Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

New Zealand Defence Force—Death of Lance Corporal Leon Smith in Afghanistan

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move without notice a motion on the death of a New Zealand SAS soldier in Afghanistan earlier today.

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I move, That this House express its sadness at the death of a New Zealand SAS soldier in Afghanistan. Details of the incident, which occurred only a few hours ago, are not yet available and we are unable to release the soldier’s name at this stage.

The SAS is our premier combat unit. Its soldiers face extremely volatile and dangerous conditions in order to help the people of Afghanistan. But they carry out their duties to the highest standards. They are remarkably brave, resourceful, and resilient, and they are making a valuable contribution in Afghanistan. So the news that one of our soldiers has fallen is devastating for our SAS, for the New Zealand Defence Force, and for all New Zealanders.

I take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to the family of the soldier and to the wider Defence Force family. The thoughts of the members of this House are with you at this terrible time. This is a sad day for New Zealand. This soldier has paid the highest price for his service to this country and we will mourn his death with a heavy heart.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): It is a tragedy that so soon after we paid tribute to the life of Corporal Dougie Grant, killed with the SAS in Kabul last month, we are today remembering the life of another New Zealand soldier with the New Zealand SAS, who was killed this morning. We share in the grief of his family, his friends, and his Defence Force family, and offer them our deepest sympathy and condolences.

He joins a growing list of other New Zealanders who in recent years have been killed in action in deployments by the New Zealand Defence Force: Private Leonard Manning in Timor-Leste, and Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell and Corporal Doug Grant, both killed in Afghanistan. Added to that roll of honour are the other New Zealand citizens who were serving with the Australian, the British, and the American armies who were likewise killed in action.

We are again reminded of the cost of war that was part of everyday life for our parents’ generation. Regrettably, I understand too well the sense of tragedy and grief that his family will be feeling at this time. This is not the time to debate the rights and wrongs of our deployment of the SAS in Afghanistan. Rather, it is time to stand alongside the family of the fallen soldier and offer them our sympathy, our love, and our support.

Like others who have lost their lives, this soldier, whose name we cannot yet disclose, understood the risks and died doing what he believed in. In the House today we pay our respect to him and acknowledge his service and his sacrifice on behalf of his country.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Yet another life has been lost to this war in Afghanistan. Normally, we would know the name of the young man whose life has been taken. We would know a bit about him and the things he has done—his heroic acts; his involvement in the community—and we would be able to talk about the life that he lived and the contribution that he made. It is unfortunate that today we are not able to do so yet. What we do know about this man is that he had a family, and he had friends and a community who today are in very severe distress at this terrible loss from war, again. The Green Party stands in our very sincerest sympathy with his friends, his family, and his community. We share in their loss. Kia ora.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party I wish to express our sorrow at the death of the New Zealand SAS soldier in Kabul, Afghanistan. My colleagues and I send our sincere condolences to the soldier’s family, friends, and colleagues, who have lost a warrior in the most tragic of circumstances. Afghanistan seems a world away. It is a country that is seemingly the polar opposite of our small, green land. However, it becomes much closer when one of our own loses their life protecting the peace and freedom of the people of that land—the same peace and freedom that is enjoyed here in New Zealand.

This tragedy is a truly unfortunate reminder that conflict is a daily possibility in this theatre of war. Our soldiers are doing a job that few have the courage to do. They deal with the darkest, most savage, and dangerous elements of the modern world and they do it with professionalism and pride. All New Zealanders will be feeling the loss of this soldier, who volunteered to serve New Zealand and paid the ultimate price in the quest for liberty and freedom. My thoughts and the thoughts of the ACT Party members and supporters are with his family and friends, and the other personnel who were wounded today, who I hope make a speedy recovery.

The effect of this tragedy on the families of all service personnel cannot be underestimated. Waiting at home, they also serve out these missions—their loved ones striving to bring peace and safety to the families of others, whom they never meet. In the face of such tragic circumstances, we as New Zealanders refuse to allow our commitment to what is good and right in the world to waver. It will be stronger today than it was yesterday. All New Zealanders can be proud that this soldier was one of our own. We salute his service and the ultimate sacrifice he made. Thank you.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): E te hōia, hoki atu i te ara wairua, hoki atu ki te wā kāinga. Haere ki te pō, haere ki te pō.

[Oh soldier, return along the spiritual pathway to the true home. Depart to the darkness and to the abode of the dead.]

A former member of this House and a great Ngāti Porou leader, Sir Apirana Ngata, once argued that the cost of casualties incurred as a result of the Māori participation in the First World War was the price of citizenship. Today we reflect on that phrase, as we think of yet another member of the New Zealand Defence Force personnel whose life has been laid down on behalf of us all in what can only be thought of as the ultimate price of citizenship: the loss of human life. The Māori Party joins with other parties to mourn the sacrifice made, with the tragic news of a death in Afghanistan. We acknowledge the courage, the commitment, and the bravery of our SAS force, who enter every day never knowing whether this will be their last. We grieve with those who today, serving alongside, have had one of their own untimely plucked from within their midst—his life another marker of the tragedy that comes with situations of war.

But, most of all, our thoughts are with his family and friends, who are today reeling with the news that sees their worst fears realised. Every life lost through the ultimate call of duty is the promise of leadership unfulfilled. It takes a heavy toll on our national spirit, and it leaves a family bereft. Our aroha is with his w’ānau today. Tēnā koutou.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Many New Zealanders would be surprised to know of the number of places around the world in which New Zealand forces are deployed on a range of missions. For many of them, most of the time, that is almost on a sight unseen basis. They do their job, they carry out their duty, and life carries on—or so it would seem. It is when tragedies such as the death of this soldier in Afghanistan today and the recent incident we commemorated here just a few short weeks ago become apparent that it is brought home to all of us that the military personnel who go overseas on deployments do not just have an extended period of activity offshore and are not just engaged in their professionally trained activities in a different place; they put their lives at risk every day. Although, as I understand it, the circumstances of this event were reasonably routine, the reality in terms of the loss of the life of this young man is anything but routine.

So whatever one’s views about the continued deployment in Afghanistan, this is a wake-up call in terms of the risk that these personnel face day in, day out; of the huge debt of gratitude that our country has to them for their service; and of the tremendous sense of loss right at this moment that the family, friends, and loved ones of the young man will be feeling. The very best that we can do is offer our sympathy and our support to them at this time. I hope that New Zealanders will reflect more frequently on the risks that our personnel face daily, on the challenges that they have to overcome, and, sadly, on the supreme sacrifice that a steadily increasing number are now being required to make on our behalf. May he rest in peace.

Motion agreed to.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Prime Minister’s Statements

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on TV3 yesterday that “we may just muddle through” the current economic situation?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which was made in response to a question about a global double-dip recession and was as follows: “You can’t rule it out, but I think the general feeling from Bill is that while the atmosphere and the mood is very dark in the United States and in Europe, that we may just muddle through, and I know a number of the major economic commentators don’t think that there’ll be a double-dip recession. But what we are in for is a period of volatility—I suspect extreme volatility—in certain parts of Europe.”

Hon Phil Goff: When he also said yesterday: “Unemployment is starting to fall—not too bad.” had he read the latest National Employment Indicator for July, which shows that nearly 5,000 jobs were lost in New Zealand in that month alone?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. Can I tell the member, because I will assume he does not know this and that is why he is giving the wrong information, that the National Employment Indicator is not a full indicator of all jobs in the economy.

Hon Phil Goff: Oh, it never is.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. So—

Hon Annette King: Always changing the goalposts.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Actually, we are not changing. The consistent position we have always taken, and which the member took when he was in Government, is the household labour force survey. The number of people employed in New Zealand now is higher than ever before in New Zealand’s history. We have not lost jobs in this country; we have created jobs.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister also think that it is not too bad that Ministry of Social Development figures show that under his watch the number of 18 to 24-year-olds on the unemployment benefit for more than a year has risen by 733 percent? Is that not too bad?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As always with the member, I would need to check his statistics, because they are almost always wrong.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a tradition, and I think it is in repeated Speakers’ rulings, that members take another member’s word in this House. That was a very clear quote. It was a very clear indication from the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister was clearly not doing that.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member’s point, and he is quite correct that members should take another member’s word. The dilemma during question time, of course, is quotes that may or may not be in context and figures that may or may not be in context, and that is why I can sometimes understand Ministers challenging figures. But perhaps they can be challenged in a less objectionable way, if the Prime Minister disagrees with the figures. The language used in disagreeing was perhaps not helpful.

Hon Phil Goff: Maybe I can help. I seek leave of the House to table a set of figures compiled from, I think, about seven or eight parliamentary written questions that demonstrate just what I asserted to the Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Could the House be told the source.

Hon Phil Goff: The source is written questions Nos 6058—

Mr SPEAKER: No, who compiled them?

Hon Phil Goff: They were compiled by my office from these parliamentary questions, and I can read them out—

Mr SPEAKER: We do not have a practice of tabling answers to written questions, because they are available to all members. We should not be wasting time on that. In fairness on this whole issue, a question had been asked but it was interrupted with a point of order. I will now ask the right honourable Prime Minister to answer the question, but not using the provocative language that he used, even if he does disagree with the figures.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: All I can say is that I cannot confirm the figures. When one is in my job, then one learns very quickly not to necessarily accept statements that are made. The Labour Party yesterday said that 47,000 fewer people had jobs in New Zealand. That is not true. The household labour force survey shows that employment is higher in New Zealand than it has ever been before, with 2.215 million New Zealanders in employment, which is higher than 2.210 million—

Mr SPEAKER: I think we have heard sufficient, because the question was actually related to social welfare figures. I think we have heard sufficient on that.

Hon Phil Goff: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker—

Chris Tremain: Get it right this time, Phil.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just received an interjection across the House suggesting that I did not get it right. I have offered to table the statistics, the answers from Ministers, to show that I did.

Mr SPEAKER: The House will settle down. There is no need to be too thin-skinned today. I just ask the House, actually, today to show a little respect to this place. A New Zealander lost his life this morning. We do not make New Zealanders proud of us if we behave like a bunch of schoolkids. I just ask members to be mindful of that today.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister also think that it is not too bad when he looks at Statistics New Zealand’s latest figures, showing that nearly 100,000 New Zealanders have left permanently or long term to go to Australia under his watch, when on the basis of the same problem—of emigration to Australia—he demanded a vote of no confidence in Helen Clark when the departure figures were much, much lower?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member forgets the number of New Zealanders who have come back in that time, which, again, is a fault in his logic. Secondly, it is not true to say it was lower. Over the period of the Labour Government about 300,000 New Zealanders left for Australia. I go back to my overall point. Let me quote from the BNZ, as one example, on the overall economy. It states, in relation to GDP data: “we prefer to interpret today’s figures as confirming”—

Mr SPEAKER: This is question time, where questions are answered. The right honourable Prime Minister might wish to make a point, but he has to wait until a question asks about that point.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Prime Minister received, as Prime Minister, any reports of billboards appearing around New Zealand claiming that he, as Prime Minister, is “Building a brighter future”; and will he be replacing that slogan with the words “We may just muddle through”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the world may muddle through a global recession, but one is not sure. In terms of building a brighter future, let me, for the edification of the member, give him this graph from Treasury. It is compiled by someone, but it is from Treasury. It is a sign of GDP growth around the world. Here is Australia. Here is New Zealand, above pretty much every country in the world. With the backdrop of a global financial crisis and three major earthquakes in Christchurch—a more significant event as a percentage of GDP has not occurred in any natural disaster in the world—New Zealand has grown faster than the United States since this Government has been in office, faster than the eurozone since this Government has been in office, faster than the UK since this Government has been in office, and faster than Japan since this Government has been in office. Relative to pretty much everyone else, it is a brighter future.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition I just remind members that visual aids can be used by members to support their speeches, but not to flash around the House willy-nilly. A senior member should know that.

Hon Phil Goff: When Statistics New Zealand shows that in recent months we have seen the highest-ever emigration from New Zealand permanently to Australia, why does he not accept his own advice, which he gave to Helen Clark, and resign?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because a reasonable proportion of those people have left Christchurch.

Hon John Boscawen: Supplementary—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon John Boscawen deserves to be heard.

Hon John Boscawen: When he told the House just a few minutes ago “We have not lost jobs in this country; we have created jobs.”, was he aware of a recent Department of Labour report that showed that unemployment amongst 16 and 17-year-olds was about 4,000 higher than it otherwise might have been, as a consequence of, firstly, Labour legislating to cut out youth rates and, secondly, National refusing to support Roger Douglas’ member’s bill to reinstate them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am aware of the Department of Labour report and I am prepared to accept that that is one factor, but I think there are a number of factors taking place. I go back to the member and say that that is right—recessions have a disproportionate effect, typically, on lower-income people and young people. But the good news for New Zealand is that employment in this country has never ever been higher. It has never ever been higher.

Hon Phil Goff: Has he actually looked at the National Employment Indicator figures from Statistics New Zealand, which show, in fact, that in the latest figures for July the number of filled jobs is 46,710 fewer than was the case in October 2008? Will he examine his figures again, or at least look at these figures?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member can, if he wants to, look at a subset of employment in New Zealand, but if he wants to look at the—

Hon Trevor Mallard: People who’ve got jobs are a subset!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If he wants to look at a subset of employment in New Zealand he is welcome to, but if he wants to look at the overall economy, then I go back to the member and say that the household labour force survey shows that there are more people in employment in New Zealand than ever in New Zealand’s history.

Hon Paula Bennett: I seek to release a report that was put out today from Jobs Online, which shows that the number of job vacancies advertised online on both SEEK and TradeMe increased by 6.3 percent for August 2011.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to check that the Minister is not trying to fool us and table something that is already on a website, unless, of course, she is like Mr Heatley, who has taken embarrassing figures off the website today.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member was using a point of order to score a political point, and I do not think that is very appropriate. If the material the Minister is, I presume, seeking leave to table is on the website, we do not do that, because it is available to all members. Can I check with the Minister whether it is available on the website.

Hon Paula Bennett: It may be available on a website. I have just a printed report. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being considered. I want to make certain for the House, because I do not want to breach our conventions, as the Minister is seeking leave to table a document. Is this Jobs Online not a Government agency?

Hon Paula Bennett: No, it is not.

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

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

Hon Phil Goff: Why does the Prime Minister not just acknowledge that in the real world people are struggling to find jobs? When we read today that when a New World supermarket was opened in Kaiapoi, 870 people applied for 45 full-time and 45 part-time jobs, does that not show the Prime Minister that people are struggling to find work under his economic mismanagement?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Of course people are looking for jobs. The good news, as the Minister just demonstrated, is that an increasing number of jobs are coming online. I think what New Zealanders would say, though, is that they will be pleased that employment has never been higher in New Zealand than it is today. They will be pleased that they have a tax system that is finally rewarding them, that they do not have a Government that is piling costs on them, that we are building infrastructure, that we are reforming the economy, and that we are reaching out to make New Zealand stronger. For the most part, if anyone is in denial, it is the Opposition. It is in denial about how tough the international conditions are and, relatively speaking, how well New Zealand is doing.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister think that it is not too bad and that we can muddle through when growth in the last quarter for New Zealand was 0.1 percent, and when I recall him 2 years ago promising an aggressive recovery from the recession?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a start, I am more than happy to table the graph that shows New Zealand’s GDP growth since my Government has been in office outstripping basically every country in the world on this graph other than Australia. But that graph is from Treasury, so maybe tabling it will be rejected. Secondly, in relation to the point made by the member, let me read this from the BNZ in relation to GDP data: “There is a lot of noise in the data at the moment that is, and will continue, creating substantial quarterly volatility in GDP readings. In our opinion, you need to smooth through this. This being the case, we prefer to interpret today’s figures as confirming that activity is growing on average around 0.5% per quarter over the last three quarters. Hardly spectacular but light years away from recession.”

Hon John Boscawen: Given that the Prime Minister has just told the House that employment has never been higher, does he accept that employment amongst 16 and 17-year-olds could have been at least 4,000 higher as a consequence of not having the youth rates abolished by the Labour Government—rates that were not reinstated by the National Government—as was conclusively shown by that Department of Labour report?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot confirm that. I can confirm the existence of the Department of Labour advice that it may well have been higher if youth rates were there, but I cannot confirm that that would have been the number. I can confirm two things. First, I can confirm that employment has never been higher in New Zealand’s history than it is today, at 2.215 million. The second thing I can confirm is that when the Opposition said unemployment would go to 11 percent, it was wrong. Unemployment went to 7.1 percent. When the Opposition said 20,000 people would be unemployed in Christchurch, it was wrong. The whole way through, Opposition members were very, very, very good at forgetting all of their predictions, which have been wrong.

Hon Phil Goff: Remember the Job Summit? What did the Prime Minister deliver from that?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Job Summit? Let us talk about the United States. Unemployment is at 9.2 percent, officially. The unofficial unemployment rate is 15 percent. Let us talk about unemployment in Europe. It is considerably higher than it is in New Zealand. So New Zealand has come through the same situation—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a printout from the Department of Labour website of the Jobs Online statement that Paula Bennett just quoted from.

Mr SPEAKER: Under the circumstances, leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will note that the Minister said it was not on the Government website.

Mr SPEAKER: That is—[Interruption] The House will settle down. That is not a point of order. The House heard the points being made previously. That is not a point of order.

Economy—Effect of United States and European Debt

2. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Finance: What information has he received about how the New Zealand economy might be affected by the economic and fiscal issues in the United States and Europe?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): There is a clear message from recent events in the US and Europe that these major economies face large challenges stemming from too much debt, and it will take some time to sort out these problems. New Zealand is not immune from the fall-out either in financial markets or in terms of the demand for its exports. After all, we are borrowing in the same markets as the indebted countries in Europe, and Europe and the US remain significant export markets for New Zealand. It is a bit hard to judge exactly what impact there would be on New Zealand if there was a significant crisis in the US and Europe, but in the absence of such a crisis our best information is that New Zealand is relatively well placed to be able to continue to grow moderately, even if these large economies find that their growth slows down.

Jonathan Young: What are the attitudes of international lenders in the current global environment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have had the opportunity recently to talk to a range of politicians, credit rating agencies, and international banks. It would be fair to say they have a fairly gloomy view of economic prospects around the developed world over the next 12 months or so. In fact, I would describe the mood as ugly. Heightened uncertainty in markets means that international lenders and credit rating agencies are increasingly concerned about companies, countries, or banks that have significant debt. Although the New Zealand ship is in better shape than it was 2 or 3 years ago, the international waters are becoming choppier.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Minister has just now confirmed his assessment that the international picture is ugly, and given the earlier statement that we can only muddle through, why has he been contradicted by the Prime Minister, who said we can be “reasonably confident” of strong growth in quarters two, three, and four this year, despite growth in quarter two being a paltry 0.1 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If I could correct the member, I actually said the mood was ugly. To go into a bit more detail, it is reasonably clear that the US and European economies are likely to slow down, and that is reflected in changes in recent international forecasts. However, New Zealand’s principal exporting is now done with Australia and China, both of which have fairly good growth prospects. So I agree with the Prime Minister that New Zealand’s growth prospects remain better than those of most developed countries.

Jonathan Young: How is New Zealand placed to deal with this increased uncertainty in global financial markets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are reasonably well placed. We have had a growing economy. We have set a path back to surplus, which we will achieve at a time when most countries will still be in deficit and will be increasing their borrowing. We are reducing New Zealand’s overall indebtedness to the rest of the world, which is our largest vulnerability. One measure of this is our net international liabilities, which cover households, business, and government. As at 30 June 2009 our net international liabilities were 86 percent of GDP, and as at 30 June this year they are just slightly under 70 percent of GDP, which means that compared with the size of our economy, our total stock of international liabilities is now shrinking. That is mainly because of changes in the behaviour of New Zealand households, which are saving more, and some statistical changes that mean we are measuring New Zealand assets owned in Australia better than we used to do.

Jonathan Young: What other progress has the Government made in reducing New Zealand’s vulnerability to the current global market environment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The other progress that has been made has been to change the approach of the general machinery of government to ensure that it is focused on value for money. That has taken a couple of years of pretty consistent discussion and policy changes with Government departments, but now they understand the need for value for money and have begun the process of making significant changes to ensure that they can deliver more service to the public for less. We have also moved to improve our business environment, because, after all, there will be new jobs only when businesses are confident enough to invest. We are making some progress there, as well.

GDP Per Capita—Percentage Change Between June 2008 and June 2011

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: By what percentage did GDP per capita fall between the June 2008 year and the June 2011 year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): If the member will bear with me on just a bit of detail, I have interpreted this question to mean a real production-based measure of GDP, which is the one most commonly quoted. On this basis, the 2011 year was 3.6 percent below that of 2008, but the story does have some nuances. Per capita GDP actually peaked back in 2007 and then started sliding before the global recession, because under the previous Government New Zealand went into recession well ahead of the rest of the world. The big decline in per capita GDP happened in the year to June 2009, when real per capita GDP fell by 3.3 percent—that is, before the current Government had delivered its first Budget. Since our first Budget, in 2009, the growth has stabilised. It is pleasing to see that the economy has expanded in eight of the past nine quarters and that GDP has grown by 3.5 percent over the past 2 years.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table this representation of Statistics New Zealand figures, which show that GDP has decreased—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document please?

Hon David Cunliffe: Statistics New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a photocopy of something?

Hon David Cunliffe: It is a graph. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am trying to sort out who has compiled this document.

Hon David Cunliffe: It is Statistics New Zealand’s data, which is represented in a graph.

Mr SPEAKER: I asked who has compiled the document, not the source of the data.

Hon David Cunliffe: The research unit has used Microsoft—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document from the party research unit. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon David Cunliffe: How much money has the Government borrowed over the last 3 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I could not give the total figure off the top of my head, but it certainly would be well in excess of $20 billion. That has been driven by two things. One is the recession, which began under that member’s party, and it was then compounded by the need to borrow for the Christchurch earthquake. Of course, the important thing is to have a plan for the path back to surplus, and we have a plan in place.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table these Statistics New Zealand numbers, which show that the actual amount of debt—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Members will be silent. When I get to my feet the member will resume his seat and other members will be silent. I have developed a procedure whereby members identify the source of a document before citing the information in it, so that we can quickly determine whether leave should be sought to table the document. Seeking leave is not an opportunity to convey information while members are on their feet; seeking leave is about whether a document should be tabled. First, the House needs to know the source of the document.

Hon David Cunliffe: The source of the estimate of $37 billion—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat, and he may ask a supplementary question if he wishes to.

Hon David Cunliffe: How many fewer jobs are there in New Zealand than when his Government came to office, according to the latest National Employment Indicator?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: According to the standard for measuring jobs, which is the household labour force survey, there are more jobs now. One reason is that we have been able to stabilise the drop in per capita GDP. If I can point out to the member, per capita GDP fell during Labour’s final term—

Mr SPEAKER: I have just dealt fairly severely with the Hon David Cunliffe, and although the Minister may not have liked the question, and may have criticism about the statistics upon which the question is based, the answer should at least start at the question asked, not ignore it totally. The question asked about employment figures as indicated by an employment indicator survey. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to indicate his concerns about that data, but to ignore it totally is not on. The Hon Bill English, to answer the question asked. I am happy to have the Hon David Cunliffe repeat it if it has been forgotten.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Speaker, I answered the question and I will repeat it in case you did not hear it. According to the standard for measuring the total—

Mr SPEAKER: Members may wish questions were different from what they are, but I will invite the Hon David Cunliffe to repeat his question. The Minister may certainly have views of the particular statistics, but the answer should at least start from the point of the question being asked, not ignore it totally and cite other data, without any reference whatsoever to the question asked.

Hon David Cunliffe: How many fewer jobs are there in New Zealand than when his Government came to office, according to the latest National Employment Indicator?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know the answer to that question, because the National Employment Indicator is a partial measure of jobs in the economy. According to the standard measure there are more jobs than ever.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table data from the National Employment Indicator, indicating—

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet; is there something wrong with the member’s eyes? The House will come to order and just settle a little. The member knows that we do not table statistics that are released by Statistics New Zealand, because members have those available to them. Seeking leave to table documents to try to score political points is not the purpose of the Standing Order. I invite the member to read the Standing Order if he is going to seek leave to table documents.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance; I am not trifling with your ruling in any way. You have held that the information is freely available to members, but we are in the situation where the Minister of Finance has just told the House that he does not know the answer to this important—

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. That does not mean that the information is not readily available to members, and we are simply not going to go back to tabling statistics releases and press statements, or press releases and newspaper clippings. It just wastes too much time in this House. Question time gives members the chance to question Ministers. If the member does not like the way the answers refer to statistics, he can ask questions about why the statistics are inferior, if he believes that his statistics are superior. The question can be expanded in that area because that field has already been covered. Rather than trying to table documents, question time is about asking questions—why Ministers may hold certain views of things. It is not about trying to table documents.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to drag this out, and this will be the last comment I make on this matter. But it is, of course, possible for Ministers of the Crown to either genuinely or conveniently say they do not know the answer to any number that does not support their case—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. We will not have any more of that. Does the member have a further supplementary question? If he does not, we will go on to question—

Hon David Cunliffe: I have a supplementary question. Given that before the last election his leader was claiming that New Zealand had a growth problem and not a debt problem, and given that he has now saddled the country with $37 billion of extra Government debt with no growth to show for it, has not New Zealand developed now both a growth problem and a debt problem, through 3 years of his Government muddling through?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, we are dealing with both growth and debt in somewhat challenging circumstances. If we had followed that member’s advice for the last 3 years, we would have probably about twice as much debt as we have now.

Youth Unemployment—Work and Income Support

4. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is Work and Income working proactively to support young people into employment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): As Minister I have recently insisted that we step up our youth employment seminars, rolling them out throughout New Zealand. Over the past few months more than 1,000 seminars have been held, from Northland to Palmerston North, and in Kapiti and Otago. Over 13,000 young people have been invited to attend these seminars. These are seeing young people move off benefits into jobs and training, through connecting them with local businesses and local trainers. Since then we have seen that number of young people dropping off the unemployment benefit. In January 2010 we had 23,500 young people on the unemployment benefit; in August 2011 we had 15,980. Progress has been made.

Hon Tau Henare: What response has there been to these seminars?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would be fair to say there has been a mixed response. We are getting a fantastic response from employers and from training organisations in turning up, but we are not always having a fantastic response from the young people themselves in turning up. In some places we are getting as low as a 50 percent attendance; in others it is about 80 percent. These seminars are part of work testing for the unemployment benefit; we have had to sanction a number of young people for not following up on the work test, but that does not mean we will give up on them. We do believe we can get better behaviour there so that they are turning up for these seminars so they can get these jobs.

