Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Ministers—Confidence

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: Why does he regard a man described by ACT Party leader, Don Brash, as “toxic” and “tarnished” as a man suitable to be in his ministry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because he has done an outstanding job of managing local government. To be perfectly honest, from the comments I hear in the gym from Labour Party members, that is a lot kinder than the way they talk about Phil Goff.

Hon Phil Goff: Yeah, right! Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I have called the honourable Leader of the Opposition and I want to hear his question.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister say a week ago that Rodney Hide would keep his ministerial post if rolled as ACT leader, then say on Monday that he would have no problem if ACT withdrew from its ministerial positions, and then say that he was happy for Rodney Hide to continue as a Minister despite his being rolled as leader? Who is actually making these decisions and who is pulling the strings?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not sure that the first statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is correct.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could offer to table—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table the documents on which those quotes were based. They are, of course—

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition must identify the document.

Hon Phil Goff: It is from the daily newspapers—

Mr SPEAKER: We will not carry on like this. Members have let off a bit of steam here, but we do not table things from newspapers. The honourable member is perfectly entitled, though, to ask a further supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday and today have highlighted a problem that we are getting into, because we now have the Prime Minister denying reports—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, he cannot say—

Mr SPEAKER: And there will be no interjection while I am on my feet. The member knows that that is not an issue of order. The Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to deny matters. He can be questioned further on those denials. He leaves himself open to questioning, but that is absolutely within his rights within the Standing Orders.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that is right when it is a matter of fact, opinion, or misreporting, but when something is printed—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now starting to argue with the Chair. He cannot do that. [Interruption] There will not be any comment from my right. This is question time. Members ask questions and Ministers answer them. The Prime Minister disputed a supposed fact contained in the question asked. A Minister is entitled to do that, and that is why we have further supplementary questions, to dig further into that specific aspect if the member wishes to do so.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a question for you. Given that the Prime Minister, as you have rightly said—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Excuse me, I have a question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. Members do not have questions for the Speaker. Under points of order, they raise issues of order in this House. If the member has an issue of order, I want to hear it very quickly.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will rephrase my language. You have said that the Prime Minister has a right to refute—sure. But how does a member then defend his own honour and his own word when you have denied him the right to produce the evidence, which may be in the form of a press statement? You say that he must chew up his own supplementary questions in order to defend his own honour and his own word.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. We are not getting anywhere here. The whole idea of supplementary questions is to enable members to dig into the answers given. That is the whole idea of supplementary questions. If the Prime Minister has answered incorrectly, it is a wonderful opportunity for the honourable Leader of the Opposition to dig into that, to put more heat on the Prime Minister, and to test him further on the accuracy of his answer. That is what question time is all about.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the Prime Minister say from London, as quoted on the New Zealand Herald website, that ACT matters are for the party, but add that Mr Hide would keep his ministerial posts if he were rolled as ACT leader; and, if he did say that, why did he just deny it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Hon Phil Goff: Is it appropriate for decisions on who serves in the ministry that he heads to be made by a man who is not even in Parliament?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Maybe it is important for the education of the Leader of the Opposition to understand the process. If somebody is going to serve in the ministry, then they have to enjoy my confidence, but one of the evolving tests and conventions that we now have for our supply partners is that we also take guidance from them about whom they want. In this case, if there was not a marriage of those two ideas, it would not be acceptable. I have made it clear that in the case of Roger Douglas it would not have been acceptable. In the case of Mr Hide, Mr Boscawen, or Heather Roy it would have been acceptable.

Hon Phil Goff: Was the decision to dump the 2025 Taskforce a decision that should have been announced by him as Prime Minister rather than by Dr Brash, and did he authorise Dr Brash to make that announcement?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not authorise anything that Dr Brash says. That is a matter for him. In terms of the earlier one, I think my comments were reported a few weeks ago that I thought the 2025 Taskforce had run its course, just as Mr Goff’s leadership has run its course.

Hon Phil Goff: If Dr Brash is an extremist, as the Prime Minister has labelled him, why does he not rule him out of occupying any future ministerial position in a Government led by him?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The point I have made is that ACT members hold some extreme views, which is quite within their rights, and they are entitled to do so. That does not rule them out of being in a potential Government with National.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister yesterday hold the signing of his new confidence and supply agreement with Dr Brash in secret, refusing to allow the media to participate in the occasion?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It was not in secret. I told the media at my post-Cabinet press conference, and I confirmed the time on my way to caucus. What is a secret is the list of people who are plotting against Phil Goff, as we know—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Which National backbenchers cannot see that I am on my feet? That is enough of that. The Prime Minister knows he was stretching my patience, and he should not do that. That question did not deserve that unfair final comment. I ask the Prime Minister not to do that further, during this question time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was the Prime Minister advised by Steven Joyce of his role in engaging Simon Lusk for the Brash coup; if so, did he tell Bill English?

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Rt Hon Prime Minister, in so far as he has any responsibility for that.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but can I advise Labour Party members that they need someone like Simon Lusk as they certainly need a coup, the way they are going.

John Boscawen: How can he have any confidence in any of his Ministers, when the Government set the goal of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025 and he has simply widened it and disbanded the 2025 task force, to avoid further embarrassment?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I enjoy confidence in all my Ministers. I want to thank the member for his contribution as a Minister, and say that I continue to enjoy the confidence of the man sitting behind him. Putting that all to one side, if one were to look at the facts, in real after-tax terms the wage gap with Australia has closed. I think the Government can take quite some congratulations for that.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation—Petroleum Exploration Permit

2. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: What emergency response, safety, and environmental protection provisions, if any, were included in the permit granted to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation to undertake deep-water oil exploration and drilling in the Canterbury Basin?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Under the permit granted to Anadarko, it may drill one exploratory well. Before it does so, however, it must develop a discharge management plan that must be approved by the director of Maritime New Zealand.

Metiria Turei: Who will have responsibility for containment and clean-up if there is a catastrophic oil leak in the exploratory well that Anadarko plans to drill in waters 1,500 metres deep off the Canterbury coast?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Maritime New Zealand.

Metiria Turei: Will the Government require a substantial bond from Anadarko as an insurance against the possibility of a catastrophic oil leak, which would cost New Zealand taxpayers billions of dollars to clean up?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: If Anadarko is to drill an exploratory well, it must provide a discharge management plan to Maritime New Zealand. That is the process the Government observes.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not about a discharge permit; it was specific and clear: will the Government require a substantial bond to cover the financial liability?

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member raises a fair point. It was a straight question, and I think it does deserve an answer as to whether the Government would require a bond. It may not be appropriate to answer the question, but it was a straight question.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Under the process of the stage that Anadarko is at, if Anadarko is to drill an exploratory well, it must prepare a discharge management plan. The plan does not include a bond.

Metiria Turei: What guarantee can the Minister give to New Zealanders that they will not have to foot the bill of a catastrophic leak, given that Anadarko is currently contesting financial liability for the 80-day leak in the Gulf of Mexico?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: A number of containment strategies are overseen by Maritime New Zealand, and I have rehearsed in the House the maritime pollution strategy that applies in this area.

Metiria Turei: What difference is there between the exploratory well in the Gulf of Mexico at 1,500 metres deep and the proposed exploratory well in the Canterbury Basin at 1,500 metres deep that gives the Government confidence that a similar catastrophic leak could be quickly contained?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The latter has not been drilled yet.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister supportive of the Māori Party’s member’s bill to ensure meaningful and effective consultation and ongoing engagement with whānau, hapū, and iwi from any person or groups seeking a permit under the Crown Minerals Act; if not, what is the nature of the consultation and ongoing engagement that is taking place between the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Ngāi Tahu in the Canterbury Basin?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am absolutely committed to meaningful engagement, and I do not think legislation is required for that. As to the second part of the question, the member would need to ask the parties involved.

Metiria Turei: Given the Minister’s confidence in the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, what is her response to its statement in its 2010 annual report that it may be difficult for it to quickly or effectively execute any contingency plans related to future events similar to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have responsibility for Anadarko’s annual report.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about her responsibility as a Minister to provide certainty or assurance to New Zealanders about what might happen, or a contingency plan, if there is an oil spill. I think it is within her responsibility to give a more reasonable response than that one.

Mr SPEAKER: The problem was that the member’s question went on further than that and talked about, I believe, the corporation’s annual report, or a similar document. The Minister focused on that part of the question in her answer. If the member had asked just the first part of the question, then we might have been able to pin down the Minister more.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table page 30 of the 2010 annual report of the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, which states that it would be difficult for it to quickly or effectively execute any contingency plans related to events similar to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

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.

Savings, Domestic—Increase

3. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: What signs are there that New Zealanders are saving more?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): There is accumulating evidence that New Zealanders are lifting their savings rate and relying less on debt-funded consumption. For instance, since 2009 household equity has been rising. For the first time in 20 years, household debt-to-income ratios have been falling. Both Treasury and the Reserve Bank project positive household savings rates for the first time in over a decade, and that the balance of payments, which measures overall national savings, may have a current account surplus for the first time in almost 40 years. This is a huge improvement, although it will be temporarily boosted by insurance payments coming into the country.

Simon Bridges: Why is lifting savings important?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course it is important, if only because debt-fuelled consumption of the sort that we saw in the last decade simply cannot be sustained. It has led to New Zealand having an external debt level that is amongst the highest levels in the world, and the fact that New Zealanders are starting to increase their savings will reduce our vulnerability to very high levels of external debt.

Hon David Cunliffe: Which of the following two commentators is wrong, according to the Minister: the OECD, which says this country is not rebalancing, or the Reserve Bank, which does not project positive household savings rates until at least 2013?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Both of those commentators have points of view that are worth listening to, but they are not always right. The fact is that this economy was so badly out of balance by the time that member’s Government was thrown out that in the face of a recession it is taking some time to begin rebalancing in the right way. I do not think there is any disagreement that we are headed in the right direction, but we would all like it to go faster.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very clear question on which of those two commentators—

Mr SPEAKER: The member asked for an opinion, and he got an opinion in reply. It was totally an opinion question, and he got an opinion in reply. The Minister is perfectly entitled to answer in that way.

Simon Bridges: How does the current savings performance compare with that of the past decade?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The last 10 years was particularly poor for savings in New Zealand. Household debt ratios rose to about 160 percent of income, and New Zealand’s foreign debt liabilities almost doubled. That is one of the reasons that per capita GDP actually fell during Labour’s third term and has not risen since 2004. It is good to see that a lot of these excesses are being gradually reversed.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister consider it to be prudent, in light of the savings gap, to have cut contributions to KiwiSaver and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, or would he like to repeat his earlier advice to the previous Labour Government not to run surpluses and pay down debt, and instead to give unaffordable tax cuts to people who do not need them?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Borrowing is not saving. If the Government goes out and borrows $2.5 billion off foreign lenders and puts it into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund account, that is not saving.

John Boscawen: Are New Zealanders saving an extra $300 million a week to compensate for what his Government is borrowing, or is New Zealand each day becoming a more heavily indebted country?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In answer to the first part of the question, no, they are not. Secondly, we would expect that Government deficits will peak actually about now, and part of the focus of the Budget will be on showing a track back to surplus.

Simon Bridges: How will the Budget help to lift national savings?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Now that New Zealand households have begun to save, it is time that the Government pulled its weight, because we can make the biggest difference to national savings by the Government lifting its savings. Up until now we have been willing to borrow in order to cushion New Zealanders from the impact of the recession, but now that economic growth is under way it is time for the Government to tighten its belt, reduce its deficit, and get back to surplus.

Health, Minister—Confidence

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Health?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Grant Robertson: Why does he have confidence in the Minister when Alma Costall, a 94-year-old Auckland woman with a community services card, was charged $80 to attend an after-hours clinic on Good Friday?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The matter of what is charged in after-hours clinics is in part controlled by district health boards. But I say to the member that that is not a new issue. It is one that the Minister recognises, and he has been funding district health boards considerably more to address that issue.

Grant Robertson: What does he consider is an acceptable charge for a 94-year-old woman with a community services card to be charged at an after-hours clinic?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One that is affordable and within her budget, clearly.

Grant Robertson: Is the Prime Minister saying that $80 is affordable for a 94-year-old woman to be charged at an after-hours clinic?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The answer to that is probably no, but it would depend on the circumstances of the person.

Grant Robertson: Why does he have confidence in a Minister who is reviewing the programme that sees health services delivered in decile 1 and 2 schools when it was the subject of a positive review less than 2 years ago?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have confidence in that Minister because he is the Minister who is committed to protecting and growing the public health service. He is the Minister who has invested $1.2 billion more in health in time. He is the Minister who has ensured that 20,000 more people each year are receiving elective surgery, or 400 more per week. He is the Minister who has ensured that cancer patients in New Zealand are now receiving treatment within 4 weeks. He is the Minister who has made sure that there are 1,000 extra nurses and 500 more doctors. He is the Minister who has made sure that children are now being immunised at greater rates. He is the Minister who has done tremendous work—

Mr SPEAKER: Order.

Grant Robertson: What—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I want to be able to hear the supplementary question.

Grant Robertson: Referring to the Prime Minister’s earlier supplementary answers, is the Prime Minister saying that it was affordable for Alma Costall, a 94-year-old Auckland woman, to pay $80 to attend an after-hours clinic on Good Friday?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot comment, because I simply do not know her circumstances.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 5, John Hayes. I have called John Hayes. [Interruption] I cannot be too hard on the member, because I let the Prime Minister get away with something a little while ago. But, please, when I am on my feet, members do need to respect that.

Broadband, Rural Initiative—Benefits for Rural Communities

5. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What benefit will rural communities receive from the Rural Broadband Initiative signed last month?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): I am pleased to report to the House that the $300 million Rural Broadband Initiative is now under way. Not only have we secured an agreement that exceeds the Government’s Rural Broadband Initiative objectives but also we will have over a quarter of a million customers in rural New Zealand who will finally get access to high-speed broadband that compares well to existing levels of urban services and prices. Vodafone and Telecom will shortly begin work on the construction of 154 new cellphone towers, the upgrading of 380 existing towers, and the provision of over 3,000 kilometres more fibre in rural areas. This is a significant milestone in rural New Zealand becoming a more connected and productive economy.

John Hayes: How will the deal increase competition for telecommunications services in rural areas—for example, in Pongaroa and Porangahau?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The open-access provisions locked into the Rural Broadband Initiative contracts ensure competing companies can provide a variety of services in rural areas. For example, the new cellphone towers will allow for any network provider to install and use their equipment on the towers for mobile or fixed wireless services, and with the new Rural Broadband Initiative fibre any competitor will be able to gain access on set terms to offer their retail products. The Government has used this opportunity to cement in place a competitive model for telecommunications provision in rural areas. Not only have we dramatically expanded broadband coverage but also we now have a pathway to improved services in the future, with the development of new technologies like fourth-generation networks.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with Dr Pita Sharples that Ngā Pū Waea, the working group negotiated by the Minister of Māori Affairs to advise on Māori interests in broadband, will enable marae, kōhanga reo, kura, wānanga, iwi, rūnanga, and Māori health and social services providers to benefit from the roll-out of broadband into rural areas, and how soon does he think positive results from this initiative will be able to be shared?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Absolutely. For example, as broadband services are extended, approximately 480 marae will have access to peak internet speeds of more than 5 megabytes per second, 44 of which will have access to broadband services for the first time. One hundred marae will be able to choose to connect to existing Telecom fibre or to new Rural Broadband Initiative - funded fibre, offering them broadband access comparable to ultra-fast broadband. The initiative may also provide opportunities through training programmes and employment and investment opportunities as coverage rolls out. The benefits for social services provision and potential economic development will begin almost immediately in the first areas that the Rural Broadband Initiative rolls out in.

Education, Minister—Confidence

6. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Education?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Sue Moroney: Hmm, surprising. Is he aware that 750 school principals passed a vote of no confidence in “the education policy and direction of the current Government” in relation to national standards, as led by the Minister, at the New Zealand Principals Federation’s annual conference; if so, does he still retain confidence in that Minister?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and yes.

Sue Moroney: Does he retain confidence in the advice the Minister gave to him that caused him to tell TV3 news on 31 January that a lot of the sector would be totally unaffected by fee increases to early childhood education, given that the largest provider of early childhood education services, ABC, which provides services to 7,000 New Zealand children, increased its fees by $10 to $20 a week on 1 April 2011?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, because it is correct.

Sue Moroney: Does he still have confidence that—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I want to be able to hear the question.

Sue Moroney: Does he still have confidence that his funding cuts to early childhood education will not be passed on to parents, given that Statistics New Zealand reports that the cost of early childhood education to families has increased by almost 12 percent in the last 12 months?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and it does not matter how many times the member says it, we did not cut early childhood education funding—we increased it.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the Statistics New Zealand consumer price index for the March 2011 quarter, which shows—

Mr SPEAKER: We do not table stuff that is available to all members. The Statistics New Zealand CPI data is available to all members.

Sue Moroney: Does his confidence in this Minister stem from the fact that she started the trend to use helicopters for ministerial travel, which he has continued, or does he prefer her most recent suggestion that schoolchildren should ride horses to school? Which transport method does he prefer?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have complete confidence in the Minister of Education, and if the member wants to talk about horses, the person who is flogging a dead horse is she, supporting Phil Goff.

Earthquake, Christchurch—Support from Department of Corrections

7. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Corrections: How are Corrections department staff showing support for their Christchurch colleagues following the earthquake?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Corrections staff have been looking for practical ways to support their Christchurch colleagues in the wake of the earthquake. As a result, the Department of Corrections has set up the Give Your Mates a Day Trust, which involves staff voluntarily donating a day of their annual leave. The department then pays out the net dollar value of that leave and places the money in a trust. I am very pleased to say that so far the generosity and goodwill of department staff have resulted in a total of $160,400 being raised. That money will be distributed among Christchurch corrections staff. In addition, 15 corrections officers have been seconded to the Christchurch Central Police Station for 2 months. Those staff are helping police with prisoner escorts and watch-house duties, allowing police to focus on front-line duties in Christchurch.

Melissa Lee: What else is the Department of Corrections doing to help with the rebuilding effort in Christchurch?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The 22 February earthquake has generated a big demand for trade skills as we move to rebuild Christchurch. To help meet that demand, the department is increasing its prisoner employment in trade training in the areas of highest demand. Over the next 12 months the number of prisoners being trained in targeted trades, including welding and construction, will increase by between 130 and 160 at Christchurch Men’s Prison. Three new training workshops will also be established. They will deliver courses in painting, plastering, plumbing, drainlaying, roofing, and gas welding. Existing carpentry and joining skills for housebuilding and refurbishment training will also be expanded. These initiatives will give prisoners the skills they need to contribute positively to the rebuild, both from within prison and following their release.

Foreign Affairs, Minister—Use of RNZAF Aircraft for Travel

8. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister of Defence: Does he agree with all of the statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on that Minister’s use of RNZAF aircraft to travel to Vanuatu in February of this year?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): Yes.

David Shearer: Does he agree with his colleague’s remarks that the $75,000 costing is a Labour Party figure and bears no relation to reality, or will he acknowledge to the House that the costing is derived from New Zealand Defence Force figures?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The Minister indicated, in fact, that $75,000 was not actually far away from the price. Can I inform the House that the fuel cost for these aircraft was in fact approximately $61,000, and there are, of course, some additional maintenance costs.

David Shearer: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act answer requested by Chris Hipkins and delivered on 14 April 2010, which sets out the costings of all the aircraft of the RNZAF, and which makes that $75,000 very conservative.

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member mind just making clear where this document is from?

David Shearer: From the New Zealand Defence Force.

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 Shearer: Did he ask his colleague Murray McCully to consider an alternative to using the Boeing 757 to fly to Vanuatu; if so, what response did he receive?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: As the Minister has said—on a number of occasions, in fact—he was able to provide services to other Pacific Island leaders. Actually, this is very similar to the use of the 757 by the previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This member has taken quite a lot of advice to draft tight questions, and this was a very tight question. This is not the flick at the end of an answer because the question has not yet been addressed. The member might need to repeat it to make it clear to you what it was. I am not sure that the Minister heard what it was, but he certainly has not started to address it yet.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat his question so that the House can be absolutely certain.

David Shearer: Did he ask his colleague Murray McCully to consider an alternative to using the Boeing 757 to fly to Vanuatu; if so, what response did he receive?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: It was very clear that this was the most efficient way to get to Vanuatu, and that was fully understood by me. It was not dissimilar to the situation when the previous Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: The question asked whether the Minister asked his colleague whether he had considered an alternative. The Minister has direct responsibility for the Minister’s own actions, and it is within the capability of the Minister to answer that question. I think it is a reasonable question. So the question was repeated and asked whether the Minister asked his colleague whether he had considered alternative flight possibilities. That is a fair question and the House does deserve an answer.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: As I indicated, the answer is clearly yes, because it was then explained to me why it was not appropriate. In fact, it was very similar to the previous Prime Minister’s use of the 757. Can I say that the previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark, used a 757 to go from Auckland to Apia, where she also took Pacific Island leaders and other Ministers on that Pacific Islands Forum trip. That is extremely similar to the current situation. Of course, Vanuatu does not have the regularity of air services that Samoa and Auckland do have.

David Shearer: From the Minister’s answer, was political blogger Cameron Slater correct yesterday when he wrote that Mr McCully turned up over 2 hours late for his departure—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has absolutely no responsibility for what the blogger Cameron Slater may or may not say. That is totally irrelevant to the Minister. I will allow the member to reword his question, though, because I do not want to deprive him.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respectfully suggest that if you were to judge the question after you have heard it, instead of hearing only the beginning of it, you might come to a different view.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his advice. I invite the honourable member to reword his question to make it very clearly within the Standing Orders.

David Shearer: Was political blogger Cameron Slater correct when he wrote that Mr McCully turned up over 2 hours late for his departure to Vanuatu—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is not responsible for whether the blogger Cameron Slater was correct. The member can ask opinions, but he cannot be that specific about it. He cannot ask whether someone for whom the Minister has no responsibility whatsoever is correct. But I will give the member another chance, because—[Interruption] It is only reasonable. I am requiring him to come within the Standing Orders, and I do not want to deprive him of the question.

David Shearer: Is the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. The member will resume his seat. I want to hear this question, because I have to be able to judge whether it is within the Standing Orders.

David Shearer: Has the Minister seen reports that Cameron Slater has stated that Mr McCully was over 2 hours late for his flight to Vanuatu because of a heated exchange he had with the Minister of Defence?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: All I can say in response to that is that Mr Cameron Slater is woefully misinformed—not that I actually normally read his blog, apparently unlike Mr Shearer.

David Shearer: Was the Minister aware when he authorised the flights, including the return flight from Vanuatu, that commercial flights at a fraction of the price were available, including flights that would have enabled Mr McCully to return to New Zealand in less than 6 hours for around $2,000 or $3,000?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: It is my clear understanding that that would have meant that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would not have been able to meet Prime Minister Julia Gillard. That is obviously a pretty important thing.

Border Control, SmartGate System—Passengers Processed

9. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Customs: What recent reports has he received on the success of SmartGate?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs): I bring very good news to the House. SmartGate has just reached—

Hon Member: Oh, great!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: —yes, I know that everyone will be so excited; I am sure you will be—a historic milestone with the processing of its 1,000,000th passenger. That is proof that demand for this new technology is clearly on the rise. In November of last year we had reached only the 500,000th passenger after about 18 months. By April we had reached the 1 million passengers mark. New Zealanders and Australian passport holders are loving it. SmartGate is going well. We could not wish for better.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What does this milestone mean for the future of SmartGate?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Automated passenger processing technology provided by systems such as SmartGate is the key to the Government’s response to try to improve passengers’ experience at the border. The Prime Minister set out by asking us to try to make passengers’ experience at the border as near to that for domestic travel as we can. Lots and lots of passengers are coming through Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, where SmartGate is now operating. In Auckland, where SmartGate is operating for departures, as well, people are saying that what they are now experiencing at the border is like their experience with domestic travel. That is fantastic news.

Communications and Information Technology, Minister—Confidence

10. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Communications and Information Technology?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Clare Curran: Does he support his Minister’s proposal for a 10-year regulatory holiday for the ultra-fast broadband supplier?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Clare Curran: Is he aware of any telecommunications organisation that supports his Minister’s proposal, other than Telecom; if so, what is the name of that organisation?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will have to put the specifics down to the Minister. What I can say is that in attempting to put in place a regulatory framework of that nature we are trying to put some certainties so that people will actually invest in the long haul. I think that it is worth it for all consumers who will get ultra-fast broadband. If the member can think of a better way of doing it, she should go ahead and table that.

Clare Curran: Does he know that the Ministry of Economic Development’s chief adviser to the Minister on the ultra-fast broadband project was named by the High Court for his role in Telecom’s anti-competitive actions, which led to a $12 million fine?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Clare Curran: Has he been briefed on the likely price increases for those using old broadband services under the new regime; if so, what are they?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

SAS, Afghanistan—New Zealand Defence Force Response to Metro Article

11. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Defence: Did the New Zealand Defence Force, when preparing their response dated 2 May 2011, talk to any of the Afghan civilians interviewed by Jon Stephenson in the Metro article “Eyes Wide Shut” and seen on the subsequent 60 Minutes TV special; if so, who?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): No.

Keith Locke: Did the SAS involved in the raid on 24 December on the Kabul offices of Tiger International Armor ever hold staff in the building at gunpoint, depriving them of their liberty?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: In relation to that particular issue, as is well known and as the video information discloses, the person who was interviewed, Mr Baraily, actually fired on them first. They did return fire, and then they did actually ask everyone to remain down a bit for a few minutes.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about whether they ever held staff at gunpoint. I do not think he answered that—

Mr SPEAKER: Let me clarify the situation. Is the member asking whether New Zealand personnel ever held staff at gunpoint—personnel for whom the Minister is responsible?

Keith Locke: Yes, personnel—

Mr SPEAKER: For whom the Minister is responsible?

Keith Locke: Yes. I will read the question again.

Mr SPEAKER: I struggled to understand the question, and I think the Minister did, too. The Minister cannot be responsible for people who are not New Zealand defence personnel. If the question relates to defence personnel, I will invite him to repeat his question.

Keith Locke: Did the SAS involved in the raid on 24 December on the Kabul offices of Tiger International Armor ever hold staff in the building at gunpoint, depriving them of their liberty?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I did actually answer that question. Mr Speaker, can I explain to Mr Locke what actually happened there?

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Minister that all he needs to do is to answer the question. Did they ever hold people at gunpoint and deprive them of their liberty for a period of time? That, as finally asked, was a pretty straight question.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: They were fired upon and they returned fire. They then went into the rooms and asked the people to stay down, and the Afghan unit arrived a few minutes later. So clearly, whilst they were down, essentially, the SAS were there. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I have called Keith Locke. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to show some courtesy, please. I have called Keith Locke.

Keith Locke: Did either the New Zealand Defence Force or the International Security Assistance Force subsequently interview any of the Tiger International Armor employees present during the raid on Tiger International Armor offices on 24 December?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Certainly the New Zealand Defence Force officers did not interview them subsequently. The person who was filmed, Mr Baraily, was the very person who fired on the New Zealand Defence Force officers.

Keith Locke: Why will the Government not allow an independent inquiry to be held into New Zealand’s actions in relation to prisoners taken in Afghanistan that would look at all the facts and testimony available, including that of Afghan civilians who have been affected but not interviewed by the New Zealand Defence Force or the International Security Assistance Force, rather than relying purely on the word of the New Zealand Defence Force?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Unlike Mr Locke, I actually trust, and I believe in, the New Zealand Defence Force officers, and an inquiry is unnecessary. Many of Mr Stephenson’s allegations from last year, which Mr Locke is relying on, have been disproven by the New Zealand Defence Force. We were not even at Wardak, which is the incident referred to in June. Mr Baraily fired on our officers first.

Petrobras, Petroleum Exploration Permit—Te Whānau-a-Apanui’s Consent

12. HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Does the survey and drilling arrangement between the Government and Petrobras have the prior and informed consent of Te Whānau-a-Apanui; if not, will this lack of consent breach the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): No.

Hone Harawira: Did the Minister consult with the Māori Party before calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whānau-a-Apanui, and what consultation will the Minister engage in with the Māori Party before calling out the armed forces against the tangata whenua of Te Tau Ihu—

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the relevance of any questions in respect of the Māori Party, as the Minister has no responsibility for the Māori Party and what we do, honourable as it is.

