Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Unemployment and Availability of Jobs—Prime Minister’s Statements

1. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his recent statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement at the Job Summit 3 years ago this week that “I don’t want to spend much time talking about how difficult economic conditions are at the moment. … I’m here to do something about it.”, and is he aware that there are now 53,000 more unemployed in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not entirely sure I would say that 3 years ago is recent, because Labour has gone through about three leaders since then. But anyway, putting all that to one side, the country has gone through, like the rest of the world—

Hon David Cunliffe: I can’t count the three.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One never knows when another one is coming along. It is like a bus: you know, you just wait there long enough and they turn up. Look at Mr Cunliffe; he is just waiting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Paula Bennett: He’s laughing.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the Minister getting short-sighted? She knows I am on my feet, and there will be silence.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will be aware that the world has gone through the worst recession since the global Depression. I think if you look at the New Zealand economy, it has grown in nine of the last 10 quarters and has an anticipated faster growth rate than the UK, the European Union, and the United States. I am not saying things are perfect in New Zealand, but I would argue that we are in a lot better shape than most other countries.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I accept that part of the first part of the answer was provocative and was bound to lead to interjections. But where the Leader of the Opposition is asking serious questions, I would ask his own colleagues to be a little reasonable on the interjections.

David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that “There are plenty of jobs out there for people if they look really hard.”, and are there plenty of jobs for Carolin Jentzsch, with two bachelor’s degrees and a master’s in speech therapy, who says “It seems like this is just not the year for getting jobs, and I am looking everywhere, all over New Zealand, and there is just nothing there.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I stand by my full statement, which I actually read out in the House yesterday and which was quite comprehensive. I also stand by the statement I also made in the House yesterday that if one looks at the ANZ jobs report, there are currently 30,000 jobs being advertised. I think TradeMe has over 10,000 jobs being advertised. If one looks at Work and Income, there are about 1,300 to 1,500 vacancies a week being advertised. There are around 3,500 on the books at any one time, and 80,000 people went off the benefit into work last year.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Churn!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: And I tell you what, it is no wonder Trevor Mallard has got a loud voice, because when you are trying to scalp tickets, you want to make sure people know where you are.

David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that “…I for one would rather invest your taxes in jobs for our young people than in unemployment benefits.” when there has been a sevenfold increase in youth on long-term unemployment benefits since he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first thing I think we need to acknowledge is when there is a global recession, those that are most—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Prime Minister, but I presume the questions from the Leader of the Opposition are serious, and his own senior colleagues should respect their leader.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I have said before, if one looks at a global recession, what one recognises is that those who are most disproportionately affected are always lower-skilled and younger people. That has been the same pattern here in New Zealand over the last 3 or 4 years. It is also true in every other developed country around the world. It is also true the Government has been working very hard on making sure those young people have training and skills. The very purpose of the changes that we are making in our welfare reforms is to target those 16- and 17-year-olds I assume the member was talking about, to wrap a provider round them to make sure they are in training or in some sort of opportunity to get into work, so they do not go on a benefit. I would have thought that the member would want to come over to this side of the House and actually congratulate us on doing something about it.

David Shearer: When he made his statement: “our Government campaigned on a Jobs and Growth plan for New Zealand.” did he consult his finance Minister, whose opinion of the job market is that it is what it is?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have consulted the Minister of Finance, and while I was consulting him I also thanked him for his economic leadership, where in nine of the last 10 quarters this country’s economy grew, and where 62,000 people had jobs created for them in the last 2 years. Actually, the Minister of Finance is right. What creates jobs in this country is when the right incentives are there to invest, when people think that they can make a return, and when they feel that the Government is not going to overload them with costs and regulation. Quite frankly, that has been the ethos of this Government: unwinding the mess we inherited after 9 years of Labour.

David Shearer: Does he stand by this statement that he expects high standards from his Ministers and he will take action if necessary, and why has he not insisted on high standards from Minister McCully, who is laying off 300 of his ministry’s staff while at the same time building a swimming pool in one of his embassies?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are a couple of things. Firstly, the member should know that staffing responsibilities are a matter for the chief executive. It is not a matter for the Minister; it is a matter for the chief executive. Secondly, I can assure the member, as I can assure New Zealanders, that the Minister has made it quite clear to the chief executive that his expectations are that in this time when the ministry is going through restructuring, spending should take place in areas of capital investment only where it is absolutely necessary, like in Beijing, where there is some work going on. That edict was delivered by the Minister, I understand, quite some months ago.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does that mean that Minister McCully will not be going to the Budget round with Treasury on this year’s budget, and that he will send the chief of his staff along in his stead?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I am not sure how the member did it when he was the Minister, but I am sure the Minister will turn up with his chief executive.

Budget 2012—Focus

2. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: What will be the main focus of Budget 2012?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Budget 2012 will be delivered on Thursday, 24 May. It will focus on implementing the Government’s clear and comprehensive plan to build a more competitive economy. Within that plan the Government’s main priorities are responsibly managing the Government’s finances, building a more competitive economy, delivering better public services, and rebuilding Christchurch.

Simon Bridges: Why is it important to responsibly manage the Government’s finances?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. This time I say to a very senior member on my left that I wonder whether she is getting short-sighted, because she could see me on my feet while she kept interjecting, and it is not good enough.

Simon Bridges: Do I need to ask it again?