Jacinda Ardern: What set of statistics is she using to base employment policy on: the household labour force survey, which shows we have the highest youth unemployment on record; the seasonally adjusted National Employment Indicator, which shows 47,000 fewer Kiwis in jobs than when she took office; or the figures she has tried to table today from TradeMe?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would be fair to say that I use a range of reports and figures that come in. I concentrate on the people who are affected. These are young people who are out there trying to—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. A Labour member asked a question and if Labour members were serious about asking the question, I would expect they would want to hear the answer. There was no way anyone could hear much of that answer. I just ask for a little more respect, please.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: For example, I could also look at the Hudson Report, which just came out today, on employment expectations. It says that there are signs of employer confidence emerging, particularly amongst small businesses. A net 22.5 percent of employers are planning to increase staff numbers before the end of the year. That means that there will be some jobs. Our job is to try to get those young people ready for those jobs, and that is what I am clearly focused on.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she think it is appropriate to continue to pay a young person the dole when that payment could be used to subsidise an employer to take on that young person as an apprentice instead?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member may not be aware that there is a $5,000 subsidy that can go to employers. There are more than 13,000 of them now for young people, and more than 90 percent of those young people have stayed in jobs because of that subsidy. It now has a training component alongside of that as well. It is having outstanding results and is seeing young people get into jobs.

Earthquakes, Canterbury and Christchurch—Insurance

5. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Prime Minister: When he said “if we want to be the insurer of last resort right here as we stand today, everyone needs to understand what we’re signing up for”, was he indicating his acceptance of the Government undertaking that role, or was he ruling it out?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I was doing neither, which is quite obvious from my full statement, which is as follows: “if the Government walks in today and writes a blank cheque, it won’t be a short-term fix. It’ll be there for a long time, it could be tremendously expensive, and it’ll be very difficult to exit. So there is no free lunch here. If we want to be the insurer of last resort, right as we stand here today, I think everyone needs to understand what they’re signing up for. My view, having assessed it all, is that we need to give that a lot more time. I think we need to work our way through it, and we need to try and continue to work with the private sector providers. If in the end having tried everything that all fails, then we’ll come back and have another look at it.”

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is he still confident that insurers will start to write new policies in Canterbury soon, as he said last week, and if they do not do so soon, at what point would he consider that Government intervention would be necessary to stop the insurance money bleeding out of our economy and crippling the recovery effort?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Insurers are writing new contracts; I met people last week who had received those contracts.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is he aware that the delays in getting back to a functional insurance market in Christchurch—something described by chamber head Peter Townsend as “a cancer” only a couple of days ago—is holding up the construction of business premises and now causing severe difficulties for an industry that has been told to prepare for a boom but is currently starved of work; and how long will his Government tolerate this cancer on our recovery as a city?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is no doubt that insurance issues are slowing up the rebuild in Christchurch. That is because the seismic activity at the moment makes it difficult for the insurers and their reinsurers to fully assess the position in Christchurch. I think the view of insurers and reinsurers that Gerry Brownlee met when he was in Monaco is that they will want to re-enter the market. The fact that the New Zealand insurance industry is still interesting to offshore people is evidenced by the fact that there are considerable bids for AMI Insurance, and unless I am missing something, by the time the Labour Party had its third go at trying to get this right, it was arguing it would not rush in and offer insurance straight away, either.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: How long does he think Gwenda Williams and Darryl Dawson should be forced to live in a caravan with two toddlers, given that they are now “effectively stuck” with “No house, no new build insurance, therefore no mortgage and no build.”, before the Government sees itself as having a role in the insurance market?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is impossible for me to comment on the individual circumstances of a couple. But if that couple want to contact the offices of, probably, Phil Heatley or Paula Bennett, then we are more than happy to try to facilitate them to get into another home.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Will he return to the Christchurch communities that he spoke to after both earthquakes and explain why his pledge to do everything he could to help them did not extend to ensuring there is a functioning insurance market, without which there is no recovery?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not want to labour the point, but let me put it into a bit of context so that the member understands it. There has not been a natural—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Will you come back? Answer the question.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I have been back on numerous occasions, actually. There has not been a natural disaster in the developed world that has had a bigger impact on a developed economy than the Christchurch earthquake. The Government, in response to that, has offered to buy every home in the red zone at rateable value. To the best of my knowledge as Prime Minister, I cannot find another example of that anywhere in the world. In 2011 the Government provisioned $5.5 billion for the rebuild of Christchurch, when it ran its zero Budget. The Government has stepped in to provide support for AMI Insurance, the largest insurer in the Christchurch region, because a failure to provide that back-up financing support if required by AMI would have left literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Cantabrians without a position where they had insurance. The Government has established the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and passed legislation. The Government has appointed a full-time Minister responsible. I have been to Christchurch either every week or every second week since the first earthquake took place on 4 September 2010. I believe the Government has taken remarkable steps to try to stand alongside the people of Christchurch. I really find the member’s statements to be a little offensive.

Point of Order—Chamber Audio System

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your assistance on a matter that continues to trouble me—

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard and the Hon David Cunliffe will show some respect.

LOUISE UPSTON: It is increasingly difficult to hear the speakers from the Government side even when there is not a lot of interjection. I find it incredibly difficult, and I would very much like to hear what my colleagues have to say. I would like to see you investigate the sound system, so that those of us in the back rows can actually hear the debate and the discussion.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I agree with the member: I think the sound in here is slightly uneven at times and it depends on where people are speaking from. The unfortunate thing is that sometimes we are trying to listen to the Government too, and we hear the member on her left, Paul Quinn.

Mr SPEAKER: The member did not need to do that during a point of order and he knows it. And I—[Interruption] That does not help. All I can say to the honourable member at the back of the House is that he just let his colleague off the hook. I do not think that was a very wise thing to do. The Speaker deals with matters of order. Now, look, the issue that Louise Upston has raised is a serious issue. There are two problems: one is that the sound system does in my view appear to be somewhat down today, but, secondly, the volume of noise at times has been unacceptable. I ask members, please, to just to show the House a little more respect—please.

Water Quality—Confidence in Minister for the Environment

6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for the Environment in light of the Auditor-General’s report released yesterday that states, “there is still some way to go if we are to halt and reverse the declining trends in freshwater quality”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because this Government has made more progress on addressing problems with freshwater management than any in recent history. Specific actions that have been taken include the first National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management since the Resource Management Act came into effect in 1991, and the first regulations under the Resource Management Act on fresh water. The Government has increased by fivefold—fivefold—the amount spent on the clean-up of lakes and rivers. There has been a doubling in the fines for non-compliance with resource consents, under the Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act, and we also note the highest levels of compliance with this—

Mr SPEAKER: I wish members would read questions more carefully. The question did not ask why; it just asked whether the Prime Minister has confidence in his Minister. Some questions ask “if so, why?”. This one did not. It is important that we do focus on questions.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister agree with the reported statement made by the Hon Nick Smith, who said that the Government’s national policy statement on fresh water “will only be as good as the implementation of it by regional councils”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I think that is correct. The very structure of the Resource Management Act delegates the key regulatory functions to the regional councils. The national policy statement does require every one of our regional councils to set limits on water quality and minimum flows. The Government has just commissioned additional work from the Land and Water Forum on potential national environmental standards to complement and support that national policy statement.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister share the concerns of the Auditor-General that the regional councils are failing to control diffuse pollution from intensive agriculture, and that regional councillors, many of whom have agribusiness interests, are intervening in decisions about whether to prosecute water polluters?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government does support the report of the Auditor-General. I think it is a good report and a helpful one in making progress on water quality. Specifically on the issue of prosecutions, the Government holds a strong view that the elected representatives on the regional councils should not be involved in prosecuting decisions. I draw to the member’s attention that it is not just in respect of farmers; I think members of this House would equally express concern about the decision in the Manawatū where the Palmerston North City Council breached its resource consent repeatedly over a period of 7 years and no action was taken. I am currently considering the suggestion from the National Party candidate for Palmerston North for a formal inquiry into the decisions around that, so that the Government can provide greater guidance to the councils about how they make those prosecution decisions.

Dr Russel Norman: Is not the basic problem with the Government’s approach that it is relying on the regional councils to set and enforce water-quality standards, when the Auditor-General has just told us—and the Government has accepted it—that the regional councils are profoundly compromised and are failing to protect our waterways?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member does not completely represent the Auditor-General’s report. He was highly complimentary, for instance, of the Taranaki Regional Council and noted that it is making very good progress in improving the quality of fresh water. The truth is that there is a mixed bag of performance from the regional councils. The very worst performance, of course, was from Environment Canterbury. This Government took decisive action to address that non-performance, and that action has resulted in huge improvements in terms of compliance in that region, and a clean-up plan for Lake Ellesmere, New Zealand’s most-polluted lake. Ironically, those actions were opposed by that very member.

Dr Russel Norman: Is not the solution to the problem that the Government has got itself in for central government to set water-quality standards instead of our relying on the regional councils to set those standards, and has not the Minister for the Environment’s decision to gut the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management actually now become part of the problem, because we are having to rely on the regional councils instead of setting central government standards?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that both the Auditor-General and OECD visitors here for a water-quality conference last week were highly complimentary of the Government for the national policy statement and the steps that it takes. The criticism that has come from the member and some others is that the national policy statement did not include specific regulation requiring a resource consent for any intensification of agriculture. That is clearly against what the Resource Management Act intends, and I have tabled in this House clear Crown Law advice that said such an action would be illegal. It is something I am not prepared to do.

Brendon Burns: Given that the Auditor-General identifies several regional councils that are farmer-dominated where councillors are inappropriately involving themselves in decisions on whether to prosecute farmers for repeated resource consent breaches, why is the only council this Government has acted against Environment Canterbury, which was urban-dominated and trying to reverse unfettered access to water?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first fact I note about Environment Canterbury is that 70 percent of New Zealand’s freshwater irrigation occurs in that region. I think anybody in this House who is well informed on freshwater issues knows that the issue in Canterbury is huge. Canterbury, after 19 years, did not even have a resource management plan for water. It is only as a consequence of this Government having the leadership to appoint commissioners that we actually have an operative plan for water in Canterbury and a clean-up plan for Lake Ellesmere. What is also significant is that members opposite were silent when Canterbury had a 30 percent non-compliance rate. Now Canterbury has one of the highest levels of compliance with resource consents, and the House should welcome that improvement.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept that after 3 years in power this Government has some responsibility for the fact that water quality is declining; and at what point can we expect water quality to start to improve, in light of the reports from, now, the OECD and the Auditor-General that indicate that water quality continues to decline?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that many of our freshwater systems have as much as 30-year lag times. For instance, if we apply nitrogen fertiliser, in a catchment like Waikato, from the time it is applied on the land to the time it seeps through into the water system can be a period of as long as 30 years. So this is a long-term challenge. What I would say is that we need only look at Lake Rotoiti, a lake that was in a bad state; it has shown a massive improvement over the last 2 years as a consequence of the Fresh Start for Fresh Water programme. We now have, in five additional communities, specific programmes for the clean-up of lakes and water bodies, and that is something this House should be welcoming in terms of the progress we are making.

Dr Russel Norman: Given the concerns from the Auditor-General and many others about the ability of the current regulatory framework to control water pollution—and I refer the Prime Minister to the Cawthron Institute report, which made similar claims—how can he have confidence that the Government’s irrigation subsidies will not lead to further intensification and further downstream pollution, especially in Canterbury?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I draw the member’s attention to the very specific criterion around the Irrigation Acceleration Fund, and that is that the issues of sustainability and water quality must be dealt with in those applications. I simply draw the House’s attention to a scheme such as that at Ōpuha, in South Canterbury, which has resulted in substantive economic and environmental benefits. If I can use my own constituency of Nelson, it has a water irrigation scheme that has received support from the Government that will result in substantive water-quality improvements and that has the support of key organisations like Fish and Game and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. The truth is that there are irrigation proposals that can also improve water quality.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a plan to actually clean up New Zealand’s rivers, produced by the Green Party.

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.

Prisoners—Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation

7. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has the Government made toward its commitment to double the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): I am very pleased to report that this week I opened the third drug treatment centre to be opened by this Government in New Zealand prisons. The opening of units in Auckland, Otago, and now Whanganui means we now have nine treatment units throughout the prison network. It also signifies that we have delivered on our promise to double the number of addiction treatment places from 500 to 1,000 per year. More prisoners than ever before are receiving addiction treatment, and the treatment has been shown to reduce reoffending by up to one-third. This matches, if not exceeds, the very best - performing correctional programmes in the world.

Chester Borrows: What treatment approach is being followed in the three new units opened by this Government?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: About two-thirds of prisoners enter prisons with drug and alcohol problems, and to reduce reoffending we need to break the cycle of addiction. The three new units are delivering an intensive 3-month programme that targets prisoners serving short sentences of between 4 and 12 months. Providing this intense shorter programme enables more prisoners to be offered treatment and it allows the Department of Corrections to target younger prisoners who are serving their first sentence. This early intervention gives us a better chance to stop offenders from developing a lifelong pattern of addiction and crime.

Water Quality—Prime Minister’s Statements

8. BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Prime Minister: Does the Prime Minister stand by all his public statements on water quality in New Zealand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Brendon Burns: Now that the Auditor-General joins a chorus saying our water quality is deteriorating, mostly due to intensifying agriculture, will the Prime Minister take back his comments to the BBC dismissing Massey University ecologist Mike Joy’s views about degrading water quality as being just those of one scientist and “like lawyers, I can give you another with a counter-view.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Prime Minister stands by that statement for a good reason: it is true. I note that last week Mr Kevin Parris, the OECD guest speaker at the lake water - quality conference held in New Zealand, said, firstly, that in his experience New Zealand matched up to its clean, green image; and, secondly, he noted, and the Government agrees, that more does need to be done in respect of improving the management of freshwater quality, particularly in terms of lowland catchments.

Brendon Burns: When he quoted Lincoln University scientist Ken Hughey in the House as one counter-view and quoted him saying: “Perceived state of NZ freshwater is good—a view supported by science;”, why did he not give the full statement, which says: “lowland streams not so good; farming increasingly seen as a major cause of damage; management improving but issues around farm runoff.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The truth is—and the OECD report states it, the Auditor-General’s report states it, and international surveying states it—that New Zealand’s overall standard of freshwater quality is very good by international standards. To quote the environmental international index that is prepared by Yale University and Columbia University, it rates New Zealand’s freshwater quality at 99.2, the second-best in the world.

Brendon Burns: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Yale University report, which he used to justify his claim that our water quality is second only to Iceland, has in fact been widely ridiculed by leading freshwater scientists and environmentalists, including former National Party candidate Guy Salmon, who says it is “totally flawed”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have read the commentary around the Yale University and Columbia University environmental performance index. The key question they ask is not about the data for New Zealand but about how reliable the data is for some of the other countries. That does not change Yale University and Columbia University allocating their assessment of New Zealand’s fresh water as 99.2. Furthermore, I would say the Government has initiated measures to improve the way in which we measure freshwater quality, so we have better data, and we have put out a discussion paper about the systems to ensure that there are more reliable measurements on which we can make that assessment about the quality of New Zealand’s fresh water.

Brendon Burns: I seek the leave of the House to table the Lincoln University study quoted by the Prime Minister, or partly quoted by the Prime Minister, on fresh water. It is from Ken Hughey and two others.

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.

Youth Minimum Wage—Abolition

9. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the abolition of the youth minimum wage that “we were concerned it would price young people off the job market”; if so, why?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: Yes; there has been concern that the previous administration’s decision to abolish youth rates would see young job-seekers miss out on work opportunities. The Government has taken a number of steps to assist youth through initiatives like Community Max, Job Ops, trades academies, and the Youth Guarantee. Recent research commissioned by the Department of Labour on youth wages will also help inform our future policy settings.

Hon John Boscawen: Does she agree with the Department of Labour report that the abolition of the youth minimum wage has accounted for a loss of between 4,000 and 9,000 jobs for 16 and 17-year-olds; if so, does she agree that this confirms what the ACT Party has said all along—that abolishing the youth minimum wage has thrown young people on the unemployment scrap heap and that the only caring solution is to reinstate the youth minimum wage immediately?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can confirm that the research stated that the minimum wage increase accounted for approximately 20 percent to 40 percent of the fall in proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds in employment by 2010. However, it should be noted that it did not have a significant impact on unemployment per se according to this report, because most of the 16 and 17-year-olds impacted were students who were combining study with part-time employment. It is important we consider that, as well as the headline that the member raises.

State Housing, Auckland—Tāmaki Transformation Programme

10. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by Housing New Zealand’s commitment that the Tamaki Transformation Programme will not reduce the existing number of State houses in the Tamaki area; if so, why?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): I stand by Housing New Zealand Corporation increasing the number of State houses across wider Auckland. The number of State houses in central and east Auckland, which Tāmaki is part of, will also see that increase. In the streets of Tāmaki, where State houses are at concentrations of 56 percent, numbers will decrease, as State house concentrations of 56 percent are far too high.

Moana Mackey: Did he, or anyone in his office, instruct Housing New Zealand Corporation to remove this document from its website after questions were lodged this morning—a document that clearly states the corporation’s commitment that a Tāmaki transformation project will not reduce the existing number of State houses in the Tāmaki area?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: No one in my office instructed Housing New Zealand Corporation to remove that document off the website. The document was on the website. I am advised it came from a policy under the previous Government where State houses were allowed to be on quarter-acre sections, State houses had concentrations of 57 percent, and State house tenants lived in old and cold and mouldy conditions. I was ashamed of that 2008 policy. I am glad it has been removed.

Moana Mackey: I seek leave to table the document from the Housing New Zealand Corporation website that was removed this morning.

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.

Carol Beaumont: What has changed that means the commitment to not reduce the existing number of State houses in the Tāmaki area is being undermined, as evidenced by the northern Glenn Innes redevelopment, which will reduce the number of State houses from 156 to 78, and even with another 39 owned by other social housing providers the number is still only 117?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: What has changed is the Government. I cannot defend State houses being on quarter-acre sections. I cannot defend concentrations of 57 percent. I cannot defend having tenants in old, cold, and mouldy houses.

Hon Member: That is not the point.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The member is defending it. The member is failing miserably.

Carol Beaumont: When he said yesterday that he would expect the tenants from northern Glenn Innes to have the usual “bunch of options” like relocating back to their community, does that mean that this document by Housing New Zealand Corporation is wrong when it states that “all transfers will be permanent”; and can I tell the community that they have the choice to move back to their existing community if there is a suitable house for them to return to?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: My understanding is that the document has been removed. It is based on old Labour Party policy of quarter-acre sections, 57 percent densities, and old, cold, and mouldy State houses. We are ashamed of the document. The document has gone and I am glad of it.

Carol Beaumont: I wish to table this document, which is actually from this week from Housing New Zealand Corporation.

Mr SPEAKER: I would appreciate the member making it clear—she wishes to have leave to table this document. The document is?

Carol Beaumont: The document is dated 26 September 2011 and is general questions and answers provided to me in a briefing by Housing New Zealand Corporation, which clearly talks about—

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

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder, in light of that clarification, whether the Minister wants to correct his reply—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member has already erred twice today raising points of order where he has attacked various members of the House under a point of order, and I will not tolerate that.

Moana Mackey: Can he confirm that the Tāmaki Transformation Programme under the previous Government was also going to utilise existing land better and was also going to reduce the concentration of State housing, but that Labour made a commitment to the people of Tāmaki that the number of State houses would not be reduced; and when was he planning to tell the people of Tāmaki that that commitment has changed?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I can confirm that that was the Labour Party commitment in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Unfortunately, nothing ever happened. We are not having high densities, quarter-acre sections, or old, cold, and mouldy houses.

Moana Mackey: What will he do to allay the fears of northern Glen Innes State house tenants that they are being squeezed out of their neighbourhood because it is now deemed too valuable for them to stay in, given the halving of State house numbers in their community, and in light of comments made by his recently appointed Tāmaki Transformation Programme interim board chair, Lee Mathias—who also happens to be Sam Lotu-Iiga’s National Party electorate chair—when she said “Glen Innes is lovely, it’s just a shame it was built for working families from neighbouring Mount Wellington.”?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The only fear that Tāmaki residents have is that Labour will get back into Government, and they will have to stay in their old, cold, and mouldy houses. We are not halving the number of houses in Tāmaki, but we are not putting up with quarter-acre sections, 57 percent densities, and, as I say, old, cold, and mouldy houses.

Police,Taupō—Questioning of Pretoria News Journalist

11. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Police: Has she investigated reports that Taupō police were racially motivated when questioning the senior rugby writer for the Pretoria News, Vata Ngobeni; and if so, what conclusions has she reached regarding his statement that he was targeted as the “unlucky black man in Taupō”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): No, under section 16 of the Policing Act 2008 this is an operational matter that is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. But if anyone wants to make a complaint over this matter, the appropriate course of action is to ask the Independent Police Conduct Authority to carry out an investigation. I am sure it will get to the truth of the matter.

Rahui Katene: Is the Minister aware of the value of cultural competency, as being advanced by the Māori Party, and what training in cultural competency do police officers currently receive in order to ensure quality service to the public?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Police officers receive cultural competency training as recruits, specifically around engaging with Māori, Pasifika, and ethnic communities. The police run a further five specialist courses per year, open to all police employees. These courses are attended by middle to senior managers throughout the organisation. In just the last month Responsiveness to Māori training was delivered on the marae in Hastings to all staff in the Eastern Police District. Week-long Māori courses have also been held for staff being hosted on the marae at Tokomaru Bay. Staff also receive training on human rights issues and on the police’s own code of conduct. Each of the 12 police districts has engaged senior Māori leaders to provide advice on cultural issues relevant to Māori communities, and in the main centres senior ethnic and Pacific advisers have established fora to engage with police on cultural issues relevant to their communities. Police have also produced significant resources to engage with Māori, Pasifika, and ethnic communities, and to assist in educating staff about those communities. A specialist police team was established in response to the tragic events of the February 2011 earthquake. Its members have been praised for their professional and empathetic approach in dealing with victims’ families from over 20 different nationalities. Finally, I am delighted to confirm that the New Zealand Police was just this year the proud recipient of the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand Public Sector Excellence Award for excellence in recognising ethnic diversity.

Rahui Katene: What training do police officers receive about how to avoid ethnic profiling—the practice of race or ethnicity becoming a factor in deciding when and how to intervene in an enforcement capacity?

Mr SPEAKER: In calling the Minister, I hope that the answer can be a little shorter.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I will not repeat the last answer, but, basically, all of the above. That is one of the reasons why New Zealand police are the finest police in the world, and I am extremely proud of them.

Youth Guarantee—Progress

12. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made on the Youth Guarantee?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I am very pleased to inform the House that over the last 3 years we have had a huge focus on providing more options for 16 and 17-year-olds who are at risk of dropping out of school, or who have in fact left school. That is why the wider Youth Guarantee number of places will rise to 10,000 next year, and to 12,500 by 2014. From a standing start we have established eight trades academies, and announced another 13 to come. We opened another eight service academies in 2010, and have announced another eight to come. We are setting up vocational pathways to improve the transition from education to employment, and we are providing more facilities, such as teen parent units, and have invested more in alternative education.

Nicky Wagner: What are the early results?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Although we are still in the first year of trades academies, we are already seeing really encouraging progress. In the trades academies, 93 percent of students have had attendance rates of 80 percent or better, which is slightly better than senior secondary school rates. We are seeing Youth Guarantee course completion rates of about 63 percent. Again, this compares favourably to general tertiary results, and remember that these are our most at-risk students. When I go around the country and talk to these young people, they are overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic, and they tell me that for many, many of them, education seems relevant for the first time. This Government is absolutely committed to giving these young people the best possible results, and we are already getting a good start.

Questions to Members

Government Superannuation and National Provident Funds, Petition—Hearing of Submissions

1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: Further to her answers to Oral Question No 2 to Members yesterday, has she called a meeting of the Commerce Committee to hear submissions on the petition of Allen Hair, on the annuities payable to members of the Government Superannuation Fund and the National Provident Fund; if not, why not?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): I can confirm that I have not called a meeting of the Commerce Committee to hear submissions on the petition of Allen Hair, and will not be doing so before the rising of the House; I cannot, under Standing Orders, explain why not.

Grant Robertson: Can she confirm her answer yesterday that she put a motion to the committee to call for the submissions to be heard before the House rises?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I can confirm—

Mr SPEAKER: I have not called the member yet.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could not hear it, but I can anticipate the advice you are getting. I would like to remind you that this is a matter of a Speaker’s ruling, and we had a very good Speaker’s ruling on this issue yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: It could perhaps be that the Speaker may have erred a fraction yesterday, which I am very happy to explain. The question would be permissible if it asked whether the member had lodged a notice of motion, but if the question is asking whether the member put a motion to the committee, that matter would have taken place in the confidential proceedings of the meeting, and the question is therefore not in order. The dilemma for the Speaker is that the Speaker cannot know whether a notice of motion was lodged, and that is why sometimes the Speaker will allow a question. However, on this occasion I suspect that a notice of motion was not lodged. I will give the member the chance to reword his question if he wishes to word it in that way and refer to a notice of motion.

Grant Robertson: Can she confirm the answers she gave to question to member No. 2 yesterday?

Mr SPEAKER: No, that is not what I invited the member to do. I invited the member, should he choose to, to reword his question. I think we probably should move on now to question to member No. 2.

Railway Workshops, Petition—Request for Submissions

2. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Has he requested any written submissions on the petition of George Laird, signed by nearly 14,000 people, calling on the Government to retain the Hillside and Woburn workshops?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): I have not requested any written submissions on this petition.

Clare Curran: Did he as chair put a motion to the committee that a submission be requested from the petitioner or a representative of the petitioner?

Mr SPEAKER: The question is not in order, because such a motion would have been in the confidential proceedings of the meeting. If the member is referring to a notice of motion, she should clarify her question, because that would be in order. I will give Clare Curran that opportunity.

Clare Curran: Did he as chair put a notice of motion to the committee that a submission be requested from the petitioner or a representative of the petitioner?

Mr SPEAKER: Perhaps I should clarify that question. Such a notice would be lodged with the clerk of the committee.

DAVID BENNETT: No.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I think it is a long time since there has been such a level of public interest in economic issues in this county. It has been a long time since so many New Zealanders were so interested in international events, particularly those of the last couple of months, and so interested in the connection between those international events and their own prospects for jobs and incomes. One would think that with such a high level of public interest—which is justified because of the scale of concern about international events—there would be some kind of robust debate about that in New Zealand. But one of the reasons there is not so much robust debate is because Opposition members cannot even organise a member’s question to their own select committee chairman. They cannot even organise a member’s question to their own select committee chairman, let alone organise a reasonably testing economic debate. And we know why, because we have looked at the Labour Party billboards.

Members may recall that over recent years there was no way anyone could be on a Labour Party billboard except its leader. Now there is no way its leader can get on any Labour Party billboard. In fact, the Labour Party has become so disorganised that its posters and billboards do not even ask voters to give their party vote to Labour—they do not. So there is no leader. There was always the leader, and now there is no leader. It was always “Party Vote Labour”, but now it does not mention the party vote, at all. So Labour is now a collection of individuals campaigning to try to rescue their own seats. That is why they do not have the focus or the capacity to mount an economic debate at a time when any Government’s policy on the economy should be tested hard, because the stakes are so high.

I will just set out some of the progress the Government has made, which is helping to give the public a sense of confidence about the direction New Zealand is going in through the increasingly rough seas of the global economy. One of the main measures used to measure New Zealand’s vulnerability to these events is called its net international investment position, which is just the net of its debts and its assets held offshore. On that particular measure we have improved quite significantly in the last couple of years. Two years ago we were looking at over 80 percent of GDP of, effectively, net debt, and were forecasting that to get worse. That put us up there with countries like Spain and Portugal, which are now in trouble. In the last couple of years it has improved quite significantly to where it currently stands at about 70 percent of GDP. So the vulnerability has reduced by around 25 percent. We still have a long way to go. It would be great if New Zealand’s net international liabilities were under 50 percent of GDP.