Mr SPEAKER: It is perfectly within the member’s right to ask whether a Minister consulted with the Māori Party. There is some question, though, over the wording of the supplementary question the member has asked. I ask him to reword his supplementary question to make sure that it links pretty closely to the primary question, but he certainly is entitled to ask whether a Minister has consulted with another party.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Did the Minister consult with the Māori Party before calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whānau-a-Apanui, and what consultation will the Minister engage in with the Māori Party should the Minister call out the armed forces against the tangata whenua Te Tau Ihu if they decide to challenge the Government’s decision to grant survey and drilling permits to the Chinese-backed Australian mining company Greywolf Goldmining?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have no responsibility for the operational arrangements of the New Zealand Police.

Hone Harawira: Does the Minister know that calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Tūhoe and Te Whānau-a-Apanui has seriously undermined the relationship between Māori and the Government’s coalition partners in the Māori Party, and what formal protest was lodged by the Māori Party about the Government’s actions being in breach of the coalition agreement, which states: “The relationship between the Māori Party and the National Party will be one of good faith and no surprises.”?

Mr SPEAKER: That question is not within the Standing Orders, so I do not see any ministerial responsibility in any part of that question. However, if the member can bring a question within the Standing Orders, I am prepared to allow him to ask one, but it is his last question.

Hone Harawira: Can the Minister advise whether any formal protest was lodged with the Minister by the Māori Party about the Government’s actions in calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whānau-a-Apanui being in breach of the coalition agreement, which states that “The relationship between the Māori Party and the National Party will be one of good faith and no surprises?”.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I answered before, I have no operational responsibility in energy and resources for those operational decisions.

Mr SPEAKER: The question asked whether the Māori Party had protested to the Minister about something that had taken place.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is set down to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. The question was about the Defence Force and its involvement. How can the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources have any responsibility for the Defence Force?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need further help. The final question simply asked whether the Māori Party had protested to this Minister. It is pretty easy to answer that question—either it has or it has not. The focus of the question was not on the details of who called out either the police or the Defence Force, it was simply whether this Minister had received protests from anyone, and that does not seem unreasonable. It may be that she did not receive any protests at all. Anyway, I would have thought that it is not a difficult question to answer. It does not need to involve any answer in respect of the police or the Defence Force.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked about a protest about specific activities for which I have no responsibility, so why would a protest be made to me about matters outside my portfolio?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is absolutely appropriate that as the Minister who is generally responsible for these mining and drilling issues, the Māori Party should approach her about the Government’s approach on these matters.

Mr SPEAKER: It is an interesting issue. The Minister raises a reasonable point. Although I argued that she should answer in respect of whether a party had protested to her, if it was about nothing to do with her responsibilities then I think it is a valid point that she is not answerable for that. I think I have to accept the point made by the honourable Minister. Ministers are answerable only on issues for which they have ministerial responsibility. The Minister cannot be asked whether some other member or party had protested to her about something she has no responsibility for. Certainly, as I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Minister herself pointed out, whoever was called out in relation to this particular event was nothing to do with the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. I think I have to accept that the Minister’s point of order is a fair and reasonable point of order and that I am in error in suggesting that she should answer the question. I accept her point that, in fact, she has no ministerial responsibility.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to disagree with the ruling you have just made, and I know I am treading on some tight ground here. Under the delegated arrangements, the Minister does have responsibility for permitting, drilling, and supervision. It would be entirely proper for the Minister of Defence to consult her about the security arrangements for that. It would be entirely proper for the Commissioner of Police to consult her on security. It is also entirely proper for the arrangements around security to be the subject of a protest from any member of Parliament to her. Members can do so if they want to. She could send them away and say “It’s none of my business.”, but they could still approach her.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes some good points. I think he is correct that the Minister could have been asked whether certain Ministers who were responsible for those actions consulted her, but that is not what this question asked. The question asked specifically whether anyone had protested to the Minister about the calling out of either the police or the Defence Force—I am not sure who was involved. I think that is where the question erred. If the question had been more along the lines that the member has suggested in the first part of his point of order, I think I would have been more insistent on the Minister answering it. But I do accept the point of order made by the Minister that I cannot ask her to answer on the matter when she has no ministerial responsibility for whether those authorities were called out in this instance. I have to accept that. I think it would be inappropriate for me as Speaker to do otherwise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I suggest, on the basis that both you and I originally thought that the original supplementary question was an answer, that you let Mr Harawira have another crack at it. He could ask whether the Minister was advised that the Māori Party had protested.

Mr SPEAKER: Nice try, but I think I was pretty generous to Mr Harawira. I invited him to reword his question, and I think I have been reasonable. [Interruption] I believe I have been reasonable on this, and I accept unreservedly the point of order raised by the Minister. I think I would be erring if I did not do that. I think that is where the matter should lie today.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today I want to debate the National Government’s decision to flog off to corporate and foreign investors the New Zealand - owned community assets that belong to all of us as Kiwis. I have noted that the National Government is desperate not to debate this issue. National members are desperate not to debate the issue, because every one of them, when they go back to their electorates, knows that New Zealanders and their constituents do not want those assets sold. Those members are so desperate to avoid the issue that they are building an elaborate deceit around what will happen. They say the Government will not sell all of the assets; it will sell only some of them.

But now along has come Dr Brash. Dr Brash has been manipulated into his position by Steven Joyce for the purpose of creating a smokescreen for National, so that after the election—if the country is so unfortunate that National wins the election—National will do what it will not tell New Zealanders before the election it intends to do. Members should mark my words: Don Brash, who is pulling the strings, says he wants the whole of the assets flogged off, and the advice from Mr English’s Treasury officials is to do just that. Bill English has not told that to the public. But I want to know why it would make any sense, at all, for any country, any business, or any individual to flog off the assets that are the most valuable ones they own.

The Prime Minister said a couple of months ago that the proceeds from the State-owned enterprises pay for our doctors and our hospitals, and he is right. We can take the three State-owned power companies. Between them, they return $700 million to Kiwis, and that offsets the taxation that the Government would otherwise need to pay for a whole lot of services. So I ask Mr English why he is so keen to bail out failed private enterprise finance companies, as he did in January of this year, entailing a liability of $1.7 billion. Why is Mr English so keen to bail out foreign-owned media companies that cannot pay what they should be paying for the use of the airwaves? Why is he picking up the duds from the private sector who want to socialise their losses at the same time as he wants to sell our assets that are the most valuable assets we have?

The other elaborate disguise is that the Government is saying this ownership will go to mum and dad investors. That is what Mr English told us when he privatised Contact Energy back in 1999. But what happened to Contact Energy? Does Mr English know that every year $100 million of money generated by the Clyde Dam, which New Zealanders built and paid for, goes out of this country to foreign investors? A billion dollars has been lost from New Zealand since National privatised Contact Energy in 1999.

What about the Bank of New Zealand? The Bank of New Zealand was also privatised by National. National sold it; what did it get for it? It was $1.5 billion. Do members know how much money the National Australia Bank has made out of the Bank of New Zealand, for that price of $1.5 billion?

Hon Parekura Horomia: How much?

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is $12.4 billion of New Zealand money that has gone out of this country and across the Tasman, yet the National Government wants to do more. The Government wants to flog off the rest of the banks. I say thank God for the last Labour Government. Far from selling any assets it set up Kiwibank, and provided some real competition in response to $2.5 billion of profit from the banks going out of the country and to the Aussies.

Now Mr English is saying “But we’ve got to sell to retire debt.” That man is borrowing $300 million a week. Do members know how long the proceeds from the assets of our State-owned power companies will last, at that rate? It is about 8 months. After 8 months we will still be borrowing $300 million a week, but we will have lost the assets, and we will have lost the dividend stream from them. How can that make sense? When will this National Government learn from history? The sale of the Bank of New Zealand, the sale of New Zealand Rail—all of those sales were duds, and all of them were failures. Let New Zealanders keep the assets they own now.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): That member, Phil Goff, should be apologising for the damage the Labour Government did to the New Zealand economy, and in particular its legacy of record debt levels to foreigners. New Zealand owes foreigners $170 billion, and that debt ran up rapidly under the stewardship of that Government. The Labour Government promoted property speculation, debt-funded consumption, and Government transfer programmes that were very expensive, and it strangled our export sector. Under the Labour Government this country went on a debt-funded spending binge and strangled its earning capacity. That is why this Government has to focus on turning round the imbalances in our economy. In the new world, since the global financial crisis, no country can afford to be run in the way the Labour Government ran this country—no country.

The good news is that there are some small reasons for optimism that the process of undoing the damage the previous Labour Government did is making some progress. Not all of it, I would have to say, is this Government’s doing; not all of it is, because one of the things working for us, for instance, is that export prices are at record levels. What happened to exports under the Labour Government? When it came to office, exports represented 30 percent of the New Zealand economy. When it left office, exports represented a bit over 25 percent of the New Zealand economy. So we need the benefit of high commodity prices. That is where the growth of this economy will come from, and much of this Government’s policy framework, and the next steps that will be outlined in Budget 2011, are aimed at taking advantage of those high export prices, which are actually up 30 percent in the last year.

The other bit of good news is that mortgage interest rates are at 45-year lows. Can we recall when the first mortgage rates hit 10 percent in, I think, 2007 under the previous Government, wound up by a frenzy of speculation and rapidly rising Government spending? Now, floating mortgage rates are at 5.7 percent. They have halved since the Labour Government left office. Floating interest rates are half what they were when Labour was in power.

Hon David Parker: Rubbish!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They are almost half.

The other good news is that real after-tax wages have increased by 10 percent since September 2008. Despite the global financial crisis, and despite the Labour Government - induced recession New Zealand had experienced before that global financial crisis, real after-tax wages have increased by 10 percent since September 2008. In the 8 years before that they grew by 4 percent. Real wages are actually up by 10 percent. The other goods news is that forecasters are now expecting that economic growth will push above 4 percent next year, and be in the zone of 3 to 4 percent beyond that time. That is important, because as a result of the policies of the last Labour Government, and then the global recession, per capita incomes in New Zealand have still not yet reached the level they were at in 2004. They started dropping then, we started to turn them round, but per capita real incomes dropped so far under the Labour Government, at a time when we were meant to be enjoying a global boom, that in 2011 we have not got back to the levels they were at in 2004.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I will address for a moment the tumultuous events that have occurred in politics in recent days. For the first time, I suspect, in political history we have witnessed the corporate takeover of a political party, with Dr Brash taking over from Mr Hide. But I have to say that we should celebrate this fact as parliamentarians, as keepers of democracy, because the system works. The swamp is being drained, the political scum is being scraped off the top of the spot pond, and in 7 months’ time “Mr Rort-ney”—I am sorry, Mr Rodney Philip Hide will not be in this place.

I say to the Parliament that what has been, in Mr Hide’s own terms, Mr Hide’s journey of transition and reinvention has been a journey all right. It has been a journey from perk-buster, from a person who was a wrecker—not a builder or a person of ideas—in this place. He took great delight in tearing down not only members of this Parliament but those near and dear to them. What will be his ultimate act, his gift to the people of New Zealand, as he leaves this place? I say that his journey of reinvention concludes when a man like him gives up the leadership of his party, and even gives up his parliamentary seat, in order to cling by his fingernails to the baubles of office for 7 more months.

If my memory serves me correctly, he served up that accusation time and time again to a former member of this place. It actually reminds me of the film Dawn of the Dead. In that film, as I recall, on the stroke of midnight the zombies emerged from the ground and stalked around the parish and around the streets. These entities, I am told, eat each other and even eat the living dead—as Mr Hide, I think, will come to be known in this place. It reminds me of that movie.

I say to the House that someone left the crypt door open a crack. Someone left that crypt door open a crack for that energetic, youthful, dynamic team full of enthusiasm: Sir Roger Douglas, John Banks, John Boscawen, and Dr Don Brash. What a youthful and enthusiastic group!

What should we remember about Dr Brash? I can say this because he is no longer a member of this Parliament. Dr Brash, of course, has not changed. He is for total asset sales, as my leader said, and he lied to the New Zealand people. I can say that, because he did lie to the New Zealand people in 2005—

Hon David Parker: And he was caught.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —and was caught, and he denied it. As late as last weekend, I think on Q+A or the TV programme The Nation, the question was put to him again and again as to why he had lied, and he denied it. So the question for Dr Brash, as he tries to re-enter this place and clean up his so-called party, is whether the leopard has changed his spots.

Then we come, of course, to the asset sales issue. Again, Dr Brash has not changed. The National members, of course, want to use Dr Brash as an alibi for doing everything that they really want do to and have always wanted to do in the last 2½ years but were afraid to do because they know deep down that the people of New Zealand are against the sale of assets. So it was a corporate takeover by National, or mates close to it.

We have a man who wishes to re-enter this place, a man who described his former leader as toxic. He has now suddenly and miraculously changed his mind and decided that Mr Hide should stay in the ministry. Again, he has been aided and abetted by the Prime Minister. This is the same Prime Minister who aided and abetted Mr Hide in some of his antics in this place in respect of Mr Garrett, and in respect of his rorting of the system and his misuse of taxpayer’ money—something that Mr Hide, of course, alleged against many, many members of this Parliament. But when his own feet were put to the fire, he denied it.

But a member who is described as toxic appears to be good enough to sit in the Cabinet of John Key. A member who says one thing and does another is apparently credible enough to be in the Cabinet of John Key. A person who wants to get into this place, and who lied to the New Zealand people repeatedly in 2005, appears to be good enough to re-enter this House and re-enter the Cabinet of John Key. We will see the real agenda in respect of asset sales. They will be gone by lunchtime.

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister for Senior Citizens): We heard the Minister of Finance talk about some of the positives that the country can look forward to from an economic point of view as we move forward, having recovered, or as we try to recover, from the mismanagement of the 9 years of a Labour Government, and, of course, a recession. The fact is that the Minister of Finance has some positives, and the Budget will also look to put us into a Budget surplus in the next 2 or 3 years.

However, I am also pleased to say that on Monday I had the great pleasure and honour of releasing a document that was prepared by the Ministry of Social Development and the Office for Senior Citizens. The document is called The Business of Ageing: Realising the Economic Potential of Older People in New Zealand: 2011 - 2051. I commend this document to every member of the House and indeed to everyone in New Zealand, and for this reason: times are changing and some positives, which we will need to consider, will happen in respect of baby boomers. Some of us take deep interest in what is happening in this regard, because some of us are at the front end of the baby boomers.

The point is that up until now the debate about the ageing population has been a negative debate. But there are lots of positives that need to be considered, and this document lays them out before the House so we can begin the discussion on the positive impact the baby boomers, going forward, will have on this country and this economy. I want to quote one or two things from this document, and at the end of my speech I intend to seek leave to table it for the House to consider. One of the things I will quote is from the beginning of the document. It is a quote from John Beard, the director of the World Health Organization’s Department of Ageing and Life Course. He said: “Governments around the world need to invent a new future to tackle the needs and possibilities of an ageing population. Business as usual is just not an option. A 70-year-old of today expects a very different role to what their parents experienced. We need to be brave enough to invent a future that is not simply a different shade of the past.”

Let us look at some of the facts that have come out and are seriously interesting. The report states: “the number of New Zealanders turning 65 in the 12-month period June 2011 to June 2012 is expected to be 18 per cent higher than in the preceding 12-month period”—that is 18 percent higher. “By 2031, the number of New Zealanders aged 65 and over is expected to exceed one million, almost double the current number; an increase in the labour force participation rate of older people from 16 per cent in 2010 to 26 per cent by 2030 could offset the growing demands for funding New Zealand Superannuation over this period.” There are positives happening, and the point is this: no one will force this to happen; it will happen. We as a nation need to start thinking about how we adapt and adopt the changes that the baby boomer generation will put before this nation.

We have expectations. We have always, as a group, a generation, been leaders in this nation. We will be a quarter of the population by 2050. We will have a huge impact on what happens in that time, and the nation needs to start to understand the different dynamics that this will bring. Seven to 10 percent of the labour force could be aged 65 or over by 2051. Their earnings from employment could rise from $1 billion to $10 billion in that time. Tax paid on earnings from employment could increase from $200 million to about $1.8 billion. We as a nation need to start understanding what that means. We need to have a discussion about the impact that the baby boomer generation will have. There will be lots of positives for this nation. We will make a huge contribution to the skills shortages that are coming up behind us, and that will have a huge impact on productivity and a huge impact on the way in which the workforce responds.

I commend this document to the House. It is worth reading and considering, and, most important, it is worth discussing. I seek leave to table the document entitled The Business of Ageing.

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

Hon David Parker: Yes, it’s already available.

Mr SPEAKER: There is objection.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): The two earthquakes that we have experienced in Christchurch have led me to read a lot of the international literature about something called recovery. Reading the lessons about that has taught me that the lessons are just as relevant to economic recovery post recession as they are to disaster recovery post the disaster that we have had in Christchurch. We need a plan, we need milestones, and we need key performance indicators. All the literature says that about recovery, and that is what we should have in New Zealand for economic recovery post recession. In fact, I would have thought that John Key would want key performance indicators, unless they would highlight to those who are not mesmerised by the smile that never quite reaches the eyes that there is no plan, and there never has been.

Never from day one, since that Government was elected to office, has there been a plan for our economic recovery. In fact, I remember the Job Summit. Does anyone remember the Job Summit? What came out of the Job Summit? I remember. A cycleway! And what went into the Job Summit? Yes, a cycleway. It was a predetermined agenda from National. John Key was to lead New Zealand into recovery with a cycleway. I will not get on that particular bike. The man who has come to politics from the very profession that gave us the global financial crisis thinks that a smile and wave can substitute for a genuine economic recovery plan. I say it cannot. A genuine economic recovery plan must be sustainable, and it must make us more resilient as an economy and a country in the long term.

John Key is the man who promised to turbocharge the economy, yet all he has managed to do is to kick the tyres. Now he is kicking the tyres of New Zealand’s assets. We know that when we kick the tyres of something, it is because we are checking to see whether it is something that we want to buy. The tragedy is that John Key is using the Christchurch earthquakes as an additional excuse to sell our country’s family silver. His friends in the international financial markets are delighted to see that New Zealand is back in business, but actually they are much more delighted to see that it is now up for sale. National campaigned at the last election that it was saying no to asset sales in its first term and would seek a mandate for that at this election. That is what this election is all about. I think we should name this election for what it is. It is a referendum on the sale of our assets—nothing more, and nothing less. A vote for National is a vote to sell our assets; a vote for Labour is a vote to ensure that they are not sold.

On this side of the House we believe that we will win this referendum. We will win this argument, and we will win this referendum, because I have not met anyone—not one person—who thinks it is sensible to sell an asset for a short-term benefit, and ruin the long-term gain that it represents for the economy. This is right across the political spectrum. These are National voters and Labour voters. It does not matter where they sit on the political spectrum, apart from the—

Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I really regret interrupting my colleague, but the interjections from Paul Quinn mean it is impossible to actually hear what my colleague Lianne Dalziel, who is located a mere 10 metres away from me, is actually saying.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a fair point of order. I ask Paul Quinn to be more reasonable with his interjections.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: This is right across the political spectrum—these are National voters and Labour voters—except for the extreme right. Of course, those on the extreme right are now positioning Don Brash to come back in order to finish off what he started in 2005, and was unable to finish because of the wisdom of the electorate. That is why I believe this year’s election is a referendum we will win.

The tragedy now for Christchurch is that we will be blamed for the sale of these assets. We will be told that there is no alternative. What has happened in Christchurch is a disaster of huge proportions, but it presents us with a chance to become a more resilient city. Actually, if we play this right, it could make us more resilient as a country, as well. Rather than see Christchurch be blamed for the reimposition of the failed economic prescription we have seen from that party over and over again, and for the sale of our country and now, potentially, our city’s assets as well, I ask why Christchurch’s legacy cannot serve as a symbol of how we can turn disaster into opportunity, sustainably secure our economic recovery as a nation, and own our future once more.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): The previous speaker, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, spoke at some length about the Christchurch earthquakes, and I want to start on that same point. I want to point out that today marks 8 months since the first earthquake ripped through Canterbury and began what has been, without question, the toughest period ever, I believe, for our region, and it will continue to be so for some time. In fact, the rebuilding of Canterbury is, quite rightly, one of the most important priorities for this Government, not only for this year but also for many years to come. It was heartening to hear the Minister of Finance, Bill English, talk today about the $5.5 billion we will see allocated to the job of rebuilding my province of Canterbury in this year’s Budget. That $5.5 billion covers off things like our contribution to the rebuilding of local infrastructure and insurance excesses on schools, hospitals, and other Government buildings within the region. It deals with things like land remediation costs as identified after the September quake, temporary housing, demolition costs, ACC costs, income support, and business support.

One of the things I think is most interesting—and, in a way, one would never want to have to learn it—is that these earthquakes have really brought into sharp focus how important it is to have a strong and resilient economy. In the days immediately following those earthquakes, both in September and on 22 February, the one thing we needed to be able to do as a Government—and we did do—was to say to people straight away that we were there to support them, that we would provide the housing they needed, and that we could provide business support. Immediately after both earthquakes there was a package available, which anyone could access, that ensured that their incomes would not be lost. Any employer could ensure that they could put wages in their employees’ bank accounts in the weeks ahead. I can tell members that that is the sort of comfort and support Cantabrians needed. That sort of thing costs a Government greatly, but it is a cost we are happy to pay. It tells us how important it is to get this economy back on track, to rebuild the strength of our economy, to get Government finances under control, to get away from the excessive orgy of consumption and debt that we saw through the early 2000s, and to get the economy on to a footing that can sustain these darkest of times.

The earthquakes will put back the path to surplus a little, but it is a path we are very much on. I for one would never trade the support and the rebuilding of Christchurch for a slightly quicker path. But we must get Canterbury rebuilt and we must get this economy back on track. That is exactly what the Budget on 19 May will deliver. It will focus on growth and it will focus on growth that is meaningful, not Government spending, policy analysts, and more handouts from the Government. It will build on growth that comes from the productive sector: the farmers, the manufacturers, the small businesses, and the people who actually pay taxes in this country. Remember them—the ones who pay for all the stuff the crowd opposite wants to spend? Members opposite are really good at standing up and spending. They are really good at that. Every opportunity Labour gets to kick the people who pay taxes, it takes it. Well, not us.

National understands that real growth means supporting people who pay tax. That is what it means, and that is what this Budget will be focused on. It will mean getting Government spending under control. Any party that thinks we can fix an economy by spending more and more, and borrowing more and more, is in “loony land”. That is no surprise, given that that is pretty much where Phil Goff lives. We have to get this economy focused on growth, wages, and sustainable jobs. We have to get in behind the people of this country who pay taxes every week, and we have to make sure we can look them in the eye and say that every single dollar of tax they have paid will be spent as if it was our own money. We will make sure we get the best outcomes for that spend. That is what this Government is focused on. We will get back to surplus. It was interesting to hear Phil Goff complain bitterly this afternoon that we are borrowing $300 million a week, when he has already committed, were he to be re-elected—not that it will happen—to spending billions and billions of dollars more. We know where that money will come from. It will come from debt.

Dr Cam Calder: He’s going to take the GST off carrots.

AMY ADAMS: He will take the GST off blackcurrants, and that will fix it. No, he will borrow more, and he will put this economy back into recession, and that is why New Zealand will reject him, once more, in November.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): Over the last couple of days I have questioned the Minister of Defence about revelations that our SAS has been taking prisoners in Afghanistan and handing them over to agencies that either have tortured them or might well have tortured them. As a result of journalist Jon Stephenson’s interviews with Afghans whom our SAS has handed over to US forces in 2002, we know that they were, in effect, tortured and that some of them were sent to Guantanamo Bay. I think an apology from us as a country is due, and possibly some compensation. I do not accept the Minister’s view that this is purely a US problem, because when the prisoners were handed over by us in 2002, our forces knew for certain that they were likely to be tortured in Kandahar. By then there had been plenty of reports of torture at the US detention centre at Kandahar.

In respect of the SAS deployment since 2009, the Minister and the New Zealand Defence Force have long claimed that they have not been taking prisoners. When pushed, they have responded by saying that, yes, the SAS soldiers had been “in the vicinity” on 22 occasions in operations the SAS did with the Crisis Response Unit. Yesterday the Minister said that the SAS was “in support” of the Crisis Response Unit on 24 occasions. It stretches credibility to claim that in all the detaining that was done in those joint operations, it was always done by the Crisis Response Unit, on 24 separate occasions. Clearly that is just a legal deception, so that our Government can say that however badly those prisoners were subsequently tortured, we bear none of the responsibility and that we had none of the responsibility for following up the fate of those prisoners, because the Crisis Response Unit was the “detaining authority”. I am afraid that legal sleight of hand will not wash with the International Criminal Court if New Zealand is brought before it in relation to the torture of any of those prisoners.

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, is right now looking at the role of US-led forces in prisoner abuse. In fact, it is likely that our SAS took the lead in a number of raids with the Afghan Crisis Response Unit, as it did in the raid last Christmas on the Kabul offices of Tiger International Armor. When interviewed by Jon Stephenson, the Tiger International Armor people said it was the SAS that entered their building and detained them at gunpoint, and the Minister today has confirmed that. Later those prisoners—and they were prisoners—were handed over to the National Directorate of Security, which on this occasion let them go because it found they had nothing to do with the Taliban. Instead, they were just innocent contractors for the United States.

The Minister mentioned yesterday a case in which one prisoner was taken on 31 January this year, which could not be avoided because it was not a joint operation with the Crisis Response Unit, and he claimed that the proper post-arrest monitoring had been done by the Defence Force. That may be so, but there is no guarantee or evidence of proper monitoring on other occasions from 2002 to the present, including the 24 joint operations of the SAS and the Crisis Response Unit, when prisoners were taken and our SAS was only “in the vicinity”.

Torture continues in Afghan prisons. Jon Stephenson’s on-the-spot interviews have brought out the extent of torture that took place following the SAS’s handing over prisoners in 2002 to the US authorities. He has shown that prisoners were taken and handed over by our SAS at Tiger International Armor. He has challenged the credibility of many of the New Zealand Defence Force denials made over the years that prisoners were taken, and the credibility of its claims that they were properly followed up if they were taken. What we clearly need is an independent inquiry, where Jon Stephenson and the New Zealand Defence Force can put all the evidence on the table, so that we as a nation can go forward, absolutely sure that our troops will not be handing over Afghan prisoners to torture. If we are simply unable to guarantee that the prisoners whom our forces take and hand over are not mistreated, then that is another reason why our SAS should not be in Afghanistan.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I could not disagree more with that man who has just resumed his seat, Keith Locke. I reflect on his associations previously, through his family, with Pol Pot and, before that, through his parents, with Stalin, and when I think about the torture and things that those people got into, it is astonishing to hear those views expressed by him in the House this afternoon.

Last week it poured, in the region from Cape Kidnappers south to Porangahau. More than half a metre of rain fell in 48 hours. When the ground was absolutely saturated, there was a 4.6 magnitude earthquake about 10 kilometres offshore. Those two events have caused huge damage to about 100 to 150 farms in my electorate and, just north, in Craig Foss’ electorate in Tukituki. Large sections of the hillside have absolutely fallen away and been stripped, to expose underlying papa. It is a really serious problem now. Some farms have lost up to 60 percent of their pasture. It is a really distressing situation, because those farmers have already endured three back-to-back droughts over the last 2½ years, and just as summer and autumn had been quite kind and because of the Government’s policies, prices for wool, beef, sheepmeat, and dairy products were all restoring farmer confidence, this event occurred. It was really bad timing, because farmers were repaying debt and getting themselves reorganised, and this destructive storm has seriously damaged between 100 and 150 farms.

I particularly want to record my thanks, the thanks of the farmers involved, and the thanks of the Mayor of Central Hawke’s Bay District, Peter Butler, for the excellent work done by David Carter, Minister of Agriculture, in rearranging his programme last weekend, so that on Saturday he was able to come and view the area and meet 35-odd farmers at Blackhead. That visit enabled us to establish, first of all, the farmers’ priorities. First, we have to get stock out of the region; secondly, we have to get grass seed and clover seed resown while that soil is really wet; and, thirdly, we have to get into things such as securing fencing, getting Taskforce Green workers out there, organising tax relief, and organising other services provided by the rural support trust. The visit enabled me to establish direct communication lines with affected farmers. Having asked questions earlier today about rural broadband, I now have a system set up so that I can communicate from here with those farmers back into the Minister’s office. It really highlighted for me, and I am sure for the farmers involved, the importance of rural broadband, and of getting it up and running in rural New Zealand.

