided. They are in favour of partial privatisation. They are. Privatisation dilutes taxpayers’ ownership. If the Labour spokesman on finance does not understand that, then it is no wonder that Phil Goff wishes he had David Caygill in that spot—it is no wonder.

That is just a little example, but here is a better example. Labour has said in the last couple of weeks that it will pay down debt faster than the National-led Government.

Hon Member: How are they going to do that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A very good question. The answer is that it will spend more.

Hon Members: Ah!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is how Labour will do it. How do we know that? Well, because it will get rid of GST on food. Apparently, doing that will not cost anything. It will be of benefit to people who buy fruit and vegetables, but apparently it will not cost anything.

The other reason we know that Labour will spend more is that it opposes every single saving or reallocation this Government proposes—every single one of them. No one in New Zealand believes that Labour could run a Government without spending more and borrowing more. No one in New Zealand believes that.

Hon Tony Ryall: $500 million for sleepovers, they have promised.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Labour has promised $500 million for sleepovers, plus GST—that is $800 million—plus the $2.5 billion it will borrow to put into the Government savings account. That is $3.3 billion. Labour says that by adding more debt, it will bring down debt faster. Bring back David Caygill!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): On 17 November 2008 the Prime Minister said: “I expect high standards from my Ministers. If they don’t meet the standards I set, then obviously I will take action if necessary.” It is interesting that Mr English is the first speaker in this debate from the other side of the House. He talked at length about what he thinks New Zealand people believe. I say this to Mr English: they believe that the Prime Minister has not lived up to the standards he set for himself and his Ministers. The New Zealand people believed it was not on when Mr English dodged, weaved, squirmed, and tried everything he could to get around the rules when he claimed for a house—I think it was in the order of $24,000. He claimed for a house, and rented it, through Ministerial Services, back to his trust. I say to that member that the people of New Zealand believed all too well that he dodged, weaved, behaved inappropriately, and cheated.

What was the Prime Minister’s response to that? Was it to admonish him? Was it to sack him? Was it to censure him? No, it was to change the rules—the ministerial rules—so that not only could he get $24,000, but he and every Minister, I think, could get in the order of $48,000 or thereabouts without producing a receipt. He did not get sacked—

Hon Bill English: I seek leave to make a personal explanation relevant to what the member has just said.

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

Hon Bill English: The member has given the impression that under the new rules I claim a housing allowance. That is incorrect: I claim no housing allowance.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I endorse his statement, because he does so by choice. He could still claim the new housing allowance. If he did it is within the rules. But because the feet were put to the fire month after month, day after day because of his dodgy arrangements, he had no option but to say to the Prime Minister that even though he could claim under the new rules, which the Prime Minister rewrote to benefit him, he would not do so. That is the part of the explanation we did not hear. What was the new higher standard there? The rules were changed to suit him.

Then we had Richard Worth. We will not go down that track too much. Another standard was breached. There was another dodgy deal overseas by a member who is now not in this place. The Prime Minister stood by Richard Worth day after day, month after month until the inevitable happened.

Then we come to Rodney Hide, the great perk-buster. The ACT members “Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber” over there stand up for him every day. He is the man who railed, destroyed careers, and attacked families because he viewed MPs’ use of travel allowances as perks and inappropriate. He was then unzipped—I will not say from where—and was found to be using travel allowances for his own purposes. That was the height of—there is a word that you will not let me use, Mr Speaker, and I accept that. We know what the word is. What was the high standard? What did the Prime Minister do then? He did nothing.

Then there was strike two on Mr Hide. He stood by and aided and abetted a former member who covered up a suppression order. He knew about a former member of this House who stole a dead child’s identity. What did the Prime Minister do then? He said that that was in a private capacity and was nothing to do with him.

Then we had Phil Heatley. Do members remember the old limousine or self-drive car following the train all the way to Nelson so that he could drive back? I do not know whether it was full of flowers or presents—who knows? Then there were the half-dozen bottles of wine at the National Party conference on the ministerial credit card. What was the Prime Minister’s response then? It was to take him out to relax and bring him back. Where were the high standards and where was the action there?

Then, of course, we had Mr Finlayson—“Mr Grumpy”, all right—who for 4 years never declared among his pecuniary interests that he had a directorship. Dame Margaret Bazley said that that was incorrect and a false return. No action was taken; it was a mistake!

Then, of course, we come to the doozy: Pansy Wong. I put to members that the investigation carried out on Pansy Wong is a cover-up. It is a cover-up because, to my knowledge, no one in history who has pleaded guilty to the accusations and said that funds were misused is then investigated in the following way. She was asked to produce a few diaries, and asked whether she has done it again. The answer was no. She was asked whether Sammy had done it again, and she said no. The investigator then said: “OK, fine. I believe you. End of story.” The investigator did not check one fact or piece of corroborating evidence. That investigation would not stand up in a court. We know that a former member of this House was charged and found guilty of a similar offence. But what is the action here? She is out of Cabinet.

The Prime Minister says that if you plead guilty once you are cleared. It is OK, just do not plead guilty too many times! That is the higher standard of National and that, I say to Mr English, is what the New Zealand people believe.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): Two years into being in Opposition, in its second year in Opposition, and Labour is exactly where it was 2 years ago. It is roughly where it was in the polls. Phil Goff’s ratings are about the same as they were. In fact, Phil Goff is now in competition with the CPI index in terms of his popularity rating—no one knows the man. Labour’s factions are deeper, though; that has changed. The various factions are trying to work out who will be the next leader. As Mr English just noted, nothing has changed in that Labour members still think the voters were wrong in 2008. That is what they are saying. Well, voodoo Labour Party is here. Voodoo Labour Party is back. Members over there in the various factions are putting pins in their various voodoo dolls of each other. The Hon Chris Carter is right: the gentleman over there is probably a nice guy, according to him, but he will not win the next election.

Voodoo economic policy has arrived with a couple of speeches in the last couple of weeks from the Labour finance spokesman and from the Leader of the Opposition. Voodoo economics is here. There are flip flops, the “Axe the Tax” bus races around the country, but there is no commitment. Voodoo taxes are on the way if the Labour Party ever gets back into Government. Labour seems to be promoting voodoo tax increases across the board. Voodoo gift duty would come back under a Labour Government, even though the Crown collects $1.5 million a year and it costs the economy $70 million. That is voodoo economics. Voodoo GST changes are coming according to Labour. It might take GST off fruit and veges but we are still not sure whether it will reverse the whole lot. And there is the voodoo inbound transactions tax. That is what Labour is promoting, and I will come back to it in a moment because it is voodoo stuff. There are voodoo spending promises from the Labour Party; it is up to about $7 billion right now. It has a voodoo leader who is now copying and pasting speeches from the United Kingdom Labour Party. Labour is promoting a voodoo monetary policy. It is actually doing the exact reverse of what every central bank and every Government around the world is doing to try to address the global financial crisis. Labour is trying to weaken, essentially, the parameters that the Reserve Bank must operate under.

Labour has a voodoo accounting policy now. I bring members a quote from the person who would like to one day be the next Minister of Finance. Just listen to this quote from his recent speech: “If the Government invests in growing an asset like a forest, that asset appears on both sides of the Crown balance sheet”—no, assets appear only on one side of the Crown’s balance sheet—“and need not increase net debt, but does increase net worth.” What on earth is that about? A third- form economics student would be failed and sent to the back of the class if they put that kind of stuff in an essay. I have no idea what it is about. It is voodoo accounting coming from the voodoo Labour Party. It has a voodoo finance spokesman—we are not sure whether it is Mr Caygill resurrected or Mr Cunliffe, and even Mr Goff is not too sure. It has a voodoo investing policy: it wants to borrow from foreign markets to give to the Superannuation Fund to invest in foreign markets. I cannot work that one out.

The inbound transactions tax is a voodoo tax. That is what Labour is now promoting. What would it mean? Higher interest rates for New Zealand. That is a tax on exports. Every receipt that comes into New Zealand under a Labour Government would be caught up by this new thing called the inbound transactions tax. Any money sent home by New Zealanders—our kids overseas or friends overseas wanting to send money home—will be subject to Labour’s new voodoo inbound transactions tax. I am very, very fearful of what it might do. Labour essentially wants our kids to stay away and stay away for longer. Why does it hate success so much?

Labour has a voodoo asset management policy. Labour wants to take a more active role in the economy. Not one of its members has spent more than 5 minutes in the real sector—not one. Mr Goff wants to put on his shorts, socks, and sandals, get his clipboard, put his pens in his pocket, and go around various State-owned enterprises and tell them how to run the show. That is what the new voodoo asset management policy of the Labour Opposition is promoting. It wants to unleash State-owned enterprises and their subsidiaries—or not their subsidiaries. Essentially, it wants to sell Kiwibank, according to a speech from Mr Cunliffe the other day. He forgot, I guess, that Kiwibank is a subsidiary of New Zealand Post, but subsidiaries are the things that Labour wants to dilute the equity of.

This National-led Government is doing an awesome job. We have a challenging economic programme. We are delivering better, smarter public services. We are reforming regulation, education and skills, and business innovation, and are investing in productive infrastructure. This country does not need voodoo economics or voodoo Labour policies.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): Today I will talk very briefly about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations—talks that have been under way in Auckland. Most people think that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is about trade; in fact, very little of it is about trade. Most of it is about trying to restrict the ability of Governments to make regulations.

When we look at some of the issues that are on the table in the negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we see that they are issues like restricting the ability to control foreign investment. When Australia negotiated its trade deal with the United States, it gave away the right to have any restrictions on incoming investment from the United States into Australia up to a level of A$800 million, which effectively gutted Australia’s entire foreign investment review process for US investment. That is one of the issues that the United States has put on the table.

A second issue it has put on the table is our GE food labelling laws. Biotech companies in the United States do not like our GE food labelling laws, or the Australian ones, and they are trying to get them removed as part of the trade negotiations.

Another part of the negotiations that I think is critically important is the investor-State disputes mechanism. As part of these free-trade deals, a disputes mechanism is established whereby corporations can sue Governments in international tribunals. These tribunals are generally set up at the World Bank. They are three-person tribunals that make binding decisions on Governments. These tribunals have in the past required Canada to allow a toxic additive into its petrol. Canada tried to remove a toxic additive from its petrol, but was sued by Ethyl Corporation, which was the producer. Ethyl Corporation argued that Canada had expropriated Ethyl Corporation by banning the toxic additive, and it was able to win its case.

Recently, Argentina lost a case when it tried to intervene to protect water supply. Argentina argued that it had to intervene because water is a basic human necessity. The tribunal established at the World Bank said that just because something was a human right did not mean that it overrode trade rules. Trade rules actually trump the human right to water.

Labour and National are very keen for us to sign up to these agreements. Investor-State disputes resolution provisions were in the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement that the former Labour Government negotiated. These kinds of issues are on the table.

How does the New Zealand public find out what is part of these negotiations? We know that the New Zealand Government has produced a series of position papers outlining the position of the New Zealand Government, and they have been given to all the other negotiating countries. For example, the Sultan of Brunei knows what the New Zealand Government’s position is on, let us say, intellectual property. But the New Zealand people do not know what the New Zealand Government’s position is on intellectual property, because the New Zealand Government has not released the position papers that it has given to the other negotiating parties.

When we asked the Government about this, it said it could not release the position papers, because it would undermine our negotiating position. That is not a rational argument. The other countries already know New Zealand’s negotiating position because we have given them the position papers outlining our negotiating position. The only people who do not know New Zealand’s negotiating position are the people of New Zealand. The other countries are entirely aware of our negotiating position because we have given them our position papers. It is a matter of public record that our Government has presented these position papers to the other Governments in the negotiations, but has not publicly released them.

The Government cannot argue that it would undermine the negotiating strategy when New Zealand’s position is already known to the other negotiating parties. How can it be right that the New Zealand public is not told what New Zealand is telling the other Governments in these negotiations? There needs to be greater transparency so that we, the public—and even members of this Parliament—have a right to see what New Zealand is telling the other parties to the negotiations.

I argue that the reason the New Zealand public is not being told is that what the New Zealand Government is offering would be very unpopular. If the New Zealand Government was offering to establish investor-State disputes mechanisms whereby other corporations can sue our Government in international tribunals, that would be very unpopular amongst the New Zealand public. If the New Zealand Government was offering to get rid of our GE food labelling laws, that would be very unpopular. If the New Zealand Government was offering to get rid of our investment rules, that would be very unpopular. That is why the Government is not releasing the position papers to the New Zealand public. It should. These negotiations need transparency.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): How comfortable it must be on the other side of the House to be in Opposition, to make all the promises those members want to make, and to never have to address the question of where the money will be found. This morning on Radio New Zealand we heard the Leader of the Opposition complain about money not being put into the so-called Cullen fund, obviously implying that a Labour Government would put money into that fund if it happened to have the privilege of being in Government right now, but he never explained where it would find that money. Labour has taken slap after slap, yet it never ever has to cough up. That is the privilege of being in Opposition: those members can stand there and pick whatever fights they want to take on; they can promise everything, knowing they will never have to deliver; and before they would ever have to deliver anything, they will remove it. We saw them all on the bus singing “Take Me Home, Country Roads”, longing for the fatherland, etc.

Dr Cam Calder: “Slip Sliding Away”, I think.

CHESTER BORROWS: Sliding around in that big red bus that said “Axe the Tax”. Funnily enough, tax seems to have gone off the agenda at the moment. In spite of all the promises about no GST on fresh fruit and vegetables, Labour is not saying what it would do with the 15 percent GST. It is not making any comment about it whatsoever. It is strangely silent right now.

Labour knows that it has to keep its constituents disgruntled and disenchanted—that is code for poor and pissed off—so that it can maintain a constituency come the next election. When we look at the smacks Labour members had around the House today in question time—for instance, having a go at good old Paula Bennett—we heard them saying: “There are no jobs, there are no jobs.” In fact, Labour criticised the Minister for Social Development and Employment for expecting people to make applications for jobs so they continue receiving an unemployment benefit. Is that not what a Minister for Social Development and Employment is supposed to do? Is it shallow to just stand back and say: “There are no jobs, there are no jobs.”? Would we not expect a person with their hand out in receipt of a benefit from the taxpayers of New Zealand to at least be trying to look for work? Then we had the Leader of the Opposition stand up and complain to the Minister for Social Development and Employment because of a situation where 2,500 people who are unemployed wanted to apply for a job, as if that was some terrible thing. National believes that people should be trying to look for work, and so did those 2,500 people who were in that queue looking for work.

Those people are actually on our side and they are actually supporting what we are saying, just as people in Mana did a couple of weeks ago. Phil Goff stood up and said that that by-election would be run on the Government’s performance, and we agreed. We put our record on the line, and we know that Labour got an absolute caning in Mana. Its 6,300 vote majority in that electorate at the last election went through the floor to 1,080 on the night and ended up at about 1,400.

Carmel Sepuloni: Mana said “Hell no!” to Hekia.

CHESTER BORROWS: Carmel Sepuloni knows exactly that, and she hates it. The fact is that the Prime Minister, John Key, is the most popular Prime Minister since Adam was a cowboy, and Labour hates it. The public of New Zealand is repeating time and time again that it is happy with the performance of this Government. Even in a pretty crappy week, the public is prepared to cut us some slack. Given the terrible times that this Government has had to endure and defend in order to support the country of New Zealand, the public of New Zealand is prepared to give us the benefit of the doubt and cut us some slack because they know better than anything else that they do not want that lot back any time soon.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): Today is a really auspicious day for the Māori Party. It is an auspicious day for Māori and it is an auspicious day for the country. I am really disappointed that none of the other speakers in this debate so far have even mentioned the fact that this morning our co-leader Pita Sharples stood alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and announced a new phase of public debate to be generated around New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.

This is the day we have been leading up to since the agreement was signed with National, and we note that other political parties said they have been looking towards this day, asking that they be part of this debate. Well, today is it. This is the day when our constitutional review is starting, and it is a fantastic day.

In his book The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s Law and Constitution, Matthew Palmer expresses his view that Te Tiriti o Waitangi contributes greatly to the objective of healthy relationships between the Crown, Māori, and other New Zealanders. Mr Palmer concludes that in order to better achieve that objective, change is desirable. Change is good—change that stabilises the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in New Zealand’s law and constitution. Today the drive to stabilise the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s law and constitution enters new terrain.

I wish that other members of the House were as excited as our party is about this, because this is the day that we have been looking forward to for so long and that Māori have been working towards for decades. As a first-term MP and a lawyer by trade and by inclination, it is almost beyond my wildest dreams that in such a short time we, the Māori Party, have been able to place the constitutional significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi firmly on the agenda.

The second anniversary of my maiden statement in this Parliament is just days away. In that speech I referred to the many hours I had spent in the Court of Appeal being educated in the practice and impact of constitutional law. I will remind members of the challenge this Parliament has until now failed to live up to. I am referring, of course, to the ruling of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General. In his summary the President of the Court of Appeal, Sir Robin Cooke, stated: “We have reached two major conclusions. First, that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi overrides everything else in the State Owned Enterprises Act. Second, that those principles require the Pakeha and Maori partners to act towards each other reasonably and with the utmost good faith.”

Those words are pivotal in our pathway to nationhood. For too long our nation has suffered the injustice of being one of only three countries in the entire world to have no written constitution. We are one of three in the whole world with no written constitution. Commentators refer to a veritable patchwork quilt of significant legislation, several legal documents, common law derived from court decisions, and established constitutional practices known as conventions.

A vital thread running through all these documents has been the status of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a founding document of government in New Zealand. Today in this House we appreciate that article 1 of the Treaty is in itself the basis for the current government structures in New Zealand, expressing the right of the Crown to govern. We know that article 2 of the Treaty guarantees to Māori te tino rangatiratanga over our lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and taonga—the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of all that we treasure as the ultimate expression of our identity. Article 3 of the Treaty affirms the equal citizenship rights of all New Zealanders, including Māori. Article 3 also promises the Queen’s royal protection to Māori. A measure of this protection would be the well-being of Māori.

Such a rudimentary summary of ideals and aspirations emerging from our foundation document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, is not, regrettably, something that all New Zealanders feel equipped to express. Surveys have been carried out over the years. One survey that was carried out 5 years ago by UMR Research found that levels of awareness varied: 71 percent of Māori are aware of the document, but only 51 percent of Pākehā are aware of it. This needs to change. It will change through this constitutional review. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): It is clear that the Government is on a slide in terms of its popularity with the voters of New Zealand. That is now abundantly clear.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Here we go—National members continue to deny the reality of the numbers. The trend has been clear for 2 years. In fairness, in 18 months the gap is narrowing, and narrowing substantially. Phil Heatley is cackling in the background like he has completely lost the plot.

Actually, the first person to pick the significance of the narrowing gap was a former employee of the National Party. It was a former employee of the Speaker, Matthew Hooton. Matthew Hooton picked this about a year ago. He said that the gap was narrowing and that National should not rest on its laurels. But it has.

The latest poll, which is of most concern to the National Party, was on the front page of the Sunday Star-Times on the weekend. It had National on 34 percent and Labour on 28 percent—a 6 percent gap. It is now a 6 percent gap, whereas a year and a half ago it was a 20 percent gap. It is down from 20 percent to 6 percent.

Hon Darren Hughes: And who’s got the 6 points?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Winston Peters fills that gap at the moment, together with the Greens. But a two-party swing of only 3 percent would see Labour ahead of National. No wonder National is starting to get worried. Those members are getting so worried, what do they do in respect of these polls? The first thing that politicians who are worried about polls do is rubbish them. What happened here? The headline is “Key rubbishes NZ First results”.

Those members are so worried about Winston Peters. He turned up to the Māori Affairs Committee today and panned their legislation on the foreshore and seabed. I ask whether members can guess how many questions the National majority asked of Winston Peters at the select committee, despite his strident criticism of what they are doing. How many?

Hon Darren Hughes: A dozen or so?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, less. How many?

Hon Darren Hughes: Five?

Hon DAVID PARKER: None. They did not have the courage to take on the Rt Hon Winston Peters with even one question at the select committee in support of their bill.

What lies behind the slide of popularity for National is people’s concern about a lack of integrity. That integrity has two aspects to it. The first is personal integrity. People are disappointed in the Hon Phil Heatley, in Bill English, and in Pansy Wong. Overall, they are disappointed with the lack of standards enforced by the Prime Minister, notwithstanding that he promised to hold higher standards than his predecessors. People are disappointed with the lack of integrity around ministerial performance, but also they are disappointed with broken promises. They have stopped trusting National. There has been broken promise after broken promise. National said it would not increase GST, but it did. National members said they would not increase GST, but they did. They said they would bridge the wage gap with Australia—

Hon Darren Hughes: Oh, they’ve given up on that.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —and they have given up on that. Their rhetoric on that has disappeared. They were going to close the wage gap by 2025. They had all sorts of weird and wonderful plans that they said would do it, like mining in national parks, which they abandoned.

Hon Darren Hughes: A cycleway.

Hon DAVID PARKER: A cycleway would not make much difference. They have no credible plan. They will not even agree on milestones between now and 2025, which is their target date. We all know that the gap is growing larger rather than narrowing.

Another area of failed policy is in respect of the major settings of the economy. National said it would not borrow for tax cuts; it borrowed for tax cuts. The amount of that borrowing is increasing by the month. In the last quarter alone the Government has had to acknowledge an extra $2 billion of Government deficit—that is, cumulatively, New Zealanders owe $2 billion more to overseas banks through the Government’s indebtedness than was predicted by the Government in its Budget. Why? It was in part to fund tax cuts, 42 percent of which went to the top 10 percent of income earners. That is another broken promise by National. It promised a fair tax system, not a tax system that delivered the majority of tax cuts to those who already earn the most.

That is why the Government’s popularity is sliding. That is why the two-party gap is less than 6.5 percent.

AARON GILMORE (National): It was the weeks leading up to Christmas and all through Welling-town,

Not a Labour MP was happy; they all had a big frown,

Conditions in the Labour Party were all looking so sullen,

Calls were made out of Te Atatū to call back “Auntie Helen”.

With Phil in a mess, not knowing where to turn, he has even decided to recite a fable,

And bring back in the finance role a dinosaur called Caygill.

It was no surprise, given the announcement of their plans to float off SOEs, bring back free fishing classes, and GST-free rates for fruit,

Pity no one in Labour has thought about how to pay for it.

Labour is working on the economic theory of pixies at the bottom of the garden,

While National’s numbers continue to harden.

“No worries, Labour’s plan will work.” says Nash with a grin. Everyone in Labour smiles inanely,

Despite no one in caucus understanding how to calculate GST, even badly.

“Do not worry, Andrew Little has a plan. He holds his tarot cards closely, which only goes to show

Labour has no idea in 2011 where it should go.