We are still at 70 percent, but it has improved for two reasons. One is that New Zealand households have understood what is required in these economic circumstances, which is care with their spending and more saving. They have changed their behaviour in quite significant ways, to the benefit of the country as a whole, as well as their own circumstances. The other reason it has changed, frankly, is that Statistics New Zealand has become better at counting the assets owned by New Zealand offshore, particularly assets owned in Australia. We have made considerable progress on what has been one of our biggest vulnerabilities. I have to say, though, in the discussions I have had in the last couple of weeks, the world at large has become much more sensitive to levels of debt. Whether it is private or sovereign, it is just added all together, and even though we are doing better we are under the microscope.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Minister English said he wanted reasoned debate, and then he went on about billboards. He said the net international debt was a problem, and his own Budget forecast it to rise for each of the next 5 years. He said the world is ugly, because he wants New Zealanders to be frightened into returning his Government. He said New Zealand can only muddle through. Well, here is what muddling through looks like: $37 billion more debt since that man became Minister of Finance; 47,000 fewer jobs since he took office; and GDP per capita is down 3.6 percent under this Government.

Before the last election the leader of the National Party said New Zealand had a growth problem, not a debt problem. Well, $37 billion later, it has both a growth problem and a debt problem. Do not take my word for it, take the word of the 3,000 or more New Zealanders voting with their feet every month and joining the 1 million exiles from this country who have lost hope, who have lost patience with muddling through, and who want a better answer and a better future. That Government said that it would close the gap with Australia. When it took office it was 30 percent of GDP per capita; today it is 35 percent.

The numbers do not lie, nor do the 3,000 Kiwis a month who are joining the 1 million who have already left. They deserve better than photo ops and flimflam. They deserve real debate. They deserve courageous policy that will address the underlying problems, the tough problems, that are holding us back. They deserve solutions, like a capital gains tax that will address the fact there is $200 billion locked up in property paying no tax, which is locking young people out the housing market and starving business of capital. They deserve solutions, like the strong savings policy that Labour will bring in, which will close the savings gap and fix our current account deficit. They want a real plan for jobs and growth, not a Prime Minister who just fronts up for the photo opportunities and runs like a rabbit from the hard problems. That is what New Zealanders need, but that is not what they have got. They have got photo ops and flimflam, not real leadership for tough times. They have got the veneer of a personality cult—the leader of the National Party.

The thing that National members are betting their next 3 years on is a smile and a vacuous waft past hard problems, not real solutions or real leadership for hard times. Even today that public relations double act continues. They want the public to be afraid about the international picture. That is why Bill English said that it is ugly. But National members want New Zealanders to feel OK about the Rugby World Cup and the weather at home. That is why John Key tells us: “Don’t worry. The next three quarters are looking good.” Well, they cannot both be right, and they are not both right. They are not both right, because, as everybody knows, New Zealand is slipping further behind—growth down, debt up, unemployment up, the gap with Australia widening.

Well, enough of this rubbish. Enough of muddling through, enough of borrow and hope, enough of running away from tough problems, enough of the widening gap, enough of the loss of hope, and enough of rising unemployment and of 47,000 fewer jobs. National members say that there are more jobs today than ever before. There was a 3.4 percent unemployment rate in New Zealand under Labour; there is a 6.5 unemployment rate today—3.4 percent; 6.5 percent. That has gone backwards, and one cannot argue with that. Enough of the ever-rising cost of living. Food prices are up by 7 percent. Wages are up by 1.9 percent. Real median wages have gone down by 8 percent since this Government took office. People are feeling poorer. Why? Because they are. The rich have got richer with windfall tax cuts and the poor cannot feed their children.

National members call that muddling through; I call that injustice. They call that steady as she goes; I call it lining their own pockets. They call it New Zealanders on Glen Innes housing markets—

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Anne Tolley.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The leadership contest continues. I am looking forward to it.

There is no doubt that this country’s economy is in far better shape today than it was when we took office in 2008. What did we inherit? We inherited inflation running at 5.1 percent. We inherited mortgage interest rates of 10.5 percent, food prices that had risen by 11 percent—11 percent—an economy going backwards, and Treasury forecasts of deficits as far as the eye could see. I am proud to have been part of a Government and to have worked with a Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance that have turned that round. We have turned that round despite the constant and continual financial chaos and uncertainty in Europe and the United States. We have done this despite three major earthquakes in Christchurch, our second largest city; despite the failure of innumerable finance companies, with the savings and investments of thousands of New Zealanders going with them; and despite being left with enormous, gaping holes in the Budgets from the previous Government. There was half a billion dollars of unfunded promises in tertiary education alone. That Government went out and promised everything and then did not put any money into the Budget. Despite all of that, this John Key - led Government has turned that round, and I am proud to be part of a Government that has done that.

This Government, as I said earlier in question time, has focused particularly on young people, because as a result of the difficult economic times, too many of them have found that either they have been put out of work or there has not been work for them. We heard from the Minister for Social Development and Employment that at the beginning of last year there were 23,500 young people on the unemployment benefit, but now that figure is down to just under 16,000. Job Ops has been a huge success for young people—89 percent of those who have completed that scheme have gone off the benefit—and 2,800 young people have been prepared and are ready for work through the Limited Service Volunteers. That is fantastic work this Government has done, focused on young people. I am proud to be part of a Government that has put money into making educational opportunities available for young New Zealanders. There are 10,000 places under the wider Youth Guarantee next year for young people.

I just remind this House that the Labour Government said back in 2003 that its Budget contained a comprehensive package of initiatives to ensure that all 15 to 19-year-olds were involved in education, training, work, or other options by 2007. Who said that? The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, said that. Actually, it was a bit like housing in Tāmaki. It promised it again in 2004, in 2005, in 2006, and in 2007, but we have delivered it, actually. This Government, in tough economic times, is starting to deliver that for young people—10,000 places next year and 12,500 places by 2014. We have already opened eight trades academies and promised that possibly another 13 more will open at the beginning of next year. We have increased—

David Shearer: Eight in 3 years?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Over 3 years, I say, yes. Over 3 years we did it. Labour members had 9 years and what did they do? They sat back and watched while young people continued to leave school unable to read, write, and do maths. What is the common denominator for those young people who are out there on the dole? They cannot read. They cannot write. I was talking to an employer who had to put off a guy from his apprenticeship, because they could not trust him to take a message on the telephone because he could not write. That kid went through schooling under a Labour Government. Labour members continue to argue against setting national standards in primary and intermediate schools that set benchmarks so that we can monitor whether our young people are learning to read, write, and do maths. I know that Trevor Mallard wanted to do it and the unions stopped him. Well, they are not stopping this Government.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Well, it is hard to tell who is a bigger stranger to the truth: the Minister of Education or the Minister who spoke before her.

Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The comments that the former Minister just made are unacceptable under the Speakers’ rulings in this House and the Standing Orders. I would ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the member briefly.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: In her concluding comments—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, the member is now trying under a point of order to argue the case. The issue is whether the language should be allowed. I think I have to support the intervention of Chris Tremain that that is tantamount to saying that a member is a liar, and that is totally outside the Standing Orders.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw and apologise. The final comments—

Hon Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table—and I know that you do not like press releases, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, we are not going to—

Hon Anne Tolley: —but this is a very old one—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no—

Hon Anne Tolley: —from 1998—

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Anne Tolley.

Hon Anne Tolley: —which quotes the Labour education spokesman, Trevor Mallard, in the Evening Post, saying that his national system of benchmark testing was needed so that principals and teachers could significantly raise—

Mr SPEAKER: That is sufficient. We have heard about it. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There is no problem, at all.

As the member knows, we introduced the asTTle system. We spent tens of millions of dollars on it, and it has been wasted because she has wrecked it, she has not continued to fund it, and she has run away from having a decent system at all. I also say to the member for Clutha-Southland—no, before I finish with the Minister of Education, I will make one final comment. We are facing an uphill battle in the election. We do not know what the result will be, but the one thing we do know is that after the election, when there is a new Cabinet, Anne Tolley will not be the Minister of Education. Everyone in this House knows she is for the high jump in that job because she is basically incompetent.

Chris Tremain: Rubbish!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: She is basically incompetent.

I turn now to the misleading statements made by Bill English earlier in this House. He said the Labour Party billboards do not say: “Party Vote Labour”.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: They don’t.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: They do. They absolutely do. I probably have 70 up in my electorate, which say exactly that: “Party Vote Labour”. The member needs to get his facts right. I think there are three or four that Paul Quinn has up; he was apparently crying because he had to take a few down. He took three or four down. He took a week to put three up, early, and then 2 days to take them down again. He is crying because he has only three or four of them back up again, and they are in bad spots. But just ask Paul Quinn what the Labour Party billboards say. They say: “Party Vote Labour”. They also say the reasons why. They say: “No Asset Sales—Party Vote Labour”. They say: “$15 an hour—Party Vote Labour”. They say: “No GST on fruit and veges—Party Vote Labour”. They say something else, which has not yet been announced and is not up yet, and then “Party Vote Labour”. The member Bill English, I think, needs to reflect on national standards in reading, look at a reading manual, and get someone to read the billboards to him, and he will see that at the bottom of the party vote billboards it says: “Party Vote Labour”.

I do not know what a—[Interruption] Maybe that explains it. Bill English was claiming that the debt was down. There is $37 billion more net debt under National. I repeat, there is $37 billion more net debt under National. In fact, if we had done this graph, which I have here, at another time, we could have got the red into negative, but we thought we would do a fair comparison.

Let us then look at jobs. We had the Prime Minister claiming miracles, claiming miracles in the job stakes. I think the Prime Minister does not know the difference between a job queue and a job. He does not understand that when we have nearly 900 people lining up for 45 full-time, and a few part-time, jobs in Kaiapoi, of all places—900 people in Kaiapoi lining up for 45 full-time, and a few part-time jobs—it is the 45 that counts and not the 900. I think the Prime Minister does not understand the difference between applying for a job and getting a job. We have seen his abysmal misunderstanding—and I will put it that way, Mr Speaker, because if he did it deliberately it would be a breach of Parliament and I would not allege that—therefore he must be incompetent and misunderstanding. The Prime Minister should face up to the fact that he has no plan, he is muddling, and the economy is failing as a result.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration): The previous speech just shows where Labour is going wrong, because we have had 5 minutes of Trevor Mallard speaking incomprehensibly and focusing on issues that, frankly, have no cut-through with the New Zealand public. The problem, overall, is that Labour’s campaign is fronted by Trevor Mallard, who is probably New Zealand’s most unpopular politician.

I want to know why Phil Goff is not on those billboards. In my electorate Labour will not let him front anything. Phil Goff is absent from the billboards throughout New Zealand. Why is that? Well, there are two theories. The first theory is that when Labour printed the billboards it did not actually know who would be the leader at the time of the election. Would it be the “Camp David” crowd, would it be the “Branch Davidians”, or would it be someone else?

The second theory, and I think this is the true one, is that quite frankly Phil Goff’s brand is toxic. The problem Labour members have is that if they will not back their own leader, how can they reasonably expect New Zealanders to back their leader? Labour members know they are in a hole, because they know that to win under MMP they have to run a party vote campaign. So what are they doing? They are running an electorate vote campaign—it is: “Remove all insignia, disband, last man for themselves.”

The other thing I want to know is why the Labour Party is so nasty towards anyone who supports anything that it does not agree with. Why is Darien Fenton attacking New Zealand icon Sir Peter Leitch? It is because Sir Peter thinks that the Prime Minister is a good guy and the person to lead New Zealand. Do members know what Darien Fenton is calling for? She is calling for Labour supporters to boycott The Mad Butcher shops. That just shows how out of touch this lot are. They are completely down the stream.

I want to know another thing. Why in the last 3 years has Labour asked only four oral questions on immigration in this House? Unbelievable! Why has Ruth Dyson not asked a single question on immigration in this House since she has been the Opposition spokesman on immigration since February 2011? The answer is that Labour left such a horrible mess for us to clear up in immigration, and we have been doing a damn good job of getting it right. We have turned round the performance of the Immigration Service. Members opposite will know that they are no longer getting complaints about Immigration New Zealand, because we have been doing the work, measuring the metrics. Customer satisfaction has gone from 60 to 80 percent, employer satisfaction has gone from 70 to 90 percent, and the quality of decision making has gone up massively. When we came in, only 71 percent of decisions were up to scratch. We have moved that to 87 percent. When we came in, there were huge backlogs in the student queue. We have halved those backlogs. We are putting Immigration New Zealand’s resources around the world, where New Zealand has its strategic future mapped out. There is a clear plan there.

We are getting in much more business migration capital—$700 million compared with $70 million in the last 2 years under those guys opposite. We are getting people with the skills to come here.

We are having a wonderful Rugby World Cup here in New Zealand. The people are loving it, things are going well. It is a great time for New Zealand. It is a terrible time for Labour. Let us keep it that way. Go the mighty All Blacks! Go the Warriors on Sunday night! It is looking good. Roll on, 26 November.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. This afternoon Parliament looks set to sign the ACT Party’s ideological solution in search of a problem—the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill. The Green Party is proud to be opposing this bill and we call on the Government benches to reconsider their support. The Minister for Tertiary Education, Steven Joyce, has one last chance to reconsider allowing this bill to pass in order to save quality tertiary education. Mr Joyce, at a minimum, must delay implementation—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be that there has been a massive change in the Standing Orders, but my understanding is that this bill is members’ order of the day No. 1 today. According to the Standing Orders, for a long time, the debate on that occurs when the bill is called and cannot be anticipated.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Trevor Mallard is quite correct. I did not interpret it as being a particular contribution to the debate on that bill. If it was, the member should be aware of that and not continue.

GARETH HUGHES: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, we have dealt with that. The Standing Orders are clear: members should not refer to items further down on the Order Paper.

GARETH HUGHES: I would like to talk about tertiary education issues and why this Government, under Steven Joyce as the Minister for Tertiary Education, deserves an F. I will talk about why we saw hundreds of students at Auckland University barricade themselves within the Owen G Glenn Building to take action against this Government and what it is doing to tertiary education. It is not just about the bill that will be passed later on today under this Parliament; there is a whole host of changes that mean that we, as a Government in this country, are not delivering quality education.

In the last week we have seen five of our six New Zealand universities drop down the international rankings. We have seen literally thousands of students turned away from accessing education because the Government has retrospectively applied the rules to students who failed papers more than 2 years ago. That is not fair, that is not right, and that is not how we build a smart economy.

A smart economy is one that invests in its people. It invests in education. But under a National Government we have seen a capping of tertiary education funding at a time when we have inflation at a 21-year high, so of course we are seeing a reduction in tertiary education rates, and it is no surprise that our universities are dropping down the world rankings. This is why, when we hear about delivering a brighter future, we know that we are hearing simple spin—simple spin—from National members, who are not putting their money where their mouths are when it comes to tertiary education.

We have seen changes to the student loan scheme that have meant that over-55-year-olds cannot access a student loan for living costs. Apart from being discriminatory and absolutely unfair, this does not recognise the fact that many Kiwis are working longer, and that they are changing careers many times in their lifetimes. The fact is that we want our elderly workers upskilling so that they can deliver to our economy. On every front when it comes to this most important issue, we are seeing the National Government failing us.

Going into the election, we have to focus on the things that really matter. I am proud to be standing here as a Green member, and going into the election with the priority of delivering 100,000 jobs. Obviously, that will come from investing in our natural assets, which are our natural environment—our “100% Pure New Zealand” and our “clean, green” brand—and also our people. That is why education will continue to be a priority for the Green Party.

Secondly, when we look at our natural environment, we see that it is a tragedy that our kids and our grandkids cannot swim in our waterways, rivers, streams, and lakes in New Zealand simply because of the pollution from the intensive agriculture we are seeing. The Greens have a plan—which we attempted to table in Parliament today—the Green Party plan to clean up our rivers.

Lastly, we are a rich country, yet we have 270,000 kids in poverty. Many of them are growing up going to school without food in their bellies, and many of them are without shoes. Non-governmental organisations are literally required to deliver shoes and rain jackets. The Greens have a plan, fully costed, that means we can, within 3 years, lift 100,000 Kiwi kids out of poverty.

What I have heard in this general debate is a matter of political spin. Again, there is the tribal battle that we hear between the blue team and the red team. But when it comes to the issues that really matter to our future, which is what a rich life means—being able to swim in a waterway, river, or lake in New Zealand, having a rich country that does not have kids in poverty, and having those good jobs—the Green Party will continue to deliver an economy that works for everyone.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): I will begin by expressing my personal condolences, and those of the Napier and Wairoa communities, to the family of the SAS soldier who was killed in Afghanistan in the last day. I say that our thoughts are with the family at this point in time.

I am very proud of what is currently happening across this country. Last night I watched my home town of Napier host yet another stunning Rugby World Cup game, which was between Canada and Japan at McLean Park—unfortunately it was a draw—yet another addition to the games that are proliferating around the country and adding a range of excitement. My province has embraced the cup, and all up and down the country it is absolutely fantastic to see.

Although I do not often like to put accolades on to the Auckland community, I have to say that at this point in time they are taking the cake in terms of their support for the tournament. I was fortunate to be up there last weekend, to walk along some of the fan walk down through Bond Street and over to the All Black game against the French, and to see the way that that community is being inspired by the tournament. Down Bond Street there were parties in every second house, with rear-projection cinema and people sitting on the street watching the pre-game roll-out—absolutely fantastic! And I give particular congratulations to the Pacific Island community up there, who, like no other in this country, have embraced the tournament with multiple flags on the tops of their cars, and who are doing an absolutely wonderful job, I have to say.

The Rugby World Cup is highlighting all the wonderful parts of this country. It is doing an absolutely stunning job. At the same time that we are celebrating the Rugby World Cup, we have heard today from the Minister of Finance about the numerous other nations around the globe that are facing serious difficulties. I do not want to make light of New Zealand’s situation, by any means; undoubtedly, we still face pretty tough times. But by comparison with just about any other nation on the globe, this country is doing pretty damn well, and I am proud to hear that.

I will just briefly repeat some of those statistics of what we inherited as a Government: mortgage rates at 10.5 percent in 2008—just think about that: mortgage rates at 10.5 percent! The average family that has a mortgage is facing interest costs of under $200 a week less now than it was facing 3 years ago. That is absolutely fantastic. We inherited an economy that had had negative growth for four quarters in a row, and we were already in recession on coming into Government. One of the most frightening statistics, which has not been rolled out today, is that there had been no net new jobs in the productive sector since 2004—none. New jobs had all happened in the Government sector and the services sector, and that, regardless of the spin, is no way to grow an economy.

Now as we head into the election, the fact is that the economy has grown—it has grown slowly, but it has grown—at 1 percent in the first two quarters of this year. In eight quarters out of nine since we have been in Government we have seen growth. Interest rates, as I have said, are at a 45-year low, and the unemployment rate is falling. Albeit, we would like to see it falling faster but, as the Prime Minister said today, in 2011 the total jobs in this country are more than the total jobs that were in this country in 2008. That is a fact. The economy is growing, and this Government, at the tiller, is making a difference. But it is not the Government, obviously, that makes the overall difference. It is the employers out there who have put their shoulders to the grindstone through these difficult periods, and who have delivered security, and jobs and wages, to our people. I want to thank them all.

All of us would like to see these statistics being painted in an even rosier light, but those are the facts. Relative to other countries, our future looks exceptionally bright. Although the Government has played a steady hand at the tiller, the position we find ourselves in is, as I say, due to the hard work of employers around this country.

Meanwhile, instead of focusing on the issues that matter, Labour across the House, with its ever-decreasing circle of supporters, continues, unfortunately, to grovel in the sewer. I will take up Mr Coleman’s point, because I was gobsmacked this week when Darien Fenton commented about one of this country’s greatest New Zealanders—a large employer and someone who has supported people who have been in difficult situations. I thought that was appalling.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): The speech made by Mr Tremain, the member who has just resumed his seat, is 5 minutes of my life that I will not get back. I will start by saying that economics is obviously not National’s strong point. The number of times I have stood in this Parliament and taken a call after a speaker has taken credit for the fall in interest rates and said it is the result of Government policy—my God! This is the result of a tsunami of different events throughout the world; it certainly has nothing to do with this Government’s policy.

In the last couple of days we have heard that, finally, National has unleashed a new plan, a new strategy. It is called muddling through—it is called muddling through. We have here a plan where we are not quite sure where we are going but we will sort of, hopefully, get there. We have a Minister of Finance who went across to the United States and met in Washington with all the heads of the IMF, the World Bank, etc. He came back and said the sky was falling—he was scaremongering—but our Prime Minister said: “Don’t worry; we’ll muddle through.”

That is not a plan. Nor is what the Prime Minister has been articulating for the last 2 years, and this is how it goes: Asia is getting richer; Asia will need more protein; New Zealand produces more protein; therefore, we will be OK. That is not a strategy or a plan, either. That is a hope that we can continue to do the same old stuff and we will still be able to muddle through and get there. Well, it is not good enough, and I will tell members why it is not good enough.

The previous speaker talked about some statistics. The Government has an $18 billion debt. It inherited a surplus, but it now has an $18 billion debt. GDP per capita is 3.6 percent lower now than in 2008. Half of the population of New Zealand has not had a pay increase in the last 12 months, but they know that prices have gone up by 5.5 percent. There has been 0.1 percent growth in the latest quarter—the second quarter. That is 0.1 percent, which is just above zero but not enough to keep up with population growth. In other words, we are going backwards. Mr Key talked about growth today, and he pointed out a graph. Under his breath he said that we are growing, with the exception of Australia, which is growing much faster. The gap between Australia and New Zealand is growing wider and wider.

Earlier this year it was said that we were going to have an innovative, science-led economic growth plan. It did not happen. In Budget 2011 we had a $12 million decrease in the amount of money we spend on science. More companies have queued up to get development grants—two-thirds—than have actually got any development grants. The innovative economy has been forgotten and we are back to muddling through and relying on those Asians buying our milk and meat and all those other things that we keep on producing because they are getting richer.

The other thing that we rely on, of course, is the Rugby World Cup and the rebuild from the earthquakes. Again, this is a hope; it is not a strategy. We do not see this Government coming up with any plan or strategy to move New Zealand forward. It is simply muddling through on the same old things that it has always muddled through on. The Government has chucked out tax credits, and it has chucked out the money that could have gone into our agriculture sector. It is now putting in half of what Labour already had in place in 2008. Why did the Government chuck them out? Because it gave a whole bunch of tax credits to rich people who did not need them. That is what happened. That is why those particular programmes were canned.

So here we are today, just out from an election, with a recession around the world about to happen, according to the Minister of Finance, and our Prime Minister says to everybody that it is OK and that we will muddle through.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): There is a saying that is very appropriate today for the All Blacks as well as a John Key - led Government at this time, leading up to not only the finals of the Rugby World Cup but also the general election at the end of November. That saying is: “When the going gets tough, the tough keep going.”, and “keep going” certainly describes the actions of this Government. On this side of the House we say that we should celebrate that. Just like that dazzling move and perfect timing of the pass between Piri Weepu and Cory Jane on Saturday night that resulted in a seven-pointer to the All Blacks, so too have the policies of John Key and the Government worked well and treated this country to a very positive future during what other members of the globe would call a global financial meltdown.

Today more than ever New Zealanders are confident that we are building towards a brighter future, a future that all New Zealanders clamour for. We on this side of the House believe that that is worth celebrating. Also similar to last Saturday night’s pool match between the All Blacks and the French is the outstanding performance of this Government led by John Key, which has left the Opposition on the back foot, with gaps appearing all across the field in the Opposition team.

Let us celebrate with New Zealand some of the many achievements of this John Key - led Government. We are the envy of the world with our primary sector underpinning the nation’s economy. We produce quality proteins, which the world sees as safe and healthy, and produced in a country that upholds the highest of environmental integrity. Remarkably, this Government has managed to keep down the costs for the producer, and that is compliments to the Government. This has enabled the farming sector, the primary sector, to get back up on its feet after 10 years of spiralling costs. We on this side of the House say that we should celebrate that.

Although we regularly hear of the issues of the financial problems of the United States and Europe, we here in New Zealand have the confidence to know that our sovereign debt will top out at about 30 percent of GDP, and that is after fully funding the recovery after the Canterbury earthquakes. They are the worst natural disasters that have hit this country in its history, and New Zealanders celebrate the way in which the Government has attended to the vulnerability of New Zealand. Incidentally, the top out of debt that this country will face is merely a quarter of the average of the OECD countries. We on this side of the House say that we should celebrate that.

Interest rates are the lowest they have been for 40 years. Although the Opposition may not like to hear that, it is very important to make that point, because, under a John Key - led Government, not only are they the lowest they have been for 40 years but also they will remain lower for longer, and that gives business a lot of confidence. This puts money back into the pockets of all New Zealanders, and a graphic example of that would be that the average family with a $200,000 mortgage for their home effectively have an extra $10,000 that they can decide what to do with. That is $10,000 a year more than they had when Labour left office. On this side of the House we say that that is certainly worth celebrating. That amount of money in the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders is a game changer. It is also points on the board for this Government, led by John Key. All New Zealanders on that account are winners.

There is an incredible amount to celebrate in New Zealand at this time, over and above the Rugby World Cup. We have the best returns for the primary sector in a lifetime, the lowest interest rates in 40 years, and an economic growth strategy that is functioning far better than those of the majority, if not most, of the OECD members. So it is a wonderful opportunity from this point of view to be confronting an election at this time. Economic growth will translate into employment opportunities. We will see the lid sinking on the unemployment numbers—they will become greatly reduced. We are speaking about employment built on productivity gains, not the jobs built on the growth of wasteful government under Labour. In conclusion, it is a wonderful time to be on this side of the House, and we have a lot to celebrate.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I want to talk about a serious matter, and that is the issue of housing. This is not an area for great celebration under this National Government.

Let us talk about housing and why it is important. It is something for which there is a fundamental need; we all, as human beings, have the need for shelter. There are important health consequences of our having warm, safe shelter. If we live, as many who are homeless do, out on the streets, our health suffers. If we live in damp houses, our health suffers. Housing also has consequences for education. Ensuring children have a stable home that they can live in means that they will go to the local school, and that they will build up their relationships with their teachers and their fellow students and get better educational outcomes. Housing is important from the point of view of people’s standard of living. The cost of housing is one of the most significant costs that a family bears, whether that be through rental or mortgage costs. That is an important element too. What is left over is what families can then afford to spend on feeding themselves, getting around, and clothing themselves.

But housing is not just about those things; it is about how people have a sense of home and community. Housing is about giving people a place to live, a place to stand: somewhere at which to engage with others, somewhere that is their own. That is just as important. Housing is not about just the building; it is also about what that symbolises, and the connections and relationships that go with it.