When I think about the comments from Mr Goff today, and the comments of some of his colleagues in the Labour caucus, I think back to 2008 and the election, when the Labour Government, not being concerned about farmers, decided that it would fork out $40 million to buy back St James Station in the South Island. Why would a Government spend $40 million on buying a farm that it already owned? The farm was a leasehold property. That was the sort of waste—absolute waste—that that Government engaged in, which was why we inherited an economy that was in deep trouble. If we think about Helen Clark when she left this House, we remember that she said that for her, “the jewels in the crown” were the transfers of Molesworth Station and St James Station to the Department of Conservation. She talked about purchasing the pastoral lease. Well, the pastoral lease we already owned. She was actually buying back the improvements, and they were not worth $40 million.

I have to say that the past 2½ years contrast very strongly with Labour’s previous track record going back many years, even before the global recession hit, of borrow and spend—

Dr Cam Calder: And tax—don’t forget tax.

JOHN HAYES: —oh, borrow, spend, and tax. Quite right! Our current forecasts show that New Zealand’s external liabilities—that is, what we owe to foreign leaders—have jumped to almost $250 billion. Why? Because of poor decision-making on the part of that Government.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): We heard Bill English decrying the fact that New Zealand has debt. I will read to members what Bill English said on 18 December 2008, shortly after he took over. The quote is from the New Zealand Herald. Bill English said: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook. In New Zealand we have room to respond. This is the rainy day the Government has been saving up for.”

That was the reality of what the incoming National Government inherited. It inherited eight consecutive Budget surpluses, each of which was opposed by members opposite when in Opposition. Bill English and John Key—and Don Brash at the time—all, at different times, opposed every surplus that Labour ran. Had we not run those surpluses, New Zealand’s situation would be even more dire than it is. The fact that it is dire now is not because of the actions of the previous Labour Government; it is because of the mismanagement of the economy by National and its allies ACT and the Māori Party since then.

While we are talking about that little sideshow, I ask why there is so much interest in what is happening with ACT at the moment. National likes to pretend that we are under first past the post, and that because it is ahead in the polls it will win an MMP election. Of course, National’s actions belie the fact that it knows that is not the truth. That is why we have seen a National takeover of ACT through Don Brash and John Banks, both former members of National in this House.

They have taken over the ACT Party because they know that HorizonPoll in the Sunday Star-Times a week and a half ago showed that the gap between the left and the right was only 6 percent. A 3 percent swing against National to Labour would see Labour’s MMP side of this House being bigger than National’s side. That is why there has been a coup in the ACT Party; National members knew they needed to do something. The sad reality for National members is that they are being predatory on their own vote, because everyone knows that Don Brash stands for asset sales 100 percent of the way. That is not the fiction that National is taking to the election at the moment—that it will sell only 25 percent.

The National Government inherited low debt. We also heard from Bill English that average wages after tax have increased. But that is only the case if one includes the top 10 percent of wage earners, who got all the benefit of the tax cuts. The wages for more than half of people in New Zealand who earn a living have gone down, in real terms. It is only if the figures are manipulated to include the top 10 percent of wage earners, for whom this Government so plainly governs, that those other people appear to be getting ahead. The 10 percent of people are the same 10 percent who will benefit from the sale of the State-owned enterprises that the Government is trying to push through.

Those people do not care whether electricity prices go up much—and they will go up if the Government sells the electricity State-owned enterprises. We all know that electricity prices would go up further. But why do those people—that small 10 percent of the population—not care? They do not care because they get so much under this Government, and would from any future National Government. Forty percent will stay about the same overall, but the bottom 50 percent will go backwards.

In this coming election, electors will have a choice. Do they want a country that tries to fill the gap left by unaffordable tax cuts by selling State-owned enterprises? As Phil Goff said today, the sale of State-owned enterprises would not fund even 1 year of the Government’s deficit. That is the terrible situation that this Government has got us into. The Government has given up on its promise to close the wage gap with Australia, to lead New Zealand to a brighter future, and to have a step change in the economy. Do members remember those three promises at the last election? They have disappeared from National’s language, because it is failing. It has no adequate plan to grow this economy.

Increasing numbers of New Zealanders are going to Australia to earn a living—so much so that when Julia Gillard was recently here she said she views New Zealand as a source of well-trained, good people who add to the growth of the Australian economy. They are a loss to our economy, but a gain for the Australian economy. That is another broken promise of the National Government.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): The Black nationalist leader Malcolm X once said that “Sitting at the table doesn’t make you a diner, unless you eat some of what’s on the plate.” It made me think about the unique and independent Māori voice that the Māori Party brings to the table every hour, every day, here in Parliament. What we bring to the table is the opportunity for Māori to participate at the highest level and for voices to be heard. We bring, in our kete, whakatauākī, pepeha, and kōrero tawhito, if you like, the cultural capital of tangata whenua.

Hon David Parker: Sold out!

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I gave the gentleman the right to have a clear run in his speech. I do not mind a bit of heckling, but can we just tone it down, please, if that is all right?

Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to be reasonable. I do not think they are being too bad, I have to confess, but I ask members to be a little bit reasonable.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Really? Kia ora mai.

We look to our tikanga—not like some people—and our kaupapa to guide us in our responses. In short, we recognise our indigeneity, and the indigeneity of others, as the strength of the many peoples who live in this land.

The question that is being debated right now is whether the Māori Party should sit at the table. I say “Hell, yeah!”. Do we have something to offer? Absolutely. It is about being clear about our purpose and our unique branding—Māori. Of course, there are options at the table: the Greens, the blues, and the reds. Over the last week other options have appeared to the far right and to the far left of the spectrum, bringing with them the interests of corporates, socialists, unionists, and others simply looking for a home.

For us, the Māori Party, there has never been any doubt. Our reason for being is to advance the solutions of our people, tangata whenua. Those are the solutions they have shared with us. It is about promoting Māori enterprise and entrepreneurship for the unique difference that they have made to our nation’s economy, and encouraging the Government to learn from that legacy. I think that was summed up best by Dr Apirana Māhuika last night, in a pretty powerful kōrero he was having with the Prime Minister. He reminded politicians and political parties that although they are here for the now and then, iwi are here for ever. Iwi have no other place to go; Aotearoa is our natural home, and our history is the history of this nation. That is just like mana. Mana can rise and fall, and indeed be lost, but Māori are here for ever. The greatest task ahead of us as the Māori Party, therefore, is to persuade Ministers of the powerful presence and potential of having tangata whenua at the table.

The question might be asked about whether it is better to be on the outside, throwing stones and otherwise, and pointing out the inevitable, or putting our hands up to say we are here for the long haul, working on solutions and crafting a positive future? I say the latter. The Māori Party has always said that we exist to defend Māori rights and advance Māori interests, for the betterment of all New Zealanders in this land. In doing so, we are proud of the benchmark for progress that we believe is established in kaupapa Māori.

In his book written in 2003, Professor Mason Durie explained this approach. He said “Māori progress, whether in commerce, education, or science, could not be accomplished without taking cognisance of Māori values and the realities of modern Māori experience. In other words, Māori development was not solely about making economic progress or reducing state obligations towards Māori; it was also about being able to retain a Māori identity and formulate development according to Māori aspirations.” So we continue to see every issue discussed in this House as a Māori issue.

We will demand that the call of the people to determine their own answers is responded to, as we have seen with Whānau Ora. We will ensure that in areas where Māori have not been able to access the opportunities they are entitled to, there is strength in numbers to bring the Māori world view to the debate. We saw that yesterday with the establishment of Ngā Pū Waea, a working-group to advise on Māori interests and development opportunities in broadband.

Despite the desire of some in this House to relegate Te Tiriti o Waitangi to history, we embrace it as the founding document of the nation, which we see with the work on the constitutional review. When the Crown has not treated mana whenua with the respect it should, we will not stop until that is addressed and a pathway forward is traversed. We hope we will see that appearing now in relation to the interface between Te Whānau-a-Apanui, Ngāti Porou, the Crown, and Petrobras.

We are here for change, we are here to keep our word, and we are here for the long haul. To make the difference that is needed, we will work constructively with any major party. We will sit at the table. We will always work hard in the best interests of our people. Our challenge as the Māori Party is to open the door. As long as we are in this place, it is a challenge that we will work very hard to live up to in every which way we can.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): In the last few years this country has had its fair share of natural and economic disasters. Those disasters, both economic and natural, bring a clear focus on the need for a strong, robust economy going forward, an economy that Kiwis can rely on to provide support in those times when things get a bit tough.

During the adjournment I had the very good fortune to host a couple from Christchurch, who came up as part of the offer of the Napier City Council and the Hasting District Council to host people from Christchurch in Hawke’s Bay. A wonderful couple, Henk and Marijke Lups, came up to join us. They arrived for Easter and had a great Easter, but then on the Tuesday morning it started to rain in Hawke’s Bay. It rained, and it rained. I think that poor couple thought that disasters were following them. They were staying at Waipātiki Beach. There was a slip, and they got stuck out at the beach. It created a real difficulty for them. But they went back to Christchurch having had a break and enjoyed themselves.

Then we had another disaster in Napier. On the Napier hill itself a couple of major slips took out the underside of the hill from a couple of properties. In the wider Napier area it was not so bad, but further south the Maraetōtara River flooded Te Awanga and Haumoana and wiped out some of that area. It got progressively worse going down the coast. From Ocean Beach all the way down to Porangahau the flood stretched for 5 kilometres inland, as John Hayes has pointed out to me. Some of the farms, such as Te Āpiti Station, lost up to 80 percent—80 percent—of the hill cover. When we look at the photographs, we can see that the slippage is terrible. There are about 340,000 stock units down there. In the area around those big stations all of the fences have gone, and much of the stock is wandering around.

As in Christchurch, we are seeing people coming forward and supporting those affected. Not only is the Government able to help, as David Carter has done in issuing a statement declaring a medium-scale disaster, but we have seen the local community step up. Federated Farmers are adopting stock, which is absolutely fantastic, and also establishing another Farmy Army that can get out there, help to put perimeter fences around those farms, and get them up and running, which is excellent. This weekend we are launching a “Magpie Army” to go out to Waimārama to help those people whose properties were inundated. They do not have the structural integrity issues that people have down in Christchurch, but, certainly, the water was over 8 feet deep in some areas—in Gillies Crescent in Waimārama. Those guys need the support of the community, which needs to get in there and help bring those Waimārama residents back home.

It brings into sharp focus the need for a strong economy and a strong nation that can provide support in times of disaster. That is what this Government is delivering—it really is. We have had a strong plan in action right from day one. We had those first 100 days of action, rolling out legislation, delivering on the promises of a six-prong strategy, which we are continuing to drive and will take through to the election and beyond. That strategy started with building a better tax system, and we have done that. We have delivered on that particular promise. We have been building infrastructure: roads, rail, and fibre. The investment in rail throughout the country has been fantastic. We have been building better trade opportunities and innovation, which is a wonderful strategy that we are rolling out. The work that Tim Groser, Murray McCully, and John Key are doing around the world is absolutely fantastic. We are out there reducing compliance costs for businesses. That is the fourth prong to the strategy. We are building Government services for fewer taxpayer dollars. We are delivering on that all the time. It is absolutely fantastic.

Today we saw another part of the sixth prong of the strategy, which is to build skills and educational standards. We saw Minister Bennett with John Key out in Trentham, announcing $55.2 million to help advance the skills of young people who are unemployed. That is another wonderful initiative to get young people employed and taking our economy forward, so that we can provide the robust economy we need in times of economic and climatic disasters. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Here is a question for members of the Government: if the economy is doing so well, then why is unemployment up? If the economy is doing so well, then why, every day, are people complaining about the cost of living, the cost of petrol, the cost of food, increased GST, and the cost of getting food from the supermarket? If the economy is doing so well, why are more Māori and Pacific young people unemployed now under National than there were under the last Labour Government? I have to question the Government’s assertion about the economy, because in making it National is further compounding the confusion with a short-term solution of selling State assets. That is all for what? Because the Government says that in selling State assets, Kiwi families will get a better chance, and—wait for it—perhaps power prices will go down. I think not.

We are approaching winter. Families will feel the cold, but more families in many places will feel winter in ways we cannot comprehend—yes, because of the recession, and families are already feeling the effects of a tough and constrained economy, but also because families in Christchurch will feel winter more than others, as many are still waiting for their needs to be addressed. But in many other communities families will feel winter, because they will have to make choices such as whether to turn on the heater.

I am concerned about that, so I will move to the real issues affecting families, and say why selling State assets is not a long-term solution that will help them. The Government wants to sell Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Power, Solid Energy—

David Bennett: Oh, rubbish!

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That member may say “rubbish”, but we have heard the Prime Minister say: “Not in this term.” My colleague Lianne Dalziel has made the very good point that the next election will be a referendum on selling State assets. That is very clear—very clear. But we have to ask whether selling State assets will actually deliver what National is saying to those households who will feel winter this year. It will not lower their power prices. It may not guarantee, actually, that the dividends coming off the State-owned energy companies can be reinvested into some very good schemes that are helping households, like the Warm Homes initiative, under which many homes can be insulated so that they can be warm and healthy for children. There is no guarantee that the dividends taken from selling State assets will be reinvested in those types of initiatives, or reinvested in the community. Some communities have put roofs over their pools, others have got a lot of community development projects off the ground, and there has been some Modern Apprenticeships training through the reinvestment of dividends from many of those State-owned enterprises. But there are no guarantees if those assets are to be sold.

I am concerned about that, because if we look at the $732 million that comes off those State-owned assets, what could we fund back to Kiwis? We could fund 10,300 teachers, which would lower the student-teacher ratio in our classrooms and give many more of our kids a better opportunity in the classroom environment to learn, succeed, and do better. What else could those dividends be put back into? They could be put back into 12,600 new police officers, 33,000 extra hip replacements, 69,700 university placements, and 91,500 polytech placements. That would increase the number of our kids who could stay in education, go into higher education, and get better skills in order to get a better job. If those dividends do not come back into the Government coffers but are lost as a result of the sale of State-owned assets, then what? It is simple: those kids will have to pay for their education, and pay more.

Who are the kids who will miss out, in the event that that type of revenue is not reinvested in opportunities like that? I will tell members. It will be Māori and Pacific kids, and kids who come from modest and low-income families. It will be difficult for them to pay for a higher education. So what are they consigned to under a National Government that will sell State-owned assets, ripping out those dividends from the public purse? They are consigned to a lack of opportunity. This Government should not be selling State assets and it should not be signalling—

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

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill

Third Reading

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I move, That the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill be now read a third time. I am sure that members of the House have been looking forward to the third reading of the Parana Park bill.

Hon Members: We have.

DAVID BENNETT: We have indeed. This bill has now become famous in Hamilton for the time it has taken to get to this stage. Many members of this House have spent more time discussing the Parana Park bill than some other legislation that has gone through in the year that we have just had.

Tim Macindoe: Underlining the significance of Hamilton.

DAVID BENNETT: Underlining the significance of Hamilton, as my colleague from Hamilton West says.

The bill is important legislation because it is another case of the Government delivering for Hamilton. It shows that we are doing what the people of Hamilton want and have desired.

Chris Tremain: We’re going to campaign on it.

DAVID BENNETT: We can campaign on this bill, as my colleague Chris Tremain from Napier says. Many members would be jealous that they cannot say they have put through legislation that is important for their cities, like this bill is for Hamilton.

When we look at the bill we see that it has become famous for the name “Parana Park”, which has no relation at all to the fierce fish one sees in South America. In fact, a play on names is the best explanation we have heard. George Parr was the original person to own this property. He vested it in the city council through legislation. He died in 1929. The 1958 Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act was enacted, which gave the city council more effective administration and management over the Parana Park area.

For those people who have not listened to this debate before but are in awe of what Parana Park is, I say that it is a very small section of land right beside Memorial Park in Hamilton. This land was originally vested in the council so that the council could use it as a children’s convalescent home, because there was a large house on the property. That did not eventuate as the best use of the property, so it basically became part of Memorial Park, which is just parkland but has a very significant purpose for our city: it is where our war memorial is situated. If one goes to Hamilton—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Some people do.

DAVID BENNETT: —as many people do—one will see our war memorial and, beside that, Parana Park, which has been used as a park for children over the past many years.

Tim Macindoe: Don’t forget the playground.

DAVID BENNETT: There is a playground there.

Tim Macindoe: There’s a lovely playground.

DAVID BENNETT: There is. It is right beside the river, which is the natural asset that provides great entertainment to those visiting Hamilton and to Hamiltonians.

This bill, therefore, is a response to the city council looking at furthering its ability to use that property in the most efficient way for members of the community. The city council sees a need to have better control of that resource so that the council can manage it appropriately. Parliament today—and I am assuming that all parties will be supporting this bill—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Oh, that’s a big one.

DAVID BENNETT: I know that is a big assumption, I say to Mr Williamson. There will be unanimous support, I am sure, to do what the people of Hamilton require and desire: to see that Parana Park is further vested in the control of the city council so that the city council can use it appropriately as required.

During the debate on this bill we heard a very interesting fact, which was raised by one of the members of the Opposition, about the composition of land that would be involved in the Parana Park vesting. There is a slight issue. When this land was first put into the bill it was done under an older planning scheme. The planning that was used did not replicate the actual land area now. I think 0.02 hectares was the differential that the very fine Labour member David Shearer—

Sue Moroney: A couple of acres.

DAVID BENNETT: Was it 0.2 of an acre? That member read the bill and found that there was a difference. As was explained during the Committee stage, that difference was not a problem; it was merely an error in how the land had been subdivided in the past for land purposes under the registry. That was many years ago, so under more modern approaches the full and final land area was able to be put into the bill we now have before us. We do not have an issue about any land being lost in the process. Members can take full comfort from the fact that they are vesting the quite appropriate and right amount of land in the city council and not a smaller land area than was anticipated.

In essence, this bill is important in the sense of central government delivering for, and working with, local government. It is important in a symbolic way for the people of Hamilton, as well. The park land has a very important meaning, being right beside Memorial Park. Anzac Day was merely a week or so ago, and at that time thousands of Hamiltonians attended ceremonies in that very part of our city, at Dawn Parades and also at the official morning ceremony.

It is an important part of land that is used by the people of Hamilton. It is used in a manner in which the community finds great satisfaction and remembrance. I think George Parr would take a lot of pride in knowing that the land he gifted to the city is being used in a very constructive way for the enjoyment of all people of the city, and especially for young people of the city, who now turn out to those Anzac Day parades. This means the land has gone back to its original use in a different way: not as a convalescent home, which George Parr had probably expected, but certainly for the value and the enjoyment of young people and the remembrance of people who have gone by, who built the city of Hamilton to such a strong point. People like George Parr and his family were important ancestors and founders of the city.

I thank all members of this House for their contributions in passing this bill. I thank members from both the main parties and also the smaller parties for taking an active interest in the bill during the Committee stage. I look forward to its progression through the House and to this Parliament delivering once again for the people of Hamilton.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is my pleasure to rise and speak to the third reading—it seems like an awfully long time to get to the third reading—of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. First of all, I take the opportunity to congratulate the Hamilton City Council on its drafting of this legislation, and the member who sponsored the bill, David Bennett, on his shepherding of this bill through the House. It probably did not go through as quickly as he imagined, but none the less, here we are. We have arrived at the third reading and I congratulate that member on getting, I think, his first piece of legislation through Parliament. Am I correct in that?

David Bennett: First private bill.

SUE MORONEY: OK, it is his first piece of legislation to go through the House I think, so my congratulations go to David Bennett on that. I just note that the Hamilton City Council will be very pleased at the passing of this bill. It has been uncontroversial, but it vests the land in the council as a recreation reserve, and it is an important piece of land for our city. I acknowledge that and will talk about it a little bit later on in my contribution.

Probably this would be the only legislation that the Hamilton City Council has seen come through the House in the term of this Government that it could actually say anything positive about, because the Hamilton City Council is really struggling at the moment and is looking at having to impose an 8 percent rates increase on ratepayers, basically because the economy has fallen so flat in Hamilton. It has fallen flat because that Government has had no plan to get economic growth happening in the regions up and down the country, and that has landed in Hamilton, as it has in many other places in this country. The Hamilton City Council is facing some very, very difficult decisions at this point in time, because one of the things that has become a really big financial issue for the Hamilton City Council is that it has had a huge drop-off in the development contributions coming forward that helped to fund that council’s operations. What is the reason for that? The reason is that economic growth has bottomed out so badly in Hamilton that there is just no building going on. There is no new—

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the relevance of the last minute or two of this speaker’s speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I have been listening.

SUE MORONEY: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am so pleased you are listening, because this is a very important issue for the Hamilton City Council, which has brought forward this bill to get flexibility around this piece of land. This is positive legislation for the city council, and thank goodness, as it is about the only bill that has come through this Parliament in the course of this Government’s term that has actually done something even slightly positive for Hamilton, because the economy has fallen flat. There is no development and new building going on in Hamilton. Therefore—

David Bennett: Don’t talk down your city. Talk it up.

SUE MORONEY: Mr Bennett should talk to Hamilton City Council, and he will find that the budget the council has for development levies it expected from new developments has completely fallen on its face. The reason for that is because—

David Bennett: That’s not true—that’s not true, at all.

SUE MORONEY: It is true. If one reads the council papers, one will see that the development levies have been reduced by about 200 percent on what they were budgeted to be for this financial year. The council was budgeting as if it had a Labour Government in place, where economic growth would be fast and furious in Hamilton and there would be major building going on. There was major building going on in Hamilton under a Labour Government, but, of course, we knew how to plan for economic growth, and this Government does not. Therefore, we have got Hamilton City Council in exactly that situation where the ratepayers are going to have to foot an 8 percent increase in their rates because that Government has no plan for improving the economic performance in cities just like Hamilton.

Paul Quinn: What’s this got to do with the bill?

SUE MORONEY: What it has to do with the bill is that here we are with the Hamilton City Council trying to get something positive happening in its city, and it is succeeding. Unfortunately, though, the bill will not do anything to lift economic performance. The bill will not do a thing to lift economic performance, so I guess the council felt it could trust the honourable member David Bennett to bring through this legislation.

I will spend the remaining time of my speech paying homage to George Parr, who gifted this land to the Hamilton City Council. I think it was very honourable, because it shows a really strong contrast between George Parr and his intentions and the intentions of this Government. He took privately owned land, which was in fact confiscated land—it was confiscated from Tainui, it came into his hands, and he owned that land privately—and he gifted that land to the public. He gifted that private land to the public of New Zealand and made it available for everyone. That is in contrast to that Government and its plans to sell State assets out of public ownership and into private hands. How disappointed George Parr would be in today’s version of the National Party, to know that his benevolence, and the leadership he was trying to give to our city—and successfully gave to our city—is completely dismissed by this Government. It wants to do something quite different; it wants to do the opposite. George Parr, as a private individual, gifted to our city land that is enjoyed by everyone—small children, older people, right through the age groups. I know that many families have had many happy memories made in Parana Park. It was particularly poignant this year to go to the Anzac Day ceremonies in Memorial Park, just adjacent to Parana Park, given that we have had so much robust debate in this House about that parcel of land. I was very pleased to join members opposite at the Anzac Day ceremonies, both at the Dawn Parade and the civic ceremony—it felt like the middle of the day after getting up for the Dawn Parade, but it was in fact the middle of the morning—and to join thousands of other Hamiltonians in that, as well. That is the legacy of George Parr: to allow a piece of land to be developed to be used for the good of everyone in Hamilton, as he did. But, sadly, the Government opposite is doing the opposite when it comes to the public ownership of State assets.

The other thing about George Parr I would really like to make sure is mentioned in this third reading debate is that he was a rail enthusiast. What a visionary man of his time! Even back then George Parr wanted to get a train service up and running between Kāwhia and Hamilton. I think that shows great vision.

David Bennett: Are you advocating for that?

SUE MORONEY: I can tell the member opposite who has just asked me what I am advocating for that I welcome the opportunity to explain that I am advocating for and supporting a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland—between the largest city in New Zealand and the fourth-largest city in New Zealand. There is 121 kilometres of straight railway line track between Hamilton and Auckland. We own the tracks, we own the trains, and that Government is too miserable to establish a passenger train service between Auckland and Hamilton. That is what I would call a no-brainer, and it is what I would venture to think George Parr would call a no-brainer, as well. Even back in the 1920s George Parr got it. He understood that train transport and public transport was the way of the future, not just continuing only to build more and more roads, but actually giving people a choice of transport options and options that work for the future.

In closing, I congratulate the Hamilton City Council once again. I pledge my party’s support, and my personal support also, for the passing of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman): I rise with the other speakers—nicely, I am pleased to note, from both sides of the House—in support of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is great to have arrived at the third reading; it really is. First of all, I pay tribute to the excellent speeches that have come from members on both sides of the House in a remarkable, intensive level of debate that I am sure the original authors of the bill never quite anticipated. They may have, but they should rest assured that this bill has been thoroughly, thoroughly debated. I pay tribute to the excellent work of my colleague David Bennett, who has been my bench mate for 5½ long years in this Parliament. For 5½ years we have sat together on the benches, over there in Opposition and over here in Government, and the close association has not made any difference to either of us, I am sure—not to either of us.

I would also like to acknowledge those members who sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee as we considered this bill. It is always really interesting to have a local bill go through a select committee because it brings out the best in select committee procedure. I also acknowledge those organisations and members of the public who took the time to make submissions on the bill.

This has not been a controversial bill. Today I would like to reflect on the man whose legacy we are considering, the man who gave Parana Park to Hamilton. I do not personally know a great deal about him, but I understand that George Parr was a local Hamilton farmer. I will talk a little further on Hamilton’s contribution to agriculture shortly. George Parr left a lasting legacy when he gifted to the city of Hamilton the area of land now known as Parana Park, to be used as a site for a convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital and a playground for children. I think the phrase was “for passive recreation”, and we will have more on that later.

David Bennett: Passive recreation, yes.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: We will have more on that later. I do not want to start the debate all over again. Apparently it was later realised that the building was unsuitable for that purpose and the area became a park managed by the council. I recall an MP from the other side of the House saying that George Parr was involved in Liberal Party politics at the time. Was it the Liberal Party?

David Bennett: Yes.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The Liberal Party was, of course, the precursor of the National Party. Our origins go all the way back to Richard Seddon. When I consider that, it is not at all surprising that this man was so concerned about the welfare of children and the welfare and well-being of the people of Hamilton generally.

As I said, I was surprised—in fact, I was astonished—at just how long the bill took to reach its third reading, especially through the Committee stage. Again, I commend the MP responsible for the bill, David Bennett, my benchmate for 5½ years, for the way in which he has shepherded this bill through the House. The previous speaker talked about the way in which he has shepherded the bill.

Dr Cam Calder: He nurtured the bill.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: No, it was shepherded. We are talking about Hamilton, which arguably is the Mecca of agriculture in the North Island—note the qualification of the North Island. It is the Mecca. I remember attending one of the first Fieldays in Hamilton in 1972. It was a great event to go to every year and talk to the farmers. It has become more and more sophisticated, until it has become a world-class event—it really has.

But in spite of modern technology, when people think of agriculture—and every Kiwi thinks of agriculture—they think of the agricultural programmes on radio and television, which are remarkably popular. Agriculture runs through the veins of every Kiwi, and where is that more pronounced than in dog trials? When I saw David Bennett shepherding this bill I was reminded a little of a heeling dog, as he snapped at heels and tried to drive the bill forward. And what happened? Members on the other side, notably the Hon Trevor Mallard before his recent injuries, from which I trust he is recovering well, acted as a heading dog, snapping at the head, turning the bill sideways when dealing with complex issues such as definitions of what “passive recreation” is, as opposed, I suppose, to “active recreation”. That was a puzzling thing that occupied the minds of members from both sides of the House for a long time. Many were the suggestions that were made, and many were the cautious looks from the Chairperson at the time. There was also debate on the name of the park, the origin of the park, whether it was sustainable, whether it was correct, and whether it had another hidden name that should be referred to. I could not believe the level of consideration given to these items.

I come back to the actual intention of the bill. I thank the Hamilton City Council for bringing this bill forward. We heard five submissions on the bill from people who were really serious about it. One question that came up was whether the official status of the park should be that of an historic reserve or a recreation reserve. I make special note of the very thorough and interesting submissions that outlined the historical significance of the park. From those submissions I certainly saw that Parana Park has a history that Hamilton can be proud of. It is a history that deserves protection. I can say, in spite of the criticisms from the other side of the House, that Hamilton has a tremendous amount going for it. It is a great place.