You see, David Cunliffe suffers from a split personality;

The public do not believe he has a solution for their malady.

But still daily he stands on a platform, preaching with gusto, and preens like a proud peacock with a chest full of puff,

But when questioned on his economic voodoo, it is all a load of fluff.

Cunliffe does not know his Krugman from his Samuelson,

But “Don’t panic!” thinks Goff; “We will bring back Labour’s son

Caygill, deep from the past. He’ll solve it, I am sure.”, Phil crows. Meanwhile the economy slowly and surely continues under National, and grows.

Labour—

Hon Darren Hughes: Did Cam Calder write this speech?

AARON GILMORE: It gets better, I tell Mr Hughes.

Labour stands and promises that the world is flat and simple like some tricky game of monopoly,

But the socialists’ policy, puffery, and PR will not solve the economy.

“Spend more on the masses!”, the left squeals;

“Billions of dollars are required.”, they say. Shower billions on the poor for the wounds of the 90s to heal.

“Soak the rich!” says Labour, “They have plenty.”

Ignoring the fact under Labour the middle class’s piggy banks were all empty.

It seems Mr Cunliffe has forgotten his team, 9 years in charge, are responsible for our being in recession

So much so there has been a procession

Of experts and advisers telling New Zealand “Save more! You must change!”.

But Labour is like an ostrich with its head in the sand; everyone who does not agree with them is just a capitalist and strange.

The year 2010, to be fair, has not been the best,

With earthquakes ruining my home town of Christchurch, plane crashes, and mine disasters—lest we forget.

But the people of New Zealand are wise and they are smart,

Because 2 years ago they elected a Key Government, which has delivered and given them a pleasant surprise.

John Key has provided them with economic leadership,

The economy is growing money in people’s back pockets, and they continue to enjoy healthy fellowship.

With our programme of infrastructure investment, innovation, smarter public services, education standards, and tax reform,

The voters understand it, and the Labour Party sits there looking forlorn.

With seemingly the wisdom of Charlie’s Angels on our team,

Good ideas and the confidence of the people of New Zealand keep flowing to National in a rapid stream.

So come Cunliffe, come Parker, come Mallard and King, come Hughes and come Goff,

The public thinks they have no economic idea and just want to switch them off.

As their policies are all voodoo, and their people are leaving in masses,

Bring on election 2011, as our John Key - led Government will leave them all in tatters.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): Aaron Gilmore has just given us verse, not cleverly done and certainly not terse. The joke is on him, for today’s speaking list are Cabinet wannabes who regrettably missed.

The Prime Minister must refer the Pansy Wong issue to the Auditor-General for investigation, and must do so soon. That is what the Prime Minister did with Phil Heatley, it is what happened in the case of Bill English—after a period of delay, I acknowledge—and it should happen in the case of Pansy Wong. Should the Prime Minister do that, an investigation into an area of possible misuse of public moneys can be conducted by an office that is respected and exists to look into the use and misuse of public moneys.

That is why we have an Auditor-General’s office. It is an office capable of measured judgments. In the case of Phil Heatley, for example, it was capable of giving him a rapid re-entry straight back into Cabinet. In the case of Pansy Wong, that door was closed by the appointment earlier this week of Hekia Parata. But it does not close the door for ever.

Indeed, I think Pansy Wong would welcome an investigation for a couple of different reasons. The first is that she might find herself getting the Phil Heatley treatment, where the matter was found to be minor. No instances beyond it were found in the McPhail report. There was nothing more to discover. It was a $500 job. The money has been paid back. It was not deliberate, systemic, systematic, or anything like that. That is a possibility.

Another reason she might be pleased for the Auditor-General to look at her case is that the information flow to us—certainly, to me—will stop. It stopped when the McPhail report got under way. For 2 or 3 weeks, the information that had been flowing in to me and that I had been putting into the public arena as it came to pass stopped. I stopped putting anything into the public arena; there was nothing to put in.

On Friday the McPhail report came out, and it was panned by Friday evening as being an inadequate report. It does not mean that it is wrong, but it does not draw a line under the case, because it does not have credibility. There is no significant certainty of its being right—so say the media, and so say I. I do not think it is a thorough report. So, of course, as Friday evening turned into the weekend, the information started to flow again. It just comes, and it is time-consuming. Much of it has to be translated from Mandarin. I continue to put it in the public arena, as I have done today, and I may well do tomorrow. Who knows? I may well do it next week. Again, who knows? Pansy Wong has to put up with that, and I do not think it is fair on her.

Of course, I could stop, but I am not going to, because my job and my duty—there is no need to grin about it, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy—is to hold the Government to account. That is the job of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. People can call me a muckraker, but that is the reason why the Westminster system is set up as it is. I will continue to put this information into the public arena, as long as I can prove using written evidence that it is true. I get an awful lot of rumour, which does not go any further, because I do not know whether it is true. But when I can show that something is true or very likely to be true, I will put it into the public arena. I will continue to do so.

It is not good for Pansy Wong. I think she would want it stopped, and I think the Prime Minister can stop it by taking her case and ringing up the Auditor-General and asking, just like with the Phil Heatley case, that she please look at it.

MELISSA LEE (National): Sitting here and listening to some of the members of the Opposition talking about higher moral grounds reminds me of a time when the previous Labour Government was in power, and David Parker was quoted as saying something about the higher standards of the Prime Minister’s predecessor. I just mention Taito Phillip Field and “paintergate”. I also say that at least our Prime Minister, John Key, paints his own pictures. Mr Parker—or is he Mr Caygill or Mr Cunliffe, as I cannot remember—must have polled his own lounge room, because that is the only way he would get that kind of a result. Money does not grow on trees and cannot be found at the bottom of the garden where pixies live, but that is exactly what Labour members seem to believe. Or maybe they believe that the fairy godmother will return to give them some ideas on how they will finance their policies, as they certainly do not seem to have any answers.

Their leader, Mr Goff, talked about lowering GST at the cost of $3 billion—not $3 million; $3 billion. The finance spokesperson, Mr Cunliffe—or shall I call him Mr Caygill—promised that Labour will not go on a spending binge. It would be good to know how Labour would conjure up the extra money—and that is exactly what it will be doing: conjuring. Labour’s financial management, or rather mismanagement, has left us facing a decade of deficits. It was hoping for some magic to get us through these difficult times, but the New Zealand public saw through the magic tricks and wanted the safe and sound economic management of a National Government to get us out of the rut and to move this country forward.

I ask about Labour’s promise to use KiwiSaver to help Kiwis save more without increasing the squeeze on their income today. Who will pay for that? It is probably the same story from that side of the House: “Just slap it on the bill, Mr Phil Goff.” Maybe Mr Goff mistaking Mr Cunliffe for Mr Caygill speaks louder about the inner workings of Mr Goff’s mind. Perhaps he is yearning for the old days when Labour privatised everything, or perhaps it is a reaction to the undermining nature of the factional currents, which are apparently strong currents. Did we not hear about the 17 friends of the Te Atatū member, Chris Carter, who were working against—

Tim Macindoe: I think there are more now.

MELISSA LEE: Are there more now? Maybe that is the problem—strong currents for a leadership coup, but maybe the prince is not quite ready to rock the boat just yet.

Another magic show that Labour is relying on is that the New Zealand public will forget that savings fell under the long 9 years of the Labour Government. Inflation soared, spending increased, and many Kiwis left New Zealand. It is not a good sign when Kiwis leave our country, when they do not want to be Kiwis and they want to live elsewhere. We are trying to attract them back to this country so that we can grow the country as a nation. Labour members say that they want to reduce our debt faster, but at the same time they promise to take GST off fruit and vegetables, to immediately resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, to increase the number of Wellington-based bureaucrats—my goodness, they will be hated—to require smaller dividends from State-owned enterprises, to establish a raft of new grants for handpicked businesses, and to extend the paid parental leave scheme. New Zealanders should watch out. The only way in which Labour can do that is to raise taxes and spend less as a Government. Labour members are delusional if they think they can achieve that without raising taxes, and that is surely the way they are headed.

The National Government has built its economic plan around six policy drivers, including strengthening our tax system. National has delivered—

Brendon Burns: Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.

MELISSA LEE: I say to Mr Burns that, yes, we have delivered on the tax cuts that we promised. For 9 long years while Labour was in power, when did New Zealanders get a tax cut? Oh, that is right! It was just before the election. My goodness!

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I wonder whether Jonathan Coleman wrote Melissa Lee’s speech, as well. I suggest to her that she might want to cut the ties with the political maestro Jonathan Coleman because it is certainly not doing her any favours. Basically, she outlined all the great policies that Labour has already announced—policies that the New Zealand public like, such as paid parental leave—and said that National opposes every single one of them.

I want to clear up something before I get into my speech, and that is Labour’s record in Government. I can tell Miss Lee that under Labour we had the lowest unemployment in the OECD. We were asset-positive for the first time. When the National Opposition was telling us to squander our surpluses on tax cuts, we paid off debt. The debt problems New Zealand has are largely with the private sector, because the Labour Government did such a good job paying off Government debt. In fact, it did such a good job that the IMF—which is not a left-wing, wonky kind of organisation—said that New Zealand was one of the best-placed countries in the world to weather the global financial crisis because of the position that Michael Cullen and the last Labour Government left us in. Let us get those facts straight before National spins itself out and gets so dizzy that it cannot stand up any more with all its Crosby/Textor lines.

The legacy of this National Government after 2 years is broken promises. John Key promised higher standards for Ministers and higher standards for MPs. What have we had in 2 years? We have had Bill English, Richard Worth, Phil Heatley, Rodney Hide, David Garrett, Chris Finlayson, and Pansy Wong all falling short of those standards, with many of them having to step down from ministerial positions or resign from Parliament. Also, Paula Bennett breached the Privacy Act when she viciously and cold-heartedly released the details of welfare beneficiaries who dared to stand up in public and question the cuts she was putting in place, and the untruths she was telling about those women. There was also the Pacific Economic Development Agency—an agency closely linked to the National Party—which was going to get a whole whack of money in the Budget that was not going out for tender to anyone else, until members on this side of the House raised enough questions about the shonkiness of that arrangement that the Government had to back down and put that proposal out to tender.

I will talk about another issue that has not been raised much, and that is the issue of MPs’ spouses being appointed to political positions. Under the Labour Government we were quite clear that this would not happen—that it was not appropriate for MPs’ spouses to be put into top political jobs. So far we have seen a number of such appointments by the National Government. I congratulate Hekia Parata, who is being sworn in as a Minister today—

Hon Darren Hughes: Right now.

MOANA MACKEY: —right now, and I wish her all the very best. Of course, her husband has been appointed to a major political position as the head of the Tertiary Education Commission.

The reason I raise this matter is that a number of people at home have raised concerns with me about the regional panels for the Government’s Community Response Fund. This fund has been set up for money to go to social service agencies to help them deal with the recession. I cannot find anywhere in the public domain the names of the people who have been appointed to the panels that hand out this money. It is not on the website. It is nowhere to be found. We have put in questions; we have not had answers to those questions. I had a query from a member of the public who asked me whether it was true that the husband of our local MP, Anne Tolley, had been appointed to the regional panel of the Community Response Fund for the Gisborne area. Is that true? I do not know. I sincerely hope that it is not true. I think that would be horribly inappropriate.

A number of social service agencies in Tai Rāwhiti have been heavily criticising this Government and Anne Tolley for the decisions they have been making. What happens now if an organisation criticises our local MP, then she goes home and complains to her husband about it, and suddenly that organisation is on a blacklist for the Community Response Fund and any funding that comes from it? I would like clarification from the next National member to speak in this debate to guarantee that our local MP’s husband has not been appointed to a board that is handing out money locally, because I think all New Zealanders would deem that to be inappropriate. I look forward to that matter being clarified. As I said, I do not know whether it is true, but I have had it from a very reliable source. In fact, I have heard it from a number of sources who say they got it straight from the Ministry of Social Development, from people who also thought that it was very inappropriate.

Hon Darren Hughes: It should be public information.

MOANA MACKEY: It should be public information, and we should not have to troll through the Ministry of Social Development website finding every reference to regional panels where it is vaguely stated that there will be some community representation. That is not good enough. We deserve to know who is on these panels.

We have had 2 years of broken promises from this Government. It promised that it would not increase GST. The Prime Minister stared down the barrel of a TV camera when he was asked whether he would increase GST after the election, and he said that he would not. He is now saying that he said he would not do it to fund a deficit Budget. Well, guess what! He did. We have a deficit Budget and a GST increase to help fund it. It is another broken promise. The Government promised that it would not borrow to fund tax cuts—another broken promise. We have had broken promise after broken promise.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): It has been fascinating to witness the Labour Opposition’s rudderless and insipid performance during the general debate this afternoon. It will not surprise many people who have followed Labour members’ confused and contradictory announcements of recent times that they were so reluctant to engage with Government members over current policies, or to defend their own irresponsible economic record when they were in Government, which contributed so significantly to New Zealand’s slide into recession.

Labour’s record in Government is now roundly and rightly condemned by economists, commentators, and the electorate at large. Yet what has Labour learnt? It has learnt that Ed Miliband writes better speeches than Phil Goff. Labour members have learnt from their embattled leader that David Caygill has more credibility than their current spokesman on finance, presumably because Mr Caygill played no role in the economic recklessness that Labour inflicted upon New Zealand for 9 long years. They do not seem to have learnt that Trevor Mallard should behave himself during question time on days when he is expected to lead Labour’s “Charge of the Ultra-light Brigade” in two measures on the same day’s Order Paper. And, on the day when we welcome to the House the new member for the marginal seat of Mana, they have recently learnt that even their previously strongest supporters are deserting them.

They are probably learning that their commitment to voodoo economics is about as popular as their recent opposition to the package to save the Hobbit movies. It is as credible as their commitment to higher taxes, uncontrolled Government spending, and welfare for millionaires.

Members on this side of the House and members of the public have learnt a great deal from Labour’s sorry and embarrassing performance both in this debate and during today’s question time, which preceded it. We have learnt that less than a year out from a general election Labour is in freefall. We have learnt that Labour members lack confidence in their leadership, their philosophical direction, and in one another. They are not just working on the basis that pixies at the bottom of the garden will jump up and finance their policies—as our new Poet Laureate, Aaron Gilmore, observed earlier—but also they are increasingly turning to the pixies to write their policies. Judging by how many people turn up to any of their public meetings nowadays, or take seriously any of their utterances, it can be only a matter of time before their front bench is replaced by five pixies, three goblins, and an orc. Actually, I think the orc has already joined them, which may explain why there are so many headless chooks on their middle and backbenches.

I am looking forward to campaigning in Hamilton West next year on the importance of National’s six-point plan to growing the economy, especially when it is contrasted with Labour’s six-point plan to, one, change their leader; two, lose the few electorates they hold at the moment; and, three, increase Government borrowing to levels that will reduce New Zealand to a banana-less republic. One has to wonder what they are going to feed to the poor pixies and goblins, but I digress. The fourth point is to tax anything that moves, which means their Mana campaign team will be all right but everyone else is in big trouble; the fifth is to bring back David Caygill, Fraser Colman, and Arnold Nordmeyer; and the sixth is to hope that endless treks around the country on the magical mystery tour, with Phil playing the ukulele and Annette warbling “As Long as He Needs Me”, will at least keep them away from any gathering where they might be expected to say something credible and remotely compelling.

How ironic that David Parker should want to highlight a recent poll that put Labour on 28 percent. How fascinating that Labour is starting to hope that if it adds its support to the support for New Zealand First, the Greens, Jim Anderton, and the Monster Raving Loony Party, it might just cobble together sufficient votes to get across the 5 percent MMP threshold next year. How insightful that Mr Parker spoke of losing the plot. If I had dug a hole as deep and wide as the one he and his mates are still digging, I would want to lose it too.

This is the last general debate of the year. In my usual humble fashion and in the manner to which I have become accustomed, I am its final speaker. So it falls to me to perform the last rites for the lacklustre, leaderless, limp, and lamentable Labour Party. I take the responsibility seriously, knowing that as Michael Joseph Savage, Peter Fraser, and Norman Kirk have spun in their graves in recent times at the shambolic efforts of their modern day successors, the kindest act we can all perform is to find Mr Parker’s lost plot, ease the whole Labour caucus into it gently, and wait for some decent opposition from the pixies, fairies, and goblins who will so surely have replaced them by this time next year. Merry Christmas.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Westpac New Zealand Bill

First Reading

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I move, That the Westpac New Zealand Bill be now read a first time. This is a private bill promoted by Westpac New Zealand Ltd. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and that the committee report back by 8 April 2011. The bill provides a mechanism to enable certain assets and liabilities of Westpac Banking Corporation in New Zealand, being principally assets and liabilities of Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand institutional banking business, to be vested in its New Zealand subsidiary, Westpac New Zealand Ltd.

Westpac is one of New Zealand’s oldest financial institutions and has operated in New Zealand since 1861, having both a branch and a separately incorporated subsidiary, Westpac New Zealand Ltd. Next year is its 150th anniversary in this country. It provides key sponsorships in the community through the rescue helicopter, the Halberg Trust, the Sir Peter Blake Trust, and Westpac Stadium, to name a few. Westpac is one of four banks that have dual banking registration in New Zealand.

Westpac New Zealand Ltd was incorporated and became a registered bank in 2006 in order to comply with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s local incorporation policy. That incorporation policy provides that systemically important banks should be incorporated in New Zealand. A bank is regarded as systemically important if it has liabilities other than those to related parties in excess of $15 billion. Branches of New Zealand - registered banks, such as Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand branch, have a condition of registration that their external liabilities are not to exceed that amount.

The Reserve Bank’s local incorporation policy assists the regulator by providing it with greater control over the assets of a bank in the event of a bank failure under New Zealand law. This control can help to prevent a bank failure from spilling over to the wider financial system and developing into a systemic crisis. Having regard to that policy, Westpac Banking Corporation and Westpac New Zealand Ltd have agreed with the Reserve Bank that Westpac Banking Corporation will transfer certain assets and liabilities to Westpac New Zealand Ltd, being principally assets and liabilities of Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand branch’s institutional banking business.

The transfer will mean that Westpac New Zealand Ltd will increase in size, which is beneficial in terms of the local incorporation policy, as it will allow the Reserve Bank to have greater control over the assets that are transferred were there ever to be a failure event. After the transfer, Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand branch will retain its financial markets operations. The transfer will reduce the size of the branch and help to ensure that it continues to remain below the threshold going forward.

Legislation is the only means by which the assets can be vested in Westpac New Zealand Ltd efficiently and economically without disrupting the conduct and continuity of Westpac’s banking business. It is essential for customers, staff, and other contractual counterparties of Westpac that the vesting is seamless. Legislation is also the only means by which appropriate amendments to other legislation can be made.

The bill is largely based on the Westpac New Zealand Act 2006. Like that Act, the bill facilitates the vesting by providing the overall legal framework for the transfer of the assets and liabilities from Westpac Banking Corporation to Westpac New Zealand Ltd, with a subsequent vesting order containing the particulars of the assets and liabilities to vest. Consideration was given to using the Westpac New Zealand Act 2006, but that was not feasible, as it was not drafted with the intention of being used for a second vesting. That is why a new Act is necessary.

The vesting of the assets and liabilities is implemented by an Order in Council, by a detailed proposal that must be approved by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister of Finance, given in accordance with a recommendation of the Reserve Bank. The requirements of the proposal to be included in the vesting order are set out in the bill and are based closely on the Westpac New Zealand Act 2006. Given the level of detail required to specify the assets and liabilities being vested and the fact that the assets and liabilities of the business are constantly changing, a vesting order is the preferred means of managing this complexity.

Like the 2006 Act, a number of common merger provisions have been included in the bill. The bill also ensures tax neutrality on vesting. As the transfer is being done in order to comply with regulatory requirements, it is appropriate that no tax liability arise or tax gain be triggered by the transfer. The Inland Revenue Department has been consulted and is satisfied that the bill achieves the correct tax policy result. The Reserve Bank and Treasury have been consulted and are also satisfied that the bill does not raise any concerns from a financial stability perspective.

New Zealand has a strong and functional banking system. We have all seen that in the way New Zealand has come through the global financial crisis without the turmoil in the banking sector that has been seen offshore. Having a strong banking system matters. I think that this bill, in a small but important way, makes the banking system stronger.

I commend this private bill to the House. At the appropriate time, I will move that it be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I would like to—

Hon Darren Hughes: A good choice.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is pretty much the only choice, I say to the chief whip. Therefore it is a good one, if I may join the whip in expressing those sentiments.

I begin with a couple of commendations. The first is to commend the member who has just resumed his seat, Craig Foss. Without being too pointed about it, many of us on this side of the House think he is a very able member and he has been a very responsible chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which is the senior select committee. We give him a hard time around the table occasionally, but he carries it with very good grace and business gets done. It is sensible that the Westpac New Zealand Bill goes to that committee.

It is ironic, then, that the member read the speech as Craig Foss and not as the Hon Craig Foss, which many of us think he deserves to be, and that this is a private bill, not a Government bill. We could expect to have heard him give a speech like that as a new Minister. I think it reflects just how concerned the Government must be about the face of this Government, to have made the decisions it has on other matters—but that is for another day.

There is another commendation, and that is a commendation to Westpac New Zealand and its colleagues in the major banks that support the New Zealand banking industry. Whatever other comments we might make today, we recognise the importance to New Zealand of a strong and stable banking and finance sector. We certainly believe that Westpac plays a responsible part in our financial system.

At this stage the Labour Party’s position in respect of this bill is to support the bill being referred to select committee, and we have an open mind beyond that. We think that the fundamental purpose of the bill, which is to vest the institutional banking business of Westpac Banking Corporation into Westpac New Zealand, is appropriate. Westpac New Zealand, of course, is a local branch that has been set up pursuant to the trans-Tasman regulatory structure, whereby the Reserve Bank of New Zealand plays a role as guarantor of the stability and financial integrity of the New Zealand banking system, and thereby ensures that systemically important banks are anchored well enough and solidly enough in the New Zealand market to avoid two unintended situations. One would be a marginal market problem, in the event of a worse cataclysm than the financial system has suffered in the last few years, if that could be imagined. We would hate to see a situation where not enough assets were anchored in the New Zealand market to underpin its stability. So this is a move in that direction, and we commend it.

With that, it is worth repeating that the idea of having a full service New Zealand - domiciled banking regulator in the Reserve Bank has bipartisan support around this Chamber and is a very important part of our financial infrastructure.