This is well understood by Labour. We have always had a strong commitment to housing. We rebuilt homes for New Zealanders after the actions of the National Government in the 1990s, which introduced market rents that put many families in dire financial problems. Thousands of State houses were sold and not replaced, so we had less social housing in which to house our population. There was absolutely no modernisation undertaken during the 1990s. It is very rich to hear from that Government across there, which seems to make a lot of noise about what Labour did and did not do. We added, on the other hand, 8,000 houses. We added back 8,000 Housing New Zealand Corporation homes to its stock. We brought in income-related rents to try to ensure that families could get by. We built Talbot Park, a significant urban renewal project in Tāmaki. So when we talk about the Tāmaki Transformation Programme, let us just recollect that that was started under Labour and that we actually did do something, despite what the members opposite seem to be spinning. We can see their spin lines; it is almost as though they are written in front of me, frankly.

What is happening now? Well, families are struggling to make ends meet, the gap between rich and poor is growing in our nation, we have children living in poverty—one in five of our children is living in poverty—and they will be living, if they are lucky, in a house, because we have children living in garages and cars. If those children are living in a house, it will potentially be overcrowded. Many of them are suffering from Third World diseases caused by overcrowding. This is the picture now under this shiny, John Key - led National Government.

What is National doing now? National’s housing policy is to sell State houses: to get rid of Housing New Zealand Corporation houses and shift the responsibility to others; to move it on to the community sector. Its policy is not to put in new houses or provide the community sector with the ability to create additional houses; it is just to sell them. National will increase the cost to the families that will be housed in the community sector, but they will no longer receive income-related rents. The Minister of Housing has made that very clear. That will mean that rents will rise for low-income New Zealand families.

Let us look at what is happening in Glen Innes. This is the first major housing built under the Tāmaki Transformation Programme. There was Talbot Park, and the Tāmaki Transformation Programme was put in place, but very little has been done since that time. Finally, National is doing something. What is happening? Long-term residents are being relocated. There is no option for them to return to their community, despite weird comments from the Minister about a “whole bundle of options”. A Housing New Zealand Corporation document makes it clear that any transfer will be a permanent one—there is no going back. Housing New Zealand Corporation stock is being significantly reduced. This area, potentially, is seen by National as being too good for the sorts of people who, if they are lucky, have a job in Mount Wellington. That is what Lee Mathias, the chair of Sam Lotu-Iiga’s electorate committee and chair of the interim Tāmaki Transformation Programme board, said. The Government is moving housing stock into the community sector, as I said, where costs will increase.

NICKY WAGNER (National): It has been a tough time in New Zealand in the last 3 years. We have had a global recession, the Pike River tragedy, and the death and destruction caused by 8,000 earthquakes in my home town of Christchurch. But in the face of this terrible adversity we have seen the very best from our people, the very best from New Zealanders.

Obviously, the earthquakes have affected me most, and I have never been so proud of being a New Zealander and a Cantabrian. During this time the way Cantabrians and the whole country have responded to this disaster has been amazing, inspiring, and humbling. People everywhere have worked long and hard to help and support each other, their neighbourhoods, and their communities. We have worked together, we have laughed together, and we have cried together. Most of us who have lived through the last few months in Canterbury have developed a different set of values as we have rocked and rolled, and smashed our way forward. If it is true that every experience one survives without breaking makes one stronger, then Canterbury is invincible.

There has been a similar mind shift across the country and the world in the face of the global financial recession. Both internationally and locally the borrow-and-spend bubble has burst and people have come down to earth with a huge thump. Suddenly, they have rediscovered that a household should not spend more than it earns and that borrowed money has to be repaid. Again, New Zealanders have risen to the occasion. They have responded to the global situation by tightening their belts and, instead of continuing to spend $1.17 for every dollar they have earned, they now spend 98c and are focusing on saving and investing.

When National came into Government the country was already in recession, and we have worked hard to cushion the worst effects of that recession, allowing New Zealanders to adjust to a new economic situation and to make the changes that position this country well to manage the ongoing global uncertainty. We are now on the road to reducing our debt, to getting back into surplus within 3 years, and to building a faster-growing economy based on savings and exports. We are in much better shape now than we were when we inherited the free-spending economic shambles of the last Labour Government. This Government has delivered tax cuts to hard-working New Zealanders and lowered the company tax rate. We now have better, smarter public services that are delivering more for less. We have lifted the quality of education, introduced national standards, and developed trades academies. And we are investing in infrastructure and developing lucrative international trade agreements. We have put money into science and innovation, cut red tape, and made it easier to do business in New Zealand.

And we are beginning to see some results. Our economy has grown for eight of the last nine quarters. Our interest rates are the lowest in 45 years, and our unemployment rate is beginning to fall. I am particularly proud of how well Canterbury has bounced back. We have the most number of advertised jobs in the country, our employment rate is down, and in the last quarter the Canterbury economy has grown by 1.6 percent—the highest in New Zealand. I feel really positive about our future. I know that the National Government, true to plan, through hard work and intelligent economic management is turning the economy round for a better future for New Zealand.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT): The ACT Party plays a vital role in this House, and to see that that is true, one has only to look at four distinct things that will happen this week. Just yesterday the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill came back with major changes. Why were those changes achieved? It was because of the ACT Party. The bill came back with substantial changes. When it was reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee, there were fundamental changes to New Zealanders’ constitutional right to remain silent. The ACT Party was asked to support that and, en masse, we objected. The result we see today is purely as a consequence of ACT’s opposition.

As we speak, the Justice and Electoral Committee is also meeting to consider the Government’s Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill. It is meeting only because of the ACT Party. We were asked to support that legislation. We could have given the Government the support; we could have given the Government the votes; it could have been passed under urgency last Thursday. But we said no and we forced the select committee consideration. Labour may want to try to take the credit, but the blunt reality, as Mr Mallard knows, is that the ACT Party is the reason that the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill was amended, and the reason that the Justice and Electoral Committee is meeting this afternoon is the ACT Party.

Not only that but also we have top lawyers telling that committee that the bill will not achieve its objectives. We have top lawyers telling the select committee that the so-called over-the-wall surveillance will not be legal, and that although pictures might be able to be recorded, audio will not be.

In a very short time we expect the voluntary student membership bill in the name of Heather Roy to be passed. It is another major achievement for the ACT Party.

I want to come to the issue that this House and this Parliament probably should be most ashamed about—utterly ashamed about—and that is New Zealand’s unacceptably high rate of youth unemployment. Our youth unemployment runs at some 27 percent. Sadly, among Māori it is even higher. Of course, there is a global recession. Times are tough—we know that. The Prime Minister reminds us of that every day that we question him on this issue in question time. But the blunt reality is that regardless of a global recession, the problem with youth unemployment has been made worse by the actions of every single party in this House bar the ACT Party. We know the reason that youth unemployment is higher than it should be. It is that youth rates were abolished as a consequence, first of all, of a Green Party member’s bill that was supported by the Labour Government in the last session of Parliament. The National Government had the opportunity to repeal that bill and it refused. What does that lead to? It leads to young people sitting at home on the unemployment benefit being denied the chance to work, denied the dignity of work, and denied the opportunity to gain experience. This Parliament has legislated against the right of young people—people of 16 and 17—who do not have the maturity or the experience to go out and to get a job. This Parliament has condemned them to sit at home on the unemployment benefit, earning $4.50 an hour. It is a disgrace.

How interesting that just this afternoon there was another major achievement for the ACT Party. The Minister of Labour acknowledged that a Department of Labour report has been put out in the last 2 weeks that actually acknowledges that despite the fact that the world is in recession, youth unemployment is some 20 to 40 percent higher than it needs to be. We heard this afternoon from Mr Joyce, who was speaking on behalf of the Minister of Labour, that that report will inform Government policy. He told us that it will inform Government policy. We can only hope that that is a smoke signal to say that National is finally prepared to listen to what the ACT Party has been saying for the last 2 years and longer. It is the ACT Party that cares for young people more than any other political party in this Parliament.

Darien Fenton: Rubbish! Rubbish!

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Absolutely. The people on that side of the House—and, sadly, those in the Government ranks as well—close their ears. Although Labour members may not want to agree with me, National members know I am telling the truth. They know I am telling the truth, because they had the chance to oppose the Green Party member’s bill and they did so. National voted with ACT to oppose the abolition of youth rates. When National members had the chance to reverse that, what did they do? They sat on their hands and did nothing. Let me say to National members that it is an absolute disgrace. Sadly, they sit there knowing that we need not have the situation we have today.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

Instruction to Committee

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I seek leave for all the remaining clauses of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill to be taken as one question without debate and for the third reading of the bill to be held forthwith, with all debate to be completed and all questions to be put no later than 5.25 p.m.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I know you are seeking leave, but that would, therefore, be an instruction from the House to the Committee. I will just get a wee nod from the Clerk that that is in order. That is in order? The leave is in order. I will now put the question. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.

In Committee

Debate resumed from 7 September.

Clause 16 Co-opted Councillors (continued)

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): We have been debating the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill now for some time, and I think it is in the interests of everybody, and particularly the Royal Society, to move on with it. Although I know that we have about 4 years’ grace to get this legislation through, nevertheless it would be in the interests of everybody, including the Royal Society, which would like to move on with this legislation and put it behind it, for it to be concluded in this session. I know that we are definitely—certainly, the Labour side, anyway—keen to progress this bill as quickly as possible and to try to get it through so that we have some closure on this particular legislation before this session of Parliament comes to a close.

To refresh everybody’s memory, this legislation is supported by all sides of the House. We had about a dozen submitters who came and made submissions to the Education and Science Committee some months ago now. Some of those submissions—I think the bulk of the submissions—were concerned about the inclusion of the humanities into the legislation that established the Royal Society. Part of that really was that submitters feared that the inclusion of the humanities would water down the Royal Society and make it less focused on what they consider to be the evidence-based type of research that continues to go on within the science community.

Having listened to many of those debates, we felt that the Royal Society is probably the best judge of any risk that the bringing of the humanities into the Royal Society’s raison d’être might involve. In fact, we believe that it could be a strength for the Royal Society to bring in the humanities amongst the Royal Society itself. I think that despite the fact that most of those who took objection—many of them came from the various branches of the Royal Society throughout the country—we found that it was an ill-founded fear and an ill-founded risk.

The Royal Society, as we know, is one of our pre-eminent organisations in this country. It has been running for well over 100 years. It is the greatest pool of talent that New Zealand has in the science community, and now we will broaden that into the humanities and social sciences, as well.

We did make some adjustments to the characterisation of what might be included and what might not be included. From memory, American studies was excluded, for example. We involved that in a more generalised definition.

In conclusion to my opening point on this bill, I say that Labour would like to see progress on this bill concluded this year. I think that is in everybody’s interests. Certainly, the Royal Society would like this bill to be concluded and to be wrapped up before the end of the year. We know that we have a buffer of 3 or 4 years to allow this bill to go through, but I think it would be in the best interests of the House if we were able to get this bill through so that the Royal Society, having made its recommendations and made its internal decisions, and really only requiring this Parliament to rubber-stamp the conclusion of this bill, is able to move forward.

I will resume my seat with the wish that we progress this bill as quickly as possible. I am sure that some of my other parliamentary colleagues may want to take a call and expand on that a bit further.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Up until just a few seconds ago I was under the impression we were on clause 15, but it turns out we are on clause 16. I am very happy to make a contribution on clause 16 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is a bill, as members are well aware, that Labour has gone to great pains to make sure we examine in the finest detail. As technical a change as this bill might be, we want to make sure that we get everything right, and clause 16 should receive no less investigation than any other clause in the bill.

Clause 16 refers to co-opted councillors and states: “Section 24(2)(d) is amended by omitting ‘science and technology’ and substituting ‘science, technology, and the humanities’.” Again, this is one of those changes that goes to the heart of what this bill is all about, which is, of course, allowing the humanities and people who carry out study and research within the humanities to become part of the Royal Society, thereby expanding the Royal Society’s brief from simply science and technology into the broader area of the humanities.

Obviously, when co-opting councillors, usually one co-opts individuals to a council, a board, or any governing organisation in order to bring in specific expertise. This provision could be particularly useful in the transition phase as we see more people representing the humanities coming into the Royal Society and as their numbers grow. Initially it might be important to co-opt on to the council an individual who has specific experience or knowledge in the humanities. As the Royal Society expands into this new area, it will have people with particular abilities who are able to advise the other members of the council—whose experience might be more in the area of science and technology, as opposed to the humanities—about new areas that the Royal Society might be going into. This makes a lot of sense.

Obviously the Royal Society has always been able to co-opt members. This, I suppose, is useful when there are specific items of interest that the Royal Society might be examining. I know that the different components of the Royal Society sometimes take on investigations into areas of specific interest, and that would be another time when co-opting a member would be of great value to the council. But, as I said, obviously in this new era, when people from the humanities are able to be part of the Royal Society, should such an investigation be embarked upon into an area that is not one of the traditional areas that has been the work of the Royal Society, then co-opting someone with that specific ability, that specific knowledge, and that specific experience could be very useful. Clause 16, by amending section 24(2)(d) of the principal Act, allows that to happen. It is an infinitely sensible move in the context of the broader bill, which will allow greater rigour, in a way, to be brought to the area of the humanities.

I have mentioned previously in the debate, with pride, the number of people from Palmerston North who are members of the Royal Society, because of our concentration of people engaged in science and technology, I suppose. But we also have a number of people engaged in the humanities—people who really are at the cutting edge of research in the humanities. Some people might see that as an oxymoron, but I disagree. The member in charge of the bill, Grant Robertson, pulls a face. Maybe he would like to make a contribution about that statement; I do not know.

Clause 16 is a very sensible clause in the context of the bill and the whole point of the bill. I am sure that although it is a technical change, it will allow the Royal Society to embark upon this new era of enlightenment in which it includes the humanities. I am sure clause 16 will be a very useful component of doing so.

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT): I move, That the Committee report progress.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Committee report progress.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C.

Progress reported.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I move, That the report be adopted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C.

Report adopted.

Bills

Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT): I move, That the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. It gives me great pleasure to lead the debate on this third reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Voluntary student membership has been a test of patience. Many thought this day might not come at all in this parliamentary term; others hoped that it would not. Around 0.1 percent of New Zealand’s 400,000 or so tertiary students protested against the bill earlier this week, and a handful protested today on Parliament’s lawn. I encourage Kiwis to be actively involved in democracy, because freedom of speech and freedom of action are important rights that should not be denied. There is a certain irony that these rights have been used to oppose another fundamental civil right: freedom of association for students. But, none the less, I staunchly defend these students’ right to do so.

Opposition to issues is frequently noisy, although support is often silent. This post of support from a Canterbury University student appeared on my Facebook page yesterday. I quote: “I feel strongly about the freedom to choose and I know many others that feel the same. Please also remember to hear the silent voices of us that do support you. We don’t need to make a huge ruckus out of it because we’re sensible people supporting a sensible bill.”

Voluntary student membership means that students, from 1 January 2012, will no longer be compelled to join a student union before they are allowed to study at a tertiary education institution. They will instead be free to choose whether they join an organisation that, as an incorporated society, has the same legal status as the Automobile Association or the SPCA. We do not force motorists to join the Automobile Association before they can own a car, or force pet owners to join the SPCA. Students unions were originally voluntary organisations, and this bill returns student unionism to its roots. Over recent decades they have become increasingly politicised, when their core functions are meant to be representation of their student body—not just a select few—advocacy, and the provision of some services. The university and polytechnic councils provide other services, such as health and welfare services.

There has been much talk during the course of the debate surrounding voluntary student membership about huge opposition from students, with the figure of 98 percent being frequently quoted by the bill’s opponents. Let us be very clear about this figure. It refers to submissions opposing the bill at the Education and Science Committee. That was essentially a copy and paste campaign, like a petition conducted by student politicians en masse. By comparison, a Stuff poll last October had almost 5,000 votes and showed 72 percent was in favour of voluntary membership.

Misappropriation of students association funds has become a significant problem in the past few decades. The fraud has ranged from the farcical $6,000 spent by a Victoria University of Wellington Students Association executive member on phoning a psychic hotline, through to the large-scale embezzlement on several occasions at Whitireia Community Polytechnic totalling around $750,000. These all-too-regular examples of fraud prove the need for action. Compulsory membership has created an environment conducive to financial mismanagement. Students unions are governed and managed by young people who often lack the necessary management skills and experience to run a multimillion-dollar business, and there is a captive market of students who cannot vote with their feet if their funds are mismanaged. Voluntary membership means that associations will have to attract membership in order to gain funds, then provide the representation and the services that students want in order to keep them.

There has also been much talk in this debate about Australia’s experience of voluntary membership or voluntary student unionism—VSU, as it is known across the Tasman. Those opposing this bill have conveniently ignored the students unions that have not only survived but thrived under voluntary membership. The University of Western Australia stands out as an example for the rest. Amid the doomsday predictions promulgated by the left, it retained 60 percent—six, zero percent—of its members under voluntary student unionism and has continued to provide valued services to its members.

Looking to the future in New Zealand, my intention was never to destroy students associations, as some claim, but to give students the free choice of belonging or not. I hope these associations will put as much effort into planning for their future as they have put into planning their protests. I hope to see students associations actively promote the benefits of membership by using quality communication with students to find out what they want, preferably using modern communications, which students already do themselves; by conducting quality market research on the services that students actually value and are prepared to join an association for; and by offering affordable membership fees. I hope the associations will explore innovative incentives to join, such as discounts for members at students association bookshops and at cafes, and negotiated discounts with local retailers. Most important, I hope that they will focus advocacy on the issues that almost all students agree on, such as increasing the quality of education, and increasing the accountability of tertiary institutions to students. When students see an organisation providing representation and services that they value, they are much more likely to join it.

There are many people to thank and acknowledge in this journey, which spans at least 20 years. The battle started with the Freedom on Campus Network and has progressively been carried forward by Prebble’s Rebels, ACT on Campus, the Young Nats, Student Choice, and my ACT Party colleagues present and past. I would also like to thank the select committee members, so able chaired by Allan Peachey, and the select committee staff who dealt with the large number of submissions and submitters. I also thank all submitters, both those supporting and those opposed to the bill. As a result of their contributions several changes were made to the bill, which have made it much better. To the officials from the Ministry of Education and Parliamentary Counsel Office I give my grateful thanks for their expertise, their sage advice, and, most notably, their cheerful patience throughout a process that ended up being much longer than was ever intended. To Sir Roger Douglas, I thank him for his Midas touch—I do not know anyone luckier at having bills drawn from the ballot—and for shepherding voluntary student membership through the select committee process. My grateful and sincere thanks go to the staff in my office who have researched, advised, and written on, and agonised over, this issue, and who have become very good at understanding parliamentary process, because of their absolute belief and commitment to freedom.

It is harder to say it any better than Andrew Little, in his final address as president of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union. I quote: “I believe voluntary unionism—true freedom of association—gives the union movement much greater strength and much greater moral authority.” The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of association and freedom of non-association. Finally, students, like all other members of society, will enjoy this fundamental right.

My final thanks go to the National caucus and to United Future for their support of voluntary student membership. Freedoms are hard won and very easily eroded. Parliament’s gift to students today is freedom of association. Please, please be sure to use it wisely.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): As the member who chaired the Education and Science Committee hearings into the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill I want to acknowledge the role played by select committee members from all sides of the House. It was a positive engagement and we engaged very, very well with the submitters, as well. It was a long process, at times a demanding one, but everybody performed very, very well, and I believe that, if nothing else, this process was a tribute to the way the parliamentary system can and should work. I should acknowledge the work of the member Heather Roy. This is a big day for her in her parliamentary career. I think it is regrettable that she is leaving Parliament. She has certainly, with the assistance of her colleagues, earned this success.

At the end of the day it should surprise nobody that National is supporting this bill. The National Party is a party that believes in choice and personal responsibility. It is those two concepts that I want to concentrate on for a few minutes. The first one is choice.

Throughout all of the hearings, in subsequent public statements, and in a lot of things that I have heard the Labour Party say, Labour members have talked about compulsory students association membership enhancing choice. I hope that, finally, one of the Labour speakers might be able to explain that to me, because I am really struggling with the concept that forcing young people into being denied a right that all other New Zealand citizens have—freedom of association—can in any way enhance the choices of young people. I just cannot figure that one out, I am afraid.

It seems to me that choice comes down to the opportunity not to be required by law to join an organisation simply because we attend an institution, and not to have to go through an elaborate and often frustrating process to get an exemption from that. That just does not seem to me to be choice, and it does not, in my view, pay tribute to the ability of youngsters embarking on tertiary education. Whether to join a students union is a choice that they are capable of making themselves. They do not need legislation passed by this Parliament to force them into joining something. That should be their choice, and this legislation gives them that choice.

My second point is about personal responsibility. A lot of people who support this bill contacted members like me. They did not make submissions to the select committee, but they made their views known. I found myself balancing out two things.

The first was the fact that people said to me—and I am bound to say that it is a view for which I have a lot of respect—that they would take responsibility for themselves. They said that if they got into trouble with the university, or if they wanted to appeal something, they would take responsibility for that. If they had a health issue, they would take responsibility for that. Let us face it: if these young people are capable of studying at tertiary level, they are capable of exercising that sort of choice for themselves.

Then there was the other point of view, which basically said that, no, people might get into trouble, and the committee was presented with a number of interesting stories about some people who did need the help of the students associations. But then we ask ourselves whether every student in New Zealand, except for those who go to Auckland University, should have to fund what may be a bit of an insurance scheme. I found myself asking why some people were at university if they did not have the capability to take personal responsibility and keep their lives in order.

I found myself balancing up those two things, and constantly referring back to my previous career and the young people I knew who were going off to university. Frankly, my view, very strongly, was that they should not be going off to university if they were not able to exercise personal responsibility for themselves.

During the hearings and in all the meetings I had with student leaders, I came to respect highly the presidents and co-presidents of the students associations. Often the arguments that they put to me were reasonable and fair. I did not always agree with them, and clearly they were motivated to protect compulsory unionism. I expected that, and I would like to say to those young people, first of all, that I enjoyed our contact. It took me back to a previous life that I thoroughly enjoyed. But it also brought home to me something else, and it was that those young people, by and large, were of such ability that I believe they are more than capable of running a voluntary student union that will be capable of providing the services that a significant number of students will be prepared to buy into.

There is another message in all of this for students. They are now being given the choice to exercise personal responsibility, and the choice to ask themselves a basic question: if they join a student union, will the student union provide them with the services and support they might need, or will they back themselves to exercise their personal responsibility in a different way and take care of themselves?

I pay tribute to the ability of those young people, and I repeat that I enjoyed my contact with them. I realise that for them this will be a disappointing day, but I hope that students will also see this as an opportunity, because students are being granted, at last, freedom of association, which has not been denied to other New Zealanders for a long, long time.

I repeat the comment I made earlier. I would like a member of the Labour Party to explain how compulsion enhances choice. And I say to student leaders that they should not have expectations that Labour will somehow overturn this legislation or repeal it, because that will not happen. It is unrealistic to think that it will. It is just not possible for a party that has committed itself to voluntary unionism in every other aspect of life to deny that to students, but that is beside the point.

If, at the end of this debate, one of the Opposition members can explain to me how compulsion enhances choice, I will be delighted. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I start by asking how we ended at this very unhappy point, because all the way along the line we had the opportunity to get a much better Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill than the one before us today. I think back to a few months ago when many of the National MPs and we were talking together about how we were able to put through legislation that not only would be better, and would provide an element of choice, but also would be able to endure the test of time, rather than be completely—what Mr Peachey just said was erroneous—overturned as soon as a Labour-led Government comes in. The interesting thing is that National MPs—and some of them are in the House today—were in agreement that this legislation would not go through in its present form. They also told the NZUSA, the New Zealand University Students’ Association, that the bill would not go through in this sitting period—that it would not go through, and instead we would have something different. On top of that, we have Michael Woodhouse in the House today who is actually on YouTube saying exactly that. So to say that National is not exactly committed to this legislation is a huge understatement.

The real reason we are here today is politics. It is the politics of the ACT Party needing to be propped up by National. That is why we are here. Heather Roy got rolled by Rodney Hide. Rodney Hide got rolled by Don Brash. Don Brash is probably rolling something as we speak. But the point is that the booby prize for all of this was that Heather Roy took over the voluntary student membership bill. She took over the voluntary student membership bill, and National had to get in behind ACT and pretend it actually wanted to get this bill through instead of what it really felt, which was, in fact, that it wanted a compromise along the lines of what we were producing and had actually put up.

This legislation is completely unnecessary—completely unnecessary. There has been a lot of talk about choice and the freedom of choice, which we heard from the previous two speakers. Let us look at the current legislation, at its choice. Students currently have the opportunity, if they can muster 10 percent of the student population, to have a referendum on students associations. They have the choice to be able to do that. We are taking away that choice with this legislation. We are removing that choice from those students. That is not about democracy, that is just about a piece of ideology being rammed through this Parliament, dressed up to look like a problem, and using this Parliament to put through legislation that denies students choice—it actually denies students choice, it takes away that choice. So do not come the “we need freedom and we need choice” thing with me. There is no party more committed to democracy and choice than Labour, but we do not want to sit here and be told that somehow we are giving people choice as a result of this odious legislation.

The other thing I raise is the total mischaracterisation by parties on the other side of the House that somehow a students association is a union. It might be called a union, but these are not employees. They are not workers. We have left compulsory worker unionism behind us. This is about students going along to an institution. They are not compelled to attend a tertiary institution; they are compelled to contribute to the relevant costs of that study. These are relevant costs—health care, counselling, and creche facilities. The types of things we are looking at are career advice, employment opportunities, sporting clubs, and cultural activities. These parts of the university are an essential element of our university system. These are the things that sustain students through their university careers. They are essential parts of the university system.

What will happen with this legislation? We know exactly what will happen. With the exception of the University of Auckland—which I would argue is an exceptional case because of its size, but we will come to that in a minute—what will happen is that the fees going to students associations will dry up. They will dry up as they have in just about every other place where this measure has been tried, and when they dry up, all of those services that I have just mentioned will also dry up and be put at risk, as well. That is what will happen with this legislation. And what will happen then? Well, it will be no surprise, because the services are essential to the university and student life. It will be no surprise: the universities and polytechnics will pick up some of those services and they will charge the students for them. They will charge the students more than the students are paying now to the students association for the same services they were receiving before, and that is the nonsensical part of this legislation. That is the absolutely nonsensical part, because the students will end up paying, but they will not have a say. They will pay, but they will not get a say on how their services, and which services exactly, will be put up. That will be up to the university or the polytechnic. Those institutions will dictate what students will have, and the students, although they are paying for those services, will not get the say they once previously enjoyed when they belonged to a students association. So this legislation fails on so many counts. It fails on so many counts.