The Hamilton City Council has given consideration to the issue and it wanted to have a recreational reserve option as that is the best fit for the park. To quote from the council’s submission: “The historic reserve classification may result in unintended consequences that could impact on the continued enjoyment of the park as a children’s playground.” After we considered submissions on this matter the select committee was satisfied that the recreation reserve classification would properly provide for this and other recreational uses, while still requiring the council to recognise and manage its obligations under the Historic Places Act 1993. Therefore, we concurred with the view put forward by the council.

This bill, in spite of the heading dog approach taken by members on the other side, which I think had more to do with subsequent legislation than this piece, is not particularly controversial. It is small and it is basically an administrative change. However, it is significant for the people of Hamilton and their council, who want their beautiful public spaces well managed for both recreational and historic value. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I am happy to speak on the third reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I am sure that when David Bennett introduced the bill to the House, he did not think it would have such a long gestation in the House. I was pleased to hear the contributions of a number of members across Parliament who have said such nice things about Hamilton. Like some other members of this House, I grew up in and have spent most of my life in the city of Hamilton. We are very proud of our city. It is a beautiful city. We are one of the few cities that has the luxury of a beautiful river flowing through it, albeit that the river needs to be cleaned up. We have a number of recreational facilities where Hamilton families can enjoy what Hamilton has to offer freely, and also good open spaces where we can take our kids, and that is the basis on which I make my contribution on the bill.

I have spoken previously in the House about Parana Park. When I was growing up, I experienced times when we went to the park to have a picnic. There were shared moments as we gathered there as a family to enjoy each other’s company. More recently, I have also taken my own son to Parana Park, where there is a small playground and a little paddling pool. In summer when the weather is nice, from about 10 o’clock in the morning or in the afternoon a lot of mums take their kids to Parana Park, and they have a little chat while their kids are enjoying the small paddling pool there.

Parana Park is used frequently. It is used for the Anzac Day celebrations on an annual basis. Over the last 8 years we have noticed the growing number of people who attend the early Dawn Service. As we are not long past Anzac Day it is worth mentioning what we have seen, which is that more young people are turning up to the Dawn Service at Memorial Park, which is adjacent to Parana Park, and more people are taking an interest in their local history and local landmarks, of which Parana Park is certainly one.

On that basis, as has been noted by members who have spoken earlier, I point out that this is an administrative bill. The bill means that we will continue to see Parana Park being used as a recreational reserve accessible to all families in Hamilton and to those visiting our great city. Parana Park has a specific history in relation to George Parr, which my colleague Sue Moroney spoke about, and it had a pre-colonial history, which I spoke about in previous contributions to the House. But, most important, I note for the record that adjacent to Parana Park, across the river, is Rangiora, which is a very important site of significance to the local people. It is a place of deep spiritual importance, overlooking this particular area.

Many people have talked about whether the name of “Parana Park” has any Māori significance. It could have been pronounced “Paarana”, but I do not think the name has any Māori significance. The origin of the name still eludes me, but I can confirm that to my knowledge, having asked a number of people who are expert in the history of Kirikiriroa particularly, that “Parana” is not a Māori word. [Interruption] “Pa-rana”—I thank the member for that contribution. I had thought about that, too.

Lastly, I am pleased that the small house still stands on that particular site. It was originally intended as a convalescent home. It is still on the site and is well maintained. There is a beautiful rose garden next to it. I think, if nothing else, it is a part of retaining the history and connection to George Parr on that site. I hope that the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the site, and of the playground and the small paddling pool in particular, is something that the city council will continue to be committed to, so that more of our young people and young families in Hamilton can enjoy the special nature of this park. I am happy to support the third reading, and I commend the bill to the House.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker; ka nui te mihi ki a koe. Hei whaiwhai haere i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero, kai te tautoko ake i tēnei pire kia whai atu i tōna huarahi ki tōna mutunga. Me mihi rā ki a George Parr, hei whaiwhai haere i te kōrero o te mema nā, a Nanaia Mahuta. Me mihi ki a ia me tōna whakaaro nui nei mō te āhuatanga o te tāone nui o Kirikiriroa, ā, me tana koha i tēnei whenua ki ngā iwi e noho mai rā ki reira. Kai te tika tā ētahi, e ai ki ngā kōrero, ko te oati a George Parr i te tau 1929 he tuku i tētahi whare ki tēnei wāhi hei kāinga whakaora i ngā mea i puta i te hōhipera o Waikato i tērā wā, ka mutu, he wāhi tākaro anō rā mō ngā tamariki; he mea hākinakina tonu. Ka mutu, ki tāku titiro ko te waihotanga mai o te tangata nei a George Parr e whakaaro nui nei mō ngā tamariki me te hunga e rongo nei i te ngau o mamae. Nō reira, me mihi ki a ia ka tika. Ko tōna oati he painga mō ngā tamariki me te tūmanako ia, ka whai te kaunihera o Kirikiriroa i tēnā o ngā oati kia hāngai tēnei kaupapa ki ngā tamariki. Kei roto i ngā ringaringa o te kaunihera o Kirikiriroa tēnei kaupapa hei whakatinana ki tā George Parr i wawata mai ai i ngā tau kua hipa.

Ka rua, ka huri atu ki te āhuatanga o te Ao Māori e kōrerohia mai nā e tērā o ngā honore mema a Nanaia Mahuta. Ko tā mātou i te nuinga o te wā ka hoki ki te tirohanga ki te iwi Māori e noho mai rā ki reira i tēnei wā; i whai atu i te whakaaro o Te Kauhanganui o Waikato-Tainui ki te kimi whakaaro. Ki tāku e mōhio nei, ēhara i te mea he take nui ki a rātou. I āhua pai tonu te huarahi, e ai ki tā rātou, ki te whakatinana i te oati o te George Parr nei. Nō reira, tērā tērā.

Ki tāku titiro anō hoki, ēhara i te mea ko te pāka i tōna kotahi te kaupapa nui ēngari, me titiro anō rā ki te āhuatanga o te ora o te awa o Waikato. Anā, ko te awa o Waikato tīmata mai ai i te Tāheke Hukahuka o Taupō, ā, tae atu ki te Pūaha-o-Waikato. Kua rongo nei tātou i roto i tēnei Whare, ko te awa o Waikato ēhara i te mea ko te wai anake ēngari, ko ngā tahataha, ko te papa whenua i raro i te wai, ko ngā wai ka puta, ka tae atu ki te awa o Waikato, ka mutu, ko ngā ika, ko ngā puna ō-raro. Koinā te tirohanga o ngā iwi e noho mai rā i Tainui-Waikato. Koia rā te āhuatanga o te awa. Hāunga te āhuatanga o te kōrero mō te pāka nei, kei wareware i a tātou, ko te āhuatanga o te wai o Waikato me te tūmanako ia, ka puta tētahi huarahi hei whakapaipai ake, hei whakatikatika ake i te oranga tonutanga o te awa o Waikato mō ngā tamariki mokopuna, pēnei tā te George Parr i te wā i a ia, ā, ko te tūmanako ia ka pērā anō hoki i tēnei wā. Nō reira, huri noa i tō tātou Whare, he paku whakaaro noa ake hei whaiwhai haere i te kōrero a ētahi. Ko tā te Pāti Māori he tautoko i tēnei o ngā pire.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker; I cannot thank you enough. To follow up on the trend of the speeches, I support this Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill in the final stage of its journey. Following on from the address of that member, Nanaia Mahuta, I must acknowledge George Parr, and thank him for his huge consideration for the city of Hamilton, and this land he has gifted to the people living there. It is correct what some have said: that according to accounts, in George Parr’s oath of 1929 he gifted a building on this land as a recovery home for patients discharged from the Waikato Hospital at that time, and furthermore a playground, a recreational place solely for children. Furthermore, the legacy of this man, George Parr, in my view is his tremendous consideration for children and for those in poor health. Therefore, acknowledging him is the right thing to do. His promise is a benefit for children, and, hopefully, this is one pledge that the Hamilton City Council will ensure that children will benefit directly from. It is in the hands of the Hamilton City Council to implement what George Parr wanted in years past.

Secondly, I turn now to the aspect relating to Māoridom, which the honourable member Nanaia Mahuta mentioned. Most times we go back to the viewpoint of local Māori who are living there currently, or seek advice from the Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui. I understand that it is not a big issue for them. According to them, they find the process to implement the pledge of George Parr quite favourable. So that is that.

From my point of view, as well, the park on its own is not the big issue, but rather the need to look at what relates to the well-being of the Waikato River. The Waikato River starts at the Huka Falls of Taupō, and eventually reaches Port Waikato. We have heard in this House that the Waikato River is not just the water alone, but the banks, the riverbed under the water, the water from the tributaries that flow into the Waikato River, and, furthermore, the fish and the subterranean pools. That is the view of the tribes living in Waikato-Tainui. That is the aspect relating to the river. Regardless of what has been said about this park, we must never forget what relates to the water in the Waikato River, with the hope that in due time a way is found to improve and restore the well-being of the Waikato river for ever, for the sake of the children and grandchildren, just as it was in George Parr’s time. Hopefully, it will be like that today. So throughout our House, that is a little thought to consider as a follow-up to what other members have contributed. The Māori Party supports this bill.]

Dr CAM CALDER (National): It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Philanthropy is the performance of charitable or benevolent acts. Like the quality of mercy, it blesses those who give and those who receive. It was very common in Victorian times and, as we know, some of the world’s richest men, such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, are actively promoting the idea of philanthropy globally around the world today.

Acts of philanthropy have played a significant role in the development of New Zealand’s communities, and I am thinking of a number of them as I stand here. Atiu Creek Farm, for instance, just to the west of Wellsford, has a large waterfront frontage and beautiful standing trees and wetlands. It was given to the people of New Zealand by Pierre and Jackie Chatelanat, and became Auckland’s 23rd regional park in 2006. This was a very, very generous gift, because its value at the time was some $10 million.

Rotoroa Island, of 82 hectares and just to the east of Waiheke Island, is a beautiful island. It was closed to the public for about a hundred years, and was owned and used by the Salvation Army in a bid to treat alcoholics and help them on the road to recovery. It has been opened up to the people of New Zealand by the generous involvement of a couple who have bought the lease from the Salvation Army, and who have allowed the land to be opened to the public. The money is being used by the Salvation Army to progress its work in the meantime.

Sir John Logan Campbell is another philanthropist who springs to mind. In 1901 he gifted Cornwall Park to the people of Auckland, and this is a park that people throughout New Zealand have used and enjoyed for many, many years, and continue to do so to this day. I remember as a young lad coming up from the Naki to Auckland, and it was a great pleasure to drive through those beautiful fields, with stock grazing on them, surrounded by stone walls. It was a reminder—certainly seeing the stock in the fields—of home, even though I was all those miles away.

Sir John McKenzie was a well-known and successful businessman. He formed the J R McKenzie Trust in 1940, which has a very good deed that allows board members to give money for charitable and educational purposes in whatever manner they so wish. As a young boy growing up in a single-parent family and off to Otago University, I received a donation from the J R McKenzie Trust, which was gratefully appreciated at the time, and indeed is appreciated to this day.

We have heard that the land from Parana Park was originally gifted in 1929 by George Parr. I submit to the House that he was yet another philanthropist worthy of recognition, and it is totally appropriate that we should be thinking of him and mentioning his name in the House today. He was a farmer, and someone mentioned he was a Liberal farmer, so his giving was in the tradition of his beliefs. He gave the land to Hamilton City to be used for a children’s convalescent home initially, for patients from Waikato Hospital. In the 1950s it became apparent that it was no longer suitable for such use, and this bill will vest Parana Park in the Hamilton City Council as a recreational reserve. Parana Park will for ever be a testimony to the philanthropy and benevolence of George Parr, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is an honour to speak to the third reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. The bill has been colourful both in terms of the debate in this House and the length of time it has been going through the House. Some would say that a bill that is administrative and relatively routine has enjoyed debate and scrutiny that is disproportionate to its importance, but it has been interesting to listen to some of the contributions today by members on both sides of the House.

First of all, I will touch on the fact that Parana Park played a very important role, just over a week ago, on Anzac Day. I believe that Parana Park is the main meeting-place on Anzac Day for the people of Hamilton. I am sure that if the ceremonies at Parana Park on Anzac Day were anything like they were at Titahi Bay and Porirua for me a couple of Mondays ago, they were just as moving.

I reiterate that Labour supports this bill, basically because of the bill’s intent, and that is to safeguard an asset in the hands of the people of Hamilton. As I said before to the member in charge of this bill, David Bennett, I think he may have gone a bit rogue in National, because this bill is looking to protect an asset and make sure it stays within the hands of the people of Hamilton. He is bucking the trend to make sure that Parana Park stays in the hands of the community.

Just down the road from Parana Park is the Huntly power station, and I wonder what would happen if we did the same thing for Huntly power station that we are doing for Parana Park, to make sure we protect the power station and keep it in the hands of the mum and dad investors who have paid for, and protected, it over many, many years.

I think there were only five submissions on the bill, if I remember correctly—and I spoke numerous times during the Committee stage, because of the bill’s importance. The submissions were very, very thorough and thoughtful. I think one of them proposed changes to the way in which the park is protected.

As I said, this bill sets out to protect an asset. Over the last 4 years power companies, which are State-owned assets, raised $732 million for the people of New Zealand. I wonder what would happen if we protected those State-owned assets like we are protecting Parana Park today. What could we get with that $732 million if we protected power companies, which we own, in the way we are protecting Parana Park today? If we protected power companies like we are protecting Parana Park today we could get 10,000 teachers at the average rate—10,000.

If we protected our power companies to make sure they bring in those profits, like we are protecting Parana Park today, we could bring in 12,000 more police officers. If we protected our power companies to make sure they bring in those profits and keep them here in New Zealand, like we are protecting Parana Park today, we could do 33,000 more hip operations. If we protected our power companies to make sure they bring in those profits, like we are protecting Parana Park today, we could increase the number of places at polytechs, such as the Whitireia Community Polytechnic in my electorate, by 91,000 places.

If we protected our power companies to make sure those profits stayed in New Zealand, we could have 70,000 more university places. So we should be protecting our power companies, our State-owned assets, just as we are protecting Parana Park today. We must make sure we protect Parana Park for future generations, and we must make sure we protect our State-owned enterprises so that all Kiwis can benefit, just as the people of Hamilton benefit form Parana Park and enjoy playing and picnicking in it with their families.

Over the course of the bill’s passage through the House we have learnt quite a lot about Parana Park and its history. It has been very interesting to find out about a man called George Parr, who gifted the land to Hamiltonians. It was gifted by George Parr in 1929, and, as we have heard, it was intended to be a playground for children who were using the Waikato Hospital. There was a play area, which makes up the bulk of the park, which was supposed to be a convalescent home.

We have heard a lot about Mr Parr, and about his Liberal Party background—if I am correct. There was some debate about the accuracy of that matter, but we do know that Mr Parr was the son of a Hamilton mayor, and that the Parr family owned a grocer’s shop in Hamilton. I just wonder what Mr Parr would make of Hamilton today if he could take a trip forward in time, plonk himself back in Parana Park, and have a chat to the people of Hamilton.

I think the member for Hamilton West is very interested in what Mr Parr might think of that, and whether Mr Parr would be worried about the cost of living and the fact that New Zealanders seem to be going backwards under this National Government. I think Mr Parr would also be worried that the people of Hamilton were looking for a plan to make sure that those who do not have jobs, or are looking for jobs, got the economy going. I think Mr Parr would be a bit concerned about what is happening in that space, as well. He would be a bit concerned that although the Government, with this bill, might be protecting an asset for the community it has, on the whole, become out of touch with the public.

It is absolutely brilliant that this bill looks to protect a community asset, to make sure that the community is listened to, and to ensure that the people of Hamilton and future generations can continue to enjoy this park. The protection of an asset for the community—in this instance, Parana Park—is a rarity. In my area, the community is not being listened to in terms of the Kapiti Expressway. The people of Raumati South and Raumati Beach want to make sure they protect their community. They do not want a four-lane expressway through their community. They want to make sure that their community is protected, just like the people of Hamilton want to see Parana Park protected. But in the instance of the expressway, the Government is not listening.

In the case of Parana Park we have the protection of a community asset, but on the Kapiti Coast we have a four-lane monstrosity. In the instance of Parana Park we have the protection of a community asset, but on the Kapiti Coast we have an expressway through a community, not for a community. In Parana Park we have a great protection of a community asset, but on the Kapiti Coast the Government is going against the will of the people.

In Parana Park we have the protection of a community asset, but on the Kapiti Coast we have an expressway that nobody wants. We have asset sales around the rest of New Zealand, which nobody wants to happen, and on 26 November the people of Ōtaki will send that clear message to the Government. Although this Government might be protecting Parana Park, it is not protecting the Kapiti Coast by putting in an expressway that nobody wants in their communities.

I will touch on the lighter side of this debate. As I said, the debate on the bill has probably extended beyond the importance of the bill, but it has been an interesting experience to go through some of the history of the bill. I congratulate the Hamilton City Council, David Bennett, and other Hamilton members of Parliament, including my colleague Sue Moroney, on making sure—

Tim Macindoe: And me.

KRIS FAAFOI: Sorry; and the member for Hamilton West, Tim Macindoe. He is a typical politician. He wanted to be mentioned in the speech; he did not want to miss out. [Interruption] I got him in there. I congratulate all of them. Labour supports the bill.

NICKY WAGNER (National): It is my pleasure to support the third reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. As we have heard, the bill is to vest Parana Park in the Hamilton City Council as a recreational reserve. It is a wonderful piece of land. It is in the heart of Hamilton, and it has been enjoyed for decades by Hamiltonians. I think it is appropriate that we celebrate the goodness of George Parr and we celebrate the philanthropy that he showed, and the vision that he showed in providing this land for the people of Hamilton. It was gifted to them by George Parr on his death in 1929.

We have heard a lot about George Parr today. He was extremely well respected. He was a businessman, and he was the president of the Hamilton chamber of commerce. He was a good, solid citizen. He was interested in politics—Liberal politics. He was very community-minded. He never married but he was very fond of children.

The debate about the name of Parana Park is very interesting. The Hon Nanaia Mahuta talked about whether it was a Māori name. In actual fact it is a combination name: the combination of George Parr’s name, the “Par” in Parana and of Annie McPherson, who was a small child who died just a year before George died.

Simon Bridges: Elle Macpherson?

NICKY WAGNER: No, Annie McPherson.

It was Parana as in “Parr-Anna” Park. So it was Annie McPherson and George Parr. That is how the name was put together. We have probably forgotten that fact, because we say “Parana” and do not think of “Parr” in the first place.

We have heard also that there was originally a house with big surrounds. George Parr wanted the house to be used as a convalescent home for children who came out of hospital. The house itself was never particularly suitable but the land has proved to be more than suitable. It has been used as a children’s playground ever since it was donated, and it has been well used. Picnics, barbecues, community events, and memorial services are held there regularly, and we have heard the fact that the Dawn Service and the citizens service this year on Anzac Day were particularly well attended.

I think George Parr would be delighted to see the good use that is being made of his land and the good use that is being made of his gift to the people of Hamilton. But now it is time to update and modernise the legislation by which Parana Park is administered by the Hamilton City Council. I think it is time to do that. I support this bill.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): It is a real pleasure to speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. We have had some very good moments in the House discussing this bill. People watching the proceedings of Parliament might be wondering why on earth we are spending so much time on a bill that is largely administrative and vests Parana Park in the people of Waikato and the people of Hamilton. Part of the explanation for that, of course, is that while the Committee stage was under way with other bills there were attempts to push large Supplementary Order Papers through this Chamber without giving Opposition members the ability to take a really good look at them and study them, as is necessary to be able to make informed comment and an informed decision about them. Pages and pages of Supplementary Order Papers were put forward by the Government. As a result of that, this side of the House decided to spend more time on legislation that is perhaps less important in terms of needing debate but is nevertheless important to the people of Hamilton. It is for that reason that we are still debating the third reading of this bill and pushing it through its third reading today. It should pass its third reading today without any problems, because, as we have made very, very clear in the debates that have gone on, Labour definitely supports this legislation.

The bill, as has been said by many members, is a good piece of legislation. It gives the people of Hamilton more security about the parks and the land they have available to them. It enables informal play, as we heard during the Committee stage—not formalised play, such as football or soccer, but informal activity like flying kites and playing with frisbees—for the people of Hamilton. So from that point of view it is extremely good, and no doubt Mr Bennett, who is just entering the House now, will be able to trumpet this legislation as his major achievement for mankind when it comes to this year’s election.

It is also, I think, fair to point out, as my colleague Kris Faafoi just did, that land is going to be taken in his electorate of Mana, and to contrast the vesting of Parana Park in the Hamilton City Council with what is happening there, and also in my electorate of Mt Albert, where parks are being removed for the purpose of building motorways. Waterview and, in particular, Ōwairaka are less well off areas of my electorate. Yet, as often happens, the people there are people who are less able to fight the fight and to stop motorways; these sorts of public works are being pushed through, and a number of the parks in Mt Albert will be removed. It is worth pointing out, as I and others pointed out to the board of inquiry that met on this issue, that it is the people of Mt Albert who will be disadvantaged by the motorway. But it is not only that. One would expect that the New Zealand Transport Agency might try to overcompensate these people for the loss of their parks and their sports grounds, etc., but it has been rather stingy, to be perfectly frank, in doing that.

So when we come to legislation like this I reflect on the situation in my own electorate and I contrast that with the visionary thinking of George Parr and his forethought in being able to put aside a piece of land in the centre of Hamilton, near the banks of the Waikato River, that can be used for Hamiltonians into the future. It is also worth noting that the Māori people of the Waikato, the tribe of Tainui, have supported this legislation, as well. In many ways they have a real point in pointing out that this was part of the raupatu area, the area that was confiscated from Tainui, after the New Zealand Wars of the 19th century. Yet they see that the benefits for all New Zealanders living in that area, Māori and non-Māori, will be served by vesting this park in the Hamilton City Council.

There was one frightening moment during the Committee stage when we thought we had lost 0.4 of a hectare, or an acre of land. I have to say that when I looked at David Bennett’s face when he thought he had lost 0.4 of a hectare, and that people might cast aspersions on him for perhaps concealing 0.4 of a hectare of extremely valuable land, he did, I have to say, rise to the challenge. He went away, researched the various lots that were under consideration, and came back with an explanation of where that acre went. That was, I guess, the heart-thumping climax of this legislation. We were all on the edge of our seats wondering where 0.4 of a hectare had disappeared to. There was true drama and tension in this House.

I also want to reflect that this vesting of land is happening in an area that has the Huntly power station, and as we know from discussions in this House and outside, this Government is thinking of selling many of the assets along the Waikato River that generate New Zealand’s power. These are the assets I have contributed to through my taxes and that my parents and my grandparents have contributed to. They are our assets, yet we hear from this Government that it is about to sell those assets so that others—the mums and dads we keep talking about—can buy them. The mums and dads already own them but they can now own them again. We have looked at Contact Energy. What happened to the assets of that organisation? They ended up in foreign hands, generating benefits and dividends for foreign interests, particularly Australian interests. This Government wants to turn round and do exactly the same thing to our electricity assets, our energy assets, which belong, most rightfully, to the people of New Zealand. We oppose that sale. We have a similar vision perhaps to that of George Parr, who looked to the future of Hamilton, and we look to the future of New Zealand. We want to preserve the assets that belong to us for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It is absolute lunacy to sell those assets when they are generating returns of about 17 percent. It is economic lunacy to do that, and we need only read the column by Brian Gaynor in last week’s paper about the disastrous economic history and what happened to New Zealand assets when they were sold to get an indication of where we believe this Government is going wrong.

In conclusion, I would like to close by saying that this is a good bill. It is good legislation, and it is something sensible that we certainly can support and that we have supported right throughout these debates. We have perhaps given it more attention than we would have other legislation of a similar nature. That was for a reason, but it is worth pointing out that we support this today.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): The last shall be first and the first shall be last. Having had the great pleasure, in the absence of the member for Hamilton East, to move the second reading, I now have the enormous privilege today of ending this debate on the third reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill.

Just last Monday, which was Anzac Day, I wandered through Parana Park on my way to attend the civic service at the Hamilton Cenotaph. I stopped to talk to some constituents on the attractive stone bridge that crosses Gibbons Creek and marks one entrance to Parana Park. I drew their attention to the two memorial marble plaques that face each other on that bridge. We studied the inscriptions together. As Nicky Wagner reminded us a few minutes earlier, it is believed that the names of the two citizens commemorated on those plaques, George Parr and Annie McPherson, when combined are thought to answer the question asked by many members in the first and second readings of this bill: how did Parana Park acquire its name?

The inscription on the first plaque reads as follows:

George Parr

died 26 February 1929.

He left Parana Park to the children of Hamilton.

“He hath left you all his walks

On this side Tiber; he hath left them you,

And to your heirs for ever; common pleasures,

To walk abroad, and recreate yourselves.”

David Shearer: Recreate?

TIM MACINDOE: I am sure the learned member for Mt Albert will recognise that extract from Marc Antony’s speech at the forum in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. I am pleased to assure the House that the circumstances of George Parr’s demise were less dramatic than the famous murder scene that is analysed in act three, scene two, which David Bennett tells me he enjoyed studying so much in his distinguished days at St John’s College in Hamilton.

But once more on to the bridge, Mr Speaker! On the opposite plaque is written—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Oh my goodness!

TIM MACINDOE: —thank you; Ms Chadwick actually recognised it—

This bridge was erected to the memory of Annie McPherson—

Simon Bridges: Elle MacPherson?

TIM MACINDOE: —not Elle; Annie McPherson—

who died 5 August 1928

“And the Lord God planted a garden.”

He did indeed, and a beautiful garden Parana Park will remain for Hamiltonians to enjoy for generations to come, enhanced by the provisions of this bill promoted by the MP for Hamilton East.

Members opposite also asked during earlier debates about the origins of our city’s name. The area now covered by our city was originally the site of a handful of Māori villages, including Pūkete in the north in my electorate, Miropiko, and Kirikiriroa, which I am advised by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who also represents our city in this House, means long stretch of gravel, and from which our city takes its Māori name.

The English name, Hamilton, commemorates Captain John Charles Fane Hamilton, who was born in Scotland in 1822. His grandfather was for a period the MP for Oxford in the House of Commons. His father was an army colonel, and his uncle was a rear admiral. With a pedigree like that it is probably not surprising that Hamilton joined the navy when he was a mere 13 years of age, and served in many parts of the world, including China, the Americas, and the Crimea. His bravery at the siege of Sebastopol, which led to the Russian defeat in the Crimean War, earned him promotion to the rank of commander.

He was subsequently appointed captain of the Esk, a corvette or gunship, and was sent to New Zealand where he served in the Waikato campaign of the New Zealand Wars. Hamilton was killed in action in the Battle of Gate Pa. The member for Tauranga is here and no doubt has frequently visited his grave, for Hamilton is buried where he died in 1864, at the cemetery close to the embankment where he fell. The gold-plated Royal Navy officer’s sword owned and used by Captain Hamilton during the Waikato campaigns and the Battle of Gate Pa were subsequently gifted to the Hamilton City Council, and it is a significant exhibit at Te Whare Taonga O Waikato, the Waikato Museum, which is located just across the Waikato River, opposite Parana Park.

Just to set at rest the troubled minds on the other side of the House, I am delighted to confirm to those rude mechanicals opposite that there are no piranhas in the stream running through Parana Park, and that the missing square metre that was so lamented by Mr Shearer is not really missing at all, nor is it in Mr Bennett’s back garden on River Road. In fact, that missing acre is exactly where it has always been, and always will be after we band of brothers and sisters have shuffled off this mortal coil.

It is a relief to have reached this point after the bubble, bubble, toil, and trouble of the contributions of members opposite. Their bizarre contributions to the progress of this bill through the House are memorable for all the wrong reasons. During the second reading, and especially in the Committee stage, members opposite gave us a case of—if Churchill will forgive me—never was so much said by so many of so little. Or, to borrow from the Bard again, we heard from members opposite, and not for the first time, a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The manner in which Labour members milked their performances to keep a debate going, despite unanimous support for the measure, was reminiscent of Nick Bottom’s protracted demise in Pyramus and Thisbe, and had a similar impact on those who waited patiently for the puffery to peter out. They traversed from dubious history, through tragedy, to comedy.