Before I move through the provisions of the bill, I say that it is also a little ironic to see that the bill is in Mr Foss’ name, rather than in Nikki Kaye’s name. The convention, of course, is that these bills are brought forward in the name of the local MP. According to Westpac’s website, its head office and address for service are in Auckland Central, not Hawke’s Bay. One asks why the bill—

Chris Tremain: We have big visions for the bay.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: National does have big visions for the bay. I have a very fond spot for the bay, as I know the bay does for me; I am well acquainted with its big visions. None the less, why is Nikki Kaye not taking this bill to the House? Could it be that her colleagues somehow do not trust her to take a bill of this substance forward to the House? What is it about Nikki Kaye that has meant the Government has broken with convention and not given a private bill to the member in whose electorate the head office of the entity concerned is domiciled? That is a break in convention. It is a sign, unfortunately, that Nikki Kaye is destined to be a one-term MP, or a one-term electorate MP anyway; of course, we look forward to Jacinda Ardern being the new MP for Auckland Central very shortly. I am sure the whips would agree that we would trust Jacinda Ardern to bring a bill such as this to the House—no problem at all. She has the smarts to do it—no question.

I come back to the legislation. It is clearly important to ensure that Westpac New Zealand Ltd has a sound and stable New Zealand operation while being able to enjoy the benefits of a trans-Tasman footprint and of access to global capital through its Australian-based parent. We note that the success of the Reserve Bank’s local incorporation policy is one element in securing the stability of the New Zealand banking sector, and it is critical, as I said earlier, that we retain sovereign oversight of banking regulation. The severity and speed of the 2008 financial crisis provides ample evidence of why it is important to do this. We can accept that the transfer of assets and liabilities is best suited, given the complexity of the matter, to a vehicle such as this legislation.

It is also true that on both sides of the Tasman the banking sector is again under close scrutiny. On the other side of the Ditch the Australian Parliament has a far-reaching inquiry under way, which brings to mind that some of the parties of the New Zealand Parliament—that is, Labour, the Greens, and the Progressive party—held an inquiry into banking issues last year. It was a matter of regret that the Government’s bank, Westpac New Zealand, did not make a submission to that inquiry. It is true that some other banks made both formal and informal submissions, and it is also true that when the inquiry published its finding—which was that the major banks were not passing through in full the downward changes to the official cash rate into retail and wholesale interest rates—strangely enough, those margins corrected themselves within weeks of the report being released. Imagine the coincidence. Those margins corrected within weeks of the report being released, saving New Zealanders tens of millions of dollars of interest.

Of course, Labour, the Greens, and the Progressive party were happy to play that service. We think it is a matter of regret, however, that the Government members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, after having said that they would consider it, repeatedly blocked having a banking inquiry under the auspices of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. There is, therefore, just a tinge of irony in the member who has brought this bill to the House—Mr Foss, who chairs the Finance and Expenditure Committee—now playing that role, as well as the other reasons I have suggested.

The inquiry in Australia is much broader based than being a simple matter of interest rate pass-through. It is talking around a whole range of issues that are, to a lesser or greater extent, also important here. The New Zealand Banking Ombudsman has said that there were a record number of complaints to her office over the last 12 months. There is growing public concern about the banking sector. None other than Westpac’s own chief executive now holds the record for being the highest paid chief executive in New Zealand, eclipsing even the chief executive officer of Telecom. I used to work with George Frazis. He is a good bloke. He is a very able executive, and there is no implied negative comment about his abilities. But it is also a matter of fact that the public regards any individual who earns many multiples of the average salary, as the chief executive officer of a bank like Westpac does, as a matter of some public concern.

I guess our call to the banking industry would be that given the climate out there, given the fact that the New Zealand public is doing it tough, given the fact that many industries are struggling in the real economy, and given that our manufacturing exporters have their backs against the wall with the high exchange rate, restraint is called for. There are no plans to do an Australian-style banking inquiry in New Zealand at this time, but politicians cannot ignore the growing calls from the public to surface issues if they continue to grow. There is a message here to the whole banking sector. It should, please, exhibit its traditional high ethical standards and responsibilities, and play its rightful role as pillars of the New Zealand business sector, pillars of the economy, and pillars of society—here not only for today but for months and years to come—and there will not be a problem.

I say as my final comment—I have said it publicly—that Westpac, as the Government’s banker, has enjoyed a privileged position. The onus on it for responsibility is higher, therefore, than on other institutions. I think we are coming close to the time when it would be appropriate for the Government’s contract to be put up through a transparent tender process.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I am very happy to rise this afternoon and take a call on the Westpac New Zealand Bill, which is a private bill introduced by my friend and colleague Craig Foss, who, of course, chairs the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and does so very well.

The events of the last 2 years have really brought into sharp focus the need for a robust and well-respected banking sector. Certainly in New Zealand one of the reasons we have come through—I certainly will not say “unscathed”—in a better position than a lot of countries is that as we have gone through these difficult times our banking system, and our banks in particular, have worked very well and have proven themselves to be institutions that New Zealanders can have faith in. Nothing is more important to a good system of financial markets in this country than for that to be the case.

A big part of that system, of course, is the Reserve Bank and the role it plays as both the central bank and the prudential supervisor of the banks. I know that the Reserve Bank took the position some time back that it is in the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealand customers that banks that operate in New Zealand to such an extent that they play an important systemic role in our banking sector should largely operate as New Zealand - registered subsidiaries, rather than as branches of offshore banks. That has certainly been the direction in which the Reserve Bank has encouraged banks to move. It is not unusual by any means for banks to have here both subsidiaries and branches of offshore entities. That is currently how Westpac operates, and I understand it is one of four banks that do so.

Westpac is one of our big banks in New Zealand, and we need it to operate well and to be in a position where, should there be an issue in the future, the Reserve Bank has complete wraparound of the issues it needs to control as part of its regulatory oversight. For that reason we have had the Reserve Bank institute the liabilities cap, which sets an amount beyond which the banks cannot rise while operating as branches of offshore entities. Although Westpac has certainly always traded within those requirements—and there is no question that it does not—this bill, with the movement of the institutional banking sectors into Westpac New Zealand and away from the branch operations, is really about ensuring that no matter what volatility is in the markets in years to come, Westpac will be in no danger of stepping outside that cap. I know that Westpac has been talking with the Reserve Bank on that issue for many years, and it is working with the Reserve Bank to that end.

This bill is reasonably small in terms of its impact, but it is symptomatic of a much wider issue that we work on in the banking sector with the Reserve Bank, which is to ensure, as I said, that not only do we continue to have a strong and robust banking sector, but also our Reserve Bank, which does such a good job of prudential oversight, has the ability and tools it needs to control all aspects of the banking operation, should that be required.

Looking through the bill I see that a couple of things are worth commenting on so that there is no confusion about the extent of the powers of the bill. There are specific provisions to ensure that customers’ relations are, effectively, seamlessly moved from one part of the institution to another. The big customers currently dealing with Westpac as a branch of the Australian company will move seamlessly through to being customers of Westpac New Zealand without any impact at all on them, and similarly with the transfer of staff and the like. That is the reason a private bill is needed to achieve those changes and to ensure that we have that seamless transition. Other than a back-end reorganisation, it will be business as usual for everyone who is dealing with Westpac.

For anyone who is listening at home and perhaps is not quite aware of the ambit of the bill, it is worth reiterating that the retail banking business—which includes the mums and dads and the people who use the branches and the eftpos cards—has for many years been encapsulated within Westpac New Zealand as a stand-alone company. Certainly there is no reason why that would change; it will not change. Only big-business customers dealing with the bank will be affected, and even those customers will have their relationships entirely protected.

The other thing worth noting in closing is that the actual transfer of assets—the specifics of what goes across—will be determined by Order in Council, as has always been the case with such matters.

It is a small and necessary bill. It is a step towards the entirely New Zealand - incorporated banking system that the Reserve Bank is very keen on, and I am pleased to support it.

STUART NASH (Labour): I stand to support this private bill, the Westpac New Zealand Bill. There are a number of reasons why we support it. It is common-sense and absolutely necessary legislation, and Labour has always supported any sort of financial legislation that we believe improves business and Government efficiency. This bill is also important to the strength of the local banking sector. It has already been alluded to that Australasia came out of the financial crisis reasonably well, and one of the reasons we did was that we had a very strong and sound banking sector.

The bill is called the Westpac New Zealand Bill; I will just allay some people’s fears, because we had the “Warner Bros Bill”—the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill—earlier this year. People may think that a bill promoted by Westpac is one of those insidious bills that is held over New Zealand by a large international corporation. In fact, it is not at all. Whereas the “Warner Bros Bill” did that, eroding sovereign rights of New Zealand, this bill is quite the opposite.

We support the bill, and the Reserve Bank supports it. We also understand that it is very important that Westpac New Zealand has very sound and stable New Zealand operations and enjoys the benefits of being linked to its trans-Tasman parent—for example, access to capital.

As mentioned, the Reserve Bank backs this bill. As I said, it is a common-sense bill, and we are very much looking forward to bringing it to the Finance and Expenditure Committee so that we can look at its provisions and hear submissions on it, just to make sure that it is nice and robust. But we are supporting it.

I will make one point that I think Westpac should be aware of, and that is that the level of transparency that New Zealanders demand of their banks is very important. Before I elaborate on that a little further, I say that last week Westpac sent its KiwiSaver team up to Wairoa to help out some distressed freezing workers who had gone without work for up to 6 months. The team did an absolutely fantastic job of providing budgeting advice, helping people apply for some of the extreme hardship provisions that are available under the KiwiSaver Act, and providing a whole lot of general information to those people in Wairoa. At this point I thank Westpac for the work it did, because it was absolutely brilliant and it was hugely appreciated by the people of Wairoa.

We all understand the importance of a sound banking system—of that there is no doubt in any quarter of this House. As I mentioned, our system held up very well, but the one thing that is most important—and I think most New Zealanders expect if not demand it—is a level of transparency and accountability. Labour tried to bring that to bear when we held our banking inquiry, because the vast majority of New Zealanders did not understand what was happening. Probably there was a very logical reason for what was happening. This was when the financial crisis was at its height. The official cash rate was quite low but the margins that the banks were making were quite high, and the vast majority of people did not understand what was going on. Labour called for a banking inquiry. It was not supported, except by the Greens, and that was hugely appreciated—

Hon David Parker: And the Progressive party.

STUART NASH: —and the Progressive party, sorry. We asked the banks to appear before us, just so they could explain in plain English what was going on, how the banks were operating, and why they were doing what they were doing. The vast majority of New Zealanders were suffering but banks were declaring hundreds of millions of dollars in profit.

That was a very good opportunity to sit down in front of ordinary New Zealanders in an open forum and get the information out there. Only one bank, Kiwibank, sat down in front of us and explained. Westpac did not, and I say to Westpac, as the Government banker, that we demand a level of accountability and responsibility, especially from the Government’s banker, and we hope that in future Westpac takes advantage of any opportunity to explain to the public its methods of operation.

We are supporting this bill, and I look forward to its going to the select committee. But also I say to Westpac that there is an element of disquiet in the country at the moment about the situation where the New Zealand chief executive of Westpac—who is earning about $5 million, I think—has just received a tax cut of about $5,000 per week, and the person who cleans his office has received a tax cut of about $5 a week, which is about 1,000 times smaller than the tax cut the chief executive is getting. A lot of New Zealanders have a level of disquiet about that situation. But this is a good bill. We support it, and I look forward to it coming before the select committee. Thank you.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I stand on behalf of the Greens to speak on the Westpac New Zealand Bill, which is a private bill coming before this House, taking House time, and using quite a lot of public money. The Greens will support this bill to go to select committee but we will not necessarily support it further until we look at it at the select committee.

Westpac is, of course, one of the oligopoly players in the New Zealand banking system. One of the things that became very clear during the Multi-party Parliamentary Banking Inquiry was that we do not have a very competitive banking market in New Zealand, aside from Kiwibank, because the four pillars of the Australian banking system are present in New Zealand. They had a cosy arrangement, at least before Kiwibank turned up, where they did not compete on price. The market was divided up and they sought to maximise their profits, which they sent back to Australia, rather than competing on price.

That arrangement was indicated in some of the evidence that was presented to us by Kiwibank at the inquiry. Those who do not really understand the banking sector—which, I suspect, includes a lot of the National members—do not realise that the banking sector worked through a cosy arrangement involving the big Australian banks, and there was no serious competition on price. That is one of the problems we have in dealing with it. Having basically let the banking sector slip into overseas ownership, we have this ongoing problem.

We also have an issue with Westpac and the big Australian banks in respect of their tax avoidance activities. On 23 December last year the big Australian banks were forced to pay back nearly $2 billion to the New Zealand taxpayer—$2 billion in taxes that they had unlawfully avoided. They were caught out by the Inland Revenue Department and lost their cases in the New Zealand High Court. The banks fought their cases as far as they could, and then, on 23 December—which, for those who do not know, is 2 days before Christmas, when most people are rather busy doing other things—the announcement was made that the banks had agreed to pay back the money, or at least some of it. They did not pay back all the money they owed, and they did not have any penalties, unlike ordinary taxpayers. No one from Westpac or from the other banks was charged with anything. None the less, they agreed to pay back a good chunk of the money that they had unlawfully avoided.

We are pretty cynical about the behaviour of Westpac and the other banks, having seen their behaviour in actively and unlawfully avoiding very, very large amounts of tax that they owed the New Zealand taxpayer. We have a slightly cynical approach towards Westpac.

Of course, because we have these foreign-owned banks we also have the problem of huge amounts of profit being transferred back overseas. The biggest part of New Zealand’s current account deficit is in the investment income deficit, and that is because of the profits that are going back to the overseas owners—largely Australian-based overseas owners—which adds significantly to the current account deficit in New Zealand.

In fact, in the middle of the global financial crisis the Australian banks were transferring more money out of New Zealand than they were actually making in profits. It is one of the untold stories of the crisis that while we were effectively subsidising the banks by providing a wholesale and retail guarantee for them, they were shovelling money back across to their owners as fast as they could, to make sure that the balance sheets back in Australia looked good. While the New Zealand taxpayers were subsidising the Australian banks, basically because we gave them cheap insurance—and they would have been in trouble had the taxpayers not provided a wholesale and retail guarantee—the banks were shovelling money back to their owners. That provided a real problem for New Zealand. During the global financial crisis, capital was extremely short, so having the banks send the money back to Australia was a big problem.

We also have an issue with Westpac and the other banks around the treatment of staff. Basically, Westpac and other banks incentivise their staff to put people into debt. They have staff incentives where staff get paid bonuses if they can convince people to add more money on to their credit cards, or to increase their credit card limits, which just creates further debt problems for New Zealanders.

The other issue specific to Westpac is around the master banking agreement. The last time the agreement was put out for open tender was when David Lange was Prime Minister; we have not had an open tender for that agreement since then. There have been some negotiations with Westpac, but it is very difficult for us to be sure that we are getting a very good deal out of Westpac when there has been no open tender agreement.

Finally, of course, there is the issue of pay. The chief executive officer of Westpac is given $5 million a year out of the pockets of Westpac customers. They ultimately have to pay that $5 million a year. I think it is grossly inequitable that someone in New Zealand is paid $5 million a year. I think that Westpac should look at itself.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): Labour supports the Westpac New Zealand Bill going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We want to see a very strong banking sector. It is fundamental to our economy. It is also a fact of life that our banking sector is dominated by the four major Australian-owned banks. They hold more than 90 percent of the banking transaction market. It is to the credit of those Australian-owned banks that over the last few years we have seen what I suppose is more restrained lending in our nation than in other parts of the world. Members can refer to Ireland currently, where the banking sector is at the heart of the financial collapse leading to savage public funding cuts and a rescue package led by the European Union.

But the Australian-owned banks are not all covered in glory. Of course, in a number of sectors here there has been lending beyond what is appropriate, and there have been some fairly strong views voiced that the Australian-owned banks, including Westpac, were riding interest rates—and perhaps are still riding interest rates—in the wake of the losses they have sustained in the face of the global financial meltdown. That is why it was important that the Australian-owned banks, including Westpac, should have supported the Labour-Greens inquiry into the banking sector, an inquiry that was set up only because the Government refused to have a wider, officially sanctioned review of the banking sector. As we know, Westpac did not support that review, nor did any of its colleague Australian-owned banks. We do not hold that against Westpac, but it might give further thought to supporting any future reviews.

I would also like to comment on the issue of the chief executive’s salary. Frankly, it is unacceptable for the pay package of a chief executive of any institution—be it public or privately owned—when we are still in the toughest economic times in a generation, to be worth more than 100 times the value, the cost, the income of some of the staff he is representing. There is an extraordinary disparity between what the ordinary workers are receiving and what the chief executive—who, even when all due credit is paid, is on a very, very high salary package—is earning. When we consider that the average Westpac customer support worker is earning from around $45,000—that is, 124th of the package that the Westpac chief executive is receiving—we see that there is a huge disparity.

It brings to mind that questions are starting to be asked around the world about pay equity. In Britain the Tory Government, the new David Cameron - led Government, has established a review of pay equity led by none other than a fellow called Will Hutton, who is a staunch Labour supporter and well-known commentator and journalist. That review is going through some of the issues that have seen these kinds of extortionate salary levels paid to senior figures, and the disparity between those salaries and those of ordinary people earning ordinary incomes. The review is getting very wide support from some surprising figures, one of them being Michael Portillo, a former Thatcherite Cabinet Minister, who has acknowledged that when market reforms were set in place under the Thatcher administration there was an expectation that the private sector would show some restraint, that the gap between those on the top, those at the bottom, and those in the middle would not grow and grow and grow. Unfortunately, that is what we saw in Britain, and that is what we see in New Zealand today.

Labour members support this bill going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for further review; that is appropriate. We support this legislation, but we do so in a spirit that says the Westpac chief executive needs to consider the equity of his salary package. There are issues involved there as far as many New Zealanders are concerned. Ultimately, the customer is right. Ultimately, those sorts of issues can have an impact upon the choices that consumers make in the market. I would note that other bank chief executives’ salary packages are around half the level, or thereabouts, of that enjoyed by the Westpac chief executive.

I would like to comment very briefly on one other issue in respect of Westpac. One of its major call centres is sited in my electorate of Christchurch Central. There are some question marks still about the future of that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member’s time has expired.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I will take just a short call on the Westpac New Zealand Bill. I congratulate Craig Foss on bringing it forward for its first reading, and we look forward to its going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I am sure that his leadership of the select committee will be invaluable as the bill is taken through it.

We look forward to all parties supporting the bill as it goes through the committee process. [Interruption] Why? Well, I think it is important that we recognise that the banking sector has been crucial to New Zealand as it traverses this very difficult economic time. It may be opportune for some of the political parties on the Opposition side to whack the banking sector around a bit for the sake of scoring easy political points, but, effectively, one of the few differences between New Zealand and those Western countries that have found these times difficult has been our strong banking sector. That banking sector is dominated by the four big Australian banks, and those banks have been invaluable in providing New Zealand with economic safety during these very troubled times.

I think that if we can engage in something that will assist that banking sector, then that is important and is in the best interests of New Zealanders and of the economy as a whole. That is why it is important that all parties support this bill. The focus is not purely on just one of the banks; this bill is about Westpac, of course, but we want to make sure we also look after the other three big banks, which have also provided a lot of security to this country over the last couple of years. It is unfortunate that members of the Opposition have used this bill to talk about management policies within Westpac, rather than actually looking at the bill, which has nothing to do with the chief executive’s employment.

Iain Lees-Galloway: You would never do that, would you, David?

DAVID BENNETT: No, we would never do that, because we would stick to the nature of the bill, unlike parties over there, which are there just for political point-scoring, and not for genuinely attempting to make this country better. That is something that that new member will learn—that Labour is not here to give genuine help to New Zealanders. He has been here about 5 minutes and thinks he can tell us what Labour actually would do. We have seen Labour members operate in good and bad times, and they do not care about New Zealand. They never have and never will. It is all about themselves, and this debate is just another example. They have gone after the chief executive rather than supporting a bill that would promote a company that has been invaluable in helping us getting through the recession.

It is very important that all parties support the bill, and I think that as it goes through the select committee process we will see that they do support it. It is interesting that the Green Party is represented on the select committee, and I am sure that Russel will take an active interest in this bill and be constructive in the way that the issue is dealt with. Labour members on the committee may focus on the wording of reports rather than the actual nature of the bill, but that is the nature of how they operate.

In essence, this bill is important for the Westpac bank to retain its ability to operate and function in a way that supports the New Zealand economy. We look forward to it going through this House in a very successful manner. It will be in the best interests of New Zealand, and that is something Labour members are yet to work out. They will take some time to do so, because they are not thinking along those lines. Thank you.

AARON GILMORE (National): It is somewhat ironic to be able to stand and do a bill about Westpac—

Hon Darren Hughes: It’s your bill?

AARON GILMORE: —talk about a bill on Westpac—sorry, Mr Hughes. This bill has been brought to the House by Craig Foss, the wonderful member from Tukituki.

Westpac was my first bank, and I vividly remember, as a 7-year-old, going to New Brighton and opening up my first bank account with Westpac. It was not called Westpac at that stage; it was actually called Trust Bank Canterbury. I raise that because it relates to a really interesting aspect of the reason for this bill having to be brought before the House. Westpac bought out Trust Bank Canterbury, as some other members may recall. Trust Bank Canterbury was the dominant bank in Christchurch and in the wider South Island. All of the assets that were purchased as part of the acquisition of Trust Bank Canterbury ended up going into what was called the Westpac Banking Corporation branch, which actually was a branch of the Australian operation, not a stand-alone entity. At the time people thought “Well, so what?”. The big, key aspect of that was that the depositors and investors in Trust Bank Canterbury went from being investors in a direct subsidiary of a New Zealand entity—that is, it was regulated by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand—to being investors in a branch entity, over which the Reserve Bank had less control. The bill we have before us actually fixes that, and I think that is a good step.

Westpac has been in New Zealand for a long time. As I say, the personal history of my banking relationship with them has been an interesting one. But the bank has been a good customer and operator in New Zealand. Westpac has been very good in terms of the recent earthquake in Canterbury, and has worked very well with the locals there. That is a good indication of how well Westpac operates within our wider financial community. But this bill actually makes some improvements. As we have seen, there are some issues, potentially, with it operating as a branch of an Australian bank, rather than as a subsidiary that is fully regulated by the Reserve Bank. This legislation provides a bit more surety to the customers of Westpac out there that their own assets or liabilities—depending on whether they have mortgages or deposits—will have greater regulatory cover by the Reserve Bank. There has been a little bit of uncertainty about that, but now there are no fears or concerns. This bill is a good bit of tidying up to fix that potential anomaly that might have existed. New Zealand has a very strong banking system, and Westpac is one of the stronger players in that banking system. I understand that Westpac is one of the top 100 banks in the world, and it has come through the global financial crisis in a very, very strong fashion, as, indeed, all of the New Zealand banks have done.