Then we have the extraordinary arrogance of the process. I have to say that 4,500 submissions came before the Education and Science Committee—4,500. Two percent of submissions were in favour of this legislation; 98 percent were in opposition. Ninety-eight percent opposed this legislation and they came from right around the country. They came from all of the students unions—yes, I guess you could say that is true. But they also came from all of the polytechnics and universities, bar one. The institutions themselves do not want this. They do not want to take on having to provide all of these services for students. They do not want to do that. The arrogance of this bill is to ignore that evidence. The arrogance is to ignore those submissions. The arrogance is not to listen to good evidence, not to listen to the institutions, not to listen to the students themselves about what they want. Instead we have a dodgy, shonky deal, which will not last, going through our Parliament, from a group of ACT MPs who will not even be here when this legislation comes into being. Is it not extraordinary that we have over on the other side of the House National MPs who do not agree with this legislation, and we have ACT MPs who will not even be here when this legislation comes into being? We are here in the second-to-last week of Parliament’s sitting in this session, voting on an incredibly unpopular waste of time, the voluntary student membership bill, and the party over there, with five members and sinking fast, will not even be here to see the fruits of their labour.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): It is my pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This is the first time I have spoken on this bill in this House, but, of course, I have followed the debate quite closely, given how important it is to students in Dunedin. I have actually asked to speak in the third reading, given the calls to me by the New Zealand University Students’ Association to cross the floor to vote against this bill, on the basis of some comments apparently made by me and reported today. I give my thanks to my colleague Colin King for subbing out and allowing me to make a contribution and to clarify my position. I begin by addressing that call. There is not a hope in Hades of me crossing the floor and voting against this bill. I support this bill completely—no whipping, no shoehorning into voting for it. I said so last year, I said so earlier this year, including in an op-ed piece in the Otago Daily Times, and I will say it again: I support this bill. No amount of clever video editing by Labour apparatchiks or ranting press releases from the New Zealand University Students’ Association will change that. The video clip omitted my introductory support for voluntary student membership, it missed bits in the middle, and it did not add text to the top of the video when I was clearly saying things that did not suit the Labour view.

But there are a couple of things that do require clarification, and the first is my statement that it was highly unlikely that the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill would pass in this term of Parliament. I did say that, to Logan Edgar at the Otago University Students’ Association and to David Do of the New Zealand University Students’ Association. It is, however, complete nonsense to conclude from those comments, as Mr Edgar did, that this was a verbal assurance of National’s support for deferring the bill until after the election. If one was to ask members of this House—including Heather Roy, I suspect—whether they thought that this bill would pass in this term of Parliament, they would all have said that that was extremely unlikely. The reason for that was the outrageous filibustering by Labour on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, at a cost of nearly half a million dollars per hour—half a million dollars per hour. Members’ day has been debased by that party, and those members should hang their heads in shame. This is a day for members’ bills—not that Labour has any—and it is an absolute shame that this day means so little to that party. The crocodile tears that Labour members have shed for the passage of this bill are in large part because they were simply outthought by Mrs Roy.

The second clarification is in relation to comments I made about whether the bill could be improved. Earlier this year I did say that had the bill been introduced in my name, I think it would have looked a little bit different, albeit the thrust of the bill would not have changed. At that time I thought a form of life membership should be considered. I thought that an opt-out was worth considering, and indeed that was touched on by the Education and Science Committee, with not joining requiring no explanation. I had one or two other ideas that were not material to the bill, but I was not on the select committee, so I kept in touch with my colleagues, who were informing me of progress in that respect.

But here is what I understand also to have occurred. The New Zealand University Students’ Association was approached by members of that association—that is, student presidents in 2010 supportive of a compromise position—who recommended that that position be put into the New Zealand University Students’ Association submission. The New Zealand University Students’ Association refused to consider that compromise. It remained defiant against the bill in any form and buried its head in the sand, pretending that the bill would go away. Well, it did not go away, and the offer of compromise recently made was a desperate attempt to remedy things when the association realised that the bill was likely to pass. It was too little, too late. It should have considered what its association members were saying—some of them, at least—more carefully when it was talked to last year.

Here is the kicker for me. At the same time that the New Zealand University Students’ Association was railing against voluntary student membership, it was fighting a rearguard action against some of its own members who were threatening to resign. Otago University Students’ Association and Otago Polytechnic Students’ Association, I understand, both served notice of their intention to resign from the New Zealand University Students’ Association. Otago University Students’ Association said as much in its written submission on the bill. So the New Zealand University Students’ Association is strongly opposed to choice for students, but its own constitution enables its members the choice of membership. That is a double standard if ever there was one. It still has not been explained—despite Mr Peachey further asking for it—how compulsion encourages choice.

The rates analogy is flawed. Rates are the equivalent of student fees. If I choose to go to a university, the cost is the student fees. If I choose to own a house in the city, the cost is the rates. The question not answered by anti - voluntary student membership proponents is this. If students associations are so important and they represent such good value for money, why the morbid fear that students will take flight when association membership is made optional? The students—our brightest young and our future leaders—are labelled as lacking the simple skill of deciding for themselves whether joining an association is appropriate for them. If they do, associations should be more worried about why students see such low value in membership than about maintaining compulsion, because at the end of the day this comes down to a simple principle of freedom of association. No New Zealanders should be compelled to join an organisation of this nature against their will. On this principle alone I support the change to voluntary student membership.

I will also touch on a couple of comments that I made in respect of that op-ed piece in the Otago Daily Times on some of the reasons why people do not want to be members of their students associations. One of them was high-profile financial misappropriations by students association executive members. I do not need to relitigate them, although I did hear Mrs Roy talk about them in earlier speeches. The fact is that the accountability mechanisms on students associations are not strong enough for there to be compulsion. Regardless of what happens in the future—whether Labour does have an opportunity to repeal this legislation or whether it stays—I think there have to be greater accountability mechanisms built into students association constitutions. At the end of the day I think this comes down to the question of freedom.

I post a political quote of the day on my Facebook page. My Facebook friends will be familiar with it, but anybody else who wants to read it—other Facebook users—can friend me and read it and other daily updates.

Hon Member: What a blatant pitch.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Never let a chance go by. Today’s quote is from the 14th century poet Dante, and it reads: “Mankind is at its best when it is most free. This will be clear if we grasp the principle of liberty. We must recall that the basic principle of liberty is freedom of choice, which saying many have on their lips but few in their minds.” I cannot really articulate it any better than that. Freedom is actually a scary concept for some. We have heard from members of this House who are worried and who want to hold on to compulsion much like a drunk holds on to a lamp post. But it is time I think to treat our university students like the adults that they are. We ask them to vote. We ask them to fight and die. We allow them certain other freedoms. Well, I think that they should have the freedom to choose whether to be members of their students associations.

I support freedom. I support voluntary student membership. I very strongly support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): Tēnā koe kai te Kaihautū. Otirā, hei tīmatanga kōrero, ko te wehi ki a Ihowa, tūāuriuri, whāioio hoki nei me te rangi me te whenua, te nui o tāna korōriatanga; me te tuku whakamoemiti, whakawhetai ki a ia ki te wāhi ngaro mō āna manaakitanga ki runga i a tātou katoa i ngā rā ki muri tae noa mai nei ki te hāora o tēnei rā. Ngā whakamoemiti, ngā whakawhetai kai te tū tonu i te ao, i te pō, kai te tū tonu. Tatū atu ki a koe ki te Tumuaki o te Hāhi, inarā te kōrero, kua tae mai koe, kua tae mai te Pā o ngā Ariki, te Temapara Tapu o Ihowa me ōna manaakitanga katoa. Nō reira, tēnā koe, tēnā koe, tēnā koe.

Papaki tū ana ngā tai ki Mauao, i whakanukunukuhia, i whakanekenekehia. I whiua reretia e Hotu a Wahinerua ki te wai, ki tai wīwī, ki tai wāwā, ki te whaiao, ki te ao mārama, tihei mauri orā.

Tatū atu ki a koutou kai tāku iti, kai tāku rahi kua haere tawhiti mai rā, mai i Te Moana-a-Toi i runga i te karanga o tēnei rā ki te āwhina tēnei tā koutou mōkai, me tēnei tāku kauhau whakamutunga, tāku poroporoaki ki te Whare nei. Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, ngā pāpaka o Rangataua mai i Whareroa ki Maungatapu puta noa ki Te Rereatukāhia, Tauranga Moana, Tauranga Tangata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Whiti atu ki Te Arawa Waka mai i Maketū ki te tonga, ngā tini āhuatanga, ngā kārangaranga maha kai waenganui i a koutou, tēnei anō te mōkai e mihi ake nei ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa i te āhuatanga o wā tātou tini aituā kua hinga atu rā ki wā tātou marae kai te hau kāinga. Me te mihi anō ki ngā whānau pani nā rātou koutou i whakawātea mai kia tae ā-tinana mai ki te Whare nei ki te tautoko i ahau i tēnei hāora. Nō reira, kāre e kukume kia roa, kai te haere te wā, nō reira, tēnei āku mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hoki mai ki a koe kai te Kaihautū o te Whare, ngā mema hōnore katoa ahakoa ko wai, ahakoa nō hea, ahakoa he aha te kaupapa i tae mai ai koutou, otirā, tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. To begin with, my respects to the Lord, to the great void, to the multitude, to heaven and earth, and the greatness of his glory; praises and gratefulness to the hidden place and the kindness it bestowed upon us all in days past, right up to this hour today. Praises and thanks remain, day and night. My gaze settles upon you, the head of the Church, and the saying is that your arrival here signifies that the courtyard of Rātana, the sacred temple of the Lord, and all its kindness, are here as well. Fond greetings to you.

The waves beat continuously against Mauao, shifting and moving, ever so endlessly, forward and back. It was here that Wahineroa was cast by Hotu into the tide, the swirling waters and roaring ocean, to emerge into the light of day and the world of enlightenment; behold the breath of life.

My gaze alight upon you, my meek and mighty who have journeyed here from far off Bay of Plenty in response to today’s call to come and help this servant of yours in this final address and valedictory statement of mine to this House. To you, the people of Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, the crabs of Rangataua from Whareroa to Maungatapu and out to Te Rereatukāhia, to the sea and people of Tauranga, fond greetings to you all.

I cross now to the canoe of Te Arawa from Maketū to the south, to the myriad of circumstances and the many callings among you; this servant of yours acknowledges and salutes you all as well, in the light of our many deaths that have fallen on our courtyards back home. I thank the grieving families, as well, for allowing you to come here in person to this House to support me at this hour. So I will not prolong this any further, as time is moving along, but my fond acknowledgments to you all.

So I come back to you, Mr Speaker of the House, and all honourable members, regardless of whom they represent, where they come from, or what it is that brought you and each of us here. Greetings to all of us, greetings, greetings.]

I came to Parliament as a new MP in 1999. During the time that has elapsed since then I have been part of the Government, I have been a Minister, I have been a constituency MP, I have been a list MP, and I have been part of the Opposition. One might say that I have experienced close to the full ambit of what the electoral system, the party system, and this Parliament itself have to offer.

There have, of course, been the highs and the lows. In this review I will begin with the highs and leave it to the members of this House to judge whether these outweigh the lows. The point I should make from the outset, however, is that my experiences in the last 12 years, for the most part, have been personally enriching and rewarding. I appreciate the opportunities I had as an Associate Minister of Health to help shape policies designed to improve the health and well-being of Māori people across the country, to progress the implementation of the Māori Health Strategy, and to support Māori health providers operating at the local level. Features of the health sector that I find heartening are the growing numbers of Māori medical practitioners and other Māori health professionals.

As the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations I had the opportunity to assist in progressing many of the Treaty claims that were settled during the time of the fifth Labour Government. I am especially proud of my contribution towards the resolution of those claims lodged by iwi from within my former constituency of Waiariki. These include the Te Arawa Lakes, affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū, Ngāti Awa, and the central North Island settlement—the latter being the largest of the claims settled to date. I am also pleased to be associated with the settlement of the Ngā Wairiki / Ngāti Apa claim. This is an iwi that I have had a longstanding relationship with outside of this House.

The portfolios of corrections and forestry were not as demanding or onerous, but were no less important and rewarding. To the officials of each of the agencies—the Ministry of Health, the Office of Treaty Settlements, the Department of Corrections, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry—who provided me with the information, practical advice, and wise counsel that I needed in order to do each job well, I extend my heartfelt thanks.

For me, one of the real high points of my political career came with the passing of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001. The Act started out as a local bill, which I introduced in my capacity as the member for Waiariki. It provides for Environment Bay of Plenty to have three Māori constituency seats, thus enabling Māori on the Māori roll to vote for their own representatives. The bill, to say the least, had a rocky passage. There were numerous objections from local bodies as well as from other stakeholders, and there was strong opposition from some of the most senior members in this House. Some of them are still here. It was a daunting experience for a relative newcomer; I described it in my third reading speech as my baptism of fire. To this day Environment Bay of Plenty remains the only local authority in New Zealand to have Māori constituencies.

The other high point was being called upon to move the Address in Reply as part of my maiden speech. Going back to that speech, however, and reflecting on events since 2004 have left me with an uncomfortable sense of having dropped the ball. There were two main themes in my address that day in 2000. The first was a need to review and clarify the constitutional position of Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi. I even went as far as urging the early initiation of a process for seeking the views of the Māori people on how the constitutional talks recommended by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System in its 1986 report should proceed. An initial step towards this objective was taken in 2004-05 when the Constitutional Arrangements Committee sat to consider, amongst other things, New Zealand’s constitutional development since 1840 and the process that should be followed if reforms were to be considered in the future. The committee reported back to the House in 2005, but in the 2 to 3 years between then and the 2008 election, little was done by me or anyone else to progress the review.

The announcement by the current Government that as part of the confidence and supply agreement between the Māori Party and the National Party a full constitutional review is to be conducted over the next few years has reminded me of my original commitments. I welcome the fact that the Treaty and its place in our constitutional arrangements are to be included in that long conversation. I could not have asked for more than that, and I assure every member in this House that I will do all I can as a private citizen with some knowledge and experience in this area to encourage Māori individuals and organisations in my own rohe of Tauranga Moana to participate fully in the review.

The second theme of my maiden speech was my expectation that Māori generally—and iwi in my constituency of Waiariki, in particular—be treated fairly and equally in any dealings they might have with the Government. It is when I assess myself against this particular measuring stick that I am left with a keen sense of regret. In spite of being deeply involved with, and moved by, the depth of the protests and resistance evident in the sheer size of the foreshore and seabed hīkoi, I gritted my teeth and held the ground that had been agreed to, all the while being aware that the bill remained discriminatory, unfair, and unjust.

And then there were the Tūhoe raids. Although I was not privy to the briefings given to senior Ministers by the Commissioner of Police and others, and I acknowledge that my loyal colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia was very supportive at that time, I feel, in hindsight, that I should have at least voiced my concern about the way in which the operation was carried out. That I did not speak out publicly at any time during this episode is something that I regret deeply.

I recall a comment that Nandor Tanczos made in his valedictory speech. He said: “… most, MPs enter”—into Parliament—“with honest intentions, but we are compromised by this institution.” He told us that his mum, like my dad, believed that one had to get into the system to change it. But he warned that “… the system changes us as much as we change the system, if not more.” I have finally come to understand the wisdom of his comments, and now that I do, it is time for me to leave.

Māori society is changing. Old loyalties are fading and new ones are being forged. None of the longstanding social institutions or organisations that have held our allegiance in the past have come away unscathed. The New Zealand Māori Council, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, the Federation of Māori Authorities, the Kīngitanga, and the Rātana movement have all felt the effects of change.

Māori political allegiances are also changing. Over the years since MMP was introduced, Māori constituency voting has swung sharply between elections, and over time the vote for Labour has slowly eroded. The clean sweep of the Māori seats in 1996 by New Zealand First, the loss of four of the seven Māori seats following the takutai moana episode, and the loss of yet another after the Tūhoe raids suggest to me that Māori are using their votes for the seats as a means of censuring or endorsing political parties. I consider the changes to be positive. MMP seems to have brought competition. The Māori seats are getting more and more worth competing for. They are no longer a political backwater, as the Royal Commission on the Electoral System described them in 1986.

The emergence of a party whose main focus is on representing the interests of Māori is also positive. Its presence provides the necessary incentive for all parties to compete strongly for the Māori vote. It is difficult to tell how the Māori vote will pan out over the next few years, but there can be little doubt that the Māori vote can no longer be taken for granted.

As I said earlier on, my life certainly has been enriched in the time I have been in this House—three terms over 12 years. There are particular people who make one’s life not only enriching but bearable while we are here. I had the pleasure of working alongside some very, very committed Labour Māori members—we were known as the Māori caucus—with the leadership of our senior member, the Hon Parekura Horomia. We had diverse personalities: some were very calm and some were not so calm. Some were reliable and others were unreliable, but the point was that we all had a common purpose, and that was to serve the best interests of our people. I believe we did that to the best of our ability, and that was one enriching experience that I will take away with me.

I also acknowledge the camaraderie within the Labour caucus. As its members approach this year’s election they have a huge task ahead of them. I wish them all the best, and I will be doing my best in the Waiariki electorate to support the local Labour candidate, my whanaunga te whakaotinga Louis Te Kani. And we are committed to the purpose.

I make one statement very, very clear: I admire people who work hard and are committed to their beliefs. In saying that, I acknowledge the commitment of the Labour leader, the Hon Phil Goff, in the way he has led his party leading up to this election. But I have to say that I am very disappointed—very disappointed—with the Māori media. We as Māori members put our trust and faith in people of like minds—like us. I have wondered from time to time where the point of difference is between mainstream media and Māori media, but the deliberate mistranslation and misrepresentation of my comments over the last few days tell me that there is no point of difference. I say to the Māori media: “Get your act together, because your whanaunga are watching you every day, just as they are watching us. In time, you will understand what I mean.”

Once again, I go back to acknowledging those who make this institution a great place. There are people who walk the corridors and who have tasks at hand: the messengers, parliamentary security, the Parliamentary Service staff, ministerial staff, VIP transport—there are just so many groups within this institution to name that I am afraid I might miss a few out, and I apologise in advance.

I acknowledge, in particular, the camaraderie and whanaungatanga that we have had as Labour Māori caucus members with other Māori members in this House; there are no barriers to our whanaungatanga. We debate rigorously and that upsets a lot of people, but that is the people we are. We examine issues thoroughly; we debate them thoroughly, as our people do on the marae. But at the end of the day we are still whanaunga—we still go home and we still enjoy each other’s company regardless of the political divides that often separate us. So those acknowledgments are really, really important.

I acknowledge the support and confidence I have had from the people from home—from Mātaatua, Te Arawa, and Tākitimu. They are here today in the gallery, and I am humbled by their presence.

I had the privilege of having great mentors in years gone by. One of those mentors was a member of this House and a representative of Eastern Maori from 1969 up to 1981. He taught me some great lessons about this place. I had the privilege of sitting with the Hon Peter Tapsell, and also enjoying his mentorship. But those of the current generation are the ones I really want to acknowledge today: my uncles, my aunties. When they are not happy they do not say anything; when they are happy they say a lot. So when they are silent, I know I am in trouble. It sounds unusual, but that is how they are. I take this opportunity to thank them especially.

In the time I have left, I thank those who have worked alongside me: my electorate staff and parliamentary staff. I say a special thankyou to my executive assistant, Angela Bray. She multitasks. She can do a whole lot of things at the same time: manage the family, manage the office, and get me a cup of tea—all those sorts of things—without a complaint. That is something I have had the privilege of enjoying.

And my family—I came here in November 1999, after a rigorous campaign on the road with my dad every day; unfortunately, he did not make it here with me in the body. But in spirit he did. My mum: when I got in trouble I knew I was going to get a call—and I did. But especially my wife, Lindy, and our children. Once again, Lindy is chief cook and chief dishwasher, and she does everything that is necessary to keep the house running well while I am down here doing the best I can. When I came here I had no mokopuna, and I used to get a bit worried that I might go through life not having had the experience. Twelve years later I have four, so I am breathing a sigh of relief that I am having this experience with them. My life after politics will still be a busy life, but everything I do will include them. So I look forward to going back to my whenua in Tauranga, enjoying the company of my family and friends, and also observing and supporting—from a distance—my Labour colleagues here in the House.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I acknowledge you. I came into the House this afternoon not wearing a tie, and my colleagues panicked: “Oh my God!”—they said as they all reached for their ties—“Have mine. Have mine.” I never told them that I had been granted a waiver by you, Mr Speaker. I like surprises—pleasant surprises. But there is a reason for this. I remember Nandor Tanczos standing over there, taking off his watch, getting out a hammer, and smashing his watch, saying that he would never look at it again. It was an indication of a more relaxed lifestyle. Dover Samuels tried to do the same, but he thought about the consequences of bashing up a Rolex watch—when he got home. So as a substitute he sang us his version of “Pokare Kare Ana”. The reason I am not wearing a tie is that I intend to live a much more relaxed life post Parliament, and enjoy every day as it comes. So thank you, Mr Speaker, for that waiver, and thank you for upholding the dignity of this institution, which is very important to us all.

Nō reira, e hoa mā, tōku rangatira, kōrua tahi me koutou rā o te hau kāinga, koia nei mihi whakamutunga tāku nei ki te Whare nei, otirā, me ōna āhuatanga katoa, nō reira, nā runga i tēnā, ngā manaakitanga o Te Runga Rawa ki a koutou, ki a tātou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[So to you, my fellow members, my leaders, both of you, and all of you from back home, this then is my final tribute to this House and everything that goes with it. May the tidings of the Great One Above be upon you collectively and all of us. Greetings, greetings.]

Waiata; haka

KEITH LOCKE (Green): It has been a great honour to be an MP these last 12 years. I have been lucky to have been here during the MMP era, in a much more representative Parliament. I am pleased with the way MMP has been improving with new innovations like Ministers outside Cabinet, which enables smaller parties to take on ministerial roles without submerging their political differences with the bigger party. Smaller parties now get a better hearing, and the Greens have been able to achieve some policy gains like the home insulation scheme without any formal support arrangement with the Government.

My suggestion to refine MMP further is to remove the fiction of an official Opposition with a Leader of the Opposition, which is a hangover from the two-party system. It does not belong in a multiparty Parliament where the parties vote for and against bills in different combinations. Also out of date is the Christian prayer that begins Parliament’s business each day. We need a more inclusive secular statement given that half of the members in this House are not religious or are of another faith.

I do commend the improvements made to question time under Speakers Jonathan Hunt, Margaret Wilson, and you, Mr Speaker. You have taken that bold new step of actually requiring Ministers to answer direct questions. I think we now have one of the best parliamentary question periods in the world, if not the best. Sometimes the shine is taken off question time by excessive noise as members shout across the floor. I have been amazed that this continues when every MP knows that no one outside this Chamber appreciates it.

The continuing rowdiness also hides another achievement of MMP during my time in Parliament, and that is the greater cooperative spirit and willingness to work together across party lines to progress political issues. I get a particular kick out of working successfully with parties furthest from the Greens in general philosophy. A few years ago, I organised a joint public protest meeting with Rodney Hide, which helped to halt Government plans for a new waterfront stadium in Auckland that would have visually mucked up what is now developing into a nice waterfront area. I also arranged a joint press conference with ACT, plus United Future and the Māori Party, to hurry up the repeal of the sedition laws, which we quickly achieved.

Not everything I did regarding Rodney Hide went to plan—not least my bet in 2005, carried on national TV, to walk down Broadway naked if he won the Epsom seat. Of course, Rodney won with the help of a certain then National Party leader Don Brash. I had no option but to carry through on my promise, treating it as a golden opportunity to showcase the talents of one of New Zealand’s foremost body artists, Phil Du-Chard. I am now less into gambling, although I am tempted to put something on the Warriors winning the NRL grand final this Sunday.

Another one of my successful cross-party political liaisons was with United Future leader, Peter Dunne, and the National Party to oppose provisions in the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Bill that would have drastically reduced public access to genealogical records. Peter Dunne and I made a joint submission to the select committee, which helped convince the then Labour Government that it had to rewrite the whole bill. This obscure bill may have directly benefited more New Zealanders than anything else I have done in Parliament because so many Kiwis are researching their family history.

As you might expect, coming from a strong trade union background, I have worked with Labour on lots of issues. I have enjoyed operating as part of a Green and Labour tag team in the House when anti-union laws come before us, as they too frequently do.

In most of my human rights work, the Māori Party and Mana have been good allies. Alongside the Greens, they have recognised how the laws and practices generated by the so-called “war on terror” erode our civil liberties. More New Zealanders see that now. It was not so easy in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when for the Greens I was advocating peaceful solutions opposing the war in Afghanistan and saying that we should not rush to adopt the Terrorism Suppression Act. Unfortunately when New Zealand bought into a “war on terror”, it had to come up with some terrorists, and in the absence of any in New Zealand, innocent people like Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui were targeted. I take great satisfaction that Ahmed Zaoui and his family are now well settled in New Zealand, and that I played a role in the 5-year campaign to achieve this. I am honoured that Mr Zaoui and his son are present with us today.

When people ask me what I have achieved, I always say that I can take only part of the credit for any of the successes. My role has been to advocate for causes on the parliamentary stage. In the Ahmed Zaoui case, although I played an important role, most of the credit has to go to the many fair-minded citizens who campaigned long and hard for Mr Zaoui’s freedom, his excellent lawyers Deborah Manning and Rodney Harrison, as well as a new SIS director Warren Tucker, who finally concluded that there was not a case. I also have Dr Tucker to thank for my SIS file, which will be a useful reference work for the history writing I plan to do in my retirement.

Politically, the thing that has most saddened me has been the ease with which legislation giving the police or SIS more powers or legislation extending sentences for crimes passes through this Parliament. Now we have anti-terrorism laws we do not need, and our jails are overflowing. I appeal to Parliament to try to find the brake pedal, or even—gasp—the reverse gear. It would be good in this respect to send a parliamentary delegation to Scandinavia to investigate how shorter sentences and an emphasis on rehabilitation actually works in reducing crime. Norway provided a great example to the world when it reacted to the recent mass killing with a march where people carried roses and pledged not to turn Norway into a security State.

On several issues I have looked more to Scandinavia than the Anglo nations like America, Britain, and Australia. For the last 12 years I have been a Green battler for New Zealand to be more independent in foreign affairs and defence, building on what we achieved in leaving ANZUS and becoming nuclear-free. There have been some successes. I can take some credit for helping create the political climate where Helen Clark could scrap the air combat force, which was of use only for fighting what Nicky Hager has termed “other people’s wars”. Now we have only to get rid of the two remaining frigates to be left with a navy more relevant to our practical defence tasks in the South Pacific and the Southern Ocean.

There is an independent, pioneering spirit within most New Zealanders that grates against subordination to American dictates. Many New Zealanders now rightly question whether America’s war in Afghanistan should be our war. One of the reasons I am so passionate about the need for New Zealand to take an independent stance is that the big Western powers are failing to address so many of the world’s problems, from climate change and the debt crisis to development needs and nuclear disarmament. New Zealand can play a vital political leadership role in the world, working together with other independent players such as Norway and Sweden, or emerging nations like Turkey and Brazil. I have often accused our Government of being too timid in standing up to big countries on peace and human rights issues. To make the point I have often resorted to symbolic protest. I have waved Tibetan and Papuan flags on the steps of Parliament, presented a nuke-free New Zealand badge to Hillary Clinton—she was rather startled—and presented a letter from anti-war groups to Tony Blair. I once wore a scarf made up of Chinese and Tibetan flags to a reception for the Chinese Premier. Now at State dinners I seem to be allocated the seat farthest away from the top table.