It has taken nearly a year for this important but uncontroversial measure to complete its passage through this House. The purpose of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill has been more than thoroughly outlined and examined during that period. I simply conclude this debate by congratulating David Bennett, our mayor, Hamilton city councillors, and all the citizens of the fine city of Hamilton, on the fact that this bill is finally about to be passed. I look forward to Parana Park being well managed, carefully maintained, and an area of beauty to be enjoyed by many generations to come.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Westpac New Zealand Bill

Second Reading

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) on behalf of Craig Foss (National—Tukituki): I move, That the Westpac New Zealand Bill be now read a second time. I move the motion on behalf of my colleague the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Craig Foss, who is currently representing the Government in Hanoi at the Asian Development Bank annual general meeting. Craig has been shepherding the bill through the House and will continue to do so as it progresses from this point forward.

The bill is a private bill, promoted by Westpac New Zealand Ltd. The bill provides a mechanism to enable certain assets and liabilities of Westpac Banking Corporation in New Zealand—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. This year it is celebrating its 150th anniversary in this country. Westpac is one of four banking groups that have dual banking registration in New Zealand. It operates in New Zealand through both the Westpac Banking Corporation New Zealand branch and a locally incorporated subsidiary, Westpac New Zealand Ltd.

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. The 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. Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand branch has a condition of registration that provides that its external liabilities are not to exceed that amount.

Having regard to the local incorporation 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—principally assets and liabilities of its New Zealand institutional banking business—to Westpac New Zealand Ltd. The transfer will reduce the size of the New Zealand branch and help to ensure that it continues to remain below its external liability cap both in periods of growth and in periods of market volatility as we go forward.

The transfer will also mean that Westpac New Zealand Ltd will increase in size. That is beneficial in terms of the local incorporation policy, as it will allow the Reserve Bank to have greater control over the assets and liabilities being transferred, were there ever to be a bank failure event.

When Craig Foss moved the motion for the first reading of the bill he noted that legislation is the only means by which the designated assets and liabilities can be invested in Westpac New Zealand Ltd efficiently and economically without disrupting the conduct and continuity of Westpac New Zealand’s banking business. The bill also ensures minimal disruption to Westpac’s customers, employees, and suppliers.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee has made some minor amendments to the bill. They are marked on the bill that is on the Table. I am sure Amy Adams and other members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee will pay close attention to the detail of those amendments to make sure they are clear to the New Zealand public as we go forward, and I look forward to Amy’s speech in that respect.

I offer my thanks to members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their thorough examination of the bill and for ensuring the timely return of the legislation to the House. The Finance and Expenditure Committee is an excellent committee, with members from across the House who do extremely good work, and I commend them for their work in the committee.

I also acknowledge the constructive cross-party examination on this issue. It is important, when dealing with these sorts of matters, to reach consensus where possible. A strong and functional banking system is important to New Zealand, and as Craig noted when he moved the motion for the first reading of the bill, in a small but important way the bill helps make the banking system of New Zealand stronger. I commend the bill to the House.

STUART NASH (Labour): I am quite saddened that I missed the climax to David Bennett’s career: being thanked for the passing of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is a crowning achievement, with which he will be able to go to the electorate and say that after 6 years he achieved it for the people of Hamilton. At least he did not sell it—but maybe he is planning to. I do not know. He did not sell this one—he might have even nationalised it.

Anyway, it is good to follow Chris Tremain, because, as Mr Tremain said, every party in this House supports the Westpac New Zealand Bill. Mr Foss brought it to the House. It is a common-sense bill, and Labour supports it. There are a number of reasons why we support this bill: it is common sense, it is absolutely necessary legislation, and Labour has always supported any sort of financial legislation that we believe improves business integrity and Government efficiency. What people will find is that the vast majority of bills that come through this House in support of business integrity and Government efficiency, and increase the ability of everyday New Zealanders to have confidence in financial markets, Labour will support. I know that over the last 3 or 4 weeks I have spoken on a number of those bills. It is a common-sense approach.

Of course, there are certain types of bills in respect of banks that we do not support. A classic one is that we certainly would not support the sale of Kiwibank, which the Government wants to do. We certainly would not support the sale of BNZ. I think we heard today that BNZ was sold for $1.5 billion, and is now returning dividends of over $15 billion. That is the sort of banking legislation we certainly would not support. If anyone is unclear about it, let me just clarify: Labour does not support the sale of State assets, of which Kiwibank is one. It is owned by all of us.

This bill provides for the vesting of certain assets and liabilities—

Simon Bridges: Phil has sold more assets than anyone else.

STUART NASH: Have I just heard Simon Bridges say that he thinks Kiwibank should be sold? Is that what he has said? I challenge that member—

Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member opposite needs to have his hearing checked. Nobody on this side of the House said that at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but I will remind Mr Nash that this is a second reading speech, not a first reading speech, and to come back to the content of the bill.

STUART NASH: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I obviously heard Simon Bridges wrongly, but I would love that member to hold a public meeting on asset sales in Tauranga, and try to convince his constituents that it is a good idea.

This bill provides for the vesting of certain assets and liabilities of the Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand institutional businesses in Westpac New Zealand. That can be achieved only through legislation.

Simon Bridges: Phil could run us through it. Phil knows more about it than anyone else in here.

STUART NASH: Simon Bridges is dead right: Bill English does know about selling State assets, because he sold Contact Energy in 1999, the company that returns over $100 million in dividends every year to its Australian owners. So, yes, Simon Bridges is dead right: Bill English does know about selling State assets.

This is the sort of bill where legislation is the only means by which the assets of Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand retail business can be invested in Westpac New Zealand. There are two reasons for that. First, it is the only means by which Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand retail business can be vested in Westpac New Zealand efficiently and economically, without interference in the conduct and continuity of the banking business. Mr Tremain talked about that, and it is the reason why the bill has come through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is most important, because there can be no disruption to Westpac’s business and customer base—of that there is no doubt. It is very important not only for customers but for staff as well. I have spoken many times in this House about the need for a strong and robust banking sector.

I think the vast majority of people will agree that there are two main reasons this economy made it through the recession in the shape that it did: one, the fiscally prudent way in which Dr Cullen managed the economy and reduced Government debt to such a level that there was none, and, secondly, we had a very, very strong banking sector. Dr Cullen and the strength of the banking sector ensured that we got through this economic crisis in the shape we did.

It is just an absolute shame that Dr Cullen’s legacy has been ripped apart in 2 years by the Government. What a shame. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund used to be called the Cullen fund, but Dr Cullen has asked whether his name can be removed from it, because he is so embarrassed by what the Government is doing to the fund that he set up to provide for the savings of New Zealanders.

Mr Bridges had the nerve to stand up and ask a question in the House about what the Government is doing for savings. He should have asked Minister English why he cut funding to the Cullen fund.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bring it back to the bill.

STUART NASH: Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us bring it back to the bill we have in hand, but when Simon Bridges sits up and says we should sell State assets and cut funding to the Cullen fund, it is hard not to respond.

Anyway, as mentioned, this legislation is the only means by which appropriate amendments to, and appeals of, existing legislation can be effected, as Westpac Banking Corporation currently operates under legislation in New Zealand through the Westpac Banking Corporation Act 1982. The private Act of Parliament approach has commonly been used for bank mergers in the past. For example, there is the National Bank of New Zealand Limited Act 1994 and the Westpac Banking Corporation Act 1982.

Simon Bridges: Who wrote this?

STUART NASH: I think everyone knows that. Everyone knows how the finance and banking industries work, do they not, or am I mistaken? Does Mr Bridges have no financial literacy whatsoever? Mr Bridges has once again admitted that he knows nothing about the banking sector, yet he had the nerve to stand up and ask his finance Minister about what the Government is doing for savings policy. He knows nothing. But to give Mr Bridges credit, he did stand up in the House, in a moment of honesty, and admit that he lost half the cases he brought as a public prosecutor.

Anyway, this bill is important, as I was saying, to strengthen the local banking sector. It is most important we have a strong local banking sector. It has already been alluded to that Australasia—Australasia—came out of the financial crisis well, and, as mentioned, the reason we did is that we had a strong banking sector.

Amy Adams: Look, he can read and breathe at the same time; that’s impressive.

Simon Bridges: And why is this member wearing a $25 parliamentary tie?

STUART NASH: Amy Adams knows that—she knows that. I think she needs to go and tell Simon to keep quiet, because he does not know what he is talking about. But that is OK—that is OK.

Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought the rules of this House meant that a member’s full name is needed to be used in debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the member is right, but the member was asking for this so he has to expect something in retaliation.

STUART NASH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there will be no more. The member will continue, but I say to the member—and I have given plenty of leeway on this; there is about 2 minutes remaining—that when we are on a second reading speech there are a number of Speakers’ rulings that apply. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 106/1 and Speaker’s ruling 105/5, which are about the content of a second reading speech. To mention other things is fine, and I allowed that, but not continual straying, even if it is responding to interjections. One must stay with the content of the bill as presented from the select committee. That is what a second reading debate is about.

STUART NASH: As I was saying, Labour supports this bill, and the Reserve Bank also supports it. We also understand that it is very important that Westpac New Zealand has a very sound and stable New Zealand operation, and enjoys the advantages and benefits of being linked to a trans-Tasman parent. For example, it has to have access to capital so that it can lend to its business customers, and if there is one thing we need at the moment, if there is one thing this economy really, really desires, it is for banks to have the capital to lend to businesses. Goodness me, no other plan is being shown by this Government to get business growth up and running, so it needs the support of the banks. As mentioned, the Reserve Bank backs this bill. It is a common-sense bill, supported by everyone on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and by everyone in the House.

But once again I will make the point that I made in the first reading. I say again that I think that Westpac should be aware that something that is demanded by the vast majority of New Zealanders—in fact, by all New Zealanders—is the level of transparency that they like to see in their banks. We all understand—we all understand—the need for a strong banking sector; of that there is no doubt. Members on this side of the House understand that more than most, and our banking system has held up very well. But we try to encourage the level of transparency in the banking sector such that everyday New Zealanders can have a level of confidence in banks. This bill is one thing that will help with that level of confidence.

Another thing is the level of transparency, which we tried to bring out in the banking inquiry. Labour held a banking inquiry just so that transparency could get out there and so ordinary New Zealanders absolutely knew what drove interest rates—why the Westpac bank did what it was doing with its interest rates around mortgages, both fixed and floating. Unfortunately, the Westpac bank did not support that inquiry. Kiwibank did, and Kiwibank provided a level of transparency that all New Zealanders demanded. We are supporting this bill. It went to the select committee and had a very robust process. I think it is a very good bill. Thank you very much.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): It is a great privilege to rise this afternoon and take a second reading call on the Westpac New Zealand Bill. I was a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which considered this bill, as was the speaker who has just resumed his seat, Stuart Nash. I think it is important to start off at the outset by making it very clear that this bill is about meeting the needs of the Reserve Bank’s regulatory oversight. It is more about ensuring that the Westpac Banking Corporation, which is obviously one of our biggest and most successful banks, is able to trade, and to continue to do so within the terms of the Reserve Bank’s local incorporation policy.

To put that oversight into context, and to understand why we should focus on it, I think that if there were two things we learnt from the global financial crisis, the first is that we have to have a strong and robust banking sector. Even now, as the fall-out continues around the world, we see countries whose banking sector has let them down, and the significant effect that has had not only on their economies but on the people of those countries. We are extremely lucky that in New Zealand we have a banking sector that New Zealanders can rely on. Certainly, Westpac and the other major banks are a big part of that, and we should be very grateful for it.

The other lesson that was learnt from the global financial crisis is the importance of effective regulatory oversight. That is really what this bill is about. The local incorporation policy is to ensure that if there is ever a time when the Reserve Bank, as the body that supervises the banks, needs to take oversight, control, or any sort of action to protect New Zealanders, the key assets are held here in New Zealand within the jurisdiction that the Reserve Bank can control. So we have this policy, called the liabilities cap, for the systemically important banks.

Effectively, that policy means that once a bank’s liabilities get in excess of $15 billion, it has to ensure that those assets are controlled here in New Zealand. Let me be very clear that there is no question that Westpac has ever broken that cap, but the transfer of those institutional banking assets from Westpac Banking Corporation in Australia, operating through the branch structure in New Zealand, into Westpac New Zealand is really just about future-proofing that situation, and making sure that Westpac can, at all times in the future, continue to trade within that liabilities cap without any issues. As previous speakers have said in the debate so far, a private bill such as the bill we have before us is really the only way to achieve that transfer seamlessly and effectively.

I think the other point that is worth making, for people listening at home, is that this legislation does not in any way affect banking relationships with Westpac. Anyone who has an eftpos card, a cheque book, a savings account, or whatever has nothing to fear from this: there is no difference at all. The legislation will affect only the big end of town: institutional banking arrangements. But even at that level those institutions will be seamlessly moved across into the ownership of Westpac New Zealand, and private legislation is certainly a very effective way to do that.

I will wrap up my contribution by commending the work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in going through this legislation under the chairmanship of Craig Foss. He, of course, was also the sponsor of the bill, and he chaired that committee quite properly and very effectively. The Finance and Expenditure Committee works very well on legislation like this. It approaches the legislation in a way that ensures that it is robust and effective, and that we have not gone any wider than we need to in meeting the objectives of the bill. I think, certainly, that this bill’s process reflected that approach. We gave it thorough consideration. We tested the purposes, the need for the bill, and the width of the bill, and asked whether the provisions went any further than they needed to. We are satisfied that the bill is in very good shape.

The committee has made a couple of minor amendments. Those are detailed in the commentary on the draft of the bill that is before the House. I think this House can certainly have confidence that the bill before it is necessary and will be seamless. It will not have an impact on ordinary New Zealanders, except for on their knowledge that should there ever be a banking crisis ahead of us, this legislation will enable the Reserve Bank to continue its effective oversight and control of those banks that are most important to New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Labour supports the Westpac New Zealand Bill being referred to a select committee, and we do so for several reasons.

Amy Adams: No—it is back from the select committee.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you. We support this bill at its second reading, and we will support it right the way through, for several reasons. The first is that it reflects the outgrowth of a strong domestic asset-holding position from Westpac bank, which is in line with the objectives that we have, for a long time, taken to ensure that the domestic banking system is robust.

We are fortunate in New Zealand that we have a number of strong banking institutions, and Westpac is one of them. As an outgrowth of previous regulations, the domestic size of its book has grown to the point where it requires legislation to allow it to continue outside the previous limit. That is one of the primary objectives of this bill. It is important to ensure that Westpac New Zealand Ltd has a strong and stable New Zealand operation, while enjoying the benefits of linking to its trans-Tasman parent, which has improved its access to capital. We note the success of the Reserve Bank’s local incorporation policy. That is one element in securing the stability of the New Zealand banking sector, and it is critical that we retain sovereign oversight of our banking regulation.

There have been a number of previous debates in this House about the fact that we need to retain a full-service Reserve Bank. There were times in days gone by when it was suggested in this House that we might in fact end up ceding to the Australia banking authorities effective control over the New Zealand banking system. There were calls for that from the major banks, given their parentage. I am very glad that the previous Labour Government resisted those calls, and ensured that we had an effective full-service Reserve Bank with prudential supervision.

The bill is in this House today in part because of the effectiveness of those rules. It gives the public of New Zealand, through this House, the opportunity to ensure that the law is still working in the interests of all New Zealanders—that is, that there is sufficient oversight over the operations of New Zealand banks, including Westpac, to ensure that they are strong, stable and well managed. I am pleased to report that, based on all the evidence we have seen in terms of the hearings on this bill, there is no doubt that Westpac meets those criteria, as do others.

There are a number of related concerns that we would be remiss not to mention in respect of the banking system and some of the major banks, in particular. The first is that we have been through a shocking time with the global financial crisis. Although it is true that we have enjoyed some of the world’s strongest banks in our region, and it is also true that they have been plain vanilla banking rather than indulging in a whole lot of derivatives, which cost so much to the American market and were in large part behind the collapse of September 2008, none the less, there is a linkage between the influence of the financial system and some of the economic problems we face today. We cannot blame a bank for making money, but it is the responsibility of policy makers to see how that is done.

The fact is that in New Zealand we have had a huge housing bubble. We have net international debt that is about 85 percent of our GDP. That is just about as high as some of the so-called PIGS—Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. It is just about as high in terms of total international debt. The difference is—and we did not hear it from Mr English’s comments in question time today—that it is not public debt. It is about 90 percent private debt, and of that, about $6 in every $10 comes from house mortgages, which were extremely profitable for the banks and extremely bad for the New Zealand economy.

Simon Bridges: Where was Michael Cullen when this was happening?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is now that Labour is saying much more needs to be done, I tell Mr Bridges, to ensure that we never have a repeat of that bubble. I tell Mr Bridges there is no point in complaining about things that occurred before he was at school. He should think about the future when he is old enough to have kids, and he can worry about their futures.

We care about the future; we are not looking at the past. If the Government had confidence in its own abilities, it would not be complaining about former Governments. It would have the strength and the courage to look forward. That is what the Labour Opposition is doing. It is looking forward to make sure that we do not have another housing bubble, and that we have appropriate incentives in our banking system to ensure that we meet several objectives.

The first objective is good prudential oversight of the banking system. It was under the former Labour Government—I thank its current members—that that was extended. The bill follows from an aspect of that prudential regulation, which is ensuring a sufficient book in the New Zealand domicile from the major trans-Tasman banks. Westpac is in the fortunate position, if you like, that its book has grown so far that we have to have this legislation. That is a subset of that prudential supervision.

Secondly, we have to have regard for the macroeconomic place of the banking and finance system in New Zealand. We know they have contributed to a housing bubble. We know we have to go through deleveraging. We also know that the drain from the New Zealand economy of profits to the foreign-owned banking system means we can almost never run a current account surplus. Even if we export a lot more milk and wool than we import computers and petrol, we still cannot make a current account surplus, because we have the drain of several billion dollars a year of profits being repatriated to the foreign-owned financial system.

People often ask what the difference is between the New Zealand and Australian economies. The biggest difference is not minerals. The biggest difference is that Australia is capital rich, and we are capital poor. The reasons we are capital poor are several. No. 1, we do not save enough, and No. 2, we do not own enough of our own financial system. So it is appropriate to note in passing this bill that New Zealand will need to take steady and determined steps over time, working with the market in a responsible way to ensure that a higher proportion of our financial system is New Zealand - owned. New Zealanders need to own more of their own future. That is another important objective of the way we interface with the banking sector.

I will raise one final issue in relation to the global financial crisis, which has made a lot of things obvious that were not so obvious before. One of those things is the culture of excess that sometimes exists in the finance sector. We put on note in a very polite way that we do not want to see that culture of excess return to the New Zealand finance sector. We will not name any particular companies, but we want to ensure that everybody in New Zealand is paying their fair share to get New Zealand through the rough economic waters we are going through so that nobody misses out, nobody dodges paying their fair share, the pain is spread evenly, and the opportunities are spread evenly. We do not want to see millionaire bankers drinking Veuve Clicquot from dawn to dusk while a lot of New Zealanders cannot afford milk. That is not the kind of country Kiwis believe in. It is not the kind of country where we get a fair go for all, where we take care of each other, and where everybody gets a chance. We want a country where everybody gets a chance and where everybody pays their fair share, and that applies to the finance sector, as well.

In summing up, Labour supports the bill. We will support the bill right through to the third reading. I think it has the unanimous support of the House, or very close to it. We support the bill because it reflects the appropriate prudential regulation of the New Zealand banking system. It reflects the fact that the previous Labour Government fought to maintain a full-service Reserve Bank. That gives New Zealand the ability to oversee its domestic financial system. The reason we are here legislating for Westpac today, which we are happy to do, is because that reflects the fact that its domestic book has grown to the point where it has exceeded some of those guidelines and it needs explicit legislative endorsement. There is no problem in principle with that.

But we will retain vigilance. We will retain vigilance to ensure that prudential regulation is appropriate and tight. We will ensure that the macroeconomic settings are appropriate, and that we avoid another bank-driven housing bubble. We will maintain vigilance to avoid a culture of excess returning to the New Zealand financial system, rather we will move progressively towards owning more of our own future. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): I seek leave of the House to correct a figure I gave in relation to question No. 8 today.

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

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: This afternoon I gave a figure of approximately $61,000. That was the result of adding two figures up in my head as I was standing. In fact, the correct figure, based on information supplied by the RNZAF, should have been $65,098. [Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There will be no comments.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s comments. It is totally in line with the Standing Orders that he has come to the House to update it on that matter as soon as the information has come to him. I just wish the member to clarify. My recollection of question time is that he said that was the fuel—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. That is not a point of order.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I just wish to clarify in respect of—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am standing. The Minister sought leave to make a personal explanation. He has made the personal explanation. That is the end of the matter. We do not go into further debate on it.

Bills

Westpac New Zealand Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe. I am not one to follow the finance sector. I am not an expert on this area, so I tried to do a bit of research. Apparently, just over 6 weeks ago the former bank president and senior loan officer of the FirstCity Bank of Georgia in the USA were charged with a variety of offences, including conspiracy to commit bank fraud and misconduct in the years before the bank’s seizure by state and federal authorities in 2009. At the time of reading the indictment the United States attorney Sally Quillian Yates said: “The entire country has felt the deep economic impact of failed banks. At the heart of this indictment is an abuse of power by key insiders, who are charged with tricking their own colleagues into approving millions of dollars in commercial loans to fund the defendants’ own personal business activities, and to enrich themselves at the bank’s expense.” It is scandals such as these that make Alan Bollard, Governor of the Reserve Bank, reach only the lowly spot of 64 in last year’s list of most trusted people in New Zealand, trailing behind a cast of movie stars, sports people, and celebrity chefs, but, I note, not one politician.

The recent volatility of financial markets internationally has had its own direct impact here in Aotearoa. I remember during the first reading of the Westpac New Zealand Bill that mention was made of the fact that the Westpac Chief Executive Officer, George Frazis, was rewarded with a $5 million pay package—over 100 times the income of some of the staff he represented. I know that the bill is not about cases of bank fraud offshore or even about the salary package of Westpac employees, but both of those factors contribute to a general context of some uncertainty in the banking industry and the financial sector. The truth is that the global recession has affected the whole of New Zealand, including the banking sector, so when we come to the bill, which is essentially to ensure the efficient conduct of Westpac New Zealand’s business, we cannot help but be influenced by the wider context I referred to.

However, we also acknowledge that nothing in the bill exempts Westpac from the provisions of any enactment relating to banks or banking—including the Reserve Bank Act and policies—and the banking code of conduct will still apply in order to protect customers and clients. By implication, the Māori Party supports compliance and accountability with legislation to monitor banks and services to customers, and we acknowledge too that the transfer will include and ensure protection of the rights of employees.

I do not want to go on for too long on this topic, but we do want to recognise that Westpac has a reputation for giving due and specific attention to Māori business and initiatives within the Māori community, such as the Westpac Māori scholarships and the financial education programme. Westpac also demonstrates a commitment to developing specific Māori products and services, such as papakāinga lending, tangihanga insurance, and iwisaver. To top it all off, Westpac is developing customer and product information in te reo Māori. Me mihi ki a rātou ka tika.

Banking, at its very essence, is all about balancing the ledger and measuring the values of assets against the costs of deficits. In this way, we recognise that the bill is fundamentally about the transfer of assets and liabilities from one banking entity to another, and in that respect is largely practical in nature.

Taking everything into account, we support the bill at its second reading with a genuine commitment to ensuring that a more efficient, transparent, and accountable banking service is in place for the betterment of all. Kia ora mai.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I will take a short call on the Westpac New Zealand Bill. We are on the second reading of this bill. It has gone through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and members of the select committee have spoken earlier. We traversed the issues in the first reading debate.

Essentially, as speakers have said, the bill is about the transfer of assets so that Westpac can meet the regulatory obligations and the incorporation policy, which has some limits around the amount of funds—funds in excess of $15 billion trigger certain requirements. The Reserve Bank’s local incorporation rules are an important part of the triggers that can help to stop bank failure in New Zealand. This bill also transfers certain assets and liabilities to Westpac New Zealand. That transfer enables Westpac to carry on its activities in New Zealand in such a way that depositors and borrowers will find no difference. It will enable Westpac to meet the rules and regulations of the banking systems in New Zealand in a way that is suitable and easy for it to run its operations.

In that regard, this bill has found favour amongst all parties in this House. Everybody recognises that it is in the best interests of our banking sector—and especially Westpac, as one of the banks in that sector—and it has no effect on the ground, in the sense that depositors or lenders will find no difference in the way they conduct their activities going forward. They will still deal with Westpac in the sense that Westpac is the brand they will deal with.

I take this time to thank the big banks that we have had here from Australia. They have been instrumental in providing a lot of resources and stability to the New Zealand economy over the last few years. These have been difficult times around the world. The banking sector especially has been under tremendous pressure. If we as a country had had to experience bank failures of the size that many other countries have had to experience, I am sure that the pain that the New Zealand taxpayer and the New Zealand economy has had to face in the past year or two would have been much greater. The good management and the resilience of those banks and the support of their Australian colleagues has been instrumental in helping New Zealand get through this recession as quickly and as painlessly as possible. I think a point of gratitude needs to go to those banks for the way that they have managed themselves. Our system of rules and regulations has stood up in this period of time. The banks are very important in the sense that they make a contribution to our communities, as well.

This bill will be supported by all parties. It is partly a formality in the sense of providing the opportunity for Westpac to engage in its operations, but under rules and regulations that make it easier to do so at the size that it is. I recommend this bill to the House.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call in the second reading of the Westpac New Zealand Bill. I will take the opportunity to congratulate Mr Craig Foss, the member who sponsors the bill. Mr Foss has been a very able and responsible chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I certainly had a great time in that busy committee. Labour will be supporting the bill to the Committee; it is important to ensure that New Zealand’s banks are strong and stable.

This bill was introduced for the transfer of certain assets and liabilities from Westpac’s Australian parent to its New Zealand subsidiary to bring it in line with Reserve Bank requirements that significant banks be incorporated in New Zealand. To that end, we note the success of the Reserve Bank’s local incorporation policy as one element in securing the stability of the New Zealand banking sector. It is critical we retain sovereign oversight of our banking regulations. The severity and speed of the 2008 financial crisis provides ample evidence to underline the importance of that. Legislation is the only means to provide for the vesting of certain assets and liabilities being transferred in such a manner as provided for in this bill. Legislation is the only means by which appropriate amendments to, and repeals of, existing legislation can be effected, as Westpac Banking Corporation currently operates under legislation in New Zealand through the Westpac Banking Corporation Act 1982. Westpac Banking Corporation was registered in New Zealand as an overseas company under the Companies Act 1993 and as a bank under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. In 2003 the Reserve Bank instituted a policy requiring systemically significant banks to be incorporated in New Zealand. Accordingly, Westpac Banking Corporation established Westpac New Zealand to assume and carry on the retail banking business in New Zealand.

The key provision of this bill is clause 6, providing for the transfer of assets and liabilities. On the advice of the Minister, as a result of a recommendation from the Reserve Bank, the Governor-General may, by Order in Council, approve a proposal for the transfer of assets and liabilities. The transfer will enable Westpac New Zealand Ltd to comply with the condition of registration that limits the parent bank’s liabilities to below $15 billion, as set by the Reserve Bank. Another key provision is clause 24. The assets and the liabilities to be transferred from Westpac’s parent company in Australia to Westpac New Zealand Ltd include assets and liabilities that are located in other countries. Typically, this may include a guarantee from an offshore parent company or a security given by a New Zealand company over an overseas asset. The extent of the foreign assets and the liabilities is more material than under the Westpac New Zealand Act 2006, because the assets and the liabilities concern institutional banking customers that contact the business internationally.

I note Westpac New Zealand Ltd’s intention to ensure that this legislation assists the transfer of foreign assets and liabilities by providing a clear direction to New Zealand courts that the legislation is the overriding legislation. The words “equivalent of an enactment in a country other than New Zealand,” were originally included in clause 24(4)(b) to ensure that a New Zealand court applying foreign law treated this legislation as paramount. The additional words were intended to assist a New Zealand court faced with a choice between conflicting systems of law to reach a conclusion that New Zealand law should be applied. This was seeking to utilise the principle that a New Zealand statute may accompany a substantive provision with an explicit or implicit conflict of laws rule and, therefore, override what would otherwise be the applicable conflict rule. Taking into account the points raised by the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the hearing, Westpac New Zealand Ltd has now reworded clause 24(4) and also clause 25. This amendment means that the wording of the relevant clauses reflect the wording in section 24(4) of the 2006 Act.