The bill has some slightly unusual aspects, and I think it will be interesting to analyse them when the bill comes before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I will quickly touch on some of those aspects. Being a member of the committee, I am sure we will spend some time looking at some of these aspects. In particular, we will look at what is known as the liabilities cap. Not only are these assets and liabilities transferring to this new subsidiary but a cap exists. Not everything is transferring; a $15 billion liability cap is being put in place as part of the transfer. Some people might ask whether that is enough. That will be one of the interesting things we look at very carefully, as part of the select committee process. Is it enough? Is the cover adequate for those with deposits or mortgages with Westpac, for those who have banked with Westpac in some way, as my children and I do? Will the Reserve Bank be able to regulate and control the new subsidiary in the best way? Should that cap be lower or higher? At this stage we do not really have a view on that matter, and it is one of the interesting things I am sure we will look at in depth, as part of that process.

You see, the Reserve Bank has been working with Westpac over a number of years to work out what the options are in relation to local incorporation. I know there has been a lot of discussion in the media about some of the other issues that it has dealt with, such as other parts of its operations being brought into New Zealand, and, in the very unusual case that we have a problem with the bank, the Reserve Bank actually having some regulatory oversight. I know that Westpac has been very good at working closely with the Reserve Bank to meet its requirements, and to satisfy the Reserve Bank that, under our New Zealand regulatory requirements—it operates under Australian regulatory requirements—it operates well and within the law, and that the Reserve Bank will be very happy with it.

I think one other aspect that members have not touched on so far is the neat things that Westpac does in the wider community. Some of those things have carried on for years and years. One activity I was particularly touched by, when doing some research on this bill, is called the Care for our Coast clean-up.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I take just a few moments to acknowledge those who have spoken on the Westpac New Zealand Bill. As far as I understand, there is general support for it around the House. I acknowledge various party leaders and finance spokespeople who have been engaged in discussions about this bill prior to its formally coming to the House. We have ensured a pretty smooth take-off, I think, for the bill. I expect a pretty good process at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Members will examine whatever issues need to be examined. I also acknowledge the Hon Marian Hobbs, who actually introduced the first Westpac bill in 2006.

I could get quite used to this, actually. This is the first bill in my name that I have introduced to the House, so I appreciate the kind comments from colleagues around and across the House. When eminently sensible matters like this come before the House—they are not political; they are just regulatory and make for better banking practice in New Zealand—it is good to see Parliament getting together like this. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I move, That the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the Westpac New Zealand Bill and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 8 April 2011.

Motion agreed to.

Inquiries

Inquiry into the Tobacco Industry in Aotearoa and the Consequences of Tobacco Use for Māori —Report of Māori Affairs Committee

inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Māori.

Hon TAU HENARE (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Māori Affairs Committee on its First of all, I will do what is not done these days and congratulate and thank my Northland colleague and relation Hone Harawira on bringing this inquiry to our select committee. I also give thanks to the Māori Affairs Committee for agreeing on the terms of engagement. I also thank some people who have assisted me in my deliberations as chair: Amelia Abplanalp, Anna Duggan, and Penelope Forrest. I thank them for their sturdy work.

Just today I received letters from the New Zealand Dental Therapists Association, Smokefree Nurses Aotearoa / New Zealand, and also the Health Sponsorship Council—Te Rōpū Whakatairanga Hauora in Wellington. These are three letters of support for our committee and for our report.

This report is far-reaching. It outlines in graphic manner what the tobacco industry and smoking have done to the Māori population and, I suggest, to the whole of the population who smoke. I was one of them up until 160-odd days ago. In fact, throughout the inquiry I smoked like a chimney. Just as we were coming to the end of it, I nearly came to the end of it. I fell over and had a heart attack and it was because of nothing other than my smoking. I decided that I wanted to live a wee bit longer. I decided the day after my heart attack that I would give up smoking, and I have been smoke-free ever since my heart attack.

I am not what one would call a zealot. I am not a person who goes out, bashes people over the head, and tells them that they must give up smoking. That is Hone’s job. But I can tell members that there are a lot of good people out there in Aotearoa, whom we saw in front of our committee and who gave us their special personal stories. As the days went on, as the weeks went on, and as the months went on, we heard from people who have lost loved ones: who have lost fathers, who have lost mothers, who have lost brothers, and who have lost sisters. If we were to go over the number of people we met and heard from in the committee it would tally up to hearing about quite a number of people who have departed this world who really did not need to depart this world.

The great sorrow is that most of us smokers—I think the vast majority of us smokers—know that it is bad for us, know that it is bad for our communities, and know that it is bad for the people we share so much with. We continue to smoke, and that tells us something about the addiction that is nicotine and that is tobacco. It is time for the tobacco industry to realise in a meaningful way that the product it sells, although legal, is an abject danger to our whole community.

I end on this note. I asked the tobacco industry whether its product was safe. I asked that question twice. It is pretty obvious from all of the submissions and from what those in the industry said in reply that the product is not safe. Kia ora.

inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Māori, a report which Labour, of course, supports. A whole lot of presenters came to the committee. Smoking certainly has a long history in Māoridom. To hazard a guess, over many, many years young Māori, and Māori families overall, have been addicted to cigarettes. I can recall in the 1960s that for my parents and everyone else it was more common to smoke than not to smoke. There are international developments, writings, and scribings in relation to those in the low-income brackets and those people on the fringe of society who participate in smoking. I have seen relations in my own whānau who have passed on only because of cigarette smoking. One of the things I never did in all my life—I did a whole lot of other things—was to smoke. But through my wife, whom, sadly, I lost 16 years ago to lung cancer, and through other members of the family, I have certainly seen up front the results of smoking. I am a strong advocate of trying to stop smoking. The tobacco industry’s advertising campaign, which has continued for years, is something that needs to be broached. The presenters certainly told us that.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I stand in support of the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee in relation to the report on the

I can recall people like my wife who started smoking at 13 or 14. It was quite common amongst young Māoris, and continued for a long, long time. In the 1950s and 1960s, when every Māori who was 16 was working, they also started smoking because it was the new kick. It was freedom and epitomised being, for once, in control of something. For them, having generally been manual labourers in the country and the towns—wherever they lived—smoking became a huge addiction. It was coupled with boozing in the big bars. It was coupled with a whole lot of other issues. Certainly it is time for the country to grow up.

I recall that when Labour was in Government we started to push the legislation banning smoking in restaurants and cafes. Do members recall that? There was a whole lot of moaning and people getting emotional about intruding on people’s rights. I challenge anybody to go into a cafe or restaurant now and light up a cigarette—and that ban was introduced not too long ago. We did that as a nation and we can do a whole lot of things with this bill. People will decry it and say it will not work but I am starting to see a lot of young Māori smoking again. If they are not busy, they do that. But the price of cigarettes—the cost and the impact on family budgets, especially those of working-class people—is not on and I am certainly encouraged that we have got to this stage. My colleagues on the select committee have done a great job.

This issue is something we need to come to grips with, but I need to remind members that when we removed smoking from restaurants and cafes there was a hang of a lot of shouting and chanting that it was not on. There seems to be that now when we talk about broaching companies about advertising. We can stop it; I am sure we can stop it. It is not about nanny State; it is about common sense. We arrested drinking and driving in most places when it was quite a common habit. I commend this bill.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Firstly, I congratulate the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tau Henare, and all the members of that committee. This inquiry was a very significant journey for every committee member.

Many things could be said, but I will share with the House two enduring memories and thoughts that I had as a result of being on this inquiry. The first was that quite a significant number of young Māori women who came along told us how they began smoking. They did not begin smoking, as I had perhaps naively thought, as women in their late teens trying to impress people at parties or something like that. Rather, they began as girls, usually of 10 or 11, who lived in houses of smokers and probably had been passively smoking since before they were born. They rolled and lit the tobacco of their mothers and kuia around them, then started sneaking tobacco. I remember a number of young Māori women coming and telling us that.

As night follows day, they were hooked and they were addicted to tobacco. Those young women with children—and maybe some of them will be listening to this debate—want to stop, but it is not easy for them. They are anxious that their young children do not start in the way that they themselves started smoking.

The picture I had of smoking was quite wrong. Most of the time, smoking is not this idea of a free market with adults who freely consent to take up smoking. I do not want to say in this House that personal responsibility does not have any part in smoking—for some in starting, and for some in giving up. But the more complex, difficult situation of children smoking as a result of parents and grandparents who smoked, which I saw on the committee, I will remember for the rest of my life. That means that a more intense, stronger, more interventionist approach is called for. That is what we have recommended in the report we have produced, which all of us on the committee are proud of.

The second thing I wanted to say is that I was shocked by the statistics and the figures that we were given by a raft of organisations. I remember in particular how the submission of Action on Smoking and Health made very clear to me the stark differences in average mortality rates between Māori and non-Māori. Putting it bluntly, in short, it is depressingly clear that Māori men and women live about 8 years less on average than non-Māori. For a non-Māori male, the life expectancy is 79; for a Māori male it is 70.4. That is an 8.6-year difference. For a non-Māori female the life expectancy is 83 years; for a Māori female it is 75.1 years. That is a 7.9-year difference. We know that the smoking prevalence among Māori men and women is disturbingly high: 42 percent of Māori men and 49 percent of Māori women.

I came away very clear in my own mind that it would be simplistic to say that if we simply stopped, reduced, or eliminated—which would be even better—that smoking rate for Māori men and women, we would completely shrink that mortality rate. But I tell members that it would be the best thing we could do to really reduce that mortality rate. No one should feel limited in our country because of their race, and no one should feel that they will not live as long as another on the basis of their skin colour. Tobacco and the high prevalence of smoking among Māori really does mean that Māori are living too short lives compared with non-Māori in this country. Those are two things I will take away from this committee.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a pleasure to speak in this debate this afternoon. The title of this report, and the title of the inquiry, is the Inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Māori. Those of us on the Māori Affairs Committee—and yes, despite my fair complexion, I did get to spend time on the committee for this inquiry, and I appreciate the fact that the members of the committee gave me the opportunity to do so—had to regularly remind ourselves that the focus was on the tobacco industry. We all know why we have to curtail smoking prevalence in New Zealand. It is because smoking kills between 4,500 and 5,000 New Zealanders every year. It is because it shortens life spans in New Zealand. It is because it affects Māori more than it affects Pākehā, and therefore has an inequitable effect across the population of New Zealand. The responsibility for all of those things lies squarely with the tobacco industry, and that is where the focus of this inquiry had to lie.

The previous speaker raised the issue of personal responsibility. We have heard from a number of people throughout this debate that if people took more personal responsibility for themselves, they would not smoke, or they would quit smoking, and that the Government has no place in trying to stop them from starting or, indeed, to support them in quitting. That concept completely overlooks the factor that addiction brings in with any drug, but particularly with tobacco. Tobacco kills around 5,000 people every year. That statistic alone actually shows it is the most dangerous drug in New Zealand. I know we could argue about alcohol or about other drugs and the effects that they have on our communities, but in terms of the number of people killed in New Zealand every year, tobacco is the most dangerous drug. Around 80 percent of people want to quit smoking, but they cannot because of their addiction, so we have to forget the argument about personal responsibility.

Most people start smoking when they are too young to make a rational, sensible decision. By the time they have decided that they want to quit, it is too late. They cannot do it on their own, and we here in the New Zealand Parliament need to bring measures into place that not only stop people from taking up smoking in this first place, but also support people to quit smoking when they make that decision—when they take that personal responsibility to get themselves away from tobacco. That is why we on the Opposition benches thoroughly support this inquiry.

The inquiry is a continuation of years of effort. In fact, if people look at Appendix D in this report, they will see a history of the tobacco control measures that have been taken in New Zealand. Various Governments over the years have taken a systematic approach to trying to reduce the normality and acceptability of tobacco smoking in New Zealand. We have done that by taking smoking out of workplaces, bars, and restaurants. We have got rid of tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sport. It seems like the most ridiculous thing to have a drug that kills half the people who use it sponsoring something that is supposed to be a healthy activity, like sport. Over the years those things have occurred, and we have seen the prevalence of smoking, and the number of cigarettes smoked in New Zealand each year, drop. This report says, and it is admirable, that we need to step that effort up.

The report has provided us with a date for an end game. This report says that by 2025, New Zealand should be smoke-free, or as close to being smoke-free as possible. I would like to dwell on that, because most submitters who came to the select committee said the date should be 2020—and for good reason; it is 5 years sooner. Absolutely, we would like to see the smoking rate cut 5 years sooner, but the committee went for the 2025 date simply because we think it is a more viable prospect. In fact, it becomes more incumbent on Parliament and on successive Governments to achieve that situation by 2025. A 2020 target could easily have been dismissed as being ambitious but non-binding, and as not really being a goal that we ever intended to meet. We absolutely intend to meet the goal by 2025, through a range of means: banning tobacco displays; introducing plain packaging; getting rid of the last of the sponsorships through exclusive supply arrangements, which still exist at events like Rhythm and Vines and fashion shows; cutting back on the additives and restricting the additives; being more open with tobacco users about the additives that are actually in tobacco; and having a target for Māori, who are disproportionally affected, so that they too get down to a zero smoking rate, or as close to it as possible, by 2025. That necessitates having a target for Māori, because their smoking rates are so much higher than those of Pākehā.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I was very privileged to be part of the inquiry into the tobacco industry and its consequences for Māori. I thank Hone Harawira for bringing the inquiry to the Māori Affairs Committee. I acknowledge the work of all of the advisers to the committee, especially the specialist adviser, Chris Cunningham, and I also acknowledge a number of people who were very supportive in terms of their expertise: Dr Prudence Stone from the Smokefree Coalition, Moana Tane from Te Hotu Manawa Māori, Shane Bradbrook, and Ben Youdan from Action on Smoking and Health—ASH. These people have spent many years committed to making the changes that are reflected to some degree at least in this report.

I will raise two issues. The first is about the industry and the second is about wāhine Māori and their tamariki.

At the moment most of our approach to tobacco has been to control smokers and to support the industry—of that there is no doubt. We must turn that round. We must control the industry and support smokers to quit. We must not underestimate the power of these corporations and the efforts they will go to to protect their profits while our whānau die from their poisons. Just this week my colleague Dr Russel Norman revealed that the multinational tobacco company Philip Morris is using trade agreements to try to stop Governments from introducing anti-smoking measures in their countries. Philip Morris is targeting New Zealand’s Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, which are under way right now, to ensure that Philip Morris will be able to sue the New Zealand Government if it attempts to introduce controls on packaging or controls like the graphic warnings that are on our packets, or to introduce plain packaging, for example. Philip Morris argues that plain packaging of cigarettes is an expropriation of its property right. Philip Morris wants to be able to sue the New Zealand Government in some international tribunal somewhere around the world in order to protect its investment.

It is not an empty threat, because right now Philip Morris is taking action against Uruguay’s proposed laws requiring 80 percent of cigarette packaging to carry graphic warnings—just like the ones pictured in this document—against smoking. The World Bank will decide whether Uruguay will have to pay compensation to Philip Morris if it does that. It could mean that Uruguayan people will have to pay compensation to Philip Morris if they want to use their own laws to protect themselves from the harm that tobacco causes.

Members should take note: this report and all the work that has gone into it will be redundant unless we can control this powerful industry, which is selling a dangerous drug that kills 600 Māori every year—men, women, and their babies. Wāhine Māori suffer significantly from the effects of smoking. They have the highest mortality rate from lung cancer in the world, and they suffer from other diseases associated with smoking, like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, and cervical cancer. The harm to wāhine Māori from smoking is painfully evidenced through the loss of their pēpi, their babies, from sudden infant death syndrome—SIDS. The number of Māori babies who died from sudden infant death syndrome during 2003-07 was 202, and these babies made up 62 percent of all the sudden infant death syndrome deaths in that period. It is reported that 46 percent of Māori deaths from sudden infant death syndrome is attributed to smoking. We must focus on protecting the 65,000 Māori women who are of childbearing age who smoke. If Māori women are helped to give up smoking, their babies will have a much healthier start in life and it will help to prevent deaths from sudden infant death syndrome. Their babies will grow up in smoke-free homes and smoke-free cars. It will help to address the issue of young Māori girls who smoke during pregnancy. About 45 percent of wāhine are still smoking when they register with a lead maternity carer, at about 14 to 18 weeks of pregnancy. Their whānau will be helped by having more income available. We will have Māori women growing old enough to be our kuia.

It is Māori women who smoke the most and who are at the most threat from the industry that peddles this drug, which kills them. They need the help the most. Our future literally depends on it.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. I will dedicate this short speech to some very special people: Hūhana Mihinui, who filed the Waitangi Tribunal claim to eliminate smoking amongst Māori; to Māori Marsden, Ngāi Takoto elder, rangatira, tohunga, mentor, and orator, whose death from smoking made me so angry that I gave up on the day he died; and to my father, John Puriri Harawira, a good man and a very good father, who was also killed by the tobacco industry and who, even though he was hooked up to an oxygen tank, was unable to shake free from the addiction that has tortured Māoridom for generations. They have all passed on, of course, but their lives, their energy, and their loss to us have all been a constant spur to me in this crusade against the death and destruction inflicted upon this wonderful country of ours by those murdering pokokōhua we call the tobacco industry.

But today I also take this opportunity to thank many people for their help during the inquiry into the impacts of tobacco on Māori, and all those good people in the tobacco control sector for their commitment to a smoke-free nation, for all their support during the hearings, and for their ongoing work to address the impact of tobacco in communities across Aotearoa. In particular, I thank this small group: Ben Youdan, Prudence Stone, and, most especially, Mary Wilson and Shane Bradbrook, who were always on hand with the statistics, the arguments, the energy, and the passion during the nights when I felt like giving up.

To my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee—Simon Bridges, Paul Quinn, Kelvin Davis, Parekura Horomia, Mita Ririnui, the occasional Iain Lees-Galloway, the more occasional but always controversial and positive Metiria Turei, and, of course, our esteemed chairman, the Hon Tau Henare—I offer my thanks for a memorable journey and for a report that is already being cited in health ministries around the world.

I thank my caucus colleagues, Rahui Katene and Te Ururoa Flavell, for covering for me during the months our committee was out on the road and for always being positive and supportive of the work we were doing. I thank my co-leaders, Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples, who thought I was a bit wacky for turning a health issue into a Māori initiative so that we could get traction on something that health select committees had refused to deal with for decades, and for bothering to take up the proposal with the National Government.

I also thank the Prime Minister, John Key, and his deputy, Bill English, for agreeing to have this inquiry go to the Māori Affairs Committee when many seasoned politicians thought that it did not stand a Māori’s chance in Parliament of going anywhere. I offer my thanks to you all, but the job ain’t done yet, not by a long shot. Tariana Turia, the “Minister for Tobacco Control”, caught everyone on the hop with her bill to raise taxes on cigarettes, but the debate in the House showed that 95 percent of all MPs from all parties supported the elimination of smoking in Aotearoa. The response from smokers shows that every effort we take in this House to reduce this carnage will be met with a positive reaction from the wider public. Tariana’s courage in driving that bill through the House is a measure of her strength and commitment to this task. Now, following on from the report of the Māori Affairs Committee inquiry into the impacts of tobacco on Māori, Tariana has stepped up again with her next bill, to ban the display of tobacco in shops across the country, which I understand is coming before this House tomorrow.

I call on us all—MPs and the general public—to keep up the enthusiasm, to keep the letters coming in, to keep the pressure on, and to keep the support pumping for what will be an even harder road ahead, because there are battles that we must fight in this war, and war it is. Indeed, if any country killed 5,000 Kiwis in any one year, then we would be at war with it before I could finish this speech, but that is how many people are killed by this industry every single year. Given the billions of dollars that it takes out of this country annually, I guarantee members that it is girding for war itself.

To the Māori Party, for having the vision to take up this challenge, I am most especially grateful. This inquiry, the tax bill, the bill to ban displays, and other measures that I know are being worked on but which I am not at liberty to disclose, are all specifically down to the passion, the desire, the commitment, and the determination of the Māori Party to take the first steps along the road to making this country truly smoke-free and to administer with the courage to walk the talk by putting up the legislation to make that a reality. Happy are those who dream dreams and who are prepared to pay the price to make those dreams come true. Kia ora tātou katoa.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): A recurring theme that the Māori Affairs Committee heard during our inquiry into the effect of tobacco on Māori was the fact that the tobacco industry is a killer of whakapapa. I can attest to that from a personal point of view. In the late 1990s my uncle J J Johnson, a cousin of my grandmother, and my uncle Hau Davis, the brother of my grandfather, both passed away within weeks of each other, both from lung cancer, and both in their early 70s. I hold the tobacco industry to account for their deaths. The act of putting a cigarette between their lips in their mid-60s was the result of a decision that they made when they were children.

The select committee heard that the tobacco industry targets the young, the brown, and the stupid. I can attest that my uncles were both very young when they started smoking, and that they were brown, but those gentlemen were by no means stupid. We heard how nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on earth, and when a child is in the grip of nicotine, that child cannot resist it, and it lives with them and kills them in the end. So I hold the tobacco industry accountable not only for the deaths of my two uncles and other relations who have died as a result of cigarettes and tobacco but also for the 600 Māori deaths a year and the 5,000 New Zealanders who die each year as a result of the tobacco industry. That is 50,000 New Zealanders who have died in the past decade as a result of the tobacco industry. This report should send a message to the tobacco industry that its days of ramming its noxious product into the lungs of our people are coming to an end.

One of the most profound submissions that I heard during this tobacco inquiry was from a woman in her 50s or 60s in hospital dying of a tobacco-related illness. With her, watching her die in those agonising moments, were her children and her grandchildren. Because the stress of watching their mother and grandmother was so great, every 20 minutes or half an hour they actually had to leave the hospital room, go outside, and have a cigarette. Do members see the irony in the fact that in order to alleviate the stress, the pain, and the tension of watching their mother and grandmother die, this family had to partake of the very substance that put her in the hospital in the first place?

Worse than that, when that family went out to have their cigarette, they sat on a hospital bench clearly labelled “Auahi Kore”, which means that no smoking is allowed. Even worse than that, adjacent to that area was a maternity annexe. We heard how the children and the grandchildren of that woman would be joined by pregnant mothers to have a cigarette on that smoke-free park bench in the hospital grounds. There we have it—the way the tobacco industry has captured people from one end of the spectrum, unborn children, right through the generations from children and grandchildren up to the dying grandmother up in the hospital ward. We are not talking here about the circle of life; we are talking about the circle of death. The tobacco industry is responsible for it.