If we are to be a truly independent nation, I do not see how we can remain chained to the British monarchy. Even though my Head of State Referenda Bill failed to get a majority in the House last year, I did put the issue into the parliamentary arena, and there is now a cross-party Republican caucus in this House. Most MPs recognise that we cannot stay a monarchy for ever. Why not be bolder and bring about the change, even if it does upset a minority of constituents still attached to the royal family?

I have also enjoyed being an Auckland MP and being part of Auckland’s evolution into a considerably more tolerant bicultural and multicultural town. Auckland’s public transport system has also improved, but there would not have been the transport snarl-up on the first day of the 2011 Rugby World Cup if Governments had been listening more closely 10 years ago to the pleas I and other Greens were making for more investment in Auckland’s rail.

I would like now to pay a tribute to all those wonderful Green MPs I have had the privilege of working alongside during my 12 years in Parliament—and it is great to have Jeanette Fitzsimons with me here today, along with Nicola and Holly Donald, the partner and daughter of the much missed Rod Donald. Rod and Jeanette led us through the difficult times of consolidating the Green presence in Parliament, and in the public consciousness. It was not an easy ride. Initially we were dismissed as either utopian dreamers or dangerous extremists. Sometimes the labels seemed mutually contradictory, such as when I was dismissed as both a Stalinist and a weak-kneed peacenik in the same breath. I have never particularly minded the peacenik label.

It is much easier now, because public opinion has moved much closer to the Green way of looking at things, which is one reason why we are going up in the polls. We now have a much stronger Green Party, and I would like to pay a big tribute to all the Green members who work so hard to get out the Green message. The Green office staff have been fantastic over the years. There are too many to mention, but I particularly want to thank my dedicated executive assistant, Claire, my adviser, Kevin, and Lucy, Ivan, and Karen in the Auckland office. Some have said that it will not be the same now we originals have gone, but I have great faith that the expanded team that will emerge from the election, ably led by Russel Norman and Metiria Turei, will take Green politics to a higher level.

I am very happy today to have my brother, Don, and sisters, Maire and Alison, with us, and most of their families—they have all been so supportive of me over these years—and of course my wonderful partner, Michele, who has helped me right through this parliamentary journey and over all the rocky patches. She has also assisted with her exceptional political judgment, to keep me on the right path.

People will ask: “Will you miss Parliament?”. And I say yes. It has been my other family for these past 12 years. As if to reinforce this point, one of my young great-nieces calls me “Uncle Parliament”. Thanks to the MPs from all parties—I have enjoyed your company and friendship. Thanks to all the parliamentary staff: clerks, librarians, Hansard recorders, ushers, messengers, security, select committee workers—you name it—and particularly the cleaners, who do not get much more than the minimum wage when we MPs are paid so well. To all my friends in the press gallery, thanks for your professionalism and for giving me a fair go.

In my maiden speech I said that I saw my role “first and foremost, as a representative of all those active community groups who are pushing good causes from better public transport to humane treatment for refugees, from organic farming to nuclear disarmament.” One of the great things about this House is that it has a big front lawn so that community protests can be brought to the steps of Parliament. I have been regularly out on those steps speaking in support of the protesters on the grass—on every type of issue. Sometimes I did not know the protesters were coming until I spied them on Parliament grounds from our offices on the 15th floor of Bowen House. So I would rush down and quickly construct a speech on a particular issue, such as on one recent occasion addressing the plight of the persecuted Assyrian Christians in Iraq—I did not quite know they were coming.

So if you want to catch up with me after I have left Parliament, you might sometimes find me among the protesters on the grass, ready with a bit of helpful advice for Parliament, or you might find me across the road, in the National Library, researching a political history project. Thanks to all of you. I will miss you. Ka kite anō.

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 6.09 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): This is indeed a very sad day for students. It is a sad day for students who go along to an institution like a polytechnic or a university and want to be able to make the best use of their time at the institution. We heard from Mr Peachey earlier on, with his concerns about whether some people are in a state to be able to succeed at a university or a polytechnic if they need the support of a students association. What I say is that students associations over many years have provided support, advocacy, welfare services, and health and well-being services to generations of students, and have made the difference that has meant that those students have been able to complete their tertiary studies. That is how significant the work of students associations has been for many people.

What the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill tonight does, and I think we need to be very clear about this, is undo the work done by Tau Henare and the previous National Government in creating a regime for the membership of students associations that put control in the hands of students. What the current law does is allow students, if there are enough of them, to force a referendum, to have a referendum on whether membership of their students association should be compulsory or should be voluntary. The Auckland University Students Association, as has already been discussed, has taken the decision to go voluntary. The Waikato Student Union took a decision to go voluntary, then took a decision to go back the other way and return to compulsory membership. Those students did that because their experiment with voluntary membership was a disaster. They had the ability under the current law to return to the quality of membership that they wanted. They made a decision. They had a choice. This bill removes that choice.

There has been a lot of talk about choice, about it being a motivation and a driver for the promoter of this bill and for National to support the bill. But the reality is that the choices that are now going to be put before students are not real choices, because this bill basically prevents that. Certainly, the Government prevented amendments being put forward that would have allowed students to have an informed choice at the start of a year. Labour members put forward amendments that would have allowed students associations to have access to contact details so that they could provide information. But the reality is that this bill is not about choice. This bill is about an ideological crusade of a very small number of students represented in this House by a party that seems to be going out of existence. On the basis of that ideological crusade, the students associations will be destroyed.

Mark my words, it is not just the university students who will be affected by this. I predict that most of the university students associations will stumble on in some kind of relationship with their tertiary institution providers, and I will come back to that in a minute. It is polytechnic students who will really suffer here. I do not believe that many polytechnic students associations will be able to survive this bill, and, as a result of that, the experience of students at polytechnics will be diminished. Many of the students who arrive at polytechnics have no experience or knowledge of tertiary education, they are often there for a short time, and their students associations are the ones that are able to provide important services. There is a reason why all, bar one, of the polytechnics in this country came to the Education and Science Committee and said “Please do not pass this bill.” They know the value of the services that are provided by students associations. They are not in it for the politics, as Heather Roy was trying to say that that was where the students associations had gone. Those institutions support the students associations because they know the good work that is done, and they know the potential damage that will be done to their students when and if this bill passes.

I return to the university students associations. They are now caught in a very interesting dilemma, because in recent times we have seen student services levies—those levies charged by the institutions for services other than those provided by the students associations—increase dramatically. The Government rightly has been concerned about this. Legislation has been passed in this House to ensure that those student services levy increases can be limited, and that, in fact, by Gazette notice the Minister for Tertiary Education can control the range of services able to be funded under a student services levy. As a result, if we see students associations cut back, we will now see the institutions limited in the range of student services they provide. So not only are the students associations losing control of student affairs; the institutions, which will now be forced to fill the gap, are being limited in the services they can provide. These together mean that the quality of the student experience in our universities and our polytechnics will be significantly diminished, because of an ideological crusade by the ACT Party.

It is interesting to hear the Minister for Tertiary Education tell students to keep their heads down. That is what he said the other day—that they should keep their heads down. That kind of bullying approach from the Minister has absolutely no place and does give some indication of what the real concern might be here, which is that the students associations might actually stand up to Governments—of all colours, I might say; not just National Governments but Labour-led Governments as well. The students associations might just have a role in standing up to the Government and asking questions, and campaigning, and advocating. I believe that those are legitimate roles of students associations. It is like a ratepayer not liking some of the books bought for the library with ratepayer funds; just because one does not like some of the activities of students associations does not mean one can somehow take oneself out of society—not pay one’s rates. What we see here is an attack on students associations and the work that they do, and, yes, some of that work has been political, because it has been in the best interests of students. But taking away from students the choice they currently have about how they organise themselves, and limiting what the student services levy can be collected for, put together mean that students’ experience will be significantly diminished.

Ninety-eight percent of the submissions did oppose this bill. Heather Roy can talk about form submissions and all of that, but we have seen no groundswell of support for this bill. We have seen no groundswell of support among students. If student organisations like ACT on Campus and others had wanted to make changes, they had that ability. They had that ability with the referendum.

It is very sad to me that other options that were on the table for this bill were not taken up. National Party MPs sat through the submissions, and I agree with Allan Peachey, who said it was a good submission process. It was a genuinely good submission process. We heard from informed submitters. We heard a lot of different ideas. There were good ideas on the table. The idea of a KiwiSaver-style opt-out scheme where people were enrolled, had the opportunity to withdraw, and then could carry on as normal from there was a good possibility. The possibility of more regular referenda was another idea on the table. The National MPs on the select committee heard those ideas and I know that they resonated with them. But instead politics came into play. The need to prop up the ACT Party came into play. I regard that as very, very sad.

There is almost no constituency for this bill. It is not just students. It is not just institutions. It is not just the Labour Party. Today I heard that Rural Women, formerly Women’s Division Federated Farmers, surveyed its members, and 75 percent opposed this bill.

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, how pathetic.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I tell Ms Collins to check with them and she will find there is no support for this bill. I cannot believe that National has decided to ignore its own constituency, it has decided to ignore tertiary institutions, and it has decided to ignore students, in order to support an ideological crusade from the ACT Party. This is a sad day for students. This is a sad day for tertiary education. But I can say on the record, as Labour members did in our select committee report, that we will repeal this legislation and we will return to a situation where students have advocacy services, where students have welfare services, and where they are supported to stay in their education. We will do that on the basis that that is what students want, and that we will not bow down to ideological crusades.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. We stand poised on the brink of ushering in a new dark age for students. There will be a fundamental change to what our universities look like in the coming years. The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, quite simply, is an ideological solution in search of a problem. I am proud to be voting against this bill, as the Green Party will do. We urge members on the Government benches to reconsider. It is not too late. I urge the Minister for Tertiary Education, Steven Joyce—he has one last chance—to reconsider allowing this bill to pass.

It is essential that we have strong students associations to deliver strong, quality education outcomes, to have a vibrant university culture, to have a place where foreign students want to come, to have a place where future Olympians have university games to perform at, and to have a place where people feel safe and where there are critical evaluations like sexual health audits of the university—things like this.

Mr Joyce cannot bring in this bill as urgently as he is doing. It is unfair, it is impractical, and, quite frankly, it is irresponsible of members on the Government benches to allow this bill to proceed with such a limited time for implementation. It is as though Mr Joyce has announced he is disbanding local government in New Zealand and telling people that if they like roads and water services, they can voluntarily pay for them but they have only 3 months to prepare. It is unfair, irresponsible, and impractical.

We saw the dawn of this new age 10 years ago. A short history of voluntary student membership in New Zealand tells us that we saw it across the Ditch. People are asking what the impacts will be. We do not have to theorise; we saw it across the Ditch in Australia. We saw students associations destroyed. We saw worse student outcomes, and we saw the Government having to step in and bail them out with $120 million.

In New Zealand in 1997 New Zealand First MP Michael Laws led the Voluntary Student Membership Bill through Parliament. In the end, a compromise was reached because he could not get the numbers for the Voluntary Student Membership Bill, which saw a referendum held across each campus in New Zealand. We saw some choose to go to an opt-in model. Many chose an opt-out model. We saw universities like the University of Waikato literally flog off their assets, which had been built up over decades by students saving a little bit every year, before going to an opt-out model. Ultimately, this compromise for students to choose saved it.

It is disappointing what we have not seen over that period. I think we in this Parliament should honestly reflect that some flaws were not addressed. We should have taken the opportunity earlier to look at the opt-out model for those institutions that chose to go with an opt-out model, to make it easier and more universal across the country and for it to have been better explained. Perhaps the NZUSA, the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations, and the students associations could have taken the opportunity earlier on to critically and voluntarily review their role and their services, because there have been some legitimate grievances that have not been addressed. Perhaps they could have been addressed earlier.

I say big ups to all those people who have campaigned against this disastrous bill. I take my hat off to them. They have stayed staunch and campaigned creatively, smartly, and intelligently. I think they quite clearly won the debate, but unfortunately what we are seeing tonight is that we are losing the war. We saw 98 percent of submitters opposed to the bill in the select committee. We have seen polling from diverse groups like Rural Women—a UMR Insight poll, I believe it was—opposing it.

On the Education and Science Committee we travelled all around the country, and it was a privilege to be with the other members, with the very able chairing of Allan Peachey. I thank the submitters for their submissions. We heard the experiences that students have in our universities around the country. We heard about the experiences at the University of Waikato, which flogged off those student assets that were built up over decades. We heard about future Olympians being at risk from the loss of university games.

We heard about those associations that have been forced to sign a compulsory levy with the institution. We heard from AUSA, the Auckland University Students Association, which is one of the only institutions in New Zealand to have the opt-in model. It feels that that it is under the thumb of the institution, and it does not feel that it can critically review the institution. We heard about the Australian example and about the $120 million going in to help the transition. I ask members on the National benches where the transition plan is and where the support is, be it financial or other resources. There is none. Government members want students associations to fail, and it is disappointing that we are seeing that.

The fact is that students associations do a fantastic job representing students, advocating on students’ behalf, and providing those services. In the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake we saw students with the organisation and the resources of their association providing a key service in their community in the days and weeks following the catastrophe there. Students play a critical role in our society. Universities need a student body that they can talk with and negotiate with. The Government needs an organised student body that it can work with to deliver key, quality education.

Students will still need services after this bill passes, and the irony of this bill is that students will still be paying for their services but they just will not have a say. Instead, with the upcoming legislation, it will be Steven Joyce, not the students, who will be deciding what will and will not be funded with their student levies.

Quality education and a smart economy should not be up for negotiation. What we are seeing from this bill is a weakening of the student culture and the pastoral care that students need to succeed. Not once have I heard from National members any mention of this bill being about educational outcomes or the big issues facing us in our economy. At the heart of it are two differing views of what our universities are. On the one hand, we have a tiny ideological minority who see universities without the people and without community, and, on the other hand, we see a strong, vibrant vision of a democratic, open, transparent student body.

This bill is not about freedom of association; it is simply a smokescreen. This bill is about appeasing a tiny ideological minority of ACT supporters who failed to gain any support through democratic means on the university campuses, so instead went to Parliament to legislate away students’ ability to choose the system that works for them. This bill is about ACT and, disappointingly, National telling students how to organise themselves, and in the process they will weaken and destroy, particularly the polytech students associations.

I believe that this bill is actually about weakening an oppositional voice to the terrible and disastrous tertiary education policies we are seeing under this Government. At its heart it is a philosophical question—what does being a member of a community mean? And what we are seeing is a philosophical debate. I do not see students associations as being like the Automobile Association—just providing a service. I see them more as a representative body, more akin to local government, or a local board at a local council level, because they provide these essential representative and advocacy services.

If this bill was actually about making sure students get the support they need, we would have worked harder on the select committee. We would not have been party whipped into supporting this bill, and we would have looked seriously at the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations’ compromise of automatic membership with an easier opt-out. I think we need an enduring, cross-party solution to this issue, and in future Parliaments we will be looking to work with the Māori Party, Mana, and the Labour Party to amend this legislation.

The tragedy is that when we have a future Government—maybe in 3 months or 3 years or 6—we will be seeing a change to this legislation. We will have two decades of flux in the students association area. We need an enduring, cross-party solution, not an ideological, partisan solution in search of a problem, which we are seeing tonight.

A few days ago we heard the Minister for Tertiary Education telling students to keep their heads down because most people think they are OK. I would like to ask the Minister for Tertiary Education whether he will keep telling students that it is OK and to keep their heads down when five of our six universities are dropping down the international rankings. Will Steven Joyce keep telling students to keep their heads down when he is telling students to organise themselves and not letting students organise themselves? Will he keep telling students to keep their heads down when his Government is ignoring the clear wishes of students and the 98 percent of submitters who oppose this bill?

I urge National to reconsider and to save this bill. But I am not holding my breath, because throughout the debate it has not shown a willingness to listen to the facts and it has literally taken an ideological partisan position. It is disappointing. Ultimately, the loser in all of this is students and quality education.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): This day—the third reading of a bill that I really cannot name, because it is a lie—has been a long time coming. It is a day that the thinkers, and not the reactors, in this House had hoped would never come. I acknowledge the sterling efforts of the Labour Party and the Green Party, which, along with the Māori Party, have tried to prevent this bill from ever being enacted.

When the bill last came before the House, on 7 September, my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell sought the leave of the Committee that it be referred in its entirety to the Waitangi Tribunal, under section 8 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. This action was taken up after the intervention of Te Mana Ākonga, the national association of Māori students. Te Mana Ākonga sought to take the claim to the Waitangi Tribunal on the basis that the bill would weaken the representation of Māori students. It was an action that unfortunately did not receive the full support of the Committee, but nevertheless the concerns we had, and have had since the outset of this bill, bear repeating for the record.

I want to do that by letting the student voices prevail. We believe we are here in Parliament to be the very best advocates for the people that we can be, and it is only right, therefore, that the voices of those most affected should be ringing in the ears of every member of this House as we consider actions that impact on the student body. I remind the House that 4,837 submissions were received on this bill. Of those submissions, 4,418 were from students who oppose this bill.

Not long after Mr Flavell attempted to refer this bill to the Waitangi Tribunal, he received an email that provides an interesting insight into the issues around students associations and their fate under this bill. That email stated: “As a past student of the University of Otago and a past tumuaki of Te Roopu Maori, Maori Student Association at Otago University I would like to express my thanks to you and the Party for attempting to suspend the progress of this Bill. I also wish to express my utmost support for Student Associations, in particular Maori Student Associations. These roopu are vital for students to survive at their chosen University, particularly Otago. Most Maori students enrolled at Otago University are from the North Island. Te Roopu Maori offered me a place to call home because of the tikanga (values) they upheld that no other student service, department or lecturer could provide. These being whanaungatanga, manaakitanga, aroha, taha wairua and many more. It was a place I could go to when I felt I had no where else to turn, where people can relate to how I was feeling or the challenges I was facing.”

I imagine that most members around this House would share a similar view to the Māori Party that education is a front-end investment in our future. What this student is reflecting about Te Roopu Māori is in itself a very positive reflection of the value of students associations in supporting and encouraging Māori students to progress in tertiary education.

What I found most illuminating from the submissions was how consistent the messages were about the value of students associations. I was interested in listening to Heather Roy’s opening remarks in this third reading, when she talked about the importance of the freedom of rights for students. I recall the very first speech I made on this bill, so many months ago. I thought it was with some irony that we are faced with a bill called the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It seeks to erode students associations, but places the word “freedom” in its title. Students’ rights, as the submissions tell us, are best represented by students themselves in the students associations they have formed.

I return to Otago University, to the present day, to the submission it presented to the Education and Science Committee. It said: “We oppose this Bill because it will exterminate the services that we provide for the Māori students at the University of Otago. It will diminish kaupapa Māori and tikanga Māori that Te Roopu Māori provide for students, for example a whānau on campus, whakawhanaungatanga, aroha, wairua and manaaki that are valued by Māori students.” The heart breaks when we read these submissions. This bill attacks those who are forming the very foundation of our future. It robs our rangatahi of the vital support that they have seen as being of such value in assisting them to undertake university study.

What is most infuriating about this whole legislative travesty is that the current legislative framework is both flexible and inclusive, allowing for both voluntary and universal membership of students associations. The legislation already has the potential for what Mrs Roy wants to happen, so why are we going to so much bother to pass this bill? What does ACT hope to achieve by making students associations voluntary? More to the point, what will enacting this bill do to the confidence and the optimism of our student body that Parliament is there to protect and support the interests of, along with those of any other taxpayer?

What will Te Roopū Whai Pūtaki, the Otago University Māori Law Students Association, think? This is the group that described this bill by saying it “attacks the Māori student voice and their ability to have democratically-elected collective organisations on campus, by removing the existing right of students to self determination.” How will Mrs Roy account back to Te Mana Mātauranga or Te Waiariki, which have advised the House: “We believe that this Bill is unnecessary as the status quo works,”? How can Parliament address the concerns of Ngā Tauira Māori, the Auckland University Māori Students Association, which explained the case very clearly indeed: “… the Bill adversely affects the ability of Nga Tauira Māori (NTM) to exercise Tino Rangatiratanga, Kaitiakitanga, and Manaakitanga of which are guaranteed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”?

Not only those who represent the associations of students are vehemently opposed. I recall the words of John Kīngi, welfare officer at the Auckland University Students Association, who said: “Often times we are forced to turn away students who may require some assistance as we simply do not have the capacity, that Universal associations do, to meet the demands of students.”

Māori students comprise a minority of university students: only 7 percent overall. These Māori students need to be introduced into the tertiary environment as a welcoming and safe space. Māori students associations assist in this by holding first-year support hui or wānanga, with active mentoring and academic support programmes. I am reminded of the submission from Te Mana Ākonga, which told this House that “The proud history of Māori Roopū and student associations has ensured Māori students have an outlet to speak their mind through the freedom of speech, the freedom of autonomy and academic freedom. … As the representative body for Maori Students we believe that this bill does not support Maori students but increases the likeliness of Maori student failure due to the support structures not being present”.

I am greatly saddened today that this bill has come to the House and that Māori students—indeed, all students—will be fully aware now that there are some parties that do not see the value of supporting the ripe potential of our upcoming generations.

I leave the last word to another submission from within my own electorate, from Ngāi Tauira, the Victoria University of Wellington Māori Students’ Association: “It is our belief that until Māori become a normal feature of the tertiary environment, then Māori student associations will be necessary to ensure equity and support of our students in the tertiary environment.” The Māori Party votes to oppose this bill with all of our might.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): There are some pieces of legislation where the divide between the left and the right is more obvious than it is on others. The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is one such piece of legislation. I am very proud to say that the values of the National Party include freedom of choice. Part of balancing freedom of choice is, of course, responsibility. The left, however, have been clinging to compulsory student union membership, and they have fought this bill like they have not fought any other single piece of legislation in this House. One would think that they would strongly fight changes to labour laws, to taxation, and to welfare reform. But, no, this is the one piece of legislation that they have held up in the House for nearly 2 years. This is the legislation they choose to die in a ditch over. This is what matters most to them—not to the majority of New Zealanders, though, I might add. Members on this side of the House will not tell students what to do. We will give students the choice.

I applaud the ACT member Heather Roy for bringing this member’s bill to the House. I applaud her work and her efforts—the tag team of her and Sir Roger Douglas. They got this member’s bill through the select committee process so that we are here today for the third reading.

In no other sector in New Zealand is union membership compulsory, so why would members expect that we would discriminate against students? Compulsory student unions are the last vestige of a bygone era of compulsory unionism, and of course it was going to change. But the point is that in the same way that trade unions are still strong and still active, students associations will still be strong and active without the coercion of their members. I believe that voluntary unionism will actually improve the performance of students associations, because it will actually make them more responsive to what the students want. It will provide a mandate for advocacy based on engagement with the issues at hand.

Hon Simon Power: Those members hate choice.

LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely, they do hate choice. They cannot stand it. It was really interesting that the Leader of the Opposition said this week that this bill would compel voluntary membership. I thought that was such a fascinating turn of phrase from a party that is obsessed with compulsion and cannot handle the fact that this party values choice.

If we look at this bill, we see that students associations will still be able to support students, they will be able to tender for commercial contracts from institutions, and they will advocate on behalf of their students. But most important is that their students’ rights will remain unchanged. I want to bring to the attention of the House the New Zealand University Students’ Association submission, which clearly talks about the value of students associations. I agree. I agree that they do deliver value to students. What I do not agree with is their concern that students will not value their services. I disagree with that, because if they value their association’s services, they will join it, and that is exactly how it should be—just as people join advocacy organisations or professional organisations. This bill will not destroy student unions. They will still be able to offer all the services they currently do, including advocacy, including lobbying, but they will have to attract members on their merit—not from legal force, but on their merit. Some argue that voluntary membership does already exist. But if it does already exist, as some claim, then why would they fear these changes?

Choice for students will also mean greater accountability for student unions. Again, I do not think that student unions have anything to fear from this. Students should not have to vote in a referendum to receive the basic right of freedom of association. Unions that demonstrate value to students will continue exactly as they are. Opponents say that students can leave the association if they wish. But the submitters who came before us told us how difficult that was in reality. A very interesting thing to note is that in the last 18 months some students associations have changed the way that people exit, if they choose to do so. Funny, that! It is funny that it happens right about now. Tertiary institutions will still be required to ensure that students are looked after. They will take note of customer feedback and concerns.

One of the other things that opponents have talked about is the quantity of submissions opposing this bill. Heather Roy went through this in detail, so I will not cover it much, other than to bring the House’s attention to emails I received from so-called students who were opposing the bill. When I replied to these emails, I got puzzled responses from some students. They had absolutely no idea that emails had been sent in their name, from their email accounts, opposing the bill.

Part of the difficulty in understanding the opposition to this bill is the changing phrases used by the student unions. The student unions have been changing their tune because they cannot decide who they are like. First of all they said they were like trade unions. But trade unions became not compulsory, so the student unions had to change their thinking. Then they moved on to saying they were like professional bodies, like the Medical Association. But it has changed. It has now gone into two parts: the Medical Council and the—surprise, surprise—voluntary New Zealand Medical Association. Now, since the student unions lost that one, they say they are like local government. They think they can take money off people against their will, and have no accountability, no feedback mechanisms, no safeguards for their doing exactly that.

The one I love—this is probably the best for me—is the argument that student associations are the only true, independent voice. One very large concern raised by those who support the bill—and they gave examples—was the use of student association money to fund political campaigns. And this is so-called independence. Some of the associations are clearly not independent at all. One of the New Zealand University Students’ Association press releases before the last election said that the National Party was out of touch with thinking voters, when, in reality, National got more votes in the 18 to 24 age group than any other political party. So I wonder who was out of touch, if it was not the students association.

As a result of this bill, will students think twice about joining a student union? Probably. Will students get value from their students association? Most likely. Will students get to choose? Absolutely.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): There are, I accept, two schools of thought on students association membership. One is that when students choose to attend a particular institution—whether it be a university, a polytechnic, or anywhere—where there is a compulsory or universal students association, by making the choice to attend that institution they then become a member of that students association in the same way that by deciding to live in a particular town, they would have to pay rates and have everything that goes with being a ratepayer in that area. That is one school of thought. The other school of thought is that students associations are more like unions or professional bodies and that membership should be voluntary.

I actually think that both of those points of view and schools of thought have merit. I do not think that one is more correct than the other. In fact, the status quo allows for both of those situations to exist at a particular university or a particular tertiary institution. If the students decide they want their students association to be universal, they can choose that. If they decide they want their students association to be voluntary, they can choose that. So whichever side of the divide you stand on, whatever your view is on membership of a students association, there is actually a mechanism in the current law to make that happen. All you have to do, if you want to create change—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Order!

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry. Well, Mr Assistant Speaker, you could if you were in this position.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Order!

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: All students would need to do if they wanted to change the status quo at their particular tertiary institution is to get 10 percent of their fellow students, have a referendum, and convince more than half the people who vote to come to their point of view. It is not so difficult. It happened at Auckland University, where the students decided to go voluntary.

Jacinda Ardern: And at Waikato.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It happened at Waikato University. Those students decided to go voluntary, then they changed their mind. They saw the folly of that decision, realised it was not working out, and went back to universal membership. The question was asked at Massey University, and its students decided to stay with universal membership. The status quo allows for both schools of thought to coexist.