There are two other issues I wish to raise at this stage. Firstly, 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 having a trans-Tasman footprint and access to global capital through its Australian-based parent. Secondly, it is also true that on both sides of the Tasman the banking sector is again under close scrutiny. The Australian Parliament has a far-reaching inquiry under way, which brings to mind that Labour, the Greens, and the Progressive party held an inquiry into banking issues, too. I was very glad to have been involved in that banking inquiry. I can recall clearly that a familiar mood cropped up when I was out talking to members of the ethnic community on the street, at events, and in shops. The mood was one of anger and outrage at the reluctance of the National-led Government to support an inquiry into banking profits and at its failure to stand up on behalf of all hard-working New Zealand families. Many people I have spoken to believe they were paying higher interest rates than they should be paying. It seems to me that the best way to work out whether hard-working New Zealanders and businesses are getting a fair deal from banks is to hold an inquiry into the relationship between, for instance, the official cash rate and short-term interest rates. That way, all the facts would be put on the table and people could see whether they were being treated fairly by their banks.

In 2009 the Reserve Bank cut the official cash rate by 575 basis points, but business lending rates have fallen by only 243 points, and the floating first mortgage rate has fallen by only 446 points. I am very glad Labour, the Greens, and the Progressive party successfully held the equivalent of a parliamentary select committee inquiry into banking profits. I should also emphasise that the inquiry in Australia is much more broadly based than being a simple matter of interest rate pass-through. It is also looking at a whole range of issues that are, to a lesser or greater extent, also important here. The New Zealand Banking Ombudsman has said there were a record number of complaints to her office over the last 12 months. There is growing public concern about the banking sector. Thank you.

AARON GILMORE (National): It is a pleasure to rise and talk on the Westpac New Zealand Bill. In particular, I will talk about a couple of things about Westpac and this bill’s application, particularly for Christchurch. Not many people know that the Westpac building in Christchurch was one of the most heavily damaged buildings in the recent earthquake. Many of the staff were very much traumatised and worried about the result of that in terms of what it meant for their jobs. This bill has some really interesting things in it related to those people’s employment. All the people who were previously employed by Westpac Banking Corporation will be transferred through to Westpac New Zealand. That might not seem to be a big deal, but I was talking to somebody who was in the Westpac building during the earthquake. That person knew about this bill and asked me that question, so it was a pleasure to know a little bit about what this bill will mean for that person and to know that that person’s job will be retained.

This is one of those neat little bills that tidy up things and put in place improvements to the fiduciary management of our assets in New Zealand. In New Zealand Westpac has been around for a very long time. It is a good corporate citizen. In my community on the east coast of Christchurch it does a very good job. It put in place a thing called the Care for our Coasts programme, and it has to be a good thing to help clean up our beaches, particularly given what we have been through.

There has been a little bit of comment on the changes made by the Finance and Expenditure Committee during the select committee process. We received only one submission at the select committee, and that was from the promoter of the bill. That seems to be a bit of a surprise. Given the number of customers that Westpac has, there might have been thousands of submissions and worries for people, but there were not. There was just the one submission, from the promoter. That is a very strange circumstance, I am told. That submission led to two very small technical changes to the bill, which improved things a little bit, I think.

Westpac has a very long and proud tradition, as I have pointed out. It is my own personal bank, and it is the one I have had since I was 5 years old.

Grant Robertson: Did you set it up?

AARON GILMORE: I was very pleased, when I was 5 years old, to open my first bank account with Westpac. I must admit that—unlike Mr Robertson—this bill does not deal just with personal retail banking; it also deals with corporate banking on a large scale.

In terms of people’s assets, they are completely protected and large assets are being transferred through. A cap of $15 billion is being put in place. That has to be a really good thing. It will make sure that no concerns or worries exist.

Given the lack of real interest in this bill—which I was surprised about—and the uncontroversial nature of this bill before Parliament, it just shows us what a good job people have done on it. That also shows us what a good job Craig Foss, the member who brought this bill to the House, has done as well. It shows us that he is very good as a select committee chair, as is the deputy chair, Ms Adams, who also does a good job. Our whole select committee has done a wonderful job in bringing this bill through the select committee process. From many perspectives, we have made a good team effort, and that does not happen very often in our select committee. We are often at loggerheads when debating some of the technicalities of finance. Here is a good finance bill that everybody was in agreement on, and that does not happen very often. I think we should be commended for that. I will sit down.

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

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): I wish to alert listeners that I am not Aaron Gilmore, the member who was speaking prior to the dinner break, and I have no wish to be Aaron Gilmore. I do not hold the range of professional qualifications, experience, or high diplomatic posts that my colleague from across the Chamber holds.

But I would like to speak on the Westpac New Zealand Bill, and to talk for a moment about the salary paid to the chief executive of Westpac. This bill relates to some technical changes that will allow the Westpac Banking Corporation branch in New Zealand to comply with its condition of registration, which includes the limitation of the bank’s liability to below $15 billion, as set by the Reserve Bank. Obviously, the chief executive runs Westpac here in New Zealand, and one would expect that gentleman to be a well-paid person. But I looked at a table of executive pay summaries in the weekend’s New Zealand Herald and saw that the chief executive of Westpac here in New Zealand, George Frazis, is the highest paid chief executive in the country. It might be argued that that is appropriate for a bank the size of Westpac. It is a big and major financial institution, and it is appropriate that the chief executive is well remunerated. But then I looked at the pay that George Frazis earned in 2009. At that point he was earning the modest salary of $3.5 million—plus another thousand, or two. But by last year his salary had risen some 67 percent to $5,848,411.

Westpac is a good bank, and its call centre for the nation operates out of Christchurch—or it certainly did until the 22 February quake. But I have to say that if I was a member of the Westpac staff—and the average salary is of the order of $45,000 for the people who take the calls from bank customers wanting to know about issues with their bank deposits and transactions—I would feel somewhat perplexed to know that the bank’s chief executive was earning 100-plus times what I was earning on the front line, on the counters. I am sure that some people might think that this is about the politics of envy, but if we look at the facts we see that the chief executive of the ANZ banking group, Jenny Fagg, in 2009 received a salary of $1.2 million for running a similarly sized operation. That was about a third of George Frazis’ salary, but I do have to acknowledge that her salary increased quite considerably last year. In fact, it more than doubled to $2.84 million.

We are seeing the sort of game that goes on in some industries in this country, the parallel game: “My competitor is earning an amount; therefore, I deserve to earn that amount.” The amount does not have any relationship, sometimes, back to the share price. It certainly does not have any relationship back to a comparison with what the average company worker is earning. Some people might dismiss that as being an invalid comparison, but I think there is a deserved agreement for some form of relativity. There was an early American banker—Rockefeller, I think, or it might have been Morgan—who said that no manager should earn more than 20 times what his staff were earning.

Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether, given that this is a second reading, you could draw the member back to the bill. I have just not heard him mention it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for that. The issue is that the debate is rather wide-ranging, but I ask the member to bring it back and focus on the bill.

BRENDON BURNS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We are, of course, debating tonight the issue of the Westpac Bank and the technical changes to it for incorporation in New Zealand. I think that the legislation is good, it is appropriate, and Labour is not opposing it. But the chief executive is the person who is in charge of Westpac New Zealand, and it is important that we note that the chief executive takes responsibility. Once this legislation is passed through the House the chief executive is effectively in charge of it. He will be running the organisation and incurring the responsibilities of running it. He is responsible for managing the staff and outcomes of that organisation, and he deserves to be well remunerated. But I think it is obscene to see that someone who earns an amount in the order of $5.8 million has awarded himself a 67 percent increase, when the average rate of wage increase in this country during that same time frame has been 1.7 percent.

Banks have some responsibility to this nation because they are sometimes amongst the cheerleaders who call for fiscal restraint and financial responsibility, but this is a case of “Do as we say rather than as we do.” This is a situation where the Westpac staff, some of whom I am sure will be watching the progress and passage of this bill tonight, have every reason to be discouraged by the fact that their chief executive is earning such a disparate amount. He is the highest earning executive of any organisation in New Zealand, and has had a 67 percent pay rise as this bill, which presumably was originated by him and his head office, has come through to Parliament and is now being considered tonight.

This bill is about a change in the ownership structure, if you like, of the Westpac bank. We know that Westpac is a very sound and stable bank. It is acknowledged that the bank has operated well in this country for a long, long time. Of course, the Reserve Bank has a track record of having had a policy of local incorporation as one of its key planks in ensuring the stability of the New Zealand banking sector, which one has to acknowledge did hold up well through the course of the tumult that emerged in late 2008 and into 2009. I acknowledge that the New Zealand banks remained stable and sovereign and were able to endure the storms, and that has to be reflected in wage packages, but I still come back to my point about the size and scale of the increase with which that chief executive has rewarded himself.

We also have to say, in respect of Westpac, that in 2009 we as a party, with the support of the Greens, thought it important to look at the performance of the banks throughout the financial crisis and the recession, and we were very disappointed that Westpac did not take the opportunity to support that inquiry, which was blocked, effectively, by the Government. However, we still held an inquiry, as we felt it was important that New Zealanders were able to look through the role of banks in the financial collapse as it happened. The banks came through the 2008 tumult pretty darn well, but we thought it was unfortunate that Westpac did not support that inquiry.

I will now turn to some of the key elements of the bill. Obviously, it is transferring assets and liabilities of the Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand branch to Westpac New Zealand Ltd to comply with its conditions of registration in limiting the bank’s liabilities to below $15 billion, as set out by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. Some of the history to this is that the Westpac Banking Corporation was registered in New Zealand as a bank under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989, and then as an overseas company under the Companies Act 1993. But from 2003 onwards the Reserve Bank began instituting a policy that required significant systemically banks to be incorporated in New Zealand. Initially the Westpac Banking Corporation established Westpac New Zealand to assume and carry on the retail banking business in New Zealand, and this bill is bringing that process to finality. Legislation is of course the only means by which the assets of the Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand retail business can be vested in Westpac New Zealand, and that is what this legislation is about.

I will just finish with a comment about the issue of the chief executive. It is still, in my view, inappropriate in hard times, when people are being told to tighten their belts, when we are seeing the prospect of a savage Budget in just a couple of weeks’ time, when New Zealanders are bracing themselves for further restraint, and when they have had a wage increase in the past year of 1.7 percent on average, for the chief executive of one of the leading banks of this country to be rewarded with a salary package rise of 67 percent to $5.8 million, at a time when the rest of the nation is being told to do it tough. I think most particularly of the staff of Westpac in Christchurch, who are doing it extraordinarily tough at the moment. There are big questions about the Westpac call centre building in the centre of my central business district in Christchurch. Those people earn, on average, $45,000 a year. They have every reason to feel very disgruntled at the fact that their chief executive has awarded himself a 67 percent pay rise.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): Malo le soifua. It is a privilege to speak on the Westpac New Zealand Bill, and to be the final Government speaker in this second reading. I will take just a short call. This bill is about reinforcing the strong banking system we have in this country. It is a system that has weathered the storm of the global financial crisis. The bill is about supporting what is already a strong bank in New Zealand, and supporting the importance of adhering to regulatory policy. The bill transfers assets and liabilities from the Westpac Banking Corporation, New Zealand branch, to Westpac New Zealand Ltd, and it ensures that regulatory thresholds can always be met, irrespective of the volatility in our financial markets. We know that in the last 3 years we have had some of the most volatile financial and capital markets, in terms of the performance of those markets. We have seen how volatile they can be.

The legislation is really about allowing Westpac’s large corporate customers to bank with a different legal entity—that is, with Westpac New Zealand Ltd rather than the banking corporation branch. It provides the means by which assets can be vested in that company efficiently and economically, and without disrupting the conduct and the continuity of Westpac’s businesses. It should have no real impact on any of its customers, which is a really important point.

I will touch on the last speaker’s obsession, the politics of envy, in relation to the remuneration of the chief executive of Westpac. I do not think it is fit for Government members or members of Parliament to dictate the way in which private businesses and private organisations should run their operations. But we heard from the last speaker just a tirade of unwanted advice to a private organisation that is in the market to provide jobs and opportunities, and to provide capital to our businesses, in order for them to operate on a daily basis. It really was an unwanted, uninformed delivery of advice to one of our largest corporations in this country.

Just to finalise my contribution, I tell the House that the Inland Revenue Department, Treasury, and the Reserve Bank were all consulted during the select committee deliberations, and no concerns were raised in terms of the financial stability of our banking system or this financial institution. I certainly support the bill and look forward to the Committee stage discussion. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I say with regret that I was disappointed in the contribution from Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, the member who has just resumed his seat. I understand he is a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which has considered the Westpac New Zealand Bill, but he really had very little to add to the parliamentary debate. This is the time in the debate on the bill when we want to hear back from the select committee members about the point of the bill and about the submissions that they heard: perhaps whom they heard from, and what they thought about it. A lot of thinking can go on during this stage of the bill. That member stood up, said he supported the bill, had a swipe at the Opposition, and then sat down. I think he short-changed Parliament. He has been short-changing his constituents since the election day in 2008, and I am pleased that his tenure in this building is about to come to an end in a little while.

I do not have the privilege of being a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and that is why I was keen to hear from another member of that committee. My colleague Brendon Burns made a good contribution in which he explained some of the consideration that had gone on in the committee, but the National member did not take the opportunity to do that. I was keen to hear from him because, as I mentioned, I am not a member of that select committee.

This bill is in the name of one of that member’s colleagues. It is in the name of Craig Foss, who is also the chair of the select committee that considered the bill. That is interesting. I am sure that because of his personal integrity, he was able to distance himself from any potential conflict in that regard arising from his being both the proponent of the bill and the chairperson of the select committee. But I am a bit surprised as to why the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee had this bill in his name. Generally the practice has been—and it is not without exception—that a private bill that is promoted in respect of a specific organisation is introduced to the House and followed through by the member in whose electorate the organisation is based. For example, if Independent Fisheries wanted the introduction of the “Independent Fishery Amendment Bill” it would be in my name, because that organisation is in my electorate.

Westpac is actually in central Auckland, but the member for Auckland Central does not seem to have had any input into this bill at all. I do not think she is on the select committee. If she did serve on the select committee as the current member for that electorate, and therefore the member who is responsible for the head office of Westpac New Zealand, she has not taken the opportunity to have a call in this debate. So I am a bit puzzled about the origins of this bill. I am a bit puzzled about why it is in the name of Craig Foss.

Leaving that aside, I am supportive of the bill. I think it is really important that we have a robust and accountable banking sector in New Zealand, and this bill adds to that. It adds to a spectrum of measures we have in place to ensure that we can have confidence in the sector. Basically, the bill provides for the vesting of certain assets and liabilities of Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand institutional business in Westpac New Zealand. I agree with the proponents of the bill that the only way that can be achieved is through legislation.

I want to raise another point, and again I am frustrated by the contributions from the National members on the select committee. I have not heard from them as to whether there was any discussion at the select committee about the fact that Westpac, the bank that is the point of this legislation, is the Government’s bank. I am not sure whether there was any discussion about whether that should continue to be the case, without any competitive tender at all, and without any process for reviewing whether taxpayers—

Shane Ardern: Why didn’t the last Labour Government change it?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The National Government is always going on about value for money and fairness for taxpayers. While Shane Ardern is a member of this House, he should take up the mantle of responsibility that he has been given, and not hark back to history. He has been given the position of being a member of the party that is in Government, and therefore he should take the opportunity associated with that responsibility and privilege to look at all the issues that are before him.

Westpac is the Government’s primary bank. Is that still the best idea? More important, from my perspective, is whether the select committee thought about that as part of its consideration of this legislation. Well, we would not know from the contributions of the National members. The member who resumed his seat prior to my seeking the call said he was the last Government speaker in this debate. I am not sure about his ability to add up, and I hope he is not in charge of any of the finances of anything other than his own money. He said he was the last speaker, but there are 12 speakers in a second reading debate, and he was the 10th speaker according to my count. So we still have my call and yet another one to follow it. I hope the National Party takes that opportunity to say exactly whether that issue was considered.

The other issue that I want to express some disappointment in was that in the inquiry into banking, which the Opposition parties set up because the National Government blocked the banking inquiry in 2009, Westpac did not make a submission. As a major bank in New Zealand, and particularly as the bank that holds the Government’s accounts—all the Government’s banking business is done through Westpac—I would have thought that it would improve Westpac’s standing in the community and the perception of its responsibility if it had taken up the opportunity to make a submission to that Opposition parties’ inquiry into banking. Perhaps the Government leaned on the bank, perhaps the Minister of Finance gave it same veiled threats about not appearing before the Opposition parties’ inquiry into banking, or maybe the bank just did not bother. I am not sure why that was the case, but it is certainly a disappointment to me that the bank did not take part in the inquiry.

I will just mention another issue a little outside the ambit of this bill. I think it is appropriate for me to raise it, given that we are talking about Westpac. Everyone in this House understands that we have had a major and significant series of earthquakes in Christchurch, the most recent being on 22 February. One of my constituents raised an issue with me in relation to banks and their behaviour towards people who had been affected by the earthquakes. One bank had sent out an overdue penalty notice to one of my constituents who had been evacuated from her home, had not been able to access her mail, and was finding it very difficult to get through day-to-day living. That bank had sent her a penalty payment notice. I contacted the bank and said that was very disappointing, and it agreed to remove the penalty payment and make sure that no other Christchurch residents were liable for such a payment, if they had not met their dues in time because of the earthquakes. I place it on record that Westpac voluntarily did that. It contacted me and said it would make sure that none of its customers would be liable for penalty payments if they had been unable to pay whatever their due payment was because of earthquake-related circumstances.

So I am disappointed that Westpac did not appear before the Opposition parties’ inquiry into banking, and I am puzzled that this bill is in the name of Craig Foss and not that of the member for Auckland Central. I am gobsmacked, as was my colleague the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central, about the 67 percent pay increase that the chief executive of Westpac was awarded. At a time when so many people are losing their jobs, having to reduce their hours, and facing zero pay increases, a 67 percent pay rise is quite gobsmacking. Leaving to one side those concerns and my disappointment in the contributions from the National members in not robustly reporting back to the House about the findings of the select committee on this bill, I am pleased to support the progress of the bill. I think it is a bill that is considered. Its provisions are required in legislation. The bill will do more to support and protect New Zealanders, and I am pleased to support its progress. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

In Committee

Preamble

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I welcome colleagues to the debate on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. This is a—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Timely bill.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. It is a timely bill, I say to Ms Dyson; it certainly is. I hope we will see colleagues from across the Chamber make a number of contributions throughout this debate, because this is an important issue. This bill is about the future advancement of education and science, and the humanities, right across our great nation. I think there will be a valuable contribution that members can make, as we work our way through the 23 clauses that lie before us—

Hon Member: Plus the preamble.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —plus the preamble, which we are now debating.

As the Chair noted, we are debating the preamble, which sets out two things that I want to discuss in some depth. The first of those explains the Royal Society. It notes that the Royal Society is constituted under both the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1965 and the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, but that does not do justice to the history of the Royal Society. The Royal Society, in fact, began life in New Zealand in 1867.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What day?

GRANT ROBERTSON: I am not sure, but we will come back to that in a future call. I look behind me to find some officials but there are none, so, unfortunately, I will have to research that myself. But in 1867 the Royal Society of New Zealand came forward and began its life leading debate and discussion on the subject of science. So it is an organisation that I think many people here would be able to say quite clearly has benefited them as they have worked through complex issues and as they have dealt with the kinds of technological and scientific changes and advancements that we see in our society.

Recital (1) advises us about the Royal Society. The society itself has been operating since 1867. Its object is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand, and it is indeed those objects that we will be changing as we work through this bill to bring in the humanities. But the Royal Society says on its website that it promotes science and technologies in schools, industry, and society; it administers funds for science and technology; it publishes science journals; it offers advice to Government; and it fosters international scientific contact and cooperation. So it covers the full gamut of activities in the sciences.

It is important, as we look at the preamble and at recital (1), to note that broadening the objects of the Royal Society to include humanities strengthens the role of the society. There have been some in the early stages of this debate who have had concerns about whether this represents some form of dilution. I do know, from talking to Fellows of the Royal Society, that in Britain this has not occurred. There are those in the Royal Academy of Arts who would like to see this occur, but it has not occurred because they are fighting, as one person said, against 400 years of history dividing the sciences from humanities. We do not have that burden here. We have the ability to bring this together. The bringing together of the sciences and humanities has occurred in Edinburgh, it has occurred in Ireland, and I think it has also occurred in Canada. I do believe that will strengthen the Royal Society of New Zealand.

So recital (1) gives us the legislative basis. The Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 is the basis of the discussion that we will be having this evening, and perhaps moving into other days in the House. I think it is worthwhile reflecting, as recital (1) does, on the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997. It was, I think, quite confusing for members in the earlier stages of this debate when there was quite an abstract discussion about what the humanities included. Later in the debate we will come to clause 5, to which there is an amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell, which I am happy to support. But I do think that in the early stages of the debate about what the humanities actually are, there was some confusion. In particular I refer to section 2 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, which describes what science and technology are, as the law stands today: “science and technology includes the applied, biological, earth, engineering, information, mathematical, medical, physical, social and technological sciences”. I do think that in the early stages of this debate people perhaps had what I would refer to as the hard sciences in mind when they were discussing the Royal Society.

Hon Rick Barker: What’s wrong with the hard sciences?

GRANT ROBERTSON: There is nothing wrong with hard science; it is very important. But the social sciences are mentioned in that definition. Earlier in the debate when people were looking to describe science, I do not think there was an understanding that the social sciences were included. In fact, my colleague Moana Mackey rather cruelly referred to my own qualification in political science and suggested that it was not mentioned at all in the definition of humanities or in the definition currently in the Act. [Interruption] But I can reassure Mr Ardern that in fact political science is a social science and is therefore included in the current definition of the sciences. So by bringing in the humanities we broaden it, but I did want to clear up any confusion about the status of, for instance, political science within this area.

I move to recital (2), which describes what the Royal Society is looking to do with this legislation. I think we can set out the framework of these things and then go into significantly more detail as we move through the relevant clauses. But looking at recital (2) we can see that the main thing the Royal Society wants to do is incorporate the discipline of humanities into its object and functions, and I did read out those objects and functions before. This has not happened just overnight, and I want to give credit to my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson, who I am sure will make a contribution to this debate. He was the Minister of Research, Science and Technology who brought together the humanities and the sciences. He is the person who encouraged the Council for the Humanities to meet with the Royal Society and begin this process of bringing them together, and it is good that he can be in the Chamber tonight to speak to the preamble and to other clauses.

Recital (2)(b)—which perhaps might not get as much attention as we move through the bill; so I will talk a bit about it now—is the renaming of the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee. This is not something that will necessarily keep people awake at night in Chris Hipkins’ electorate of Rimutaka, but it is an important change. Effectively, the Academy Council is the governance body of the Royal Society, so it is the body that has responsibility for the overall running, as most boards do. It is a board that includes not only scientists, but it does include some scientists. It includes Garth Carnaby, who is currently also the president of the council. It includes Keith Hunter from Otago University, who is a member of the council, but it also includes outsiders. It includes, for instance, Phil O’Reilly from Business New Zealand. So that is the Academy Council.

Charles Chauvel: They’ve relaxed their entry criteria.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right! Actually, I should say that that is the council of the Royal Society—the council includes those people. Recital 2(b) renames the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee. Now, that is a different body from the council of the society. That is the scientific body. It makes the awards of prizes. It gives advice to the Government about scientific issues. So perhaps I should restate that; I was not totally clear. What we have within the Royal Society is the council of the Royal Society, which is the governance body, and recital 2(b) renames the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee, to avoid any confusion. That Academy Executive Committee is the scientific body within the Royal Society. It makes the awards and ensures that policy is commented on and advised on.

The other parts of the preamble are: “(c) amend the standard for the election of Companions of the Society;”—and we can come back to that issue later on—“and (d) amend the election process for Councillors of the Society:”. As noted in the preamble, the objects of this Act cannot be achieved without legislation. In actual fact, the Royal Society is already operating with the humanities within it, but from a legislative point of view it is important that the changes are made lest any concerns be raised by those associated with the Royal Society that this legislation had not been passed and therefore they are acting outside their mandate.

I will come back to this in later contributions, but we did note in earlier parts of the debate that in fact some members of the society, some fellows of the society, are opposed to this move, and I want to acknowledge their concerns as we go through. But I think that in general most of us here would feel confident that the preamble outlines the important discussions we will have tonight. It incorporates some history about the Royal Society but it also tells us that bringing the humanities in, and the other changes, will lead to a stronger Royal Society. I think we will all benefit from that, and I hope to hear contributions from colleagues across the Chamber on this important bill and subject this evening.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): I am delighted to take part in this debate. I say to the member who has just resumed his seat, Grant Robertson, that I thought he gave an erudite introduction. I thought that for a man who has come to this bill only because the Royal Society is domiciled in the bailiwick he has the privilege to represent, he gave a very good description of the legislation and, briefly, a history. Let me add my remarks.

The Royal Society of New Zealand began partly because of a geological survey, which itself had a bit to do with gold, and partly because New Zealand was trying very hard to be as much like Britain as it could, as soon as it could. A lot of that activity took place originally in Dunedin North, which is the electorate I have the privilege of representing. The Royal Society formed in 1860-something—the member told me.

Grant Robertson: In 1867.

Hon PETE HODGSON: It formed in 1867 and has been going ever since. I would not say it has been going strongly ever since. It has fluctuated over the years as its fortunes have ebbed and flowed, and its importance in society has fluctuated over the years. What happened, to cut a long story short, was that in the late 1980s the Lange - Palmer - Moore Government, which was doing all sorts of things in society and was going through a restructuring phase, restructured science. So the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research came up for disbandment. There are only three countries in the world that run science as per the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research model, and they are New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa—the southern hemisphere colonies of mother England. We took out the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and in a bipartisan approach, which began under Tizard and Austin and finished under Minister Upton, we moved into Crown research institutes. That is where we are now.

While we were going through the stage of trying to create a bit of commercial drive on our science effort and trying to use a company model instead of a State department model in an effort to try to make sure that science moved more quickly into the community and was taken up in technology transfer, intellectual property, and that sort of thing, we were also starting to wonder what was going to happen to the Royal Society. We did not know for quite a long time. Finally, Minister Upton, in the mid-1990s, got his head around it and decided to do a bit of restructuring, and that is where the 1997 legislation came from. But, more important, we as a country, we as a Government, we the polity, if you will, started interacting with the Royal Society in a much more consistent and enriched way than we ever had. We had ignored each other until then.

These days, the Royal Society is involved in delivering a range of programmes for the Minister of the day—whatever they may be. Normally, the Royal Society does so extremely well. It gets involved in stuff on a one-off basis. I will give members an example: trying to work out how best to get the Performance-based Research Fund to work. The Royal Society was very, very helpful. They were not just a bunch of stuffed shirts who were conservative, bearded, greying—

Charles Chauvel: Cardigan-wearing.

Hon PETE HODGSON: —cardigan-wearing, hopelessly introverted scientists. That era has long past. It has long past, but it did exist. Upton’s changes and the changes made by subsequent Governments have now meant that the Royal Society is a vital part of the mechanism of government, as well as being the home of scientific method, scientific thought, rational thought, or whatever we may like to call it. Both of those functions—as an institution and as a deliverer of services to Government—are now put in place and are pretty well settled. The Royal Society is a good outfit, and it used not to be.

When we rejigged science, we did not know what to call the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, so for almost 20 years we called it the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology rather than the Ministry of Science and Technology. We wanted to let people know that not all research was science and technology but some research was—gosh, what can we call it—scholarship. Then we would instance the humanities as an example. We took the sciences, and started with the hard sciences of physics or whatever it might be; headed off towards the biological sciences, which are the medium-soft sciences; then headed off to the very soft sciences, such as political science, but not as far as Scientology, which is not a science. If members want to know what a science is and what a science is not, I tell them that if it involves scientific method and trying to remove variables in order to better examine and observe things that have not been taken out, or the things that remain, then that is the essence of science. Scholarship—the study of a poet, for example—has nothing to do with that. There is a very clear difference between sciences in their various forms, and humanities.