We heard how the tobacco industry framed its product to target children, and how if somebody was to walk into a supermarket, a dairy, or a service station they would see behind the teller the power wall display of cigarettes and tobacco products. Around that power wall of tobacco products will be lollies, chips, and all the sorts of things that capture children’s attention and their eye. That is the way that these murdering bastards capture kids from the time that they are 5 or 6. They are held in the grip of the tobacco industry right through until they die, just like that woman in the hospital bed surrounded by her family.

It is time that this Parliament took hold of the recommendations in this report and sent a message clearly to the tobacco industry that its days are numbered in New Zealand.

PAUL QUINN (National): I will start by congratulating National’s coalition partner the Māori Party. I think the inquiry into the tobacco industry is a wonderful example of how in step this Government is with its partners on all issues and how all the partners work together. Hone Harawira was able to discuss progressing this matter with the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, the Hon Tau Henare, and then to bring it to the committee as an issue of great concern to both Māori and the general populace as a whole. On reflection, one has to be astounded that an inquiry of this level into the tobacco industry has not previously occurred. I place on record my warmest acknowledgments of the leadership shown by Hone Harawira and the Māori Party, and also the leadership shown by Tau Henare as the chairman of the committee.

I also place on record my appreciation and acknowledgment of the collegial way in which the committee committed to progressing the inquiry. We were committed to reaching, if at all possible, a set of unanimous recommendations. Although we argued at the edges, there is no doubt that we were able to achieve what we set out to do, which was to bring to the House a unanimously agreed set of recommendations. Those recommendations, as has already been mentioned in a couple of speeches, brought a new approach to this issue by focusing on the industry, as opposed to accepting the industry and trying to reduce the demand side. Instead, the focus was on the supply side and how it could be dealt with. We put the problem back to the industry, which is, in effect, driving this terrible scourge. The recommendations reflect the fact that the industry drives this issue.

Figures have already been mentioned. There is a very high rate of Māori smokers, at 45 percent, and the rate of Māori women who smoke is over 50 percent. When we consider the Māori rate of 45 percent against the non-Māori rate of 21 percent, we see there is a huge gulf and it has to be addressed by future Governments. In particular, this Government has already set about dealing with those issues under the leadership of the Minister responsible for tobacco control, the Hon Tariana Turia. I congratulate her on having already taken the initiative to raise the price of cigarettes over the next 3 years. Part of the problem is that it is estimated that there currently are about 620,000 smokers, and it would take 30 years and over half a billion dollars to get all those people to quit. The real problem is that that does not deal with new smokers who pick up the habit at a very early age. Thank you.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I too congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee on its comprehensive and profound report. I will add to other comments made by previous speakers about smoking. I used to smoke. I started smoking when I was 16 years of age and I stopped when I was 30. I puffed away while I was a medical student and I puffed away while I was a house surgeon. Mostly I puffed away in secret, in front of people who were dying of lung cancer and people who had emphysema. Smoking is a disgusting habit and it is a terrible, terrible addiction. I am very pleased that the Government is putting $57 million into tobacco cessation products because, basically, people who smoke are addicts and they need help getting off their addiction, which is tobacco.

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand. It is directly linked to 5,000 deaths each year. Four hundred of these deaths are attributed to second-hand smoke. On average, non-smokers live 15 years longer than long-term smokers. Thirteen New Zealanders die every day from smoking; it is an astonishing statistic. Tobacco use is linked to many diseases: lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease such as emphysema or chronic bronchitis, and other cancers such as cancer of the mouth, pharynx, and oesophagus.

The social costs of smoking are very difficult to estimate, but up to 62,000 life years are lost to tobacco-related premature death, which is just tragic, and 19,000 quality-adjusted life years are lost to tobacco-related illnesses. The cost is profound personally, socially, and to the country. It is estimated by the Ministry of Health that of our total health budget of about $12 billion, about $2 billion can be attributed to the cost to the health system of smoking.

For Māori the impact of tobacco is significant and quite disproportionate. For the period 2000 to 2004, lung cancers were responsible for over 31 percent of Māori cancer deaths compared with 17 percent for non-Māori cancer deaths. Cardiovascular disease death rates were two times higher for Māori than non-Māori during the same period. Deaths due to respiratory disease were three times more frequent in Māori than non-Māori.

Smoking and tobacco use in New Zealand is a focus for the Government. One of the six current health targets is to provide “Better help for smokers to quit”. The targets for the current year state: “80 percent of hospitalised smokers will be provided with advice and help to quit by July 2010; 90 percent by July 2011; and 95 percent by July 2012.” Similar targets for primary care will also be introduced from this year on.

We heard an astonishing figure at the select committee: it takes about 14 attempts for one person to give up smoking. That is a huge number of attempts. With tobacco cessation products that figure goes down by half or possibly more. It is a terribly hard addiction to break. The triggers include tackling people in hospital while they are a captive audience in an in-patient setting, asking about their smoking habits, and giving them advice. Even though they may not take that advice, it is just one trigger or prompt to add on to the other prompts. Eventually I am sure that person will give up. Every bit helps, and tackling smokers while they are hospitalised is one way to get to smokers, to try to convince them that it is a good idea to stop, and to give them the help they need. As I said, it is a terrible addiction. There are now many varieties of tobacco cessation products. There are patches, gum, drugs, and chemical-type medicines that can be taken. They all work in different ways to help break the addiction cycle.

Early this year the Government increased the excise tax on tobacco in an effort to reduce the number of smokers and to dissuade young people from starting to smoke, and that is a step in the right direction. All told, the excise has gone up almost 33 percent, or it will do by the time it is implemented in the next few years.

The report that the Māori Affairs Committee came out with primarily looks at innovative changes to New Zealand’s tobacco control programme. It also sets out the broad steps we need to take to achieve the ultimate goal of being a smoke-free New Zealand by 2025. I congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee on this report. Thank you.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Māori Affairs Committee’s report on the Inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Maori. I, too, would like to offer my congratulations to Hone Harawira and the Māori Affairs Committee on the terrific work it has done in bringing this hugely important issue to the attention of the House.

Firstly, I point out that tobacco was very much part of New Zealand’s culture right up until the 1960s. In fact, it was very much part of the culture of the Western World right up until the 1960s. Tobacco was more or less prescribed by doctors, who smoked heavily themselves, and, of course, it was given to all the members of the armed forces, who became addicted. In the decades since then we have witnessed the awful suffering that those people went through as they died from lung cancer, throat cancer, lip cancer, etc. It was not until about the 1960s that Sir Richard Doll discovered the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer. It was a very detailed and elegant piece of epidemiological work that took a great deal of time to finally prove, and, of course, it was met with great opposition by the tobacco industry.

That is why this particular report is so important: because it is an inquiry into the tobacco industry, particularly in Aotearoa, where Māori are dealt such a huge blow in terms of both mortality rates and morbidity rates that are far greater than those of the rest of the population. Nevertheless, I felt that Hone Harawira was particularly controversial when he suggested that the Health Committee had failed to do anything over the decades. After all, I must acknowledge that the last Labour Government brought in the Smoke-free Environments Act, which was extremely positive, and which I personally voted for because I felt it was an important public health preventive initiative.

One must say that about only 15 years ago in New Zealand our buses, aeroplanes, and restaurants were full of smoke, and whether or not people smoked, they breathed in second-hand smoke and were suffering in their thousands. The smoke-free environments legislation has been particularly useful, but it was preceded by a hang of a lot of work by a great many people, including Action on Smoking and Health New Zealand, led by Dr Laugesen, who has worked tirelessly in this area, both internationally and nationally, for years.

I also think Professor Beaglehole should be mentioned for his extraordinary work on the epidemiology of this problem throughout New Zealand. As an obstetrician, I have, of course, been deeply concerned that thousands of cohorts of New Zealand babies have been condemned in the womb—condemned in the womb—to being stunted in growth and, probably, also stunted in their intellectual opportunities later in life.

There is no doubt that this inquiry is particularly timely. It will lead to legislation, which I understand will be introduced tomorrow, that will bring us one step further in the battle to achieve an essentially smoke-free Aotearoa.

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

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): I am really pleased to take a call in this debate. Before I begin, I congratulate sincerely Hone Harawira and the Māori Party on getting this inquiry out into the open.

I was very proud to be the sponsor of the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill, which I picked up from Tukoroirangi Morgan, who started this journey in 1990. I look around the House tonight. In 1990 the Smoke-free Environments Bill was first put into the House. I picked up responsibility for the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill when I came into Parliament, in 1999. So it has been a long journey. It was 13 years after the enactment of the Smoke-free Environments Act when that bill, by then renamed the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill, was passed. In the House tonight I can see about four members who were there at that time, and who remember that journey and the very, very bitter debate on that bill. So this inquiry is the next step on a long journey towards reaching the goal of halving the prevalence of smoking in New Zealand by 2015.

I thought some members would be really interested to know that in 2003, when we passed the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill, the environment in the House was very bad. I had death threats, I had an anthrax-like substance that turned out to be talcum powder delivered to my office, I had protection, and I was considered to be the loony left. ACT and Rodney Hide came into the House and called us feminazis who were trying to socially engineer the environment about smoking in New Zealand at the time. This newspaper headline indicates the sort of thing that we went through. It was very ugly. Every night I would go home and think I could not carry on with it. The measure was right, and it was logical, but the level of animosity and hatred in the House was so high that I was not sure I could go through with it. One night, after 5 hours in the chair, I went home and my son, who is of Māori ancestry, said I did not look very good. I said to him that the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill was destroying me personally, even though as a nurse and a midwife I knew we were doing the right thing about the prevalence of smoking. He told me to keep going and that it was the best thing I had ever done. He said he was very proud of me, and so were all of his colleagues.

Now let us look at New Zealand today. I want us to move on from 2003, when only two National MPs at the time supported that absolutely hallmark legislation to change the whole environment for New Zealand regarding how we look at the effects of second-hand smoking. Through the work of the Māori Affairs Committee and of Hone Harawira, we are now grappling with the next stage of a journey to recognise that we have to deal with smoking in New Zealand. I did believe—and I always said this then—that smoking was a public health issue, and that it would require the use of a variety of tools to change societal attitudes. Overnight in 2004, New Zealand society changed. People just went smoke-free in cafes, bars, and workplaces. We look back now at what happened six years ago, and we cannot believe the hatred and animosity towards what was right at the time for legislators to do—that brave thing.

So my congratulations go to Hone Harawira and also to Tariana Turia on leading the charge to get this inquiry heard. Many requests for inquiries do not see the light of day. Those members won, with their coalition partner National. This inquiry has given us a lot of tools and recommendations for the Government to consider. I know that Tariana will now bring a bill to the House. I hope it is a bill with teeth, because the next step has to be just as brave as the Smoke Free Environments Amendment Bill was. I see that there are recommendations in this report to establish a tobacco control authority. I think that is good, though it is bureaucracy again. The real steps are in the recommendation to look at stopping children from starting to smoke and helping people to quit smoking. That is where we can nip smoking in the bud. There are many schoolchildren—9-year-olds—who are addicted to tobacco. If we do not put one-to-one programmes beside those kids, to make them realise that tobacco is an addictive substance, their lives will never change.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

PAUL QUINN (National): I move, That the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. We are in the final stage of considering this bill. I have listened with care and intent to the arguments—or should I say the lack of arguments—that have been discussed in this House. I think I can best sum up the Opposition’s contribution to the debate as being spurious rhetoric. From the shrill rantings of Lianne Dalziel to the terminological inexactitudes of Trevor Mallard, from the clamouring diatribe of Grant Robertson to the bellowing tirade of Clayton Cosgrove in the first reading, their contribution is, as I said, best summed up as a show of ineptitude.

The starting point for consideration of this bill is the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System. I will quote that commission. It said: “Punishment for serious crimes properly involves the forfeiture of the right to vote.” Unfortunately it then undersold itself by suggesting that people go to prison for misdemeanours. The truth of the matter is that this goes to the nub of the issue. People do not go to prison for misdemeanours—it is as simple as that. I noticed that the Attorney-General said in his regulations review report—which, I might say, we actually do, without fear or favour—that people may go to prison for not paying a fine. The fact is only serial fine defaulters go to prison.

I will quote from a Minister of Corrections in the previous administration, the Hon Rick Barker. In answer to an oral question in which he was asked about this matter, he said a decision to sentence a fines defaulter to a custodial sentence is one made by a judge when he or she is satisfied that all other methods of enforcing the fines have been ineffective. I see the member for Rimutaka across the aisle. Only last month in the Upper Hutt District Court, Donnie Cliburn, after numerous opportunities to pay off his unpaid fines of $42,000, and after snubbing the opportunity to work them off with 160 hours of community work, was finally remanded. He had $42,000 of unpaid fines; how long might it have taken him to pay them off? That is a classic example of what that Minister of Corrections was referring to.

There are any number of laws on our statute book whereby people can go to prison. Under a 1920s Act people can go to prison for swearing. Has anyone been to prison for swearing? No. One person was charged, in about 1929, but the case never went anywhere. I tell Opposition members to live in the real world. The difference between members on this side of the House and members on the other side of the House is that we are prepared to deal with reality, not to mould reality to fit a purpose. The truth is that people go to prison only for committing serious crimes. Over 70 percent of all inmates have at least 10 convictions before they serve their first term in prison.

I know that Opposition members do not like talking about real examples, because they do not like reality, but let us talk about some. I refer to Richard Rowe, who had 20 previous drink-driving convictions before receiving a first custodial sentence of 16 months. Alison Downer had three previous drink-driving convictions before killing a cyclist and incurring her fourth conviction. Harley McKenzie specialised in torturing animals. After having been convicted of numerous acts of cruelty against animals, he was finally given a custodial sentence of 4 months for beating nearly to death a protected seal. This followed an incident 3 months earlier when he had cut off the ears and tail of a pig. Isaiah Tai, notwithstanding that Justice Potter called his offence “unprovoked gratuitous violence”, was sentenced to 2 years and 10 months for the manslaughter of Hāwea Vercoe. Under the current law, he would be able to vote. I say that is a scourge on this society and it is an outrage. I say to my colleagues that this bill will right the injustice and the outrage that have occurred since 1996.

I know that the Green Party will quote other jurisdictions, which I have already commented on. I find it ironic that those members spend most of their lives in here telling us that we should do our own thing. That was their argument on the Hobbit issue—let us be world leaders; let us be at the front of the pack. But on this matter, because it suits them, they quote other jurisdictions and say we are way out of kilter. I can tell them that the two biggest democracies in the world do not allow their prisoners to vote. Britain was always of that view. As Mr Robertson knows, although the overwhelming majority of the British people are against prisoners’ voting, they have had to accept change simply because the EC has forced them to do so—otherwise, they would face fines.

I thank my colleagues on this side of the House, my own National colleagues, for supporting me in bringing justice on this matter. I thank my Government colleagues in the ACT Party for supporting me. Notwithstanding the wailings of the taxpayer-funded boffins who closet themselves in our ivory towers, and the whimpering of the chardonnay socialists who masquerade as independent advisers, the passing of this bill will be a triumph for the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders. Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I have to say that that speech will be a hard act to follow. I judged the calibre of that speech via the eminent National folk who have come to the Chamber to support Mr Quinn. We can look at Aaron Gilmore, a genius in his own lifetime! It is a pity his CV did not match. [Interruption] Hang on! He has come out of his cave. We can look at Mr Quinn, who was described in that eminent report in Trans Tasman as follows: “Media-loathing misfit. Rude and arrogant.” That is a bit rough, I think. “National should start wondering whether this list MP is a waste of space.” That is what his mates said about him in the Trans Tasman report. Then we have Melissa Lee and the chairman of the parliamentary branch of Toastmasters, Cam Calder.

Somewhere in the Chamber, I know, is the chair of the Law and Order Committee—she has just arrived—Sandra Goudie. She will go down in history for voting down a resolution in the select committee on this bill, the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, that was put forward by Labour colleagues. They thought it would be a good idea, when we get a bill on a justice matter, or on any other matter, that we get the specialist agency responsible for administering it to come and advise us. She voted against that resolution. That is her claim to fame.

Let us address the bill. The only thing that has changed about this bill since I last spoke about it is that it has been amended to patch up the stupidity of Paul Quinn. He is a man who will live in infamy and go down in history in this House for putting forward a bill to stop prisoners from voting, and had it returned to the House, thanks to Sandra Goudie and the great National geniuses on the Law and Order Committee, in a form that gave people like William Bell and Graeme Burton, the worst criminals in our prisons, the right to vote. Judith Collins, the Minister of Corrections, ran a mile; she sprinted from it. The only other thing that has changed in this bill is that two other pages, which are basically blank, have been added to the other 2½ pages that are before us.

There is no analysis on this bill. We heard a speech from that member, which said nothing. He has an iPad. I am not very au fait with technology—although I am sure you are, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker—but it is a fancy piece of technology. Somebody has loaded the notes on it, but I think they might have done a Coleman and got the speech wrong. There was not one fact in it. For every example Mr Quinn used, such as the drink-driver and the person stealing, one would think that as of tonight, when this bill is passed, it will all change. The person who wants to burgle a house will stop at the front door and think: “Hang on. Paul Quinn, whoever he may be, has had a bill passed so that if I burgle Mr Smith’s home I will lose my vote. I had better walk away and be a good little boy.”

The truth about this stupid legislation is that it is no more than a political pamphlet that no submitter supported, apart from David Farrar, and we know where his politics lie. Even David Farrar agreed, like every other submitter did, that there was no international or domestic evidence anywhere that taking away a vote from a prisoner would change behaviour, stop recidivism, deter crime, or, most important, aid in the healing of victims.

This bill is so bankrupt that even that discredited hypocrite Garth McVicar did not bother to put in a submission on it. He recently attacked our top policeman Howard Broad for having the audacity to even ponder that it may be better to stop crime and stop creating victims, rather than simply going down the track that we do now, in respect of the Department of Corrections. He was grossly attacked on the day of the Pike River memorial service. Even the Sensible Sentencing Trust crew and Mr McVicar, who has no moral authority to represent victims any more after the David Garrett affair, did not bother to put in a submission on this bill.

Aaron Gilmore: Where is that member going to get a job next year? Standing on a pulpit, maybe.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I see the great genius opposite! It will be interesting to see whether Mr Gilmore gets up to speak. He has a million degrees from all over the world, I am told, including PhDs, both honorary and genuine, from all over the world—

Chris Hipkins: From the best Weet-Bix packets in the world.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —from the best Weet-Bix packets in the world, my colleague says. I invite Mr Gilmore, rather than clucking from the sidelines, to show some guts, get on his feet, and make a cogent argument in support of this bill. I say to that member to get on his feet. No, he likes to sit there on the sidelines and have a wee squawk.

Aaron Gilmore: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under the Standing Orders I request the member to yield so that I can carry on and finish his speech in the time remaining.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): If a member asks to yield, it is for the member who is speaking to yield. It is not the Chairperson’s role to do that.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That says it all, does it not? I will not yield. He can take his turn like a normal member of Parliament. I ask that member to get up after me, make a speech, and make an argument, but he will not do it. No one in this House—

Aaron Gilmore: You’re too scared. I challenged you and you’re too scared to give up your time.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not having that. You heard that interjection. Saying a person is too scared, and calling their character into question, is out of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I did not hear the interjection.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am telling you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I am on my feet. If the member wants his point of order dealt with, he will be quiet. The member says something was said that was offensive. He took offence to it. Did any member say something that was offensive? If they did, I ask them to withdraw and apologise.

Aaron Gilmore: I am not sure what the member found offensive, but I withdraw and apologise.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: We will carry on with the debate, and if the member wants to take a call and make a cogent argument in favour of this bill, we will be interested.

The people of New Zealand want real solutions to real problems. Mr Quinn said that he lives in the real world. It is a bit like Judith Collins with the boy-racer stuff. A year ago, almost to the day, we heard that we would have cars crushed all over Christendom. It would be carnage, in the metallic sense. Not one car has been crushed. As I said in the second reading debate, Mr Quinn woke up one day, lifted the wet towel from his head, and thought he would get a headline in the New Zealand Herald. Well, he has made history in this House, and maybe Trans Tasman is right about him.

This bill has no analysis. It has no evidence attached to it. In the third reading debate he could not even make an argument in favour of it. At the select committee we saw Ministry of Justice officials barred from being anywhere near this bill. Why? Because—as we know with the “three strikes” legislation, when Ministry of Justice officials were barred—the select committee and the Government did not want those officials coming in, even though they are empowered, experienced, and skilled specialists in running elections and all matters electoral. Members opposite did not want Ministry of Justice officials to come to the select committee, because they knew those officials—people whom Mr Quinn calls, I think, “woolly thinkers” or something—would say that the bill would make no difference.

I say to a victim out there that, sadly, this bill will tug at their heartstrings. I ask any member to give me an example that shows how it will heal a victim or aid in that healing process. I ask any member to give me an example of where this bill will discourage recidivism, or aid in changing prisoner behaviour so that people do not offend again and do not create another victim. Despite Garth McVicar’s blustering I would have thought that behaviour change in a prison is a civic duty of this House, so that a prisoner goes out of prison having had their behaviour changed, thereby not creating a further victim in our society. This bill is a political pamphlet.

Sandra Goudie, who chaired the select committee, truncated and shut down every debate she could, but she could not shut down the question that we asked every submitter. We asked whether there was any domestic or international evidence that this bill would have any effect in helping victims, reducing recidivism, changing behaviour, or reducing reoffending. To a man and a woman—even including the one person, David Farrar, who supported the bill; he is a current National Party person—they were genuine enough to say that there was no evidence.

I put to the committee that if we wanted to get really Draconian, and maybe this is the next step for National—I put this to Mr Young, because I think Mr Young has a background in religion—we should attack the religious beliefs of people and prevent, say, believers from exercising their religion in a prison. I suspect that that would be of higher value to them, and come at a greater cost to them. This certainly will not. I am not suggesting that we should do that, of course. I say for the record that I am not suggesting that, at all.

Grant Robertson: That is the next member’s bill!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Maybe that is the next member’s bill. Maybe getting back to bread and water might be the next member’s bill.

Trevor Mallard was right. This bill shows the ineptness, lack of analysis, lack of substance, and lack of gravitas that comes from the member in charge of the bill. It is another political pamphlet created so that he can run around the country saying that he stopped the prisoners voting—after it was pointed out that he had given all the bad guys the vote per se, and the bill was then patched up.