But even if we were to decide that we had to force the point of view that students associations must be voluntary, this bill, the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, is not the way to do it. A simple mechanism could have given students associations the opportunity to survive, and imposed voluntary student membership on all students associations as well, and that was to have an opt-out clause. Future students signing up for their first year would be automatically enrolled, in the same way that we automatically enrol people into KiwiSaver. We do this in the workplace. We automatically enrol people into KiwiSaver, and should they choose that that is not what they want, they can opt out. That is the mechanism by which Heather Roy could have achieved what she says this bill is about.

That is what gives the lie to Heather Roy’s motivation behind this bill. This bill is specifically designed to weaken and destroy students associations. There was a mechanism by which she could have achieved voluntary student membership, but this bill is actually about making the environment as difficult as possible for students associations to recruit new members. How can we honestly expect—

Tim Macindoe: How is that difficult?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Tim Macindoe is asking how that is difficult. I will answer Tim Macindoe’s question. The answer is simple. The Government is asking young people to decide before they arrive at the university, polytechnic, wānanga, or private training establishment—or whatever the institution is that they will study at—whether they think membership of a students association is a good thing. They have no idea what the students association does before they get to—

Tim Macindoe: If they’re bright enough to be there, they’re bright enough to work that out.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, I completely disagree. It is not a question of whether someone is bright enough, I say to Mr Macindoe; it is a question of whether the information is available. It is ludicrous to expect students associations to make the information about what they offer available to every single potential student in the country. That is absolutely ludicrous. On the meagre resources that students associations have available to them, they should not have to market themselves to every 17-year-old in the country. The universities already waste, in my opinion, millions of dollars marketing themselves to every 17-year-old in the country. Why should the students associations have to follow suit? There is absolutely no good reason why they should.

The easy answer would be to have an opt-out mechanism. They are automatically enrolled—

Tim Macindoe: Take away their freedom of choice instead.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, they are automatically enrolled, and then they have the freedom of choice, which this Government bangs on about so much, to opt out at any time that they want to. If students arrive at the university and decide that they do not want their subsidised gym membership, they do not want the advocacy service, and they do not want the representation that is on offer, they can walk away and get their fee back. It is a very, very simple answer, and it would ensure that the students associations had the ability to offer their services to the new students before the students had to make the choice about whether they would be a member.

Here is another example, right here in the bill, of why this bill is more about destroying students associations than it is about giving students choice. Heather Roy, Louise Upston, and various other speakers have all stood up and said that the students association has to offer services that are relevant to the students, and if those services are good, students will choose to join the association. The only problem is that in clause 6 the bill states: “A person who is not a member of a students association may not be required to pay a representation fee to that association for any services that the association provides generally to the institution’s student body.” In other words, freeloading is legislated here in the bill. Even if someone is not a member of the students association, it is legislated that he or she will receive every single one of the services that the students association offers. So there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to join the students association. It could have the best services, and it could have all the reasons why students should want to be a member, but why would someone bother paying the additional fee if he or she got all the services anyway? That is legislated right here in the bill.

This is not about student choice, at all. This is about weakening and destroying one of the most powerful and influential political forces that has existed throughout the history of New Zealand. Students associations in New Zealand have had a voice for students. They have created change. Laws have been passed in this Parliament as a result of lobbying by students associations on behalf of their members, and that is what this is all about. It is about destroying and weakening the voice that students have through their students associations.

Ultimately, what this will really mean for students is increased costs. We know that, because in respect of the services that the students associations do provide, the universities know that they will have to step in, and the universities will not be able to do it at the cost level that the students associations are able to do it at. Furthermore, should they choose to, students ultimately have a say in how their students association fee is spent. They can go to a general meeting, raise issues, and elect the council and executive that they want to be running their students associations. If we take that out of their hands and give it to the tertiary institutions, the students will have to pay, but they will have no say. That is the fact of this bill. It takes away their voice, it weakens their representation, and it increases their costs.

This bill is not about student choice. Let us be honest about what this bill is about. It is about taking away a representative voice for students that has had political influence over the years. The National Party does not like it, the ACT Party does not like it, but I tell you what, the Labour Party thinks students should have that voice, and when we are in Government we will give them that voice back.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): It gives me real pleasure to at last take a short call in this third reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I do so as a member of the Education and Science Committee. What a fascinating philosophical debate we have had here tonight. We are seeing it all hang out, are we not? Over here, we are talking about freedom of association, not compulsion, and that certainly has come through all of our speeches tonight.

Tonight I pay tribute to one of the many people who have really supported this bill, and that is one Holly Ford, an ardent supporter of the bill, who is celebrating not only the bill’s progress tonight but also her birthday. So I say to Holly that she is in the right place celebrating the progress of this bill. Good on her.

National philosophically believes in getting the most out of every dollar that is spent in tertiary education, whether the individual puts the dollar out there, or the taxpayer—not the Government; always the taxpayer—puts the money out there. There are our two choices: it is either an individual or the taxpayer, via Government funding, who pays.

Getting the best value for money is also about accountability, so when this bill was pulled from the ballot, I took it upon myself, with the assistance of my then intern, Seonah Choi, to look into how, in the financial accounts of each of the students associations, they were spending their money. Fascinating reading, it was, absolutely fascinating. Although I could understand some of the money that was being spent, there seemed an inordinate amount of gravy-training going on. There were a lot of “nice-to-haves”, as we would put it, but there was also some stuff that clearly was a bit suspect. We have heard repeatedly over the years about the misuse of students association funding—it is actually legend. It is not every students association, and I am sure the individual students associations are not proud of that misuse of their funding, but, in fact, accountability was not there. On the part of those who belonged to those students associations, it certainly was never acceptable, but it was compulsory that they must belong to the students association. It was very, very, very difficult for them to opt out, and we have heard repeated examples of that. With students associations being compulsory, students felt they were actually supporting the rorts—unwillingly, but supporting the rorts.

Ultimately, this bill is all about choice, and of course National’s philosophy is to encourage choice and personal responsibility. When a young person decides they need exercise, they will make some choices. They will either go for a run, climb on a bike, or they may decide to join a gym. But if they need exercise, will someone say they must join a gym? Of course they will not. When they head to university, they are actually brighter than Labour thinks they are. We know that from the number of them who voted National.

When they get to university they will make a choice. They will look at what is on offer from the students association, and a number of them whom I have actually spoken to will tell you that they will join. However, they will want value for money, and they will want accountability. They will want to know they are spending their money wisely, and they will vote with their feet if they think that is not happening. This bill allows that to happen.

This bill provides that no student or prospective student in an institution is required to be a member of the association, and it actually prohibits anybody exerting undue influence on them, at all, which seems to be a really good idea. Students who believe they have been under undue pressure may lodge a complaint and it will be heard by the council of the institution. Again, it seems like a good safeguard. Are we getting to some accountability here? I think we are.

The bill states that no person is required to pay a membership fee to a students association, or any alternative fee to the membership fee, unless the person chooses. It sounds like a basic right, does it not? It is hard to believe that the Opposition members can fight so hard for compulsion. When we see the best in New Zealand—and we have certainly seen it this year—when we see the best come out in the students and other New Zealanders, we see it come out in voluntarism. I say now to the Student Volunteer Army that it is so good that they had “Volunteer” in their title, because that is what it is all about. They volunteered to put themselves out, to spend their own time, energy, and probably money on achieving something really good. That is what it should be about: volunteering.

This bill will not destroy good students associations. They will still be able to offer the services they currently do, including advocacy and lobbying, but they will attract their members on merit. What can be wrong with that? Freedom of association and personal choice are things all New Zealanders should enjoy. I am proud to say that from tonight students up and down this country will know that a choice to join a students association is coming their way. I commend this bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I start today with a very, very simple question for this House, and that is: “Who are we here to represent?”. I often hear the sop in this House that young people are our future, that we must invest in our young people, that we need to give young people the best start in life, and, perhaps the most ironic statement of all, that young people need a voice. I really question what kind of voice we have given young people over the past 2½ years.

If I were to do a very quick review, it would probably cover the fact that this Government has eroded the chance for young people to have, for instance, the same retirement as members in this House today, by suspending payments to the superannuation fund. Second, the kind of voice we have given young people is a Government that has sliced into young people’s KiwiSaver accounts; a voice via a Government for whom a credible emissions trading scheme does not matter, and which will put young people into debt for 50 years to subsidise heavy polluters; and a voice that refuses to acknowledge that eventually the next generation will not be able to afford to put oil in their cars, but this Government refuses to fund an alternative. Now, to add to the list of shame, the latest voice we have given young people is the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—a bill that will remove student services, student advocacy, and student voice.

The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill received almost 5,000 submissions. Members in this House know that 5,000 submissions is substantial. Members in this House know that it is almost unheard of to get as many submissions as that on a bill. What is even more unheard of is getting 98 percent of submitters to agree on one thing, which is that they do not want this bill. Students and young people did not ask for this bill. ACT asked for this bill, so what kind of voice are we giving young people in this House today? So I ask again—I ask again: who are we here to represent? And second, why are we doing this?

Members would have heard from the Government that this bill is going through because of the fallacy that somehow it is providing student choice. Well, do not believe me on this question; let us go to one of the submitters. Why do we not ask for an independent view from the Human Rights Commission? The commission, when asked whether the existing structure and framework we offer in New Zealand actually caused any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues in relation to freedom of association, answered—what? It gave a clear no. The Human Rights Commission came to this Parliament and told us that the current structure did not pose any issue to freedom of association.

So I ask again: if this bill is not about choice, what is it about? In fact, let us reflect on what the current structure provides us. Personally, I believe that the current framework already gives students choice, and I would have thought that Tau Henare would agree with that, as well, given that it was National that was behind the clause that allows students to initiate their own referendum. If it is not about choice already, then why have we already seen student unions going voluntary?

We have already heard that Waikato University went voluntary in 1997. I joined that campus in time to watch attempts to switch back. The movement was not a movement of the vice-chancellor, as some pundits would argue. No matter what those out there say, I remember and I saw the cuts that occurred on that campus as a result of voluntary student membership. Students on that campus at that time know that that structure meant that we saw masses cut out of student media, and saw a student radio station fold.

Members can claim whatever they like about the referendum that brought Waikato University back from voluntary student unionism, ultimately, in 2000. They have had 10 years to switch back if they so chose, and they have not. Why? Because it did not work for Waikato University. What about Auckland University? I acknowledge that there are a number of students from Auckland University watching from Shadows bar this evening, and why? Because even though their association has gone voluntary, a large number of students on that campus do not agree with what is happening here tonight.

What of the services that the Auckland University Students Association is able to provide? Well, anyone who was on campus at the rally that occurred this week will have heard Joe McRory, president of the Auckland University Students Association, point out that even Auckland University, under this bill, will experience cuts to services. Even a student union that currently operates as a voluntary student union will experience cuts because of this bill, and to claim otherwise is a complete untruth.

Let me run through it. Under the Education (Compulsory Student Union Services Fees) Notice 2011 there is a list of student services that the Auckland University Students Association and the Auckland University cannot fund. Let us run through the things that Auckland University will no longer have as a consequence of this Government: orientation; student representation through the Auckland University Students Association executive, which it has had since 1891; student representation through clubs, which, again, it has had since 1891; student representation from class reps, which it has had since 1968; and club grants, and Ed Hillary’s historic tramping club is particularly worried about what this bill will mean for it. Also affected are the university games; reorientation; Pacific Island students associations; library services; freshers’ week; courses and careers days; the Māori Students Association—and I acknowledge the advocacy of the Māori Party, in particular, on behalf of our Māori students associations—the student emergency fund; international student advisory services; and pastoral care. All of these services will not be able to be funded as a consequence of the actions of this National-ACT Government.

The House cannot tell me that this bill will not affect student services when it will impact on the ability to raise funds for them and their ability to pay for them. The irony of all of this is that every single member in this House who went to a university experienced and enjoyed the services provided by students associations—the very services that members are now gutting. More than that, these services represent the fibre of our universities. If we want hollow institutions, devoid of ideas and devoid of debate, this bill is part of that. I am by no means the first person to make that claim.

Nicky Hager, in his book The Hollow Men, talked about attempts to squash student unions through the voluntary student membership movement, and that is not something that should be viewed in isolation. It was never just about student services or money. What do most people think when they think about universities and campuses? I know that I always saw them as being about advocacy on behalf of students—for students, by students. Universities have been a place of consciousness, of debate, of academic freedom, of ideas, and of protest.

Unfortunately, I joined Waikato campus at a time when Prebble’s Rebels were having a resurgence, so all of those elements were not quite as strong, but the point remains. These are not just places of learning; they are places where we grow global citizens. Students are not a brief sub-community. They have been our political consciousness, and students associations—

Hon Tau Henare: Oh, the international socialist. Where’s your badge of Che Guevara?

JACINDA ARDERN: —I say to Tau Henare—have been the backbone of that. To destroy that is to destroy something much greater than just student services. Therein lies the answer. This bill is not about cost.

Hon Tau Henare: And who cares?

JACINDA ARDERN: Tau Henare asks who cares. This bill is not just about cost. It is not about choice and it is not about freedom. It is about the opposite of all of those things. This bill is about removing student voice. I ask again: who are we here to represent? If taking away the voice of students, if taking away the voice of young people, is what those members call representation, then we have failed young people yet again. Shame on those members.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Let us cut to the truth of the matter in terms of what voluntary student membership really means. It means that the passing of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill will stop the little lefties organising on campus, running back to their generals, captains, and lieutenants in the Labour Party, and using other people’s money for things that are, no doubt, political. If it was such a great organisation to belong to, thousands of people would be lining up outside Parliament today, a bit like the foreshore and seabed. But all we got was bed: 500 people out there waving a few balloons. I tell you what. There was a protest in Auckland, and the protesters locked themselves in—they locked themselves in. There were not 20,000 people, there were not 10,000 people, and there were not 5,000 people. There was a bunch of raggedy old Labour members. That is all that protest was.

I thank my colleague Sir Roger Douglas for giving me 5 or 6 minutes to tell the truth about this bill. What this bill does in no uncertain terms is gut the political animal that is the Labour Party. That is why those members are on their hind legs. That is why they are up tonight. They are on their hind legs. Why do those members not like freedom? Why do they not like choice? Why do they not like democracy? They have the cheek to get up in this House and ask what voice we are giving youth. I will tell members what voice we on this side of the House are giving young people today: democracy, choice, and freedom.

You know, I can remember doing some study. I did not go to university, and that is fine. That is all right; I still have time. At least when I do go to university, I will not be forced into belonging to an organisation that I do not want to belong to. It is simple. It is simple: do not make people do it.

I tell you what. Why should I pay 150 bucks a year at Victoria University just for the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association to buy a van and fix it up—or pimp my ride—when I do not get anything out of it? I would have thought that my young fellow, who is at Victoria, would get at least a dozen rides, or at least a ride in the van, but he did not. It begs the question of where else this money, which the poor old student pays, goes. Where else does that money go? It goes into the coffers of the Labour Party through its organisation. Make no mistake about it: it is nothing more than a little wee bank for the Labour Party.

Kia ora. I cannot wait for democracy and freedom to reign.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT): I am not sure what I should say, but I do congratulate the member Tau Henare. I will stand for just a moment and congratulate my colleague Heather Roy on what she has achieved tonight in getting the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill passed.

My only regret tonight is that Clayton Cosgrove is not here to enjoy Heather’s success. How many members does the Labour Party have? Is it 30-odd? Oh, it will be 20-odd shortly, if that party is lucky. But of that 30, only one member of the Labour Party actually understands the principle that underlies the bill. I can do no better tonight than to quote Clayton Cosgrove. This is the question he asked: “Why should I as a politician tell you or anyone else what you should belong to?”. He has got it. He has gone to the heart of the bill. It is about freedom—individual choice. He went on to say: “If you want to join the footy club, the workingmen’s club, … It’s your choice …”.

At the end of the day the difference between members on that side of the House and members on this side is very simple. Members on that side of the House want to take people’s money via taxes, or whatever, and tell them how to spend it. In this case those members want to do it by legislation. They want to tell people how to spend their own money. But those members go much deeper than that. They want to tax people and then actually tell them what school they want to go to, what hospital they can go to, and what risk cover they can have.

This bill is about freedom. The point about this bill is very simple. It does not matter whether 95 percent of students want to join the students association. That is their right, and we support them in having that right to choose. But the 5 percent also have the right to opt out, to decide not to join. That is a fundamental—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Opt out.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: Well, of course they opt out. They opt out by not joining. It is very simple. I could not care less whether there were 10,000 students and only five did not want to join. That should be their right, and that is what this bill is all about. Clayton Cosgrove understands that, and it is a pity a few more in the Labour Party do not understand it.

I conclude by saying that over time in New Zealand we have come to respect the importance of freedom of association. We in this House have ratified the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees to individuals the freedom of association. I might add, and this is very important, that it explicitly includes the right not to associate.

I congratulate my colleague on the work she has done. New Zealand will be a much better place for having passed this law.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 7 September.

Clause 3 Principal Act amended (continued)

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Here we are on another bill again debating that a principal Act be amended. The principal Act being amended by the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is the Employment Relations Act 2000, and is being done so that the Hon Tau Henare can get his way by imposing on union members the right for secret ballots for strikes. I find that very, very interesting, having just heard the previous debate, which was fascinating and where we talked about freedom of association, democratic rights, and the people’s right to choose, yet this member’s bill is from a National Party member who wants to impose decisions on the democratic decision-making of union members.

We have talked before about whether this bill is necessary. I want to be fair to the member Tau Henare and acknowledge that he probably had a genuine belief when he brought this bill to the House—

Carol Beaumont: That’s fair!

DARIEN FENTON: I am a very fair person and I am generous. I was interested to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to find out whether there really was a problem on this issue. Guess what? We found out there was no problem. Not a single worker came to the select committee to say there was a problem and that workers were being forced into strike action because there was no secret ballot for strikes. We also found out that most unions already have this process and carry it out where practical. But it is not always practical and we have to remember that we live in a world that is way, way different from 1980 when the Hon Tau Henare was the worst union organiser in the world. He worked for the—

Hon Tau Henare: Not very generous.

DARIEN FENTON: Not so generous, and I am sorry but I just could not help myself. We were talking about a time when we had compulsory trade unionism, and times were different then. That is Tau Henare’s experience and he used to go into workplaces and say: “Pull the pin. Everyone out! Tell those clerical workers”—those very militant clerical workers for whom he was the union organiser—“they have to pull the pin and take strike action.” I am sure there was the odd clerical worker who rang up Syd Jackson, who was the secretary of the clerical workers union at that time and said: “Tau Henare came in and told us that we have to go on strike today, and we don’t agree with that.” That was like 30 years ago, but times have changed.

The House finished a very interesting debate tonight about freedom of association and the rights of people to freely associate. I say to the ACT members who asserted, in their comments about freedom of association, that the right was just as strong on the other side of the argument, which is freedom not to associate. Actually, when it comes to workers’ rights and International Labour Organization conventions the right is much stronger in terms of freedom of association; absolutely much stronger.

We are talking about amending this principal Act, and wasting a lot of time on a members’ day, at the eleventh hour of Parliament, when there are a lot of other priorities or other things that we could be doing. For example, I was contacted tonight by someone in Christchurch and she said to me that she was not complaining but was only just surviving. She said she was a bit low at the moment. The car had blown up and she had to take a day off work to get the car organised to be fixed. She did not know where the money was coming from. There were no groceries this pay—or next, no doubt—but she did need a car to get to work. She wondered how she was going to cope with this. This bill would not be a priority for that person, and it would not be a priority for many, many people.

In fact, as I said, no one came to the select committee to say that Parliament needed to make this amendment to the Employment Relations Act. We have amended this principal Act on a number of occasions during this Parliament, all of them very unfortunate and very unnecessary amendments. They are unfortunate and unnecessary, and what we are now seeing, and what I hear every day through my email in-box, are the consequences of the amendments that this Government has made to the Employment Relations Act.

First of all, we had the 90-day trial period for workplaces of fewer than 20 employees. That amendment was deemed to be a success, and the Minister of Labour has gone around trumpeting that somehow that created 13,000 jobs. That is just rubbish. The research is so flawed. It is just rubbish to look at a time period of 3 months after that legislation was passed and say: “Oh, well, people employed in small workplaces have not lost as many jobs as people employed in larger workplaces and somehow that has created a whole lot of jobs.” On that basis, both the Minister and the Prime Minister went out and said they were going to extend the legislation. They have extended it now to all workplaces.

Of course they have amended the principal Act around a whole lot of other things, including the access of workers to their union organisers. I think this bill raises a really interesting question. In fact, it is the subject of a Supplementary Order Paper that I have introduced, which is about access to workplaces. This Government has restricted the right of workers to talk to their union organisers at work. What is more, it has restricted the right of workers to talk to their union organisers even when there is a health and safety matter involved. So one of the Supplementary Order Papers I will be introducing to amend the principal Act will state that where there is a requirement to hold a secret ballot for strikes, union organisers will not be prevented from coming into the workplace. Can members imagine it? We have a law on the one hand that says there has to be a secret ballot for strikes, then on the other hand we have a restriction whereby union organisers cannot come in and conduct that ballot. How ridiculous is that! I am really looking forward to the member in the chair supporting that Supplementary Order Paper when we get to that part of the bill, a little bit further along.

As I said, on going back to the priorities, I thought it was an interesting day in Parliament today, and not only in the general debate, where we heard some silly stuff. I do want to respond, if I may, to the Hon Jonathan Coleman, who made some allegations about things that I, allegedly, have been saying. He talked about his own electorate, but actually I work in the Northcote electorate, and I know there are people coming through my office door every day who are sick and tired of this Government amending the Employment Relations Act, and who are concerned about this silly bill—this unnecessary bill, this waste of time—when we have all of the other problems that are going on in the country.

We have just spent a lot of time debating a bill about voluntary student membership, but nobody wants it—nobody wants it. It is Heather’s last hurrah, and thank goodness for that. Maybe this bill is Tau’s last hurrah, although of course he will not get it through in this Parliament. Thank goodness for that! Just look at the member in the chair; he does not care. He is going “Oh, oh, we don’t care!”, and that shows the commitment he has to the bill. I have not picked up any—any—real passion from the member since we went through the select committee process, where he found out that no one supported the amendment of the principal Act. No one supported it; it was some mad idea that he got from the 1980s when he was the worst union organiser in the world. That is some mad idea, some residue; that party has not been able to produce a single worker who has said there is a problem.

The fact is that we have unions today that are grown-up, responsible, and modern, and that deal with their members in a democratic way. They have rules that deal with these things. Times have changed; things are different to the time when Tau Henare was rampaging around as a union organiser for the clerical workers union, on the payroll of low-paid clerical workers, and trying to pretend he was important.

On the back of that he has become the most famous waka-jumper in the world, as well as the worst union organiser in the world. He went, of course, from the New Zealand First Party, and I remember—because I live out at Waitakere—the signs, I tell Tau Henare: “New Zealand First will not go with National”, which of course meant that those members would not amend the principal Act, but away he went.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I will take just a very quick call. Never once did I tell anyone in the clerical workers union to go on strike. If there ever was a time when there was a need to withdraw the labour of those workers, it was certainly done by secret ballot. My question asks why that is not allowed to happen for everybody.

Darien Fenton: It does happen. You don’t need rules to say it should.

Hon TAU HENARE: That member over there just happens to dislike Sir Peter Leitch so much she calls him the “Mad Butcher”, but tonight there is no doubt that Darien Fenton is now known as just plain mad.

But let us get serious about this. They said something here that I need to respond to, and that is—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Raise it up; pick it up.

Hon TAU HENARE:—where did this—well, I will pick it up. I will pick it up.

Darien Fenton: Lift your game. Lift your game.

Hon TAU HENARE: I will pick it up. Well, actually it is not me who needs to lift their game. If I was on 28 percent, yeah—OK, I would. But we are not. We are on 50-odd percent. It was a miner’s wife—a miner’s wife—who asked the question: why could her husband not have a secret ballot when the miners withdrew their labour? Why could they not have a secret ballot?

Darien Fenton: One person in 20 years.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, OK. So it is all right for everybody else, but it is not all right when one person says “Actually, I’d like a secret ballot, because I want to be able to have the same rights and privileges as electors in this country. They go behind closed doors, or behind a screen, and they freely make their choice whether it is yes, or no.”

Darien Fenton: Where’s the evidence? Which strike was that? When was it?

Hon TAU HENARE: If that is what that member over there dislikes, well then, that is fine. She should go and live in 1930s Germany. But the fact of the matter is that everybody should have the right to vote without that sort of encumbrance on them. That is all I have to say and, most probably, all I have to say for the rest of these proceedings.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I rise to speak to clause 3 of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, which is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen come into this House. It is bad because it is so completely unnecessary, and because it is probably the worst bill I have ever seen in terms of drafting. I was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which dealt with this bill, and when it came through it was so poorly drafted that its meaning was that there had to be a ballot. It did not matter what the conclusion of the ballot was; there just had to be a ballot. There could be a ballot and the vote could be lost, but the union would still comply.

Anyway, going to the principles of the Act—

Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your reassurance that we are talking about clause 3, or am I mistaken?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are talking about clause 3. I indicated to a previous speaker to come back into line. The member in charge of the bill did some rebuttal, and that was acceptable. I have allowed some leeway. But we are on clause 3, and I do ask that we focus on that from now on.

CAROL BEAUMONT: Thank you very much. That is entirely what I was going to do, as I said when I stood up, I say to the whip opposite. Let us talk about the principal Act, shall we? Clause 3, of course, is “Principal Act amended”. I will make sure that I do a very thorough analysis of the principal Act for the whip opposite.

The principal Act that is being amended is the Employment Relations Act. It is very important legislation, because it was a fundamental shift from what was one of the worst pieces of legislation this country has seen. That legislation caused genuine grief and trouble, and led to a low-wage economy. It was, of course, the Employment Contracts Act.

The Employment Relations Act 2000, which is the principal Act this bill seeks to amend, is a substantial Act of Parliament. I thought I would just talk a little about the objects of that Act, then link to how this bill relates to those objects, I guess, and talk about the implications of those objects for this bill. The object of the Employment Relations Act, under section 3, is to “build productive employment relationships through the promotion of good faith in all aspects of the employment environment and of the employment relationship—”. That is done by certain things, such as “by recognising that employment relationships must be built not only on the implied mutual obligations of trust and confidence, but also on a legislative requirement for good faith behaviour;”. This is relevant to strikes, so I will link these two things together.

Let me finish by talking about the other objects of the principal Act that we are amending. Secondly, it achieves its object “by acknowledging and addressing the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships;”. I do not think that members on the other side of the Chamber quite grasp that: there is actually an inherent power imbalance in employment relationships.

Thirdly, the bill serves to promote collective bargaining. The strike question is absolutely linked to collective bargaining, because the right to strike under the Employment Relations Act is really constrained to two main areas. The first is around collective bargaining. When one is in the bargaining period, one has the legal right to strike under New Zealand law. The second main occasion when one has the legal right to strike in New Zealand is over a health and safety matter. The objects of the Act also include “protecting the integrity of individual choice”, which might be relevant. Members opposite might say that that is what this bill is about, so we will come back to that as well. Further objects are “promoting mediation as the primary problem-solving mechanism; and … reducing the need for judicial intervention;”. Those are very interesting, and I will come back to those.