In the case of the humanities, New Zealand has very little structure. We have a bunch of universities with humanities departments, which is where the professionals lie, where the PhDs are supervised, and where the humanities flourish, but beyond that we are not big enough to have this, that, or the other humanities societies. There are no great literary societies in New Zealand, for example. There are some music societies, but not many. There are some societies, but humanities in general struggle in a smaller country. For that reason, humanities are hard to organise. There is another reason, which is that humanities are often done by amateurs, by people who are retiring and writing a book about something that as likely as not is contributing to humanities. But they are doing so at their kitchen table, so they are not likely to be easily organised. For all of those reasons, the society of humanities has had difficulty getting off the ground.

When I was Minister of Research, Science and Technology between 1999 and 2005 I was repeatedly asked by humanities where their home was. We came to the view that we should test the Royal Society as a home. I stopped being the Minister in 2005, and they went off to begin what turned out to be a couple of years of discussion as to whether the humanities could be accommodated within the Royal Society structure. I returned to the portfolio for 1 year, in 2008, only to find that it was all done and dusted. That is where this legislation has come from. I pay tribute to the tenacity of the people who have been leading humanities in New Zealand. I will not bother naming them. Perhaps I should name Neville Jordan, who was president of the Royal Society at the time. He is the guy who in an earlier life started Marine Air Systems Technology and who, in my view, is the only serial entrepreneur in our New Zealand economic history so far. He is not a scientist; he is an engineer, a technologist. He said the Royal Society could accommodate humanities. He did not see how the Royal Society could exclude anything. The society certainly could not exclude him as president because he is an engineer. The senior staff in the Royal Society equally embraced the idea, and I acknowledge that. It is important to acknowledge that some people did not like it. It is important to try to understand that, too. In the event, having an academic home for humanities matters. That is why this legislation matters. I am delighted we are making some progress.

I will say one last thing about clause 1 before I resume my seat. We cannot count. The bill’s title is the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010. We will have to amend that.

Grant Robertson: We will.

Hon PETE HODGSON: We will, will we? Can the member assure me that that is the case? Can it happen automatically? Perhaps, it can. I hope so. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): It is a real pleasure to speak on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and particularly on the preamble, because it is the area of the bill where we can really pay our respects and gratitude to, and express some admiration for, the Royal Society. Obviously, it is the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, but the Royal Society itself needs a mention in its own right.

Pete Hodgson spoke articulately and, as usual, knowledgably about the Royal Society and about what it does for New Zealand. It plays an extraordinary role. The fact that it has been functioning in New Zealand since 1867 means it is one of the few institutions that have survived for that length of time. Not only has it survived but it has grown in stature, competence, and reach. Today the number of scientists that it draws in is in the tens of thousands. In fact, I have the figure here. The number of scientists who are represented by the society is 20,000. There are 20,000 scientists, technologists, technicians, and perhaps engineers represented by the society.

In some ways I always see engineers, as Pete Hodgson was mentioning just now, as representing the bridge between science and its application in a commercial sense. Sometimes, perhaps, we do not make enough of our engineers in the way we develop our products. We also do not make enough of them in the way we encourage students coming through school to take on science and maths and go towards an engineering type of vocation. That is the area where we would be able to earn value in New Zealand. I do not think we can have enough engineers, whereas we have plenty of accountants, lawyers, etc. There are two engineering schools and, I think, eight law schools in New Zealand. The Minister of Science and Innovation, who is a lawyer, might be able to elucidate. It is a curious coincidence. I wonder whether we have our priorities round the right way.

As was laid out by both Grant Robertson and Pete Hodgson, the bill is really about expanding the remit of the Royal Society to include humanities, which I hasten to say was somewhat controversial in some of our select committee meetings. The chair of the Education and Science Committee, Allan Peachey, is here, and I think he did a very good job, as did my colleagues across the other side of the Chamber. We engaged in the process very constructively and we did a pretty thorough job of interrogating the people who came before us. I should perhaps say questioning; interrogating sounds a little bit too much like shining a light in people’s faces to get the truth. We took quite seriously some of their concerns that the work of the Royal Society and of science might be diminished in New Zealand as a result of the humanities being brought into the legislation, as Grant Robertson spoke about before.

I think it is extraordinarily important that we gave those people a really good hearing. We asked questions of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, as it was then known. It is now known as the Ministry of Science and Innovation. That is one of the most innovative things that the Minister has done. I will not list the others—not that I do not have time; it would not take very much time to do that—but bringing the word “innovation” alongside “science” is a good step. We brought back the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology before the committee twice, I think, or perhaps three times to check up on the concerns that some of the Royal Society branches around the country had about their perception of dilution of the Royal Society.

I will just reflect on the Royal Society itself and what it does, and try to provide a context for this bill and its preamble. Some people watching this debate may have concerns that we did not do a good enough job in reflecting on what incorporating the humanities into the Royal Society might do. Some countries—for example, the UK and Australia—do not follow this particular pattern of doing things. Instead they have separate societies, and the royal societies of those countries jealously guard their borders. I think that in New Zealand, where we obviously have a smaller country and a smaller bunch of academics—20,000 is not exactly a small number, but nevertheless it is smaller—we have the ability in this legislation to look a little laterally and understand how science and the associated humanities make an impact on our society. It is for that reason that we have the ability to be innovative within the Royal Society itself.

Just to reflect on what the Royal Society has done and does, beginning in 1867 it has an extraordinarily long and proud history. It promotes science and technology in schools, industry, and society. It also administers several funds for science and technology, publishes scientific journals, and offers advice to, and advocates for science with, the Government. It also advocates for science with the Opposition. I meet with the Royal Society frequently to hear its concerns and some of the issues it would like to push in the area of science more generally. The society even hosts a series of dinners here for MPs, which are well attended, to promote science within Parliament. It does an extraordinarily good job in terms of promoting and supporting science in our community.

I will make an aside. The society has not said this to me, but I imagine that it is somewhat disappointed about the science advisers in the area of education being ripped out of schools, along with various science advisory services that can provide teachers with up-to-date support in science. As I said at the beginning of my address tonight, the idea of science and promoting science in schools has to be one of the most important things that we do. We are ranked in the Programme for International Student Assessment listings at No. 7 in the world in terms of our science achievements in our schools. I think we face a sliding of that ranking as a result of the resources that have been pulled out of schools and from teachers in order to, I guess, save money. It is an extraordinarily short-sighted policy to take. At the end of the day it is not very much money, and it is used for the promotion of something that is fundamentally important to our economy. Our economy is based on primary products, mainly, and science—using science applied to our primary products. That is what gives us the edge, and we need to promote our scientists more than anything else.

Pete Hodgson also mentioned the restructuring of the science community that has happened over the last few years. Simon Upton is a Fellow of the Royal Society. I think he is the only former Minister or MP to be made a fellow, and it attests to the interest and passion for science he showed when he was the Minister of Research, Science and Technology.

Hon Member: And Aaron Gilmore—Aaron Gilmore was, I think.

DAVID SHEARER: Possibly Aaron Gilmore. The other aspect of this debate is that restructuring is what Simon Upton did, and he did it to a particular end. We have had a little bit of discussion about restructuring over the last few weeks.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): I express my very strong disappointment with the Opposition’s lack of interest in hearing the contribution I have to make to this debate on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill.

Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to show our interest in what the member has to say, I move that he be given unlimited time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is being frivolous with the Chair.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I point out to the chief Labour Party whip that whereas it takes some Opposition members 10 minutes to say what most of us could say in 2, I prefer to be one of those who can say what needs to be said in 2 minutes. I acknowledge the contribution that the previous speaker, David Shearer, made, and I recognise his acknowledgment of the work that the Education and Science Committee did on this bill. It was a very good process and he was a major contributor to it.

In a nutshell, this bill is before the Committee because the Royal Society—which is a fine, august body that has made a major contribution to intellectual thought and development in this country over a long, long time—wishes to extend its base beyond strictly the sciences to include the humanities. There is widespread support for that to happen. I think many of us acknowledge that the science community has a lot to offer the humanities, particularly in terms of the introduction of the scientific method of thinking, the gathering of research, the drawing of conclusions, and that sort of thing. If one were to criticise some of the quality of research in the humanities that has occurred in this country—and I think particularly of some of the work done in the education field—one could not avoid drawing the assumption that far too often the conclusion had determined what the inquiry would be, when it should, of course, be the other way round.

Moana Mackey: Like national standards.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I thought we had an agreement that I would be listened to in silence—did I miss something there?

Hon Member: It’s members’ night.

ALLAN PEACHEY: It is good that on a members’ night the Committee can enjoy itself and have a little bit of mutual fun across the floor. If members opposite did not all shout at once, I might be able to respond to them individually, but when half a dozen are coming at me I find it a little bit hard to cope.

I reinforce the view of members on this side of the Chamber that this legislation is supported. I urge members opposite not to spend all night debating it. I realise they have another agenda operating, but I ask that those members also be respectful of the Royal Society and its need to get this legislation through. I ask that it not be delayed because there is another agenda operating. Thank you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I take on board the comments the last speaker, Allan Peachey, made. It is important that the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill be debated respectfully. That is something that we owe the Royal Society. As Pete Hodgson pointed out in his contribution, it is an august body. It is an ancient body. Not many institutions in New Zealand have lasted since 1867. When one considers that this Parliament—

Hon Judith Collins: Jim Anderton has.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Well, all right, with the exception of Judith Collins—that is true. This Parliament was constituted only in 1865. That is the history of responsible democratic government in this country. One of the most respected institutions still in this nation dates from only 1865, yet here we have the Royal Society constituted in 1867 on a day yet to be revealed by the sponsor of the bill.

We owe the society the courtesy of carrying this legislation through the House, and we also owe it the duty of thoroughly debating the legislation and ensuring that it is properly understood by members. One of the things I will point out about the history of the society that has not yet been touched on in this debate is the fact that the society has its origins in the fact that New Zealand was a difficult place to get around in the years after the society was founded. In fact, the society was a federation of organisations. When it was put together in 1867 it was not called the Royal Society. It was called the New Zealand Institute. There is an interesting parallel to reflect upon, given that we have in the present day another research-based, evidence-based organisation that conducts research in order to reach conclusions on the basis of evidence that bears the name “New Zealand Institute”. That was the original name of the Royal Society when it was founded in 1867.

It was founded to coordinate the activities of different research organisations in the principal cities of New Zealand. There was the Auckland Institute, which was probably not in those days the premier scientific or research institute in the country, because Auckland was not then the major centre. There was the Wellington Philosophical Society, the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, and the Otago Institute. One of the problems the country faced back in the latter part of the 19th century was that none of those individual research institutes had the resources to be able to coordinate their publication activity. They were not able to afford to publish the research they sponsored and undertook. So what lay behind the impetus for the creation of the New Zealand Institute—later the Royal Society—was a desire to make sure that there would be one sponsoring body to ensure the country could afford to collate and publish in one spot the scientific research that was being done in the new colony. The New Zealand Institute was set up, then, to remedy the lack of the existence of any such organisation, so that there could be published every year a single volume of transactions and proceedings on behalf of those institutions found in each of the major cities. I hope that description of the federative nature of the early institute—later the Royal Society—helps to explain a little bit of the background of what the House intends to do as far as the amendments to the Royal Society of New Zealand Act are concerned.

In terms of the provisions of recital (2) of the preamble, and as Allan Peachey said in his earlier contribution, the major thrust of this legislation is to allow the Royal Society of New Zealand to incorporate the discipline of humanities into its object and functions. There are some subsidiary parts of the legislation described in the preamble—

Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to alert you to an issue that has been brought to my attention. It seems that Parliament TV is telling the public that Charles Chauvel is talking on the voluntary student membership bill at the moment; of course, he is not. If you could instruct Parliament TV to give the correct name of the bill, I am sure that contributions from members would make a lot more sense.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If that is the case, I am sure that the point will have been heard, and I hope notice has been taken of it. Thank you for drawing it to the attention of the Committee.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: When one considers recital (2)(a) of the preamble, and when one compares it with the current aims of the Royal Society of New Zealand, one can see why this legislation is necessary. The current aims of the society, as set out in the 1997 legislation, are, under section 6(a), “to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science and technology, including … (i) the promotion of public awareness, knowledge, and understanding of science and technology; and (ii) the advancement of science and technology education:”. But the aims are also “(b) to encourage, promote, and recognise excellence in science and technology: (c) to provide an infrastructure and other support for the professional needs and development of scientists and technologists:”—an echo of the original purpose of the New Zealand Institute—and “(e) to provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community:”

On that score I recall that the Royal New Zealand Society was one of the first scientific bodies to have made a definitive statement on climate change in New Zealand. On 10 July 2008 the Royal Society of New Zealand released a statement, which said in summary: “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” That was back in 1998, and it is evidence of the fulfilment of that very important third function of the Royal Society that I have just described.

Then there is the wrap-up provision as to its objects: “(f) to do all other lawful things which the Council considers conducive to the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand.”

The other thing that perhaps is not realised about the Royal Society is that it is a federation of bodies—I think 41 bodies at the moment, as things stand. I could read out the names of the 41 constituent organisations, because it would give the House a very accurate flavour of the preponderance of pure science influences on the Royal Society. But if one looks through the list of constituent organisations, one can see the importance of this bill and of the purposes set out in the preamble, particularly the one that was adverted to by Allan Peachey—the need to move humanities research into the organisation, and to see that that can be done appropriately. Amongst the pure science bodies that are already members of the society, there is the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, and other non - pure science bodies such as the Association of Social Anthropologists of Aotearoa/New Zealand and the Population Association of New Zealand. Obviously, it is the case already that non - pure science bodies have begun to seek and obtain membership of the Royal Society. Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate that the bill should pass in its current form, as reported back from the Education and Science Committee.

The preamble’s description of what the bill attempts to do, in particular to broaden out the aims and objectives of the society so as to incorporate those non - pure science organisations, and to allow them to function lawfully and appropriately as members of the Royal Society, is an absolutely proper thing to see, and for this House to promote. As Grant Robertson said in his sterling introductory contribution to this debate, none of this can be achieved without legislation. It would be a terrible thing if we were to put the Royal Society in the position of operating ultra vires its legislation. I commend the preamble to the Committee.

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

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour): I appreciate this call. I first of all congratulate Mr Robertson on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I am one of the probably very few scientists in this Chamber.

Chris Hipkins: Not a political scientist.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: No, not a political scientist—a real scientist.

Chris Hipkins: This is supposed to be about bringing humanities in!

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: I will talk about that. I tell the member to just hold on a moment and give me time.

I had been doing science for about 26 years before I joined Parliament. I must confess that as a scientist, as I was trained, I always thought that scientists were creatures above everything else. They did science and never really thought about social sciences or humanities. I have to make that confession. I thought a scientist’s job was to create machinery, to design something that would be useful as an economic tool, and to create wealth, and all that. I never thought about the fact that it had social implications, particularly on humanity.

I was doing research on zero-tillage technology. I do not know if people are aware of it, but it is a technology that reduces the amount of tillage one needs to grow crops. The benefits of that technology were that people could save fuel on the farm, they could save labour, they could save energy, they could save fertiliser, and they could have benefits in terms of reducing climate change. There were a lot of benefits, but we never really thought about the social impact of that technology until about 15 years ago, when we did a survey among farmers. We asked the farmers who were using the technology what were the real benefits to them. The technology is now used worldwide. Out of all the countries, most farmers are using the technology for growing crops. I was in Western Australia recently, where zero-tillage technology has become a conventional technology. Farmers are really benefiting.

We did a survey at Massey University to find out what real impact the farmers felt from that technology. One of the top three impacts was that they had more time, and they could spend that time playing golf. I thought to myself after receiving this feedback that people do think about the social part of it. The impact is not just how beneficial the technology is in terms of saving fuel, saving fertiliser, growing more crops, and all that; it actually impacts on families. In that survey the farmers also suggested they could spend more time with their families—and they could get out and play some golf. From that point onward I started thinking about including the social sciences, the humanities part of the work, in my science.

We had a number of projects overseas in terms of NZAID, the United States Agency for International Development, and the United Nations Development Programme work that I have done over the years. From that point onward I have made sure that every project has a part in it that examined the impact on the social aspects of life, which is part of the humanities.

I am really delighted that this bill includes extending to the humanities the Royal Society’s role as a provider that helps science and technology. I am really pleased after 134 years of its existence that Mr Robertson has come up with this bill that includes extending the Royal Society’s function to include the humanities. I think it is very important to recognise, as Charles Chauvel suggested earlier, how many different organisations are working in the social arena that have never been considered to be a part of science work. I think those scientists, in my view, need to be recognised; they should be made honorary fellows or fellows of the society. They are no different from scientists and engineers. Those high achievers in their own fields should be given the opportunity.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): A number of Labour members are very keen to speak on the preamble to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is very important legislation.

The Royal Society is an institution in New Zealand, as my colleague Charles Chauvel pointed out. From my perspective as a member of the Royal Society, I believe that the legislation is very important. Many people have referred to the legislation as breaking new ground or being a great stride forward. In fact, at its most basic sense, the legislation is actually going back to the very first roots of the Royal Society when it was first formed in the United Kingdom.

The Royal Society was formed in the 17th century in the United Kingdom, and the Enlightenment followed very quickly after. The Enlightenment brought together not just scientists but artists, philosophers, and people from all walks of life who had an interest in learning and discovering. They all came together, and there was no distinction between those who wanted to study biology or physics or to learn how the universe worked and those who wanted to understand how humans interacted in that world, how the human influence interacted with the physical world, and how the physical world interacted with human existence.

Over the course of the last 200 or 300 years we have seen within the community of the Royal Society a parting of the ways between people who were very much all together in the same kind of culture and very much together with the same common goal of human enlightenment. Here we find ourselves.

As a scientist I absolutely acknowledge that science is very hierarchical. The minute someone enters the science field, he or she learns there is a pecking order. Just as people in Europe tell jokes about the Belgians, there are people in science who tell jokes about people who have certain degrees. It is quite a culture shock go into the science field and realise that not all degrees are created equal in science. There is a pecking order. When one comes up through that culture, one very much accepts that. It is partly because scientists are very proud of their qualifications. They are very proud to be part of a community that contributes so much not only to the economy and education of their country but also to the progression of human achievement and the human race. That is really where that culture comes from.

Bringing the humanities into the Royal Society will in no way dilute the mission of the Royal Society. It will in no way alter its path. The legislation is not a massive step forward; it is going back to the very roots of the creation of the organisation, when philosophers, humanitarians, and social scientists worked alongside their companions. That is very important.

We saw in the climate change debate that we cannot separate the physical world, studies to understand the physical world, and the patterns that occur in that world from human involvement, human interaction, and human influence. In the same light, we cannot separate how human thought and attitude will impact on scientific progress. I think of the genetic modification debate as a classic example of where science was on one page and the public was on another page. We cannot separate the two. For a long time we have been doing that. For a long time they have existed very separately from each other.

I congratulate the Otago University on the work being done there. When my colleague David Shearer and I visited the University of Otago we saw that it was doing a lot of what is called multidisciplinary work, where it was bringing together not just social scientists but economists, lawyers, and pure scientists. For example, one of the projects the university was doing was about renewable energy. Everyone thinks renewable energy is great, but can anyone think of a single renewable energy project that did not have massive public opposition in the community in which it was based?

We have a disconnect between scientists doing a lot of work in an area that is incredibly important not only to our economy but also to our environment. They are doing the work for all the right reasons. They know that when people are asked abstractly in a survey whether they think we should have more renewable energy they say yes, but then wind turbines or tidal turbines are put in and suddenly the local community reacts in a very different way and in a way that is not anticipated. That can significantly slow down progress. Work is being done at the Otago University on that issue. The work asks what is missing—and this is very relevant for politicians when we push these policies—and where the disconnect is between—

Allan Peachey: It’s not a disconnect.

MOANA MACKEY: It is a disconnect. The work asks where the disconnect is and where science is not taking people along with it, and vice versa. The Royal Society’s bringing together the two disciplines is another step along the path of recognising that the two cannot exist separately from each other.

I will go back to the discovery of New Zealand by the English. The Royal Society supported Captain Cook’s journey to the Pacific to observe the transit of Venus. The crew that was on board the Endeavour was very representative of what one would have seen in the Enlightenment. There was a variety of people in the crew, not just pure scientists. That was very much the way the Royal Society operated. It is nice to see that the Royal Society is going back to its roots in that respect and that it is valuing the work the humanities provides and the aspect it brings.

It is also very important for the humanities to be able to benefit, as Allan Peachey said, although I do not think I would be quite so dismissive of the social scientists in the humanities as he is. It is very good also for the humanities to be able to benefit from scientific methods and scientific disciplines. That is an area where I think we could get more young people interested in science. Science is seen by a lot of students in schools as something they just do not want to do. There is a bit of stigma about science. Students either like science or they do not; it is not one of those grey areas. If we were able to introduce far more scientific methods and far more scientific disciplines into the everyday teaching of a lot of humanities subjects, which are popular with a number of students, then even if the students do not go on to do pure science qualifications, just the development of those skills and the ability to critically analyse information and data would be of enormous importance. Sometimes people who are doing a science degree do not realise the skills they pick up along the way in terms of the ability to read research.

As members of the House will know, we get sent endless amounts of research. I come back to what Allan Peachey said when he criticised a lot of the work that was being done in the education area. The way science works is not that we will only ever get one opinion because there is a right or a wrong. Science is about the reduction of doubt; it is not about the elimination of doubt. Maybe in the scientific community that fact has been dumbed down a little bit for public consumption in order to say that science can give an absolute answer of yes or no. Those who study science are taught that it is about the reduction of doubt and that there will always be competing interests and opinions. Those who study science put together those interests and opinions and look at the entire body of work.

I do not know what particular research Allan Peachey was talking about, but I know that some very, very good education research is going on. I know that it follows very, very strict scientific disciplines, in terms of the way the analysis is carried out. There is also some very bad research across the board in every single area. I have to say to those people who say that climate change is not real that some of that research is the dodgiest research I have ever read, in terms of following scientific discipline. The research is not peer reviewed because the researchers know it would not stand up to a peer review.

Maybe if we could get more of the scientific discipline taught through the humanities in our schools we would get critical thinking into a lot more of our young people, even if they do not go on to do pure science subjects. That is important, particularly, as one of my colleagues pointed out earlier, as we lose science advisers, who were critically important in terms of making sure that primary school teachers who did not have a background in science had access to the information they needed to be able to engage the youngsters who were interested in that area. We have lost those science advisers because the Government cut their funding in the Budget. They have gone. The Government said it might bring back science advisers next year. It is too late. They have gone overseas. The science advisers were people who were in very high demand around the world. They have now left. They have been picked up by other people. Our schools, and science in our schools, will be poorer for that. We do not need any kind of research to tell us that. We on this side of the Chamber know that the value those people added to science education in our schools was invaluable. It was one of the reasons why we do particularly well in science in international tests. It will be interesting to see how much that success continues with the national standards, because we have ascertained that national standards are not based on evidence, at all, but based on political rhetoric, which is one of the tragic things about politics.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I move, That the question be now put.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I will take the opportunity to respond to a couple of matters that have been raised during the debate. The first of them, I hate to say, is that I will disappoint some colleagues in the Chamber but I have been unable to discover the exact date in 1867 when the Royal Society began. But I undertake, as this debate carries on, to endeavour to do that.

Hon Simon Power: The member will never make a Minister with that sort of tardy work—very tardy!

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the problem, I say to Mr Power, is that I turned around and looked for my officials, but they were not there.

Hon Member: It’s your bill; you should know the detail.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right, but we will resolve that issue before we complete our deliberations. I can tell members, from the research I have been doing in the meantime, that the Alexander Turnbull Library holds the transactions and proceedings of the Royal Society from 1868 to 1961, which is why I have been unable to discover what happened in 1867. That collection is obviously a rare collection. It includes statements and transactions from William Colenso, Ernest Rutherford, and Mr Hocken—a very esteemed group of people.

The two matters I will respond to are about the structure of the Royal Society. There has been some allusion during the debate to some organisations within the society that were perhaps not as happy as others about the changes being proposed in the bill, which are outlined in its preamble. I will briefly recap: the categories of membership of the society are set out in Section 9 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, which is mentioned in the preamble. The highest level of membership is a fellowship of the Royal Society; at the time of the introduction of the bill there were 374 fellows and 56 honorary fellows. That is an esteemed form of membership of the organisation, and an important part of how the Royal Society operates.

Ordinary membership of the society is also open to anybody who thinks they can subscribe to the objectives of the society—which we have run through already—and who pays a fee. Ordinary members also have to have a university degree or 3 years’ professional experience within a field designated by the council of the society. So to be an ordinary member of the Royal Society one has to have either a degree or professional experience within a designated field of the society. There are approximately 1,200 ordinary members of the society, so that membership is quite a large part of the society.

I will respond specifically—with some noise on my right here—to the question of the regional constituent organisations. As my colleague Charles Chauvel mentioned, the original establishment of the Royal Society incorporated the four existing societies that were working in the area of science in New Zealand. One of the submissions that came to the select committee was from the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Wellington branch. The Wellington branch in its submission noted, I tell Mr Power, that it could in fact trace its history back to 1851. That obviously predates the Royal Society itself by some 16 years, so clearly one can understand why the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Wellington branch would be concerned about changes. I think it feels as a constituent organisation that it has been in existence longer than the overall organisation.

The Wellington branch put its concerns to the Education and Science Committee. Those concerns were largely about what it described as the potential for the dilution of the promotion and advancement of science, including the social sciences and technology, by the introduction of the humanities. It noted that its branch resources are quite stretched merely servicing the current objects of the society, let alone bringing in others. Obviously that is a philosophical difference, and the branch as a regional constituent organisation is part of the Royal Society but also has its own identity. I think it is important to note that that is a particular type of membership, and as we were going through the debate earlier on I think people were perhaps not as clear as they might have been about the fact that there are these different types of membership within the ruling body. [Interruption] I am glad I am holding the attention of Government members! It is important to know that the 1997 Act also had changes that the Wellington branch had some concerns about.

I will not take too much longer, but I will just refer to the other issue that the Wellington branch raised, which was the consultation undertaken in terms of the changes contained in this bill. I think it is important to note—and I also note Mr Peachey’s earlier comments in this regard—that this process has been under way for some time. It began in 2008 within the Royal Society, and, as I said in my earlier call, the society is now operating in close consultation with the humanities. So we in the Chamber today are not holding up the society’s actual work, but we are thoroughly debating an important issue.

The society’s concern was that there had not been sufficient consultation. However, within the submission made to the select committee by the Royal Society itself, it was noted that in March 2009 the Royal Society of New Zealand Council resolved to work with the Council for the Humanities. From there the matter went to The Academy, which, as we have already discussed, is the peak scientific body within the Royal Society, and which had a process of consultation. It went to a fellows’ AGM in November 2009, and was discussed by the honorary fellows as well. It then went back to the council on 26 November 2009. So there was quite a thorough consultation process. I understand that the Wellington branch was concerned by that, but I think the submission indicates that the branch should be satisfied. I just wanted to make reference to those two matters that had been raised by other members—about the structure of the society and, indeed, about the process that has been gone through to bring us to the stage where we are now. Thank you.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Ah—

Hon Simon Power: You’ve got to be kidding.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not kidding. The members who are seeking a closure need to show a bit more decorum when the debate is on.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): I am delighted to take a call tonight. I commend my friend and colleague Grant Robertson for his impeccable timing in respect of the introduction of this Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, because just today I received a letter from a constituent raising some very important questions about royal society—a gentleman who lives in France, as it happens, who is a strong believer that there should be a change in the way of succession to the throne in Britain. He has written to members of the British Parliament—the House of Lords, indeed—and asked a question as to whether there could be any move by the House of Lords in respect of a change of succession there. Obviously, this bill relates to a change in a very longstanding limitation on the membership of the Royal Society. It has been limited to those from the science faculties and background, and it is proposing an important change to allow those with a humanities background to become fellows of the Royal Society. I suppose there is a parallel.

There is an important question being asked about whether there is a New Zealand connection here, because Lord Alf Dubs of the House of Lords has been asking questions in the House of Lords as recently as January of this year as to whether any consideration would be given to changing the rules of succession in Britain. Those rules, of course, mean that only a male can ascend the throne and that a Catholic cannot ascend the throne. The interesting thing that emerges from this—and it is a bit of a test, perhaps, for members of the press gallery as to whether they listen to Parliament at night—is that Lord Dubs tells us in correspondence and questions to the House of Lords that discussions about this very issue of succession are proceeding under the chairmanship of the New Zealand Government. Lord Alf Dubs of the House of Lords, on this issue of royal society, if you like, is suggesting that the New Zealand Government is taking the lead in respect of opening up for debate the question of succession, in terms of whether Britain will continue to have only male heirs to the throne. This is an issue that might be of some consideration, given events as recent as last Friday.