The victims we will have in the future, and the mums and dads and people he talked about earlier tonight, will sit there and laugh at this bill. It will have no effect, and deep down he knows it. He knows that, because he could not even make a cogent argument in support of it, apart from rattling off a whole lot of examples and saying that every person who is convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle will not do it because they will lose their vote. When the bill is passed and gets the Royal assent, let us see whether, within 24 hours, it changes behaviour in our communities. I suspect it will not; I know it will not. The member should really be ashamed of himself for having wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in this process, and produced a political pamphlet.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I am delighted to rise and speak on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I applaud my colleague Paul Quinn for bringing this bill to the House. I will just set a few matters on the record. The fact of the matter is that any prisoner convicted for 3 years or more is disqualified from voting. That situation has not changed for a number of years, including the 9 long years of Government by the Labour Party. Labour members were quite happy when they were last in Government for prisoners who had been convicted for 3 years or more to be disqualified from voting. They were happy enough with that situation, so I just wonder what all their arguments are about in respect of making sure that all prisoners who have been convicted are disqualified. Why should we discriminate on the basis of the term of the conviction? I think this bill levels out the playing field. Yes, the majority of submitters opposed the bill, but they wanted to give all prisoners the vote. They wanted to do away with the existing prohibition of those who were convicted for 3 years or more. They wanted to give all prisoners the vote. They were not just opposed to this particular bill; they took it a step further, in the main. Essentially we now have prisoners who are convicted for 3 years or more denied the vote. My colleague Paul Quinn quite rightly said that that is a bit unfair. Anyone who is convicted should be deprived of the vote, not only those who have a conviction of 3 years or more, and that is pretty sensible. The rationale for having that prohibition in the first place still stands. I am proud to stand beside my colleague Paul Quinn and support this bill through the House. I also say that the legislation on seizure of boy-racer vehicles is working, because cars are not being crushed. If those young fellas and “fellesses” were transgressing the law, their cars would go under. I will make one other point: the Law and Order Committee is run in accordance with the Standing Orders, and if a decision is made, it is made by the majority. Unfortunately, Mr Cosgrove cannot handle that.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour): I stand to speak on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I paused at the beginning of my speech because I was speechless, for a second, at the speech from the member who just resumed her seat, Sandra Goudie. Given that she is the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee, I thought she might have had a little more substance in what she was speaking about, and might have been able to extend her speech to the full 10 minutes. If the bill really is of as much significance as that, I am sure it would not be so difficult for Ms Goudie to fill up the 10 minutes of speech time. Obviously, as we already knew, there is very little to speak about, because this is rather an insignificant bill. I follow the earlier speech of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, and I support each and every word that he said in his speech. When I say that this is an insignificant bill, I say that in light of an event I attended at lunchtime, which was a demonstration out the front of Parliament, when we stood together in solidarity to support the women and children across the Pacific—

Sandra Goudie: Oh my goodness, that sounds like the unions!

CARMEL SEPULONI: —who are victims, I say to Sandra Goudie, and I hope she cares about the victims, of domestic violence.

I look at the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill and think that it is so incredibly trivial and insignificant. The bill will bring about no change, and no positive repercussions, for New Zealand society. Yet at the bottom of the Order Paper is the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, and it is languishing there because that Government chooses to prioritise such trivial matters as the one we are discussing tonight, rather than things that should matter, like the domestic violence that is committed against women and children in this country. It really shows that that side of the House has major problems with regard to prioritising what the real issues are that we should be discussing in this Parliament.

The one question that I have to ask when I look at this bill, given that it is a law and order bill, which has gone through the Law and Order Committee, is whether this bill will act as a deterrent to crime. I think the answer is actually no. I cannot envisage any person who is incarcerated, or any person who is on the verge of committing a crime, thinking: “Oh, I had better not commit this burglary; otherwise I will go to prison and lose my right to vote!”. The reality is that for all of us in this House to vote is a right, and for many other people around the world it is an absolute privilege to have the right to vote. But I assume that many of the people who are incarcerated may not actually see voting as being one of the priorities in their lives. In fact, I wonder how many of those people who are incarcerated who actually exercise the right to vote have actually felt a sense of loss when they have been incarcerated and lost that right to vote. This bill seems rather insignificant and almost a complete waste of time in regard to what that member, Paul Quinn, was attempting to do.

When we look at whether it could act as a deterrent to crime, we see that obvious common-sense dictates that actually, no, it probably will not. There is no analysis in the explanatory note of what harm this bill is designed to remedy by returning to the pre-1993 situation. The Electoral Commission and the Solicitor-General had sound reasons for recommending the change. The member promoting this bill has not provided any compelling reason for why this change is needed or wanted, and the select committee considering the bill did not receive any such evidence either. The reality is, I say to every member of the House, that this bill will not make New Zealanders any safer, and it will not reduce crime or recidivism, at all. So why is that member doing it? Unfortunately we can only assume, because his explanation is rather weak, that it is an attempt to try to make National again look hard-line on issues of law and order.

The reality is that the bill means nothing. It looks like the Government is doing something, but, actually, the general public of New Zealand want to know that there is substance to the legislation that we are pushing through. They want to know that while we are paid to be here in the House we are actually doing things that are worthwhile for the citizens of New Zealand. Unfortunately, this bill does not achieve that, at all.

When I was going through this bill and listening to some of the arguments for and against it—I and the honourable members Steve Chadwick and Rajen Prasad were just having a discussion—I thought that this bill is probably as insignificant as the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, which is also being put out by the National Government. It really impresses on us the type of legislation, the type of agenda, that the National Government has. This bill aims to punish prisoners by denying them the right to vote as if it is a right or a privilege, but voting can also be seen as a civic duty. The one concern I do have—because in the past the right has been taken away from those who have committed serious offences—is that many of those who are incarcerated have never ever exercised that right, and in many ways never engaged in that civic duty, at all. I do wonder, when they commit a crime for which they get a sentence of 3 years or less, whether that might actually be a good time to try to engage them with what is happening in terms of politics, in terms of the way the country runs, in terms of actually caring about what goes on around them, and in terms of knowing about legislation and the way in which Parliament can impact on their lives. A number of them are disengaged altogether. I do wonder whether this should be part of the rehabilitation—part of the work that goes on to ensure that they can come out and be contributing citizens of our country. We do want to have hope that they will be rehabilitated and be able to contribute. Part of that rehabilitation would be actually supporting them and helping them to understand what that civic duty is and how much of a privilege it is to vote.

As it stands, this bill will mean that prisoners cannot register as electors. On this side of the House, we often have problems making sure that all of our people are on the electoral roll. It is hard enough to keep people enrolled in the best of circumstances. This bill will basically result in the mass disenfranchisement of many of the people who go to prison, because they are unlikely to re-enrol on release. They will be even less engaged than perhaps they were before they went in. With lesser offences and shorter periods of incarceration, there are much better prospects of rehabilitation, which is why the argument was put forward that perhaps we do not need to take away this right from those who are incarcerated for short terms. Reinforcing a responsible attitude and a sense of civic duty is actually undermined by removing the ability to vote.

This bill would create anomalies—and that came up through the select committee process—and it was something that was unforeseen by the person who put the bill forward, and also by the person whom one would rely on to run the select committee and see any problems down the line, the chairperson of the select committee, Sandra Goudie. The select committee process of this bill has been referred to as a sham and a complete waste of time. As this bill amends electoral law, it would have been far more appropriate for it to have been referred to the Electoral Legislation Committee, or at least the Justice and Electoral Committee, in the first place. This is another instance where it does not look like the Minister of Justice wanted to have anything to do with it. As Clayton Cosgrove said, just like the “three strikes” bill, we wonder whether the Minister of Justice realises that this is a bill that is insignificant and something that he does not want to put his name to, hence why it ended up going through the Law and Order Committee.

We on this side of the House will not be supporting this bill. We encourage all of our parliamentary colleagues to vote against it, as well. Mr Quinn will not go down in history as a top-rate famous parliamentarian for this legislation. No one will be patting him on the back for it. Thank you very much.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kia ora koutou. I was asked a few days ago whether I would be speaking to the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill and, if so, what I would be saying. I said that in essence I would be saying the same things that I have said in earlier readings.

Frankly, having heard the member who introduced this bill, Paul Quinn, I think I could be quite justified in simply rereading a speech from an earlier reading of this bill. I am quite sure that that is what the gentleman did in his initial speech. We heard the same old clichés. We heard about the opposition to this bill coming from chardonnay socialists, from people who dwell in ivory towers. We heard exactly the same language from the speeches of members who spoke earlier. We heard him once again fail to persuade anybody that all prisoners are guilty of serious offences, which immediately puts that member at odds with the analysis of the Attorney-General, in whose report the word “irrational” appears a number of times in relation to this bill.

The Attorney-General, of course, found this bill “unjustifiably inconsistent” with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the word “irrational” popped up in the analysis. The Attorney-General said: “The objective of the Bill is not rationally linked to the blanket ban on prisoner voting.” He made the point that fines defaulters, for example, whom most people would not deem to be serious offenders, would nevertheless be caught up, in a 3-month sentence, and would lose the right to vote.

The Attorney-General pointed out that the bill would “introduce irrational inconsistencies in the law where mentally impaired prisoners detained in a hospital or a secure facility for less than three years could vote while all prisoners serving sentences of less than three years in prisons would be disenfranchised.” I ask where the logic is in that. The Attorney-General said: “The blanket ban on prisoner voting is both under and over inclusive.” People convicted and sentenced for 2½ years will lose the right to vote. Someone convicted for a 3-month period that happens to straddle an election would lose the right to vote. The point is made again by the Attorney-General: “The irrational effects of the Bill also cause it to be disproportionate to its objective.”

That is quite strong, severe language coming from the Attorney-General, who is generally a relatively moderately spoken person, and it cuts to the nub. This is wholly irrational legislation. It has no value. It wastes the time of this House to even debate it at a time when we have a crisis in corrections in this country.

This bill is a misguided attempt to appeal to the perceived populist groundswell of support for the short-sighted view that locking up people for longer and giving them more punishment in prison is somehow desirable. There is no evidence that there is a popular groundswell for, or a popular belief in, that perception. All of the evidence shows that people will and do support solutions that make our society safer, that keep people out of prison, and that reduce crime and recidivism, despite the nonsensical extremism of vocal pro-prison groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust, which it seems is more interested in manipulating the victims of crimes, and perpetuating their grief and their anger in the interest of continuing to fuel this falsehood that New Zealanders are calling for longer and tougher sentences, rather than taking positive actions to try to heal that anger or to relieve some of that grief.

We are wasting our time with this nonsense bill. Not even its author can make a sound and rational argument for it. This is at a time when, despite a steadily declining crime rate, the reporting of crime is increasing, and is therefore feeding the perception that we are in a worse state than we are.

We recently have heard bragging from the Government that it has doubled the number of places available for prisoners to receive treatment for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. We will now treat perhaps 1,000 people per year rather than 500. We know that the real need is something like six or seven times that number. While we continue to spend 70 percent of the $1.2 billion a year allocated to corrections on keeping people locked away inside concrete and steel jungles, and spend about 12c in the dollar on practices that would actually serve to reduce their offending and to break that cycle of reoffending, we are doomed to be on the same track.

We know from the 2010 National Health Committee report that almost nine out of 10 inmates have substance abuse issues. Over half of the prison population have psychotic, mood, or anxiety disorders. Only a handful of these can expect to get any mental health treatment while they are in prison. Perhaps one in 20 will receive any treatment for their mental health issues. Instead of dealing with those very real and very treatable problems, we are dealing with nonsense like this supposed solution, which will not reduce crime. It will not serve the interests of any one offender, and it will not make anybody in society safer, or make them feel safer.

The failed corrections policies of this and previous Governments are burning up vast amounts of money, destroying social cohesion, and reducing human potential. Nothing in this bill will do any positive good. A vote for this bill is a vote for pursuing failed policies. It is a vote for looking back to a 19th century mindset. Instead of doing real work in this House and assigning some of that $1.2 billion to positive solutions, that work is being left to the volunteers sector, the community sector—those organisations and volunteers who know what the solutions are, as do many of us in this House, and who are applying those situations.

I was privileged to be at an event in Ruakākā recently where I met a gentleman who was a former gang member who had done his time in jail. He had come out the other side, and he understood that his role from here, for the rest of his life, was to try to stop other people from offending, to keep others out of jail, and to heal those who were unwell and who were committing crimes. I saw a man stand up and come very near to tears in admitting that he had been guilty of violence against his family, that he had abused them verbally, and that he had intimidated them. That man has now turned round and will not reoffend, because he has been involved in a community-based programme driven and led by volunteers.

It is to the shame of this House, and to the people who perpetuate this sort of policy nonsense, that we are not supporting and we are not contributing more to those real community-based solutions, which in the longer term are the only solutions that will contribute to breaking the cycle of offending and reoffending, and remove the stain on our nation’s pride: the fact that we are the second highest in terms of incarcerating people in the developed world. It is one area where we have not only caught up with Australia but exceeded Australia, despite some people’s fondness for referring to Australia’s background and the history of the settlement of that country.

We are in a crisis in terms of corrections. We are in a financial crisis: we are spending $1.2 billion a year. That will soon become the single-largest cost on the public purse. There is a cultural crisis: more and more people are being confused and frightened by the belief that crime is increasing when, in fact, it is not. We have a crisis in this Government’s policy: a failure of imagination, a failure of thinking, and an unwillingness to accept and adopt real solutions. In preference, the Government would rather offer us this sort of meaningless policy, this meaningless bill without any substance, which will do no one any good. We will continue to oppose it. Kia ora.

HILARY CALVERT (ACT): I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I cannot pretend this bill is my favourite thing. Trevor Mallard leaving the House earlier, and not being able to vote while he was away, could count as a favourite thing. Perhaps popping a ping-pong ball in the mouth of the honourable member over there who all day keeps turning his head from side to side with his mouth open could count as my favourite thing. This bill is not my favourite thing. However, Act is supporting National on this bill.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): I stand to speak on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I come to this bill with the disproportionate over-representation of Māori in our prisons weighing heavily upon me. Māori are over-represented at every end of the criminal justice sector, both as victims and as offenders, in the areas of arrests, prosecutions, convictions, imprisonment, and reimprisonment.

This over-representation must also be viewed in the context of a ballooning prison population, a population that we believe is neither financially nor socially sustainable in our nation. A 2008 paper from Andrew Coyle from the International Centre for Prison Studies commented on Ministry of Justice forecasts that there would be a 15.6 percent increase in the prison population over the next 7 years, with an estimated population of over 9,000 people. This puts New Zealand, so said Mr Coyle, on a par with Libya, Azerbaijan, and Brazil. This information provides the context in which we come to this third reading of the bill to amend the Electoral Act 1993 by removing the right of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment of less than 3 years to register as an elector. Currently, the prison population is approximately 8,300, with Māori prisoners making up 50.66 percent—or 4,169—of that population. If we look at the possible number of prisoners serving less than 3 years, we are in the ballpark of approximately 5,000 prisoners, the majority of these being Māori and Pasifika.

These numbers and the grossly disproportionate impact on whānau Māori and Pasifika communities are serious enough in their own right, but it is the principle of democratic representation that we want to raise in our final contribution on this debate. I have to say it is deeply ironic that on the very next day after the constitutional review was announced, and when the current political environment includes debate on issues such as the MMP referendum, advance voting, and electoral finance reform, the House is doing something that is a direct attack on the right to vote. Mr Quinn in his speech referred to the hysterical rantings of members and, presumably, of submitters. I want to bring to the House once more the advice of the “hysterical” New Zealand Law Society President, Jonathan Temm, who described this legislation as retrograde legislation that would erode the free and democratic nature of New Zealand society, and without justification.

I want to focus on this issue of justification. What is the justification that substantiates such a harsh and punitive bill? Is the vote of an inmate worth less than the vote of someone who is an offender but who has not yet been caught? What is the judgment that is being made when we deem it appropriate to remove the right to vote from prisoners? Will we see such an abuse of power similarly applied to a person who enters the voting booth under the influence of alcohol or an illicit substance? Will we cast that same judgment upon a voter who was a known paedophile, a fraudster, or a recidivist sexual offender? Quite frankly, the gates would be flung wide open if we continued down this track of arbitrarily targeting certain sectors of our population that we consider undesirable.

Like Mr Clendon, we looked at what the Attorney-General thought. He himself believes that the bill is “unjustifiably inconsistent with the electoral rights affirmed by section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. But it was not just our domestic legal context that the Attorney-General looked at; he also considered article 25 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which New Zealand is a signatory and which relates to blanket restrictions on the right of prisoners to vote. So let us have another look at it. The Attorney-General is the chief law officer and primary legal adviser of the New Zealand Government. The Attorney-General has departmental responsibility for the Crown Law Office, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the Serious Fraud Office. It makes sense, then, that when the Attorney-General offers advice one would listen. Yet a list MP seemingly has more sway and more influence with the National Government, which is willing to follow that MP’s lead in establishing a partisan and biased approach to the broader issue of electoral democracy.

I listened to the speech of Mr Quinn this afternoon regarding the Māori Affairs Committee inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa. He expressed some very positive acknowledgments to our colleague Mr Harawira and the Māori Party for being in step with the key issues of the day. I was heartened by his kind words. So it defies belief that he can appreciate the value of inclusion and the importance of freedom of expression before the dinner break, then still proceed to bring this bill to its third reading after the dinner break.

As a lawyer I must admit that I take a passionate interest in the rule of law and the opportunities by which legislation can be enabling. I am committed to a legal system that is participatory, and that is just and fair. But if we were to listen to the views of Frances Joychild, a former law commissioner, we would see that this bill fails to meet the mark. In her presentation to the rule of law conference earlier this year, she told participants that this member’s bill should not be enacted. She said “It is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society as it is arbitrary, unfair, disproportionate and impairs the right to vote more than is reasonably necessary. It poses an unwarranted threat to the health, strength and cohesion of our democratic system of government upon which we all rely to live in harmony, peace and prosperity. It should not be enacted.”

The Māori Party is astonished that this bill can be supported as good policy, let alone as being worthy of entry into the statute book. We believe that the right to vote is exactly that—not a privilege or a luxury afforded to those citizens we deem as acceptable. We have some appreciation for the analysis raised by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1986, namely that punishment for a serious crime might properly involve further forfeiture of rights such as the right to vote. But the commission rejected any suggestion that such restrictions should be applied as a blanket ban on all prisoners. We do not support this bill, and we are extremely sad that at enactment deprivation of the precious right of voting will be another punishment levelled on people already bearing the costs of the punishment they were served during the court process. It is unjustifiable, it is arbitrary, and it is outright targeting of a sector of the population in a way that we cannot abide.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): The right to cast a free vote is a fundamental building block of a democracy. As playwright Tom Stoppard dryly observed, it is not the voting that is democracy; it is the counting. The right to live in a democracy and vote is a huge privilege, and the sanction of withdrawing the right of a man or woman to cast a vote at an election is a serious loss to a citizen.

A prison and a custodial sentence served therein have a number of functions. The prospect of a custodial sentence should ideally deter a potential miscreant from committing a crime. The period in custody serves to protect the community from further depredations from the guilty party. The sentence should offer an opportunity for rehabilitation, and this Government has recently doubled, to 1,000, the number of prisoners who are receiving drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and also help in numeracy and literacy. We would hope to further increase that number. Finally the custodial sentence and deprivation of liberty is a punishment of the criminal. I have mentioned before in the House the philosopher Isaiah Berlin. Berlin wrote of the positive conception of liberty: not “freedom from”, but “freedom to”. In prison, one loses many “freedoms to”. The freedom to vote is a fundamental part of an individual’s liberty—an individual’s “freedom to”. Its loss upon starting a term of imprisonment is consistent with the loss of other freedoms at that time.

From early days in New Zealand a prisoner was unable to register as an elector and therefore was unable to vote. When the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill is enacted, the law will revert back to what it was prior to the implementation of the Electoral Act 1993—that is, a convicted prisoner will have no right to vote. This right is restored upon a prisoner’s release. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is with great sadness that I rise in this third reading of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I want to pick up a point made by other speakers, particularly by Rahui Katene in what I thought was an excellent speech, about the fact that we are debating in this House a fundamental change to electoral law, and it is being done very glibly by this Government on the very day that a constitutional review is announced that has as its cornerstone the proposition that changes to the electoral law should be made by consensus. In fact, today the announced review is being criticised because it is too slow and too deliberative, and because it is making too much of an attempt to draw a consensus. Seeking consensus is, in fact, a very good thing to do when we change electoral law, because the right to vote is a fundamental part of our democracy. I tell Mr Quinn to look around the walls at the names of the places and the battles where New Zealanders died while defending the right to vote and defending our democracy.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: For prisoners?

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is the very point. We defend the right to vote of the people who challenge us the most. It is easy to defend the right to vote of all our friends sitting around here, but defending the right to vote of the people who challenge us in our communities is the gravest challenge of democracy.

Today we have had a constitutional review announced that puts at the centre the need to reach consensus about changing fundamental electoral law, yet we have a bill in front of us today that gives no good reason to change this law. No good reason has been provided by the National Government to change the law. If we are to change electoral law, we should do so deliberately and with thought about the consequences of the change for our democracy. Yet in this process by the National Government, we have seen almost no argument in favour of the bill. Where has Simon Power, the Minister of Justice, been in this debate? He has been absent from it. Where has Chris Finlayson been in this debate? The contribution we have had from Chris Finlayson is to tell us, through his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment, that this bill is wrong. He has said the change cannot be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is the very Act that provides that every New Zealand citizen who is over the age of 18 years has the right to vote. That is in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Therefore, when Mr Finlayson puts his assessment in front of us and says this bill cannot be justified, it is because the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act must “… be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” That test has not been met. In fact, the Attorney-General said the bill is completely inconsistent with that Act. It does not rationally link to the disenfranchisement that is the aim of the bill. The Attorney-General has been completely clear in his denunciation of this bill.

We now know, from listening to the ACT Party contribution, that even the ACT Party does not support this bill. Hilary Calvert gave us what was, frankly, a bizarre intervention earlier in this debate, but it meant that the ACT Party is being forced to support this bill as part of its coalition deal. It does not really support this bill. The Māori Party has clearly said it does not support this bill. But the National Government, without any representation from a senior Minister and without anyone actually justifying this bill, leaves us with Chris Finlayson’s statement that, fundamentally, the right to vote contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is being changed here via a member’s bill, on the very day that a constitutional review is announced that says we should change the Electoral Act only when there is a good reason to do so and when there is a process that provides for consensus.

But that issue has been part of the debate on this bill all the way through. The fact is that the Law and Order Committee did not allow the Ministry of Justice to be involved in the process. The fact is that this bill about electoral reform was sent to the Law and Order Committee. The fact is that consistently, that committee has failed to go through due process under its chair, Sandra Goudie, and that is precisely what happened with regard to this bill.