The other main object is to “promote observance in New Zealand of the principles underlying International Labour Organisation Convention 87 on Freedom of Association, and Convention 98 on the Right to Organise and Bargain Collectively.” As I have said, strikes are related to the question of bargaining collectively.

Let us look at what those objects mean in relation to this bill, which serves to amend the principal Act, the Employment Relations Act. I know for a fact that the good-faith relationships that are referred to in the object of this Act apply in multiple ways. For example, a union has a good-faith relationship with its members, a union has a good-faith relationship with the employer, and so on. An employer has a good-faith relationship with employers’ organisations. It is kind of balanced; all parties have good-faith obligations to each other.

The reason I point that out is that unions do have a good-faith obligation to their members. For argument’s sake, let us say that a union official was to force a member to take strike action. I do not believe that that is actually possible, and I have been a union organiser myself, but let us say that it is possible. In fact, that member has the absolute right under the Employment Relations Act to say that their union is not acting in good faith towards them, because it was forcing them to do something they did not want to do. The member would actually have a legal remedy for breach of good faith. That exists already.

The other thing that is particularly interesting is the issue of reducing the need for judicial intervention. Because the Employment Relations Act is about relationships—the wording of the bill was quite deliberate—the idea was that the employment relationship would be based on good faith, and parties would try to deal with any problems at the lowest possible level. That was part of the underpinning basis of this legislation. That meant that the problem was ideally dealt with on the shop floor by having a conversation, and if it could not be sorted that way, both parties would go into mediation or get some assistance like that, as opposed to getting into a legal situation.

One of the real concerns that many of us had is that the bill that Tau Henare is putting up will actually give employers the right to take legal challenges against a union’s strike ballot. There have been some quite heavily contested collective bargaining situations in New Zealand’s history, where workers are well organised, they are in a union, and they are trying to improve their lot, but unfortunately the employer is not coming to the party. They are not making progress, and the workers decide to take strike action to put a bit of pressure on. That is one of the two main reasons, as I said earlier, that someone can legally take strike action in New Zealand. Under this legislation, they would conduct their ballot. Actually, as my colleague and friend Darien Fenton has said, that would be the case anyway because that is what unions already do. Under this legislation, they would conduct their ballot. This amendment bill will give the employer the right to then intervene and have a legal argument about whether that ballot was conducted correctly. We know—and this was drawn to the select committee’s attention; I am not making this up—that in a number of quite significant cases overseas that is precisely what has happened. Employers have used that sort of process to intervene judicially, to go through a very long and costly legal challenge around the strike ballot, and to actually undermine the workers’ ability to organise and collectively bargain. That is one of the genuine worries that people have about this bill.

The Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill amends the principal Act, the Employment Relations Act, but in my opinion it is fundamentally at odds with the objects of the Act it is amending. I do not know—I am no expert on these things—but it seems pretty odd to amend an Act in a way that is completely counter to the objects of that Act.

Just to reinforce that point, it explicitly says in section 3(a)(vi) of the principal Act, the Employment Relations Act, that the object of the Act is to reduce the need for judicial intervention. My contention is that this bill potentially undermines that section in the Employment Relations Act. Certainly it is unnecessary, given the provisions in section 3(a)(i) about employment relationships being based on good faith, and the requirement for a union to act in good faith towards its members. Arguably, and quite compellingly, there is a clear requirement on unions to have a democratic process by which to make a decision around taking strike action. Funnily enough, that is what they do. Anybody who is involved in employment relations will know that in collective bargaining when the issue of strike action comes up, there will be a secret ballot. So this bill is unnecessary.

I think it is very interesting that none of the members opposite—ACT or National—have thought about the other side of the equation. As I said, the Act itself is quite balanced. It puts these requirements on unions and workers but also on employers. Yet this bill fails to put any requirements on employers.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now put.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): Along with my colleagues, I rise to take a call on the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. As Carol Beaumont was saying just before me, the whole purpose of the bill is at odds with the principal Act. This bill amends the Employment Relations Act. For those of us who were union officials or workers in 1991, we remember the Employment Contracts Act and the havoc that caused. In fact, if I am really honest, it was the Employment Contracts Act that inspired me or drove me to become interested in politics and to stand for Parliament.

But I will go back to clause 3, because I know you would like me to do that, Mr Chairperson. It amends the principal Act. The very purpose of the change to the Employment Contracts Act—to change the name in itself—says a lot. It changed from a contract, which is a business deal effectively, into a relationship. Calling it the Employment Relations Act was actually recognising that that is what employment relationships are about. I keep saying “relationship”, but between employers and workers it is really important that it is based on a meaningful relationship where there is mutual trust, mutual respect, and fair treatment.

The very purpose of this amendment bill is to amend an Act based on relationships, where there is transparency and honesty, and to go instead to a Draconian, old-fashioned way—

Darien Fenton: Very old-fashioned.

LYNNE PILLAY: A very old-fashioned way of requiring—

Darien Fenton: No idea.

LYNNE PILLAY: —no idea whatsoever—a rather long, undulated process for doing what unions already do. It is also a costly process. The reality is that, frankly, workers on the rare time—well, it is not so rare now that the National Government is in—did go on strike, and union officials like me treated it very seriously. One is asking workers to cut a day’s, or whatever’s, pay. That is not something that any union official takes lightly in these harsh economic times. So of course there is a secret ballot.

This presumption from Tau Henare—who is actually, without being too mean about it, a little teensy bit of a bully—is that that is the way union officials operate as well.

Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence at that. He is not a little bit of a bully.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, look, the member whom that was a reflection against had the opportunity and he did not take it. But I did tell the member to come back. We are on clause 3. I would like her to focus the rest of the time on clause 3.

LYNNE PILLAY: Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually will focus on clause 3. I thought that was what I was really doing.

I was talking about amending the Employment Relations Act, which is based on relationships, and bringing in a Draconian, old-fashioned—I am sure that is acceptable to the member—way of dealing with the relationships. That is at odds with the principles of the Act. It is interesting because if we look at the amendments to the Employment Relations Act, I feel quite a bit of pride that the amendments that were made under Labour actually improved the Act—they improved it. Then we saw something like the “90-Day Fire at Will Act”, which was actually an amendment to the Employment Relations Act—am I right there?

Darien Fenton: Yes, it was.

LYNNE PILLAY: So I am still on track here. That amendment is at odds with the very principal Act that is being amended. That is my point.

I am very interested for the member who has put this bill before the House to take a call on this and perhaps reassure the Committee or try to convince us in some way or another just what it is all about. It just does not make sense. If the member is willing to take a call, I think we could go into much more detail about the Act that is being amended. Perhaps the member would like to take a call and explain what the Employment Relations Act means to him. Perhaps members on the other side of the House, instead of flippantly taking closure motions, will actually stand up and take a call.

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

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 Purpose

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is a very narrow debate.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Clause 4 is about the purpose of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just seek your advice on that. You said it was a narrow debate. Can I get an explanation about why it is a narrow debate, given that it is about the purpose?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, just look at it: it requires unions to hold a secret ballot of its members. You cannot talk about things other than what clause 4 says.

DARIEN FENTON: Thank you, Mr Chair, for that explanation. Let us talk about the purpose of the bill. I am happy to do that. The purpose of the bill is to require unions to hold a secret ballot of their members to approve a strike before undertaking any strike action. I want to understand why this purpose clause is necessary. What is the mischief that we are trying to cure? We heard from various parties in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that there was no mischief to cure, and that the bill crushes a gnat with an anvil. There is no problem.

The purpose clause apparently prevents union members from pressuring other union members into striking. Tau Henare said it came from his time as a union organiser in the 1980s. I do not want to keep repeating our allegations about his time in the 1980s, but he said he stood in front of workers before a “show of hands” vote with a presence that would have made them think twice about voting “no”. I say again that that was the 1980s. But is that really—

Lynne Pillay: That was Tau Henare.

DARIEN FENTON: That was Tau Henare too. Is that really a problem in 21st century New Zealand? Is it really a problem in 21st century New Zealand unions? The member in the chair, the Hon Tau Henare, talked about a miner’s wife. There was a press release from a miner’s wife. An anecdotal report, as I understand it, behind the purpose of this bill was that a West Coast miner’s wife was blasting the union because it failed to hold a secret ballot. But I also understand that the union involved was the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union. As a matter of interest, that is the union that represents the miners in mines like Pike River. Dreadful consequences have gone on there. If only there been a strike over health and safety in Pike River, we may not, perhaps, have had to have an amendment to the Act in which the member is saying that unions should hold a secret ballot for strikes.

I say on that point, though—if I may while we are talking about this—that I am pleased that during the select committee process the member did listen to the submissions where people talked about the restrictions the purpose would place on secret ballots for health and safety, and what a concern that was. I am pleased that he has taken that on board and that that has been included in the bill. The select committee said that that amendment was good.

But even if under this bill there had been no secret ballot, the member, under the purpose of this bill, would have had a valid complaint against the union. The union has it in its rules. Its rules, as do the rules of many unions, already require there to be a secret ballot. For example, the rules of my own union, the Service and Food Workers Union, say that any member can call for a secret ballot on anything—not just strike action but any action at all, whether it is election of officers, expenditure, or anything else—provided 10 percent of the members sign a petition. Many rules already cover what the purpose of this bill, which is in clause 4, purports to do, so there is no need to have this legislation. There is no need. No union organiser that I know in this day and age would attempt to organise a strike without a secret ballot.

I think clause 4 assumes that workers are really stupid and that they do not have a mind of their own. When workers go on strike we are talking about people walking off the job and forfeiting their salary or their wages for the day. That is a big call that they make. I think it is actually quite insulting to say in the 21st century that workers are so stupid and so pathetic that they cannot even stand up for themselves. We hear that from National members all the time, do we not? Is that not what we hear from the Minister of Labour? We hear that the Labour market is very flexible, that people know their rights, and so on. With clause 4, the purpose clause, this bill is imposing a 1980s solution in the 21st century.

We heard an interesting thing in the select committee, and I know it from my own experience. The only accusations that I can recall are of union organisers attempting to dissuade workers from going on strike. It is very ironical that it is one of the accusations that we hear. One of the things I think the member in the chair does not understand is how much things have changed. Unions in workplaces bring a kind of discipline that we did not see in the Hon Tau Henare’s time in the 1980s. It is different. Far from the situation where a union organiser goes out and says: “We should all go on strike. Pull the pin and let’s go.”, we often see union organisers meeting with the members and trying to work through the offer in a reasonable way, because it is mostly about collective bargaining. The biggest problem unions have is trying to persuade the odd disaffected member who wants to take a more militant approach.

Currently the Employment Relations Act does not require unions to hold secret ballots before striking, but this is the usual practice in most unions. As we heard in the select committee, most unions already have that practice in their rules. Requiring unions to hold a secret ballot vote is not unusual, but there are some practical difficulties with it. I think the biggest objection to the purpose clause is the imposition of a requirement of unions to hold secret ballots, when unions are democratic organisations. They have rules that are bound by the Employment Relations Act, and they have to demonstrate through the Employment Relations Act that those rules are democratic. They have a whole range of things.

The purpose of this bill would have been easily amended, easily fixed, and perhaps would have met the objectives of the member in the chair if we had simply said that every union must have rules for determining the process when there is going to be a strike or industrial action. A strike under the Employment Relations Act is much more than just stopping or withdrawing labour; it is often going slow or a whole range of things. There are a whole lot of different ways of taking strike action under the Employment Relations Act.

The other part about this purpose, of course, is that it picks on one side of the employment relationship; it completely ignores the other side of the employment relationship. The other part of the Employment Relations Act is that employers can lock out workers. They can make a decision to take industrial action. They can take industrial action and lock out workers. In fact, I have been involved in some of those lockouts. They are pretty vicious. But there is no corresponding duty under the purpose of this bill to require either employers or shareholders to ballot their members about imposing lockout action.

That is one of the amendments I am proposing. It seems fair enough to me. If we have to live with this, why should it not be an equal duty? Why should there not be a balanced approach to the purpose of this bill? If unions are required to hold secret ballots, shareholders should be required to hold secret ballots if they are proposing to lock out their workers. The consequences of a lockout are just as devastating as the consequences of a strike. As I said, unions take this very, very seriously. There have been some pretty vicious lockouts in recent times. There is no requirement on employers to take the views of their shareholders and investors into consideration. I think that is wrong, and I would like to see the purpose of this bill changed. If we are going to require secret ballots of workers, why not require secret ballots of shareholders to approve a lockout? It is a corresponding action.

We are talking about fairness and balance. I know that the Government likes to talk about balanced employment relationships. Let us do the right thing by changing this purpose clause. Thank you.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I also rise to speak on clause 4 of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. As has been mentioned, it states that “The purpose of this Act is to require unions”—just unions—“to hold a secret ballot vote of their members to approve a strike before undertaking any strike action.” I will come back to the question of members. One would think that the purpose of legislation should be something that is actually needed; that if we have a bill with a particular purpose, it is because there is a need for a bill to meet that purpose. Having listened to the submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I know that there was no evidence supplied that there was a need to require unions “to hold a secret ballot vote of their members to approve a strike before undertaking any strike action”, because they do that. They already do it. So why would anyone bring to Parliament a bill that has a purpose that is something that is already done? It seems nonsensical to me.

Furthermore, the purpose of this bill is already, in my opinion, well and truly covered off by the requirements of the principal Act, the Employment Relations Act, whereby that Act requires unions to operate in good faith to their members, and acting in good faith to their members must apply in the circumstance of something as serious as a strike, because, after all, a strike is something that is not entered into lightly. As my colleagues have said, workers lose money by taking strike action. That is not something anybody relishes. In the economic climate we have now, where workers and their families are struggling to make ends meet because of ever-rising prices and because of the actions of this Government, it would be even harder to do it, one would think, except that employers have certainly hardened up as well, so workers are trying to get improved income through collective bargaining. They are not making progress, so strikes have increased. None the less, it is a hard ask to take strike action.

There must be a ballot of the union’s members. That is what the purpose clause says. Of course, membership of unions is voluntary, so the other thing that makes me think the purpose is somewhat nonsensical is that in this strange, weird world that Mr Henare lives in, where union officials stand over workers to make them go on strike, those workers do not have to belong to that union. They can say: “I’m not going to be a member any more. I don’t like you. I’m going to stop being a member.” There is no requirement for workers to be members of unions. So, again, the purpose seems to be somewhat redundant. If there was a union official standing over a worker in the way that has been referred to, that worker could either take action under the good-faith provisions of, the Employment Relations Act, the principal Act, or leave the union and have nothing further to do with it. Why would someone want to belong to an organisation where somebody stands over them?

Those things make me think that the purpose outlined in clause 4 is completely redundant, unnecessary, and a waste of Parliament’s time. There are many, many other things in the Employment Relations Act that I can think of that it would be more worthwhile amending—but that is probably to go wider than clause 4, so I will not go there.

It interests me also—and my colleague Darien Fenton has talked about this—that it is quite narrow because it applies only to one party in the employment relationship. The principal Act, as I said earlier, talks about all of the parties. It talks about workers, their unions, employers, and their employer organisations. But this amendment to the Act has a purpose of dealing with only one of the parties in the employment relationship—actually two, the members and their union; I guess it is two. It does not deal with the other side of the coin. If some of the members opposite feel that this is about democracy, and making good decisions, and avoiding the possibility that people are making a decision that is not well-thought-through, then we wonder why they are not looking at requiring employers to take a secret ballot of their shareholders, for example, before they lock out their workers.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): I will probably repeat some of what has been said by other members, in the hope that the member in the chair, Tau Henare, will get it. As others have said, the purpose of requiring unions to hold a secret ballot when membership of the union is voluntary is in itself absolutely bizarre. As my colleague Carol Beaumont has said, if members do not like the outcome, then quite frankly they do not need to belong to the union. I think the member in the chair is going back, back, back in time to when union membership was compulsory. I would like him to take a call and explain to the Committee whether membership was compulsory or voluntary when he was a union official. He seems to have no comprehension at all about the secret ballot process.

If people do not feel compelled to take a strike vote, then they do not need to be members of the union. But, frankly, if they do not approve of the process, then they have the option of not withdrawing their labour. The very point of having a strike vote is that the members have to have faith in the democratic process, they have to have that sense of unity, and they have to think: “We are taking this step, which we treat very seriously, because we are withdrawing our labour and we are therefore not getting paid for the day.” Before they do that, they give it very careful consideration. If they do take that strike vote, then they need to know that it is transparent and that they are supported by their fellow union members. The whole point about this Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is that it contradicts itself in so many ways.

I think the member did indicate that he would take a call, and if that is the case—yes, I see a little smile, as though he is going to get to his feet next—he can enlighten the Committee on the points that have been raised. I think that is the respectful thing to do for members who are genuinely perplexed about what this bill intends to do.

As Carol Beaumont and Darien Fenton have said, if there is this Draconian approach—this is what the union has to do—then how will that be enforced? What will not be acceptable is some naughty employer saying: “Look, I want to sit in on your union meeting, because I want to make sure that those members there are having a secret ballot.” I am not saying that this is every employer by any stretch of the imagination, but I tell this Committee that if there is any intimidation or stand-over tactics, it is when bad employers, not good employers, try to interfere with the democratic process of unions.

I am worried, and I would like the member, when he addresses all the other issues that have been raised, to explain how this will be enforced. Who will police it? Who will make sure it is policed? There will be employers out there who think: “I had better go in and, in the interests of those workers, just make sure that it is a secret ballot.” If that member thinks it is not intimidating to have an employer sitting there when employees are discussing the terms and conditions in their collective agreement, then he is quite clearly dreaming.

I am looking at the submission from the Council of Trade Unions, and I compliment it on its very measured submission. Like us, the Council of Trade Unions does not fundamentally oppose the principle of a secret ballot. In fact, it supports it. But what it is saying is that on balance, if that is the case, then before the employer makes decisions like locking out workers, there should be a secret ballot. As Darien Fenton said, it seems a very, very unbalanced and unfair principle, which is exactly what I said before.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): I first came across the Hon Tau Henare in the late 1980s when he was an organiser with the Clerical Workers Union and I was an organiser with the Service and Food Workers Union. We jointly addressed—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s come a lot further than you.

PHIL TWYFORD: Does Mr Smith really think so? We jointly addressed a new group of union members at a rather flash Auckland hotel. I remember Mr Henare at the hotel, persuading these new workers of the benefits of the Clerical Workers Union and what a great redundancy agreement they would be entitled to if they joined the union. It strikes me as very unlikely that the Clerical Workers Union in the 1980s would have been the kind of union that bullied and bludgeoned its members into taking strike action. I invite the member to take a call, draw on his personal experiences in the 1980s, and tell us how the Clerical Workers Union bullied and bludgeoned its members into taking strike action. I find that very unlikely. But I am happy to be persuaded. I am happy to be contradicted on that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I just remind the member that we are actually in the 21st century, not the last century, so I ask him to focus on clause 4.

PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you. We are discussing the purpose of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, which is to require unions to hold a secret vote of their members to approve a strike before undertaking any strike action. My point is—I do have one, and it echoes comments that my colleagues have already made—that this bill is essentially a solution looking for a problem. It is a throwback. Looking at the purpose of the bill, it is clear that it is a throwback to a bygone era, a previous century, as you, Mr Chairperson, said yourself. I think that the political mentality of the member who brought this bill to the House reflects a view of industrial relations that was shaped in the Māngere Bridge dispute and in the BNZ dispute. It is from a bygone age. It no longer exists. The challenges of the 1970s and 1980s are no longer the challenges that face New Zealand workers and that face New Zealand firms and workplaces.

The bill requires unions to hold a secret ballot of their members to approve a strike, and I am completely baffled as to why the member thinks this is enough of a priority to bring a bill to this House, and to waste the time of this Parliament, the Parliament of New Zealand. Really, it is axe grinding on a huge scale. The member is basically trying to make an ideological point about industrial relations in this country. But no one—and, I suspect, not even the members on his side of the Chamber—has any particular enthusiasm or affection for this cause.

It reflects a one-sided and old-fashioned view of industrial relations that we should have left behind a long time ago in this country. It plays to some kind of cartoon stereotype of unions and employers in this country that no longer has any basis in reality. But it does tap into a deep anti-union sentiment that runs through some employers in this country. Some parts of the National Party and the right of politics in this country have made it their mission over the last 20 years to drive unions out of the economy and drive them out of New Zealand society. It is all there in the purpose clause.

The bill is completely oblivious to the real challenges facing New Zealand today. The real challenges are how we raise the productivity of our firms, how we increase the skill level of our workers, how we involve workers and tap into their creativity and ideas to actually improve the productivity and the innovation in New Zealand workplaces, and how we tackle the appalling levels of health and safety. These are the challenges that bedevil New Zealand firms, but this bill—

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

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I withdraw my amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 195 to insert clause 6A and table in its place my typescript amendment to insert new clause 4A.

New clause 4A When society entitled to be registered as union

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tau Henare be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

4A When society entitled to be registered as union

Section 14(1) is amended by inserting the following after paragraph (c):

“(ca) the society’s rules contain a provision relating to the process for holding a secret ballot for the purposes of the Act; and”.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C.

New clause 4A agreed to.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I seek leave of the Committee to reconsider clause 2 to replace the reference in subclause (1AA) to clause 6A with a reference to clause 4A.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We require a little bit more of an explanation behind that proposed amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sure, I can explain that to you. What has happened is that new clause 4A has just been passed, which we have just voted on. What happened is that when clause 2 was debated and passed earlier on—not today but at a previous sitting of the Committee—a mistake was made. What happens now is that the member is seeking leave to reconsider clause 2. If you give leave for this to happen, you can vote for or against clause 2 again. It is up for reconsideration. The member is seeking leave of the Committee to reconsider clause 2 to replace the reference in clause (1AA) to clause 6A with a reference to clause 4A, which we have just passed. So he is seeking leave to do that. Do you follow that? I just make the point that a mistake was made at a previous sitting of the Committee of the whole House. This corrects that, but you have the opportunity to vote for the leave. We still come back to clause 2 again, to reconsider it, so you have the opportunity to vote for or against it. I am putting the leave. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

New clause 5A Requirement for society’s rules to include secret ballots for strikes

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am speaking to my proposed amendment to insert new clause 5A, which deals with the issue about when a society, under the Employment Relations Act, is entitled to be registered as a union. We went into this in some detail in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We explored the issue, as I referred to in my earlier speech, of how the objective of the member the Hon Tau Henare could be reached by simply requiring an amendment to the Employment Relations Act that would say that union rules must have “a requirement that a secret ballot of its members who are employed by the same or different employers … and who would become a party to the strike be held before any strike is undertaken.” This is a very, very simple approach to it. It meets, as I said, the objective of the member, as stated in his speeches, in the things he said on the introduction of the bill, and in the things he said in the select committee, of requiring that unions hold a secret ballot. It does meet that objective.

What the Committee may not understand is that under the existing Employment Relations Act unions do have to be registered. They are incorporated societies, but, even so, they have to be registered as a union. This came in with the Employment Relations Act 2000; before that they were just incorporated societies. So, first of all, they have to have a whole set of rules that are not unreasonable, are democratic, are not unfairly discriminatory or unfairly prejudicial, and are not contrary to law. An important part of section 14 is that the society is independent of, and is constituted and operates at arm’s length from, any employer. As I said, section 14, which this new clause 5A amends, was inserted in the Employment Relations Act 2000 when the Act came into being. The Government has been in power now for nearly 3 years, and it has not sought to change it.

We have had a lot of lectures tonight about democracy and freedom of association. Interestingly, what section 14 does is require unions to be democratic and have rules, but it does not require incorporations to have a similar, matching set of rules. So there is a higher test on unions under the Act than on employers, and that is very interesting. However, unions have accepted that. I know for a fact how it works, because, as members know, I am a former union leader. I know what it requires. If unions want to change their rules, they have to have meetings of members—annual general meetings. In my union I used to have 53 meetings to try to provide an opportunity for every employee, for every union member throughout the country. We took it very, very seriously. Although a statutory declaration of a union is required, the Registrar of Unions can check the rules of the union. A high test came in with the Employment Relations Act in 2000 whereby unions have to meet these requirements.

My amendment to introduce new clause 5A simply adds to that by saying that one of the things that must be in a union’s rules is a process for determining a secret ballot. It is a very democratic process. Rather than imposing it with a really heavy-handed approach, as the member’s bill does, it simply says the members of the union, who pay their fees, who are entitled to come along to meetings to determine these things, must vote to determine what the process will be should there be strike action. As I have already said, and as my colleagues have said, most unions already have rules like this, actually. This is not a new thing. But my amendment would mean that the objectives of the member in the chair, Tau Henare, were met, by ensuring that there were provisions in a union’s rules, which it is required to follow.

As Carol Beaumont has said, under the good-faith provisions of the Act unions are required to follow the rules in good faith. There is a good-faith relationship between union members and their unions, and it can be enforced, as well. Union members have remedies, should the union not act in good faith. If we look at the Employment Relations Act, as Carol Beaumont said, we see that good-faith relationships are required between employers and employees, between unions and employers, but also between unions and their union members. So the union’s rules can be enforced if the union acts in bad faith and does not follow the rules. Union members have other remedies, as well, under the Act.

The new clause 5A is a compromise amendment. Tau Henare may think he might get some votes in Te Atatū from his bill—he is holding up that nasty little blue leaflet he has got there—but I do not think it will win many votes for him. This is a very reasonable and fair amendment. I am very disappointed. We put it up at the select committee, and I was very disappointed that the member did not accept it. I genuinely tried to reach out to the member, to find out what he was trying to fix—what the mischief was that he was trying to fix. I genuinely tried to help him find a solution to what he thought was a problem.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Too nice.

DARIEN FENTON: I know; I am very, very nice. But I accepted it. The member has been around a long time, and I accepted it in good faith.

Hon Member: What did he do?

DARIEN FENTON: Well, he rejected it. This amendment was put to the select committee, and he rejected it. He voted it down. The National members voted it down. It was put up as a compromise. We sought advice from the officials.

This amendment is a very easy way of fixing this issue. It will not be easy for unions, because they will still have to go through a process of changing their rules. They will still have to go to their members, who will vote on it, but it stops all the other bureaucratic and compliance nonsense that this bill imposes not only on unions but also on employers, because employers will now be checking up on this. There is a cost there. It is a silly thing. My amendment is an easy way out of the dilemma, and I think Labour is being extremely reasonable in this proposed amendment. I am not sure how unions feel about it; I have talked to them a little about it.

Lynne Pillay: You’ve taken a punt.

DARIEN FENTON: I have taken a punt. I know that unions will have to do some work, and it will cost them money, because they will have to have meetings, change the rules, and that sort of thing. But it is a fair way out of the mischief that the member seeks to solve. Union rules, under my amendment, will have to have a process for conducting a secret ballot if there is to be a strike of members. As I have said, for lots of unions there will not be a problem, because they already have a process in their rules, but it is a very, very simple way out of a problem. It gets past the “hammer to crack a tiny little nut” approach that the member’s bill takes, and it achieves the purpose of the bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.