I would be interested in the research that Mr Robertson has done on the Royal Society of New Zealand, and in whether this issue might have popped up. I know that it is a little peripheral to the Royal Society of New Zealand and the bill he has introduced, but I know he is a very thorough member. I know he takes a great deal of time and care with his research. He has shown that, with his most recent contribution to the Committee, noting that he was really disappointed that he could not discover the exact date that the Royal Society of New Zealand was created on some day back in 1867. He was very, very disappointed that he was not able to give the Committee the specific date.

I just wondered whether, in the course of his research, he had come across anything that indicated an involvement of Lord Alf Dubs of the House of Lords, who had a bill in the House of Lords, I believe, some years ago, and is now asking questions in the Hansard of the House of Lords as recently as January this year suggesting that New Zealand’s Government is providing the leadership as the Commonwealth nations consider whether there should be a change in the Act of Settlement, which goes back some 300 years. One of his supporters noted that, in fact, there does need to be change.

This is why we are considering this bill today. It might have been appropriate back in 1867 on some unspecified date when the Royal Society came into being that only those from a scientific background were able to join the Royal Society of New Zealand. We obviously need to make a change because, as one of those taking part in the question session in the House of Lords back in January of this year noted, if there had not been change on things that were instituted some 300 years ago, we would still be jailing people for stealing bread. We would still be hanging people and would have a whole range of other things, such as jailing children and hanging people for stealing sheep. The member for Kaikōura might make a contribution in that respect. But I ask the member in the chair, Grant Robertson, who is the author of this bill, given his prodigious knowledge, his research, and his contribution, whether in the course of his research he has seen anything that suggests that the Royal Society—

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.

Motion agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We will move now to the debate on the clauses, of which there are 23. Members have had quite a wide-ranging debate on the preamble. I am now going to require that—

Sue Moroney: Some members.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not saying that that was inappropriate. The member should not interject while I am speaking. What I will be doing now is requiring relevancy as we go through these 23 clauses.

Clause 1 Title

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I will take a brief call on the title clause, because the Hon Pete Hodgson raised a question earlier in the debate as to whether the Act should be called, as it is in the printed version of the bill in front of us, the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act 2010. I am able to reassure Mr Hodgson that, despite the longish gestation of this bill, when the time comes for it to receive its Royal assent I am advised by the Clerk’s Office that it will magically become the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act 2011. Before I took on the role that I have with this bill, I was not aware that that is automatically what takes place.

As I noted earlier in relation to that point, there has been a significant process in the development of this bill. Mr Hodgson himself acknowledged that when he was the Minister of Research, Science and Technology, in 2007-08 I believe it would have been, he began the discussions between the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society. The Royal Society of New Zealand Council and the Academy within the society made sure that they had extensive discussions on this matter through 2009, and it then found its way before the House in 2010. When I was approached by the society to take on the bill, I did so because, as has been previously mentioned, it is headquartered very close to us here in the Wellington Central electorate. It was aware that this was an important legislative tick-off to a process it had well and truly got under way.

I wanted to take just a brief call to let colleagues know that when the bill gets its Royal assent, we will be altering this particular clause. As I understand it, it is standard procedure and it will become the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act 2011.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): Thank you, that is really helpful. I want to raise two other matters concerning clause 1. The first is the use of the word “Royal”. My colleague Brendon Burns speaks of correspondence he has received from people in France about the fact that they would never have the Royal Society as an organisation in France because, of course, they had the French Revolution, and we did not. That matters, because the Royal Society signals that in the British tradition for the past several hundred years, which is, after all, the entire life of scientific inquiry, that inquiry has been offered the patronage of royalty, which is a good thing. I am not saying that France is poorer for it; I am just saying it is a good thing that if one is to have royalty, it is worthwhile that royalty patronise science, because science and technology—and, these days, science and technology and humanities—represent the idea of further endeavour, the idea of rolling back the frontiers of knowledge, and the idea of progressing the insatiable desire of humans to answer questions, our curiosity, and so on. To have that endeavour backed by royalty is the opposite of the Dark Ages, so it matters that we have “Royal Society” in the title.

There is another thing about the title that matters and that is that it does not include the words “Royal Society of Science and Technology and Humanities”; it is just, folks, the “Royal Society”, because no further explanation is needed. We understand. We refer to the Royal Society and those in the know know that it means the Royal Society of science.

Moana Mackey: There’s a secret handshake.

Hon PETE HODGSON: There is a certain sort of cachet about that, which I do not personally pay a lot of attention to, but it is worth pointing out that it is called the Royal Society. If one goes to China, it is the Chinese Academy of Scientists. So they explain themselves using those words. They do not call themselves simply the Chinese Academy. I do not know what it is called in France, and we will not wander around the world on that matter, but it is important that in New Zealand, when we refer to the Royal Society, we are talking about higher learning.

The other point I wish to raise might seem pernickety but I wonder whether the member in the chair, Grant Robertson, could offer some assistance. It is in relation to the use of the term “Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill” as opposed to “The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill”. This is not minor. The Royal Society is never called “Royal Society” until we make it a creature of legislation, in which case we change its name from “The Royal Society” to “Royal Society”. We did that in the 1960s, we did it in the 1990s, and we are doing it again now, and I wonder whether we should fix it.

Why is it that when we talk about the Royal Society in our ordinary daily lives and we know that we are referring to “the Royal Society”, being the society of sciences and now of humanities as well, that we will not find it under that language in the legislative index? We have to get rid of the “the” in order to find it, and we find it under “R”, not “T”. I do not know whether that is ideal. The member may want to reflect on that. I was never on the Education and Science Committee. I do not know whether it was raised at the select committee. I do think it would be inappropriate for me to put an amendment on the floor without a little bit of discussion backwards and forwards on it, but on the other hand I do not think it is trivial. We have listed it under the wrong letter of the alphabet. I think that “the Royal Society” has been and always will be something that begins with a “the”. Is it a participle? What is it? I have forgotten what part of speech it is. Perhaps someone in humanities could tell us what it is. I see that Mr Chairperson is reaching for his button. I wonder whether he is indicating that I need to sit down just yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not. Then let me probably sit down, anyway. Would that be a good idea, Mr Chairperson? We do not need to waste the time of the Committee, especially if my colleague is ready to offer his erudite remarks.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): There are some contradictions in the Royal Society of New Zealand Bill. There has been talk about whether we should take the word “Royal” out of Royal Society, or something like that, although then it would be called “Society” or “The Society”, which is not very distinguished or distinguishing. But there are those of us who might be tempted, from a republican point of view—and I am glad the French Revolution was brought up—to move an amendment to take out the word “Royal” and just have “Society”, or to invent a whole new name such as “Kiwi Society”, or something. One of the contradictions here is that under the commencement clause the bill commences when it receives Royal assent. If we tried to extract—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): This is clause 1.

KEITH LOCKE: It is important, because this is where the contradiction is. If we tried to take out “Royal”, then we might not get Royal assent. The Queen or her designated person, the Governor-General, might say: “Well, I’m not going to sign off a bill”—and they do have reserve powers—“that is taking out ‘Royal’.” because it is undermining his very being as a representative of the Queen and undermining the Queen herself.

The other thing is that the concept of royalty is totally opposed to the concept behind the Royal Society, which is about achievement. It is not about inheriting a position in society or winning an honour, but actually achieving honour in cultural, scientific, or any of the other endeavours in the purposes of the Royal Society. So there is a big contradiction there. What I suggest, and I think it fits with the title and what we conceive of what the Royal Society should be doing, is that we should charge the Royal Society to use, in respect of royalty, its expertise in areas of science like genetics—because royalty is based on genetics and inheritance—or its expertise in the cultural field in philosophy of religion, because the monarch is the head of the Anglican Church, which creates problems in a multi-religious and multicultural society. If the Royal Society mobilised all its powers to analyse royalty, it might be able to be the author of its destruction, because with all its collective wisdom and expertise it would come out with such a strong argument against our continuing with royalty that it would have to be abolished. Unlike the bill I put forward previously, the Head of State Referenda Bill, any such bill would not go down by a few votes, with some members voting against it, but would get the support of the overwhelming majority of the House for a referendum on whether we should be a republic, because of the great work of the Royal Society in arguing the case for royalty not being continued. I think this is a serious matter.

There are also the questions about royal succession raised before by Brendon Burns, and they relate very much to the title of the bill, as well. I think we could take the initiative here and instead of New Zealand chairing the meeting that Brendon Burns referred to, we could bring a bill before this House to say that there should not be any preference for a male heir, that the heir should be able to marry a Catholic, and that the heir should be able to be a Catholic. One of the problems with any changes in Britain is, even if its citizens go for some bill that states the heir is allowed to marry a Catholic and a female heir equals a male heir, the British are still faced with the problem of wiping out the monarch as head of the Anglican Church. That is the big sticking point for them. The monarch is the head of the Anglican Church in Britain—not the Anglican Church worldwide. That is the big sticking point for the British in respect of moving to a Catholic king or queen, whereas in New Zealand we do not have that problem.

Also, we have something called the Human Rights Act, which would push us down the road of getting rid of any religious discrimination in any sense of the word, and also gender discrimination. We would also be motivated to remove ethnic or racial discrimination. It is very hard, given the inheritance line, for a Māori or an Indian New Zealander—whomever—to become the head of State in New Zealand, because the monarchy is very much a European line—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Please narrow your speech to the title.

KEITH LOCKE: To talk to the expertise of the Royal Society in genetics, one of the things it could analyse is the gene pool of European monarchies, including—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have asked the member to speak to the title. I am going to cut his speech off. That is the end of his speech.

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

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to respond to the issues that my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson raised very specifically about the title. It is the question of the fact that the bill is called the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, with a small “t” on the word “the”. It is not, as Mr Hodgson pointed out, filed under “t”, but rather, under “R”. Mr Hodgson is correct that certainly in all my dealings with the Royal Society the word “the” very much has a capital “T”. However, the reason why I do not believe an amendment would be appropriate is that the predecessor legislation covering the Royal Society, both the 1965 Act and the 1997 Act, are both filed under “R” and we would be stepping outside the process that was put forward by both of those Acts to make it “The Royal Society of New Zealand Act”, with the “T” being the key letter, rather than the “R”.

The other argument against making an amendment, as Mr Hodgson would suggest, is contained within the Standing Orders. In particular I refer to Appendix C of the Standing Orders, which runs through the procedures for private bills. The Clerk’s Office is extremely helpful, I might say, to those of us who end up sponsoring private bills. The Standing Orders and also McGee cover the responsibilities of a member who sponsors a bill. In actual fact, it is the role of the organisation on whose behalf I take the bill, as to what it is called. The title is in fact its prerogative, and although we are making potentially some amendments, they are ones that have been done in close consultation with the Royal Society and, therefore, I would be very reluctant to take up Mr Hodgson’s kind offer of amending the title. But I do understand what drove him to make that contribution on the title clause.

I think, in common parlance, it is “The” Royal Society. It is actually part of its integrity and it is part of its mana, to coin a word, that it is called “The” Royal Society. But both the 1965 and 1997 Acts are filed under “R”, so, although I very much respect my colleague Mr Hodgson’s knowledge of this topic, I do not think I will take him up on the offer of that amendment. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is very kind of you, Mr Chair, to give me the call, given that I very rudely interrupted your decision prior to that. I am so pleased it did not make any impact when it came to giving me the call on the title of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill.

At the outset I want to congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson. I am very pleased that I am able to congratulate him whilst speaking on the title of the bill. I would hate for anyone to think that I was congratulating Grant Robertson on bringing forward the bill that is next on the Order Paper—it was showing on the television screens before.

I am sure that Grant Robertson is also very grateful that he is not being congratulated on bringing that bill forward. I am pleased to have the opportunity to reiterate that the bill I am standing up to support, and the one that I am congratulating my colleague on bringing forward, is the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and not the bill that is coming up on the Order Paper. I am pleased that I am debating the title, so that I can remind people that this is a bill about the Royal Society, and not a bill about taking away students’ freedom to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member must speak on the title, or I will terminate her speech.

SUE MORONEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am on my feet. The member cannot go to the next bill and bring it into this debate. I have given the instruction quite clearly. A title debate is a very tight debate. The member must speak on the title.

SUE MORONEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am seeking your advice. I was responding to interjections from the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not interested in what the member is responding to. No member from the other side of the Chamber has spoken, but there have been interjections. I have given my instructions quite clearly and members ought to follow them.

SUE MORONEY: I will not be responding to any interjections, but I do invite members opposite to take a call if they have something to say. I would be really interested in listening to their contributions about the title of the bill.

I am not a person of the world of the Royal Society of New Zealand, so I do feel very humbled to be in the company of people like Moana Mackey who are members of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Also, I am very appreciative of listening to my colleague Pete Hodgson describing the reason why we call it the Royal Society of New Zealand.

I have to say that being on the Education and Science Committee and hearing the submissions on this bill left me feeling that I was a little out of my depth, because this is not the world I belong to. So the title of this bill did not mean an awful lot to me. “The Royal Society of what?”, I wondered, and I am sure that lots of other New Zealanders wonder what this Royal Society is.

It is interesting that the Royal Society, and we have discovered that this has traditionally been the case, has chosen not to describe what it is the Royal Society of. It is for those in the know—I think that is how Pete Hodgson put it—and I think that is a little sad. I am probably quite naive in terms of making this comment, but those of us who are not in the know would find it quite useful to know what it is the Royal Society of. Of course, this bill is expanding what it is officially the Royal Society of, and I think it would be useful to see that reflected in the title of the bill.

I do accept, however, that the member who brought the bill forward has adequately described that it is up to the Royal Society itself as to the title it gives to the bill. Obviously it is up to the Royal Society as to what it calls its own organisation. But it would be, I think, helpful to those of us who are lesser mortals to know what the Royal Society does.

In fact, it is a very, very impressive organisation, and certainly in the time I spent on the select committee listening to the submissions I grew to understand a great deal of what the society does. It does those things that are so important to the future of this country. It left me wondering, though: if the role of the Royal Society is as extensive as it is, then what is the role of the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister? I think sometimes the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister wonders what his role is, as well.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have given the member a warning. I am going to terminate her speech. Members must speak on the title.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I move, That the question be now put.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): Let me speak briefly on the title of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and my comments will pick up on a couple of the points that other speakers have made. I start by thanking Grant Robertson for explaining the issue of the word “the” in the title and the absence of the word “the”. I guess the other possibility is the word “a”, which, of course, would not be appropriate. We would not say “a royal society” when it is about the Royal Society. As Pete Hodgson mentioned, it is not the “Royal Society of Scientists and Technologists”; it is the Royal Society. Everybody knows what the organisation is, because since 1867 it has been the most august and prestigious organisation of its kind. The bill does not need to spell it out; it is inferred that one knows about the society.

The word “Royal”, as others have said, gives the organisation a gravitas that it would not have without it, but also it gives it a sense of tradition. I reflect on what Keith Locke was saying about our constitutional changes, and I agree with him that we should be moving to become a republic much more quickly than we are. However, we still have to reflect on where we came from, and the fact that the word “Royal” does bestow on this organisation a gravitas, and a sense of elitism, really, in terms of what it does—

Chris Auchinvole: Distinguished.

DAVID SHEARER: —and distinguished, as well—shows it is an organisation backed by history. It has a tradition, or a genealogy, if you like, in terms of the contribution it has made to New Zealand.

But the other word in the title is “Society”. This is not society as we know it; it is not society as generalised society in New Zealand. It is a society of the group of people who make up the Royal Society. I spoke earlier about who actually makes that up, and once again we come back to this idea that this is a society, a grouping of people. I think the word “society” is both poignant and traditional in this sense as well. It is a society of people, a group of people who get together in order to advance science in this country and, in effect, elsewhere. The society in this context is 20,000 scientists and technologists. It is not simply a small grouping of people; it is literally a society. So it is aptly named the Royal Society in the context of the title of this legislation.

Lastly, of course it is the Royal Society of New Zealand, because there is a Royal Society in the UK. Obviously, this ensures its specific nature as being the Royal Society of New Zealand. There are other Royal Societies across the world, and I mention that in the context of this bill, because the Royal Society of New Zealand is doing something that other Royal Societies have not done, or perhaps will not even dare to do. The society is advancing humanities and bringing humanities into a society that is ostensibly focused on the advancement of science and scientific thought, and using its scientific thought to the benefit of wider society, but particularly in New Zealand.

There is a strong traditional element in this. There is a strong ethos of that tradition being a proud, long tradition that is feeding into the future. It is a society that by its very nature is elitist. Scientists are not simply people who can walk in off the street; they are people who have undergone rigorous training, who have carried out research, and therefore they have had to earn their place in this grouping. That applies specifically to the more than 300 Fellows of the Royal Society, who are some of the best brains that we have in New Zealand. I believe that the Royal Society of New Zealand is an aptly named organisation.

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

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take a call on the commencement clause of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill.

Louise Upston: You don’t have to.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I am very pleased to. I am quite looking forward to it, because, as I have said in the Committee before, commencement clauses are often underrated parts of legislation. In fact, their significance to the overall legislation is very, very important. I can see that members opposite are really excited to learn a little bit more about the significance of this clause.

Clause 2, on the surface, looks quite straightforward and simple. It states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” First up, that is slightly misleading because at the moment the legislation is not an Act; it is a bill. The bill, of course, could state: “This bill becomes an Act and comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”, but I think, by convention, as with so many things in this House, we use the word “Act” even though it is a bill. So much of what we do in the House, particularly when it comes to the process relating to the Royal assent, is based upon convention.

One thing that makes this bill interesting is that it is a private bill. It is not a Government bill and it is not a member’s bill. By convention, bills are given the Royal assent by the Governor-General on behalf of the head of State—in this case, the Queen—on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Most legislation passed by the Parliament is Government legislation. The Government votes in favour of it. Under MMP, of course, we have minority government, and it is quite conceivable that a private bill or a member’s bill could be passed by the Parliament without the support of the Government. Yet the Prime Minister, of course, has to present to the head of State, or the Governor-General acting on behalf of the head of State, any legislation that needs to receive the Royal assent. The Prime Minister is obliged to do that by convention. By convention, the Governor-General, acting on behalf of the Queen as our head of State, is obliged to sign it.

But, as Keith Locke mentioned before, the Governor-General has a reserve power: the Royal assent can be refused. There is no specificity about when this bill will actually become law, because it will become law on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Of course, that assumes that Parliament will pass it and that the Prime Minister will present it to the Governor-General. We do not know how long it will be between Parliament passing it and the Prime Minister presenting it to the Governor-General. The Governor-General could withhold the Royal assent, and therefore the bill would not become law. There are no criteria in our constitutional framework for the Governor-General to withhold the Royal assent, and Parliament could do nothing about it if the Governor-General decided to do that.

Provisions in the constitutions of other countries that have similar clauses in their legislation allow them ways around a refusal to grant the Royal assent. For example—and I think this example is quite fascinating—the Belgian Parliament passed legislation and presented it to the King for the Royal assent. It was legislation to do with abortion. The King said he was morally offended by it and opposed to it, and therefore he refused to give the Royal assent. The Parliament—this is a fascinating piece of constitutional history—decided it would use a clause in its constitutional framework that allowed it to deem the King unable to execute the duties of his office, and therefore he was effectively removed as King for 1 day. If that happens, the Prime Minister can then sign the legislation and it becomes law. So Cabinet—all the Ministers—signed a letter saying they thought that the King was unable to execute his duties on that day. The Prime Minister signed the law and the next day it became the law, even though the King had refused to give the Royal assent. In New Zealand we do not have a similar provision.

The reason that situation was particularly interesting in Belgium was that that clause was designed for the possibility that the King could go mad. It was never designed to be used for just 1 day if the King did not agree with Parliament, or if Parliament did not agree with his withholding the Royal assent. It was not designed for him to be removed for 1 day, for the signing of one piece of legislation, and for the situation to then go back to normal. It was designed for the possibility of the King going mad, basically.

Of course, that situation has happened before. We need only look at the history books—and this is quite relevant to a bill to do with the Royal Society, one would think. It is quite conceivable that the head of State could go mad and refuse to give the Royal assent to this legislation, and there is not a thing that this Parliament could do about it. We do not have a provision, as they do in Belgium, whereby all the Ministers can sign a letter, remove the monarch for the duration of passing that particular legislation, and sign it off so it becomes law. Thankfully, there are very, very few instances where the head of State—the King or Queen—has refused to give the Royal assent to legislation in New Zealand. I am not aware of any, but somebody may want to correct me. I am aware that there was one instance in Australia where it did happen, rather controversially, but I do not think the Royal assent has ever been refused in New Zealand.

The point all this comes back to is that the convention we use in this House—and the wording is pretty much the same in most bills passed by this House—is that a bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. It does not give any assurance or any certainty to anyone as to when a particular bill will become law. We might want to think about that in the review of our constitutional arrangements going on at the moment. We might want to think a little more carefully about the reserve powers of the Governor-General acting on behalf of the Queen, and about his or her ability to effectively overturn legislation passed by this democratically elected Parliament, this House of Representatives, the people’s representatives in this House. Should someone who is unelected, who holds office by virtue of who their parents are and by virtue of their gender, quite often—who is so undemocratically appointed—be able to veto legislation passed by a democratically elected Parliament? My view is that they should not, and therefore we might want to think about that in our review of the constitutional arrangements currently taking place. I think I will leave it there. Thank you.

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

Motion agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Principal Act amended

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I will take just a brief call on clause 3 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, which amends the principal Act. It is worth noting the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 and its predecessor, the 1965 Act.

I will use this opportunity to tell colleagues in the Chamber that I have been able to identify the exact day in 1867 upon which the Royal Society, as seen within the 1997 and 1965 legislation, was created. I did this using modern technology, of course. That date was 10 October 1867. That information comes via an appendix to the New Zealand Institute Act of 1867. It is also backed up, I am told by my advisers, by the German version of Wikipedia. I tell no lie—that is what I have been told. It is unusual for me to do this, but I credit a researcher by the name of Michael Naylor for that excellent piece of work.

Chris Hipkins: Is he a scientist?

GRANT ROBERTSON: I do not know that he is, actually.

I note that the Act amended is the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, an Act passed under the previous National Government. I understand that the Hon Simon Upton was heavily involved in that legislation. That Act largely raised the status of social science within the Royal Society, so I think it is important to note, now that it is being amended to bring the humanities into it, that there has been a logical flow in the way the legislation covering the Royal Society has developed. I think it is important to note that the 1965 Act codified what had been happening for nearly 100 years in the Royal Society. The 1997 Act updated it to bring in social sciences, and today we will amend the Act, as clause 3 states, with this new 2011 legislation. I wanted to make that brief comment.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for allowing me to speak on clause 4 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. Clause 4 is the purpose clause.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but we are on clause 3, “Principal Act amended”.

KRIS FAAFOI: I apologise; I was on the wrong page. I was ahead of myself. We were enjoying the debate so much.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): If the member is not going to take a call on clause 3, I will put the question.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 Purpose

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for giving me the chance to speak to clause 4 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. Clause 4 is the purpose clause and is the guts of the bill. Paragraph (a), which is the main part of this clause, amends the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 to “incorporate humanities into the object and functions of the Royal Society of New Zealand:”.

This is pretty important stuff. The only difference anybody watching at home would see between the 1965 Act, the 1997 Act, and what I believe will be the 2011 Act is the change in the year over the last 30 or 40-odd years. This is important. Charles Chauvel, a Wellington colleague of mine who spoke earlier in the debate, talked about the foundation, the federation, and the future of the Royal Society of New Zealand and about the importance of the role it has played over the years. Bringing the humanities into the realm of the Royal Society of New Zealand is a major change since the society began in 1867—I believe on 10 October. I thank Mr Robertson very much for clarifying the date for the members on this side of the Chamber.

I tell those who may be watching on Parliament TV tonight, just in case they are waiting for the voluntary student membership bill, that there was a mistake with some of the graphics on the station earlier today.

What exactly will be the change regarding the humanities? Which disciplines will be introduced? I had a quick look at the society’s website and I understand that those who study languages, history, religion, philosophy, law, classics, linguistics, cultural studies, art history, and drama will all now be included in the society.

Chris Hipkins: Drama?

KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, drama will also be included in the society. Those members will be able to be fellows and be rewarded for their achievements over the years. As I was looking at the website I saw that a number of people have received many awards from the society. Some of those people are recidivist awardees or winners of prizes from the society. I understand that a new humanities medal will be given out by the society in June this year. The Humanities Aronui Medal will be awarded by the society.

As Charles Chauvel pointed out earlier on in the debate regarding the foundation, the federation, and the future of the society, one thing that has changed is the introduction of the humanities into the society, but what will not change are some of the society’s core functions. The beauty of the society is that it looks after both ends of the spectrum. At the grassroots in schools around the country, it tries to promote awareness and acknowledge achievement of science and, once the bill becomes an Act, the humanities. The society also looks after those experts who are already working in the field of science. As I said before, when the bill is passed, it will make sure there is infrastructure, support, and professional development in the humanities disciplines to make sure they progress over time.

The society also acts as an advisory board to the Government of the day, and I think my colleague David Shearer talked about some of the great work it does in some of the research and development areas, and it needs to be rewarded for that. The society does a great job of making sure it performs those core functions of acting in an advisory role and of promoting awareness among youngsters, and also of acknowledging people who excel in their field by giving out medals, awards, and scholarships such as the Rutherford Fund and Rutherford Medal.

This 2011 bill amends the 1997 legislation. It makes sure that the society has a new, modern face by ensuring members of those disciplines I listed earlier have an equal footing with science and technology members who have been able to use the society to forward their disciplines since 1867, and that needs to be commended.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): As my colleague Kris Faafoi, who has just resumed his seat, said, we are debating the purpose clause of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, which is in many ways the guts of why we are debating this bill today.

I refer specifically to clause 4(a), which states that the purpose of the Act is to “incorporate humanities into the object and functions of the Royal Society of New Zealand:”. I will use this call to talk about the process by which that incorporation occurred. Essentially, the document that governs it is the document I have in my hand, which is a memorandum of understanding between the Royal Society of New Zealand and Te Whāinga Aronui—Council for the Humanities. The negotiations between those two organisations took place over a period of time, largely through 2009.

I think it is worth going through the memorandum of understanding, because we have heard people within the debate express concern about the humanities coming into the Royal Society, and about some dilution of the role of the traditional sciences. I think this memorandum of understanding will give people the confidence that the involvement of the humanities within the Royal Society will strengthen the society.

The first part of the memorandum of understanding recognises the value to the humanities community of joining the Royal Society, and the value of humanities knowledge and perspectives. It also acknowledges the importance and value of mātauranga Māori. I think that as we come to the amendment in Te Ururoa Flavell’s name later on, it will be important to note that within the original understanding of the agreement between the Royal Society and the Council of Humanities was an understanding that Māori perspectives would be important within their cooperation. I think that is important to note.

The parties are agreed that the Council for the Humanities will retain its own identity as a charitable trust for up to 2 years to enable the transition; we are obviously in that period at the moment. The council will then become the Humanities Committee of the Royal Society, so there is, in fact, a process in place for the Council for the Humanities to be one of the committees of the society once we move through the transitional phase.

The council of the Royal Society of New Zealand will include a representative from either the social sciences or the humanities. I think that that is important. The council is the governance body of the Royal Society, and in bringing in the humanities, which is noted here in the purpose clause, it is important those people have a say within the governance body. Within 5 years the Royal Society will use its best endeavours to have its Act reflect the inclusion of the humanities.

Lest there be any concern about the amount of time that has been spent tonight on this—

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: We are not; we reckon you need to talk about this for hours and hours.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I am very happy to, I tell Dr Mapp. But lest anyone be concerned about it, I reiterate that the memorandum of understanding gives 5 years for the legislation to be passed. It might not take quite as long as that. It depends, perhaps, on some matters. You know, it will certainly take some time to work through the important clauses, but the legislation will fit within the memorandum of understanding. I am sure that with the respect and depth of debate there has been tonight, people will understand why we are doing it.

The Royal Society will also ensure that the term “humanities” is included on the society’s website in all places where it should be, and it is acknowledged as a term that should be included whenever there is reference to the Act and to the way in which the Royal Society operates. In making representations to the Government, the Royal Society and agencies will include the humanities where it is relevant. A number of representations to the Government recently have been affected by that policy. One in particular is on the question of policy advice, and the importance of good quality policy advice. I know that the Royal Society has made some submissions on that issue.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.