A hoax on the victims of crime is being perpetrated tonight. Nothing in this bill will make our communities safer. Community safety should be the aim of all criminal justice legislation that comes before this House; we should try to make our communities safer. Not one piece of evidence has been provided by the National Government that this measure will make our communities safer. The tragedy tonight was to listen to Paul Quinn stand and run through a series of crimes, one of which I happen to know quite a bit about. For him to somehow give the impression that this bill will stop those sorts of crimes from occurring, or that this bill will give any comfort to the families and the victims of those crimes, is appalling, because he knows that this bill will do nothing in that regard. This bill will not stop people from offending, and it will not give comfort to the victims of crime. Mr Quinn has perpetrated a hoax on them. By standing here tonight and running through the details of those crimes, he did a disservice to the families and friends of the people affected by those crimes. It is a shameful thing to come to this House and pretend that this legislation will do anything for the victims of those crimes or anything to make communities safer.

Mr Quinn and National know that they need to do far better in this House when it comes to criminal justice. If we are serious about solving the crimes that Mr Quinn brought up, and if he was actually serious about trying to stop those crimes, then the bill would be about investing in stopping crime before it starts and making sure that we do not send people to prison. People like Howard Broad have come out and said we have far too many people in our prisons. On this side of the House we acknowledge that is the case. We acknowledge that this House needs to do better in terms of addressing the causes of crime. We all need to do better in making sure that we focus more on rehabilitation and on reintegration. But this kind of petty, mean-spirited bill will do nothing to reduce crime. It will not make our communities safer, and it perpetrates a hoax on the victims of crime.

We have heard a lot tonight about the view that when prisoners go to prison, we are sending them there for punishment, rather than as a punishment. The punishment is the taking away of liberty.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: No—as a punishment.

GRANT ROBERTSON: No, Dr Mapp. We have heard consistently from members of the National Government that people are being sent to prison for punishment. The fact of the matter is that they are sent there as a punishment. Their liberty is taken away. In terms of those people who are sentenced for periods of 3 years or less in prison, we know that every single one of them will be back in our society, so what should our aim be when they go to prison? It should be to rehabilitate them and ensure that they can reintegrate into society, because they will be back with us. They will be our neighbours. We want them to continue to be part of society, and we want to make sure that when they come back into society, they are part of our communities.

Mr Quinn’s bill tonight does nothing to improve the safety of our communities. It does nothing to uphold our democracy. In fact, it is a shame on our democracy. It is simply a hoax. Mr Quinn is putting up a slogan in front of this House, and it is a shame that it will be passing through the House tonight.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): I was not going to take a call on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, until I heard the speech made by Mr Grant Robertson. The sophistry of that speech explains why that party is sitting over there. Those members have simply failed to understand New Zealand’s anger about crime and the lack of punishment for offences.

I was offended when I heard Mr Robertson look around this Chamber and refer to citizens of this nation who died for the right to vote. They did not serve their country or die to enable people to vote who have lost their liberty in this nation because they have offended against this society.

I say to Mr Robertson that there are consequences of crime. If someone is sentenced to jail, then that person loses the most fundamental of rights, which is the right to be free in one’s own society. It is surely logical and appropriate that for the time that someone in incarcerated—and only that period of time, I hasten to add, which is quite different from the United States, as Mr Robertson well knows—one also does not have the right to vote.

It seems that one of the points that Mr Robertson fails to understand is that imprisonment has a number of purposes. One of those purposes is punishment, and another is deterrence. If serial offenders—offenders who regularly go to jail—understand that one of the rights they lose is the right to vote, then that will add a lesson. It will be a lesson not just for those individuals but also for other people who offend that there are consequences for offending.

I also say to Mr Grant Robertson that it does no service to tell victims that punishment is only partial and that although offenders might be incarcerated, they still have the rights of any other free citizens, and one of those rights is to vote. It is offensive for that member to suggest to the victims of crime that there is an equality of rights, and to say that whether one is a victim or an offender in jail, why not let them both vote? After all, there is an equality of rights! Well, I think that misunderstands one of the fundamental consequences of imprisonment, one of which is the loss of the right to vote.

Mr Quinn compared New Zealand with other societies, including the United States. I say to members opposite that members on this side of the House would never go to the point of saying that people who have offended and been incarcerated should lose the right to vote for the balance of their natural life. That would be offensive to liberties. But during the period of time when those people are incarcerated, the right to vote is one thing that they lose. They regain it when they are released, when they regain the rights of full citizenship. One of the fundamental rights of citizenship is liberty, but it is conditional. It is conditional on not offending to the point where one is incarcerated.

I contrast the position of members on this side of the House with the position of Opposition members, which seems to indicate—going by the speech made by the previous member, Grant Robertson, in particular—a lack of understanding of why they are there and we are here. The reason is that we understand that one of the consequences of crime can be imprisonment, and one of the consequences of imprisonment is the loss of all rights—

Grant Robertson: All rights?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: —some rights, not all rights—that many other citizens enjoy.

I stand to support this bill because it is an appropriate response to those who have offended most deeply against our society, resulting in imprisonment.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): That speech made by Wayne Mapp was a totally intellectually and morally bankrupt contribution from a member of this Government. I have been keeping note on this piece of paper of all the arguments put forward by National members in favour of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. That is it there. It is a blank page. Not one argument has been put forward by National members to justify why this change is being made. Not one less crime will be committed because of this legislation. Not one less victim will be created in this country because of this legislation. This bill will do nothing to reduce the number of people we have in our prison cells.

Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague, but the member who is sponsoring this bill, Paul Quinn, is not in his own seat and he is interjecting in a most offensive way on the member who is on his feet.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): There are two limbs to the member’s point of order. One is in regard to changing one’s seat for the purpose of interjection. I do not think the member has done that. The member has sat in that seat for the whole period of the speech and he is regularly there. The second limb of the point of order was to do with interjections about haircuts. I have not had a haircut recently, and there are several other things I have not done. The member is quite out of court on that.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that interjections like that reflect on the intellectual rigour behind this bill. The most that Paul Quinn can come up with is to insult my haircut, rather than any kind of interjection responding to what I am saying or justifying the bill that he has put forward. He had 10 whole minutes in his speech at the very beginning of this debate in which to give us a single reason why the House should vote in favour of this bill, and he could not come up with one reason—not a single one. He could not come up with a single argument to justify this legislation.

What did we have from Wayne Mapp? Wayne Mapp said that we do not have enough punishment in this country. Actually, we have the second-highest incarceration rate in the developed world. The Commissioner of Police, of all people, has said that perhaps we should stop and think about that, and maybe wonder why we have the second-highest incarceration rate in the developed world. What happened? The National Government and its cheerleaders—like Garth McVicar, that total disgrace of a man, who has been totally discredited—poured scorn on Howard Broad, the Commissioner of Police, for raising a reasonable argument and for raising some real questions that need to be addressed.

We should be talking about why we have so many people in prison, not about what we are doing to punish them and take away their right to vote. Taking away the right to vote is not so much a punishment, at all; it is a deprivation of a right that should be universal, because we have a universal franchise in this country. By majority, the entire society gets a say in determining what laws result in people ending up in prison in the first place. We are saying that we will deprive those who end up in prison of that particular ability: to participate in that process and to have any say over the laws that govern what we as a society deem to be acceptable behaviour.

This Government is pushing this bill through on the slimmest of margins in this House—it will pass by two or three votes—on the very same day that it has been preaching the importance of having widespread bipartisan support when it comes to significant constitutional change. There is nothing more fundamental in constitutional change than depriving a group of citizens of the right to vote. They are still citizens.

We are not depriving them of the right to vote just when they go to jail; we are removing them from the electoral roll, which means that even when they are finally released from jail, they are still not guaranteed the right to vote unless they re-enrol. We are talking about some of the most marginalised people in society. When they are released from prison, do we really think that their first priority will be to trot down to the post shop to get back on the electoral roll? That probably will not happen. The reality is that if we remove prisoners from the electoral roll, the odds of their re-enrolling on the electoral roll in the future are very, very low. It is likely that we are ultimately depriving them of the ability to vote for ever. That is what this bill will do. If National members wanted to stop prisoners from voting just while they are in prison, they could pass a law that stopped them voting while they were in prison. This bill does not do that; it removes them from the electoral roll.

I will give credit where it is due, though. The bill that we are now debating in the third reading is a significant improvement on the bill that was reported back by Sandra Goudie’s Law and Order Committee. That bill did exactly the opposite of what it purported to do. It stated that it would remove the right for prisoners to vote, but what did it do? It gave the most violent offenders in this country the right to vote. I say to the Government that if it is going to do stupid things like that, and if it is going to pass these kinds of crazy laws, then it should at least send these bills to a select committee with a competent chairperson—maybe somebody like Chester Borrows. Maybe the Justice and Electoral Committee should have been responsible for debating a change to electoral law. Perhaps that would have been the logical thing to do.

Perhaps, for a justice bill, we could have had the Ministry of Justice provide some advice to the select committee, rather than having advice provided by the Department of Corrections, which is responsible for punishing people. Maybe having the experts from the Ministry of Justice provide some advice would have meant that we ended up with a bill that actually did what it purported to do, rather than a bill that did the opposite of what it purported to do, which is what Sandra Goudie, that maestro genius over there, sent back to this House. It was a bill that did the opposite of what it said it would do. That is what Sandra Goudie sent back to this House. It is no wonder that she had only about three sentences to say in favour of the bill when she spoke earlier, because she made such a hash of the select committee process.

It is such an embarrassment for the National Government that it is no wonder none of its members are speaking in favour of the bill. We have this blank piece of paper recording for all of history the contributions and the arguments put forward by National members in favour of depriving prisoners of the right to vote. It is totally outrageous.

The other thing that this bill does, which I think is one of the fundamental points of principle here, is reinforce the two-tier justice system we have in New Zealand. Some people go to prison for their criminal offending and some do not. We had an example earlier this year in the Dominion Post of a white-collar crook from the National Party who ripped off the taxpayer and got community service. He will keep his right to vote. On the other side of the page, we had a poor criminal who went to jail for doing something that was of no greater scale. That criminal lost the right to vote. The crook from the National Party who rips off the taxpayer by abusing their taxpayer-funded travel gets to keep his right—

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason that I am taking this point of order is that I think the member ought to reflect on the fact that we do not in this House comment on the actions of the judiciary. We actually respect the role of the judiciary in this House. We keep a separation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that that is correct, but on this particular occasion the member was not reflecting on a particular judgment. The member is quite within his rights to make comments about outcomes of cases. Otherwise, we would never be able to comment on those matters.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: He needs to be careful.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I do not need to be careful. I was on my feet speaking: if the member interjects, it is against me. I do not need to be careful about anything. I have ruled that the member has not crossed the line. If the member does not want to accept that ruling, he can make another challenge.

CHRIS HIPKINS: This bill reinforces inequities in our justice system—it reinforces inequities. For example, someone who is detained in prison for fewer than 3 years will lose their right to vote, but somebody who ends up on home detention will not lose their right to vote. So we have an inequity there.

Grant Robertson: Same crime.

CHRIS HIPKINS: For the same crime. Somebody who shows up to court and cannot produce a home to be detained at will go to jail and lose their right to vote. A rich person who has committed exactly the same crime and has a home to be detained in will—

Grant Robertson: Paid for by a good lawyer.

CHRIS HIPKINS: That person will pay for a good lawyer and will retain the right to vote. It will be unfair. It will not apply across the board. There will be different treatment for people depending on their ability to pay. Somebody’s right to vote under this bill will differ depending on their right to pay. That is the kind of inequity that this bill, put forward by the member Paul Quinn, will reinforce in the justice system. I do not think that is fair.

This is a bad bill. When it was reported back from the select committee, it did not do what it purported to do. In fact, it did exactly the opposite. It gave the right to vote to our most serious violent offenders. At least that anomaly has finally been fixed. But the problem with the bill is that it does not do a single thing to deal with the fundamental problem of why we have criminal offending in the first place. That is what this House should be turning its attention to, not punitive measures like this, and certainly not punitive measures that are being pushed through without the overwhelming support that a significant constitutional change to electoral law should gather.

National members have talked about this over and over again. We have heard it in the debate on the Electoral Finance Act. We have heard it today in their speeches about constitutional law reform. They have been saying that significant changes to our constitutional law should be made only when there is broad support for them. There is no broad support for this bill. It will pass by the narrowest of margins in this House. It was not part of the National’s pre-election manifesto. National mentioned nothing about it prior to the election.

The bill is significant. It does not get much more significant in terms of constitutional rights than depriving citizens of the right to vote, which is what this bill does. This is a bad bill that does not deal with the real issues of how we create fewer victims, how we get less criminal offending in the first place, and how we create a more equal society. Those are the debates that this Parliament should be focused on. We should not be focused on the punitive. We have spent far too much time trying to be tougher on crime than the person on the opposite side. We have had years and years of that and it has not got us very far. Let us take a step back—

Paul Quinn: We had 9 years of it and it went nowhere.

CHRIS HIPKINS: It was more than 9 years; it has been going on for decades, I say to Paul Quinn. It is time to take a step back and focus on dealing with the causes of crime.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): One could say that the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill exists to highlight the existence of the social contract, or the obligation, that undergirds a safe and civil society. It is fundamental that the social contract that undergirds our society is that individual freedoms are enjoyed in accordance with the commitment of its citizens to engage in their social responsibilities.

The vote is seen as that which enables citizens’ participation in choosing the Government that rules over them, but also the vote ultimately brings the highest level of accountability of that Government to the public, as we see election by election. So we agree that the vote ought to be enshrined in measures of protection that enable our system of government to remain free from the encumbrances of incompetence, incoherence, and failure. The vote is a safeguard of the institution of democracy, which offers the best opportunity of political freedom for all those people who live under its protection.

No person is truly free; we all live in regard to others. The law exists to arbitrate between the interests of individuals so that we can coexist for the best benefit of all. The social contract is critical for a safe and civil society. The notion of the social contract implies that people give up something to gain something. They give up some sovereignty to a Government or authority in order to receive the benefits of social order that comes through the rule of law. The social contract can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on the set of rules by which they are governed. It could be said that lawbreakers give up nothing, so something is taken from them. In simple terms, this bill is essentially saying that for a person to participate in the election of lawmakers, that person cannot be a lawbreaker. That is the social contract, the obligation.

Just as I close—

Chris Hipkins: Is that it?

JONATHAN YOUNG: No, no, I have more—I can do more than that. One must have a respect for, and a willing compliance to, that which people seek to participate in—that is, the establishing of, and living under, the law.

We take our electoral law seriously. In fact, we say that a person has to be of a certain age before they can participate in elections. Why? We have drawn a line to say that we judge that at 18 someone is of an age where their understanding and maturity enables them to participate in the election of lawmakers. This is not just a matter of exercising a rite of passage; it is a matter of embracing responsibilities. So as a society we have set limits. We are now shifting the line to recognise the obligation of responsible participation, not just the exercising of the right to participation. Thank you.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

In Committee

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The debate on this bill will be clause by clause.

Clause 1 Title

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): This will be the first of a number of contributions I plan to make on the bill this evening and in future sessions we will have debating it. It is interesting to start with the title clause. Obviously, in part by part debates we tend to do the title at the end, and we are sometimes then able to sum up some of the arguments that come forward. But I will attempt to do that now, and I will do so by working through a number of amendments to the title that I have put on the Table. The first amendment would be to say that rather than it being the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, the correct title should be the “Education (Removal of Student Choice) Amendment Bill”. One of the things that is perhaps not well understood, but which will be understood by one member tonight, and that is Mr Tau Henare, is what this bill actually amends. This bill amends a law passed by National—and Mr Henare is very familiar with when this law came into being—that means it is quite possible for students on a campus in New Zealand to choose whether their association will have compulsory or voluntary membership. Indeed, the Auckland University Students Association has chosen to become a voluntary student association. The Waikato Student Union chose to become a voluntary organisation, then chose to go back to being compulsory. It had the choice, and that is why I would entitle this bill the “Education (Removal of Student Choice) Amendment Bill”.

If 10 percent of students on a campus decide that there will be a referendum, then there will be a referendum on the nature of the membership of the students association. That is student choice. The ACT Party’s students on campus are called Student Choice. The notion of student choice is one that the ACT Party should be very familiar with. But this bill takes away student choice. It amends legislation that was not put forward by Labour, but which was actually put in place by the National Government. National knew, the last time that this legislation came up, that voluntary membership was not a workable thing and that it would cause too much damage to important student services on campus. It knew it was unworkable, and Mr Henare and others came up with a system by which student choice could be put in place through referenda if enough students wanted it. That was a democratic thing that would enable choice, but which still meant that the fundamental work of students associations could go on until such time as students made their decision that way. That is why I would call this bill the “Education (Removal of Student Choice) Amendment Bill”.

A number of other titles are in the Supplementary Order Paper I have put forward. Another title could be the “Education (Destruction of Student Advocacy) Amendment Bill” or the “Education (Destruction of Student Welfare) Amendment Bill”. They are two of the core elements of work that students associations have done on campus over many, many years. There is no doubt that this bill will lead to the destruction of student advocacy and of student welfare, but in particular of student advocacy. The promoter of the bill has been at pains to find every way possible to ensure that it will not be possible for a university or polytechnic to contract with a students association for advocacy-type services, or for welfare-type services if they are delivered via what is seen as a political body. That is what the promoter is trying to avoid here. So the title of this bill could easily be the “Education (Destruction of Student Advocacy) Bill” or the “Education (Destruction of Student Welfare) Bill”.

We actually have empirical evidence for such a title because that is what happened in Australia. It is the very thing that happened when this kind of legislation was passed into law in Australia. Seventy-two percent of associations had a significant or total reduction in the advocacy or welfare services they provided. That advocacy is vitally important. During the select committee process the Education and Science Committee heard from submitters who would agree with such a title. One student from Waikato University gave us a particularly interesting submission. He said that he was not a political person but he noted that when his flat burnt down and the flat owner’s insurance company was forcing him and his flatmates out of their flat in Hamilton, it was the Waikato Student Union’s intervention—its advocacy—that ensured that those students could stay in their flat. It effectively ensured that those students could continue studying at Waikato University. That example is replicated right across New Zealand in polytechnics and universities over many years: the advocacy and welfare work done by students associations is the reason that students can continue to study. Those services are provided by students, for students, under the current model.

It may well be that someone on the other side will say that those services will continue to be provided because the institution will provide them, but actually having students provide them has a number of benefits. It has the benefit of being incredibly cost-effective. We also heard about that, and in later contributions I will come back to the value of the labour provided. That is a reason for calling this bill the “Education (Destruction of Student Welfare) Bill”. The work that students do will now be taken away because those associations will not have the resources or the ability to provide those kinds of quality services, and if they are able to provide them they will be beholden to the institution, which may or may not like the idea of significant student advocacy within a students association, and that students control what they do.

Another title could be the “Education (Destruction of Student Clubs) Amendment Bill”. Every time we see a Commonwealth Games athlete or an Olympic Games athlete from New Zealand and we look at their success—and we had this at the recent Commonwealth Games—we can ask ourselves “Did that person go to a university in New Zealand?”. When we watched the World Rowing Championships, a number of the successful rowers for New Zealand had come through university sports clubs that are part of students associations and supported by those associations. Our success as New Zealanders is undermined by this kind of bill, so the title could well be the “Education (Destruction of Student Clubs) Bill”, because student clubs will not survive in the form they are now if students associations do not have the resources they have now. Those resources have meant the difference between some of those sports clubs being able to continue, and not continue. Again, we heard evidence from cultural and sporting clubs right across New Zealand saying that this bill would be fundamentally damaging to them and to the people who are part of their clubs and their organisations. So that could be an appropriate title.

But the downgrading of students associations—which gives us another potential title, the “Education (Downgrading of Students Associations) Amendment Bill”—caused by this bill has no justification other than an ideological one. At every stage of the submission process, every institution—and I am not referring to the students associations—that came before the select committee said “Please don’t pass this bill.” The actual institutions came before us and said “Don’t do this, because we value the work that students associations do. We value their independence. We want them to be part of the campus experience.” Quite frankly, those institutions do not want to take on a number of the tasks those students associations do at the moment.

Another title for this bill could easily be the “Education (Don’t Let the Vice-Chancellor Choose the Music for Orientation) Amendment Bill”. There is the rub: orientation and other sorts of activities will now be turned over to the institutions and it will be for them to decide what they can afford in terms of student services. The vice-chancellor and others will decide which things they will contract the students association for, where they bother to do so. In a university context it may well be that associations will survive in that contractual framework. They will not survive in many of the polytechnics.

So it easily also could be called the Education (Destruction of Polytechnic Students Associations) Amendment Bill. Those students associations probably will not be contracted by their institution, because they are often small, they have not had the historical basis, and they do not have their own asset base that perhaps university students associations do. These kinds of titles are more appropriate titles than the glib “freedom of association” label, because there already is freedom of association; we know that. This is a term that has simply been invented by the promoter of this bill, and the title should be changed.

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT): I rise to speak to this part of the proceedings with great pride. There is nothing glib—as the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, said—about freedom of association. In fact, the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is very aptly named. We frequently debate in this Committee the fact that bill titles do not sum up what a bill is about, but this one certainly does.

It is about a principle. It is about a principle that is very dear to the hearts of New Zealanders. That principle is freedom. Freedom of association is something that every sector of society enjoys except for the student population in New Zealand. There has been a removal of choice in years gone by from the student populations; this bill is not the remover of choice, as the previous speaker said. The current situation is one of compulsion.

If one listened carefully to Mr Robertson one would think that he was signalling that the sky would fall the moment that students were really allowed to choose whether they wanted to belong to a student association. That will not happen. The sky did not fall in 1993 when workplaces and workers in this country were given the choice of whether they wanted to belong to a union. We are removing compulsion from the only sector of society that is subject to it now. Students will be able to choose whether they want to belong to an association. Freedom of association is absolutely what this bill is about.

I received an email today. It is relevant because the previous speaker also said, or tried to indicate, that every student association in the country was in favour of retaining the status quo. That is not the case. This email was from a president of a students association. It stated: “The reason I am sending this message is I am not the only student president that believes in voluntary student membership.” It stated: “I have spoken to student associations and unions that are part of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations and are against VSM. To me, some of them are being loyal to NZUSA as far as their political careers are concerned.” That comes to the nub of this bill, too. “Believe me”—this president said—“there are student bodies that are in full support of this bill. There are a number of them, and they have been silent because they came under pressure from the NZUSA.”

We cannot predict what might or might not happen when this bill comes into being—and it will, because freedom is hard fought and students believe in it. When students protested last week, they managed to number 20, and 15 of those were employees of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations. Five of them—five of them—were students.

It was very disappointing to hear from the previous speaker, someone who has been heavily involved in students associations, that he thinks so little of students associations that he does not think that they will survive. The smart students associations, the ones that are not opposed to voluntary student membership, are already getting on and planning for a future where they know they will be accountable, where they know that transparency is imperative, and where they know that they will have to communicate with the student body and ensure that they are providing students with services that they want. That is true freedom, and that is what this Government will deliver to students.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. I ask for some advice from you. I noticed that through the speech of the member in charge of the bill she was quoting from documents. I am aware that Ministers have to table documents they quote from if asked. I wonder whether a member in charge of a bill is subject to the same requirement, or could we at least ask that she table them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Good question. The answer is negative.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): That was a very interesting contribution from Heather Roy, who said she would prove to us that a president of a students association had a different view from ours, but who then would not name the students association that the person was from. She read out an email, which I would suggest was possibly typewritten by herself. She got out a bit of paper, she read out a bunch of statements, and she said the email was from a students association, but she would not tell us which one. Well, that was big and brave from that member, but, look, that really does not cut it.

I will speak on the title of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Even though I know that the member in charge of the bill strayed quite significantly from the title, she did remind me of why the title is pretty important to the debate. The title talks about “freedom of association”. But she reminded me of the last time that such a glib phrase was used. Do members remember Bill Birch talking about freedom of choice, and the Employment Contracts Act? That is where it all comes from. What freedom did the women workers in rest homes have under the Employment Contracts Act? They had the freedom to lose their penal rate against their will, to work 24/7, and not to be paid one dollar different on Saturdays and Sundays from what they were on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. That is what people need to understand about bills that use the word “freedom” in their title. It is always a code for more restrictions, and more restrictions on those at the bottom of the heap—it is always a code for that.

In particular, in this bill it is the code for taking away freedom. We know that currently the situation, as my colleague Grant Robertson said, is that students collectively can decide whether to have compulsory student union membership or voluntary student union membership. They can decide that now. This bill makes it compulsory to become voluntary. It takes that out of the students’ hands; it makes it compulsory to become voluntary. The example that I think is really important here is one from my town in Hamilton, at Waikato University. Its students association actually did, under the current legislation—the Act that the member is seeking to amend—decide to go voluntary. In the space of 18 months it nearly bankrupted itself. Not only did it nearly bankrupt itself, but it lost assets that it will never ever get back. It lost its student radio station. The union sold the radio station off to try to keep itself going, and it will never ever get that back. But because of the current legislation, that union had the right to decide that it had made a mistake and needed to go back to compulsory union membership. It voluntarily went back to compulsory union membership, because it realised that it had made a mistake. It had made a mistake and it had freedom of association. What has been taken away from that union is all of its assets, by going down the wrong path. But it realised it had made that mistake, and it came back and said it wanted membership to be compulsory. Yes, that union was able to make that decision. It has freedom of association already.

So we do not need an amendment bill that has a title with “freedom of association” in it, because that is already available to students. But it is not available in a way that makes it compulsory for them to have voluntary student union membership, so that they can go down the tubes like the Waikato students union almost did, and decades later still not recover their position. But perhaps that is what the Government wants. Perhaps exactly the type of freedom of association—the words in the title of this bill—that the Government wants is actually to get rid of student advocacy: to get rid of the student voice on those campuses. Once the Government gets rid of the student voice on those campuses, can members guess who is next? The Government has already had a go at early childhood education; tertiary education will be the next one if it can get rid of the student voice.

That is why I think the title of this bill should be the “Education (Get Rid of the Student Voice So We Can Do Whatever We Want to in Government) Amendment Bill”. I think that would be a much more suitable title for this bill, because that is what is behind it. It could also be called the “Education (The Tail Starting to Wag the Dog Again) Amendment Bill”. Was it not interesting that National, the minute that the ACT Party got into trouble, changed its mind on this bill?

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): As we are debating the title of this bill, I think it could be called the “Increased User-Pays for Students Bill”. In reality, if we take all of the ideological argument out of the bill, which I will get into in a moment, the bill will significantly increase costs to a number of students.

At the moment a lot of services are provided by students associations, using a relatively modest fee taken from all students. They are provided universally and are universally available to all students. Under this bill students associations will not have the ability to do that. Students will have to pay individually for a lot of the services currently provided by students associations.

The other point is that in some cases universities may well choose to pick up and provide those services, if the students association is no longer able to do that. Universities may well decide that they will provide some of those services, but they will not be able to do so at the cost that current students associations can do it. Students associations have a huge amount of voluntary labour involved with them, and therefore they are able to provide services a lot more cheaply than universities can. That is one of the reasons why we should call this bill the “Education (Increase in User-Pays for Students) Bill”. I know that for a fact, because back in 1999 when we had a referendum on whether membership of the students association at Victoria University should be voluntary or compulsory, overwhelmingly students voted to retain the compulsory membership element.

The university did have a contingency plan in place, should students have voted for voluntary membership. It basically involved charging students an additional levy that would replace the students association levy. So students would be no better off financially; in fact they would pay more. The university knew that it could not deliver the same services the students association delivered at the same cost. The university knew it would end up having to pay significantly more, and therefore it was going to pass that cost on to students, and students were going to pay more.

I understand that some pretty compelling evidence was provided to the select committee that argued just that—that this bill will not decrease costs to students. It will increase costs to students. PricewaterhouseCoopers, I believe, gave evidence to the select committee that suggested that would be the case. That is one of the reasons why this bill could be called the “Education (Increase in User-pays for Students) Amendment Bill”.

It could also be called the “Abolition of Campus Culture Amendment Bill”, because students associations deliver a huge amount in terms of the culture of campuses, not just at universities but also at polytechnics. In fact, at some of the smaller polytechnics they have a critical role in delivering cultural activities and cultural services to students and contributing to the vibrancy of tertiary education in this country. I think it will be a real shame to see some of those things go by the wayside if this bill is passed.

There are other titles that have been suggested concerning the removal of choice for students, which is inherent in this bill. Students will not get to choose whether they want to keep the system compulsory or voluntary, as they did in 1999, under what I think was a very good compromise worked out by Tau Henare, Deborah Morris, and other colleagues in the then New Zealand First Party. Students will not get that choice this time around. I am disappointed, because I think it would be good to see them given that choice. I would support a referendum, and Labour has an amendment in that frame. The 1999 referendum forced students associations to sharpen up their acts.

Yes, I do think some of them need to sharpen up their act. Some of the things that have gone on at my old students association at Victoria University in the last few years are totally unjustifiable. I think the accountability back to students that would be required by a referendum that gave students the choice of whether to continue with compulsory membership or to have voluntary membership would go some way to addressing that. We sharpened up our act an awful lot when we knew that students were going to be voting on whether they would keep the students association membership compulsory or get rid of it. I think some of the students associations around the country could use that same discipline at the moment. Unfortunately, that choice, that opportunity, is being removed from them. That is one of the reasons why this bill could be called the “Education (Removal of Choice) Amendment Bill”.

There are some other slightly more cynical titles that I can come up with. The bill could be called the “Be Nice to Heather Roy Bill”. Up until she lost her job as a Minister, the National Government was going to vote against this bill. Heather Roy then lost her job as a Minister, and the Government decided it would vote in favour of her bill. There is nothing wrong with being nice to Heather Roy. I happen to think Heather Roy is quite a nice person. But I do think it is ironic that National members suddenly decided they would support this bill in order to be nice to Heather and to make Heather feel warm and fuzzy.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Mr Chairman, you do not need to sound quite so disappointed at the prospect of calling me. I promise that I will make it worthwhile. [Interruption] This had better not be coming off my time.

I was interested in the comments made by the member in the chair, Heather Roy, that the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is a matter of principle for the ACT Party and National—that this is a matter of principle. I suspect that an alternative title for this bill might be the “Education (Freedom of Association (Are You Kidding Me?)) Amendment Bill”. We just sat through a debate on Paul Quinn’s terrible legislation, his embarrassing legislation, which makes us an international joke. The report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was absolutely against it. The member in the chair said one of the reasons we should support this bill is that it is contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The member Hillary Calvert gave one of the most bizarre speeches I have ever heard. She said something about one of those clowns that has the ping-pong ball in its mouth, and that she did not like this bill, but that ACT has to support it because it is a National Government bill.

I am talking about the “Education (Freedom of Association (Are You Kidding Me?)) Amendment Bill”. The member Heather Roy said this bill is a matter of principle; this is the title clause, and it is a matter of principle. Yet the ACT Party voted in favour of a previous piece of legislation that the same principle could be applied to, even though that party’s own members said they did not support it. I say to the member in the chair that when she lectures members on this side of the Chamber on principle, she might want to look a little closer to home on some of those issues.

I think the next possible title, and a more appropriate title, for the bill would be the “Education (Freedom of Association (We Can’t Get 10 Percent Support for This to Get a Referendum, so We Will Make Parliament Intervene)) Amendment Bill”. Let us be clear; that is what happened. If students associations were such a big issue at the moment, then the people who think students should have voluntary membership could get 10 percent of the student membership to say they want a referendum, and it would happen. They cannot do that—they cannot do it. That was Tau Henare’s amendment, and I think it is fair. But they could not do it. The “2 Percent Party” could not get 10 percent support to force a referendum, so it is making Parliament intervene. How ridiculous is that? I say to the member in the chair that if she truly believes that this is something that is good for students, she should go on to the campuses of New Zealand—

Hon Heather Roy: I have been.

MOANA MACKEY: And the member lost. That is why we are in the House debating this bill. If Heather Roy had 10 percent support—not 50 percent support, not 25 percent support, but 10 percent support—there would be referenda around the country on this issue. She cannot do it. She cannot even get 10 percent support, so Parliament has to intervene. How ridiculous is that?

Hon Maurice Williamson: They won’t be barred from joining. They can join.

MOANA MACKEY: Oh, I have woken up Maurice Williamson. I have woken the sleeping giant! This is incredible.

Grant Robertson: You did say you would make it worthwhile.

MOANA MACKEY: I did say I would make it worthwhile, and I have delivered. Maurice Williamson has woken up. He is agitated. He should get on to his feet and take a call. He should not sit there like a dried arrangement. He should get on his feet, take a call, and have the courage of his convictions.

Another title for this bill could be the “Education (Freedom of Association (Another National Party Broken Promise)) Amendment Bill”. In the last election campaign National MP Paul Hutchison went to the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations conference as National’s representative. What did he say when he was asked about students association membership? He said National would not change the status quo. He promised that National would not change the status quo. The students associations took that at its word and, apparently, as we have found out with a lot of other things, that means nothing.

Here is another broken promise. At least the ACT Party had the courage of its convictions to campaign on this issue. The National Party promised students associations that it would not pass legislation that changed the status of students associations, so this is another broken promise from the National Government.

Another possible title, which I think would be far more appropriate than the current one, is the “Education (Freedom of Association (How Dare You Vote in Favour of Compulsory Student Membership)) Amendment Bill”. Waikato University went voluntary and it did not work. It decimated the Waikato students association.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. I was in my room, and I was moved to come down to the House, in support of students across the country, to talk about the title of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This bill could be called the “Education (Massage the Coalition Partner) Bill”. It could also be called the “Send a Very Silly Measure Bill”, or the “Freedom for the Privileged Student Bill”.

I sat on the Education and Science Committee until Gareth Hughes took over, upon coming to Parliament and becoming our member who is closest to being a student. I sat and listened to the submissions, and they touched on a portfolio for which I am responsible, which is the issue of disability. A number of submitters came forward and talked about the value of the students associations as advocates for the most vulnerable students in the universities. Yes, university is fine if someone is totally able-bodied, well-heeled, and confident, was raised speaking the English language from the word go, and understands how institutions work. It is fine for people like that; in fact, it is a fantastic environment. But if someone happens to be vulnerable in any way, university can be a very vulnerable and daunting experience.

One of the things that the groups who made submissions on the bill told us was that vulnerable people need advocacy. They need somebody to stand up to the university at times and speak for them when nobody else understands their issues. That advocacy is what we will lose. I know that students these days are not only highly stressed by their debt burden but also stressed by an environment that, for some of them, does not recognise their needs. That is why advocacy is always important. I do not expect the ACT Party to understand that, because it has an interesting fantasy world of freedom and choice. It always fantasises about the individual and believes that the survival of the fittest model will really work for everybody, even though it has failed again and again. This legislation is about to reintroduce failure into universities for many people. We will lose the advocacy for vulnerable people, such as those with disabilities, who have difficulty on campus. Those submitters spoke highly of their student unions as advocates. The other people who spoke to us were the Pacific and Māori groups, who are, again, often marginalised inside Pākehā universities.

Of course, some of the individuals who spoke in favour the bill were not from those groups. They were not speaking for groups at all. Most of them spoke in terms of “me”, arguing: “It is OK for me, because that is the world is about—me. It is all right for me to come into a system, get what I want from it, not pay for it, not expect to be part of the collective, and not care about the disabled students, the Māori and Pacific groups, or the other groups of ethnic minorities in the university. That is OK, because I am OK.” That is what the issue is about for some people. But the tradition in the universities, through the students associations, has been to look after the more vulnerable and provide things that they would not otherwise get. We will lose those things.

One of the arguments put up by some submitters—and the ACT Party put this up as well—was that if people really wanted those services, they could pay for them. They argued it was about freedom and choice. But freedom and choice means that those who can pay for services will pay for them, and those who cannot will go without. That is the model we will perpetuate if this bill is passed tonight. If students will have to pay for every individual service that those at university now have created for themselves, and will have to find a way to do so on top of paying for everything else, we will make students who are already vulnerable miss out. But for the submitters who wanted membership to be voluntary that does not matter, because that is freedom and choice, and “I’m all right, Jack.” That is the philosophy of choice.

Choice is an Orwellian word, and this bill has an Orwellian title. It is titled in a way that George Orwell would really relate to, because it states the opposite of what it means. It is the “Some Are More Equal and Have More Choices Than Others at University Bill”. We should call it that, because that is what it is about. That is fine for those of us who can pay for everything that we have, but if all students pay a tiny amount for a student fee, they may be able to get a student advocate or have a club that they can afford to participate in. But, no, those services will be only for those who can afford to pay for them.

The Green Party has been consistent in its opposition to this bill, because we want to see those clubs and advocates supported in the universities. Many students who were not particularly politicised came and said they needed to have the services for practical reasons, and they will lose them.

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): I think the title of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill should be “Another Waste of Time and Energy Bill”. The reason is that as an educator of some 20 years, every time an education bill is brought to the House, the first thing I do is look through it to see exactly where, in the bill, it has some suggestions that will help students to learn, to achieve, to pass their papers, to earn degrees, and to get qualifications. There is nothing whatsoever in this bill that will help one single student to learn a single thing; rather, everything in this bill will jeopardise students from learning, and jeopardise all the support that is provided for students by students associations.

For example, I ask who will take over the welfare of students, those students who might be a bit hard up financially, and need to go somewhere to get a bit of help from services such as food banks. What about legal help? When students need legal help for whatever reason, where will they go for it? I remember that when my sister was at Waikato University, she happened to be in a pub under age, and she needed some help from somebody to help her get through that situation. Who would help her if those services are jeopardised? So I believe that the title of this bill should be the “Waste of Time and Energy (Education) Amendment Bill”.

The bill could also be called the “Let’s Focus on the Wrong Stuff Bill”, because this is the wrong stuff to be focusing on in terms of helping students to learn and helping students to gain their qualifications. Regardless of whether students are allowed to join a students association, it will not help them to pass. In fact, they would get more help if they were part of a students association, because they would have all that support behind them. So this bill could also be called the “Let’s Just Whip the Support Out From Under the Feet of Students Bill”, because that is exactly what it does. Like I said, it jeopardises—it does not take away—all those services that students may avail themselves of.

We just need to look over at Australia and what happened when the voluntary student membership bill was passed by the Australian Government. Students associations there collapsed, basically. They collapsed, effectively, or had their services drastically reduced. Basically, the bill implemented a user-pays system. Of course, we know that tertiary students are not exactly the most well-off people on earth, so their ability to access services was jeopardised because of the user-pays system.

Tertiary institutions over in Australia had taken over services and assets previously owned and operated by students. This resulted in unpopular decisions being made. Elite sports teams, for example, were being funded instead of social sports teams. Of course, social sports teams play a big part in the life of tertiary institutions. When I was at teachers college, we had sports tournaments and competitions against other teachers colleges. What is wrong with that sort of thing? Students actually need to have a life outside of doing all their studying. Part of that whole social side of tertiary institutions actually helps students get through university as well, when it comes down to the hard graft. If students are going to be studying all the time, they need a bit of time out to do the social side of things.

Also, it was noted over in Australia that more than 1,000 jobs were lost in the student services area. Well, that is ridiculous. In this time of recession, when people are looking for jobs, this bill may jeopardise more jobs. We do not need that in New Zealand. We certainly cannot rely on the cycleway, which we have heard so much about from the Government. This bill reminds me of drivers: there are drivers who are insured, there are drivers who are not insured, and there are drivers who wish they were insured when they have an accident.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The title of this bill is Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is probably one of the more misleading titles that I have seen on a bill, and there are a number of alternatives that we could put up.

It just occurred to me that the first time I met the Minister in the chair—

Hon Ruth Dyson: She’s not a Minister any more.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry, the former Minister, the current member in the chair. The first time we met was at Massey University’s clubs day, an event organised by the students association. I was a candidate for the Labour Party and Heather Roy was an MP. That event was organised by a students association that was completely aware of what its funding was going to be for that year, so it could organise and plan fantastic events like that clubs day, which was extremely well attended.

Hon Heather Roy: The hula hoop!

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: We hula hooped together; that is absolutely correct.

Speaking about alternative titles for this bill, I think the most obvious one is the “Education (Ignore Tertiary Students) Amendment Bill”, not least because of the submissions that came to the Education and Science Committee—close to 5,000 submissions came to the select committee, and 98 percent of them were opposed to this bill—and also because the genesis of the bill is absolutely undetectable. It is impossible to know where the bill came from. Where were all the petitions? Where were the protests? Where were the letters to all members of Parliament begging us to change the legislation because students were so put down by the current legislation, by the status quo? They were not there. The bill is not responding to something that students have asked for, and it is not responding to something that students need. Therefore, the title of the bill should be the “Education (Ignore Tertiary Students) Amendment Bill”, because there is no need for the bill—no need.

In fact, the evidence tells us that students are very, very satisfied with the status quo. Auckland University students had a referendum and they changed to voluntary membership of the students association. That seems to be going OK for them; they are quite happy. Waikato University students had a referendum and they changed to voluntary membership. That did not work for them very well. They had a referendum again, they went back to compulsory membership, and it seems to be working for them quite well. Massey University students had a referendum, and the students there overwhelmingly voted in favour of a universal students association. Interestingly, the extramural students overwhelmingly voted in favour. One might think, superficially, that they would get the least out of being members of a students association, but they saw the value to them of their students association being universal. There is no call for this bill. This bill should be called the “Education (Ignore Tertiary Students) Amendment Bill”.

Another very appropriate name for this bill would be the “Education (Increased Student Fees) Amendment Bill”. It is as simple as that, really. It is obvious. It was explained to the select committee and we have heard it from thousands of students and from students associations across the country. The only students association we have not heard it from is the made-up one that seems to exist only in Heather Roy’s email in-box; that email originated from her own email system, I should imagine. The real students associations, and the real students, are telling us that this bill will increase fees. The tertiary institutes themselves are telling us that this bill will increase fees. They will have to step in, they will have to take over the student services, and they simply will not be able to do that at the rate that the students associations are currently able to do. The students associations are able to rely on voluntary labour; they are able to rely on a whole range of things that enable them to keep their costs down. The universities and the polytechnics will not be able to do the same thing. Therefore, the actual, practical outcome of this bill will be an increase in student fees.

But the bill goes one step further than that, because the other thing it does is silence the student voice, particularly the student voice on university and polytechnic councils. That student voice is listened to very carefully by those councils, and it is a force to keep student fees down, because when the councils are setting those fees they have to listen to those students. They have to listen to students who come from a representative body, who are trained in being good advocates for their members, and who are able to advocate to those councils that they keep the fees within a reasonable limit. This bill will gut those student services, and will completely silence that student voice. That is another reason we will see student fees going up and up.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 64

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

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit “Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Act 2009” and substitute “Education (Removal of Student Choice) Amendment Act 2010”.

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Noes 64

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): There are seven other amendments in the name of Grant Robertson. In accordance with Speaker’s Ruling 112/4, they are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

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

Ayes 64

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

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I was on the Education and Science Committee at the time that the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill was first being heard. I travelled around the country and listened to the submissions on the bill. It is simply a matter of fact that 98 percent of the nearly 5,000 submissions on the bill—4,800 submissions—were opposed to it. The date of commencement of this legislation, which is the clause that we are looking at, at the moment, really is a clause that could be endlessly amended, and my colleague Grant Robertson has amendments to that effect. The truth of the matter is that most of the people, the vast majority, who submitted on this bill did not want this legislation to commence at all on any date—not on 1 January 2012, as in the bill, or on any other date at all. It does not matter which date is in this bill, because the majority of people did not want this legislation to commence.

I want to explore that for a moment, because we have just been having the debate about the title and the fact that it is the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Not only is that a complete misnomer but the date on which this legislation is to commence becomes null and void in the light of the very strong submissions opposing this bill. The question that arises is why anybody would want to support clause 2 when nobody wanted the bill in the first place, with the exception of the ACT Party and a couple of submitters who were self-confessed members of the ACT Party. The only people who got up to support the commencement of this legislation are signed-up members of the ACT Party. That is not sufficient to justify National’s capitulation on this bill, which on 1 January 2012 does away with legislation that National itself was responsible for and that was working perfectly adequately.

I will just touch on the issue of freedom of association. The date of commencement will be 1 January 2012 if this bill passes, and National does not reconsider its position and find some fortitude around this issue. That will be a date on which the freedom of association can be marked as having been undermined in this country, not enhanced. The freedom of association is a freedom, and a principled freedom, that many people have fought for and died for around the world over centuries. The freedom of association is something that exists as a positive right in the environment where association is allowed. The freedom to associate is an active right.

If this legislation commences on 1 January 2012, it will provide an environment where freedom of association is not possible.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Why?

Hon MARYAN STREET: I will tell that member why. Students associations exist because of the economies of scale. Advocacy services, counselling services, and all of the other recreational services will not exist if this legislation comes into force on 1 January 2012. If that happens on that date, then this legislation will deprive people of the right to associate. People who need, for example, independent advocates in a university or polytechnic situation will have to pay for them. People will have to pay for the services of a lawyer or an advocate, and that will cost them a great deal more than it costs to be enrolled and enlisted in a students association now.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.