Hon Members: Yes, yes, yes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. We have had enough fun for today, and there will be silence while I am on my feet and that includes the member who sought to play that prank. The member has asked his question, and the Minister of Finance will answer. I just want some reasonableness in interjections so he can hear the Minister.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is important because we are spending more than we earn. Between 2000 and 2009 total core Crown expenditure jumped by 85 percent, from $35 billion to $64 billion up to 2009. Excluding earthquake costs it will rise another $7.4 billion to over $70 billion by 2012. We have made it clear that that kind of rate of increase, faster than the increase in revenue, cannot continue for ever, and that is why we are tightening up on spending to get back to surplus by 2014-15 and stop our ever-rising public debt from rising.

Simon Bridges: How will the Government build a more productive and competitive economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, a competitive and productive economy is primarily built by businesses and organisations that invest and employ, that invest in capital and create jobs. It is our job to set the policy framework, such as sound incentives in the tax system, Government agencies that pull their own weight in increasing productivity in this economy, changing our regulatory environment so it helps businesses make decisions to employ another person, and reducing their costs where we can. For instance, from 1 April ACC levies on employers and the self-employed will drop by 22 percent, reducing costs to businesses by around a quarter of a billion dollars, because we are running the scheme more competently than the mess left by the last Labour Government.

Hon David Parker: Will his Budget show that under his Government’s policy settings New Zealand’s international debt deteriorates, with a growing current account deficit funded by more overseas borrowing and the sale of New Zealand assets to foreigners?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget will show, as our previous Budgets have, that that is exactly what we inherited and despite the difficult conditions we are wrestling with it successfully.

Simon Bridges: What progress is the Government making through its economic plan?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Just a couple of indicators: the economy has grown in nine of the last 10 quarters, and our forecasts for growth, while moderate, are better than for most of the developed world; and, secondly, we are beginning to make progress in getting on top of our deficit. Last year it was the largest ever and we expect by 2014-15 we will be in surplus.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that earlier this year, on the issue of questions, you raised the difficulty for Ministers answering if questions were, for example, couched as question No. 1 is. Accordingly, I drafted a question to the Prime Minister so that I would not offend your ruling, only to have it flicked to the Minister of Finance. I am not asking for the Minister of Finance’s views. I want to know, amongst the numerous statements the Prime Minister has made—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has been in this House as long as I have and he knows that it is absolutely the prerogative of the Government as to which Minister is to answer a question, so long as the question is not shifted away from a Minister who could be the only person who could possibly hold the information that is being sought. This question asks: “Does he believe it is his responsibility, if it is his intention to sell strategic assets, to obtain the best possible price; if not, why not?”. There is no reason why the Minister of Finance cannot answer that question, and that is why it is perfectly in order. The member may now ask his question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that is the case, then one is forced to resort to framing a question like question No. 1; otherwise, getting the Prime Minister to answer—and bear in mind he never turns up here on Thursday to answer questions; just 2 days a week he wants to be involved in democracy—if we are going to have that—[Interruption] Well, look at the record. Look at the last 2 years’ record.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not going to have debate by way of point of order. That sort of thing went out of this place some years ago, and we are not going to have that. [Interruption] Order! There will not be comment. Look, it has been for years the Government’s prerogative which Minister answers questions laid down. It is within members’ wit to draft questions to make sure they cannot be transferred from the Prime Minister, but where questions are such that the Standing Orders allow them to be transferred, that is the Government’s prerogative. The member may ask his question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although I do not totally agree with the tone of the member’s comments, I think it is a matter that could well be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. I think he has highlighted a point. You have given us very good advice that when we are asking questions to the Prime Minister we try to give an indication of the area on which we are interested in following the Prime Minister’s views through. The problem we are facing is that every time we give an indication that it is an area that the Prime Minister would prefer not to answer, the question is transferred.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member was doing fine until that point. Expressing a view about why questions are transferred is not consistent with a point of order. Members must have short memories if they are not aware that this matter has been a practice in this House for years—that questions are transferred often from the Prime Minister to other Ministers. There is nothing new about this. What the member says is perfectly right and proper: if members want to review the Standing Orders covering the asking of questions, it is perfectly proper for the Standing Orders Committee to consider that. That is right and proper. But for today the question is down to the Minister of Finance, and I want the right honourable member to ask his question.

State-owned Assets, Sales—Valuation

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): To the Minister of Finance, does he believe it is his responsibility, if it is his intention to sell strategic assets, to obtain the best possible—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. The question I want to ask is whether, when this question was first put down, “his responsibility” were the words—when it was to the Prime Minister. If so, transferring it to the Minister has taken it away from being the Prime Minister’s responsibility—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Look, we are not going to debate this matter any further. The way the question was transferred is totally consistent with the Standing Orders. It is a matter, if the members are concerned about that, for the Standing Orders Committee. We will not debate it further by way of point of order today.

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe it is his responsibility, if it is his intention to sell strategic assets, to obtain the best possible price; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): If the member is referring to the Government’s proposed sale of a minority share in State-owned enterprises, then it is our responsibility to get the best price subject to the Government’s intentions for those sales, which include that the Government will retain at least a 51 percent ownership, and that Kiwi investors will be at the front of the queue, with an expectation that 85 to 90 percent of the companies will remain in New Zealand hands, and no one will be able to own more than 10 percent of the shares.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, does he now stand by his comment of 16 February on State assets’ values that—to quote him—“It’s just a guess.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As has been explained, for the purposes of putting some numbers in the Budget Policy Statement Treasury chose a midpoint in the range of $5 billion to $7 billion, which is about as much certainty as we can provide at this time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, why is the Minister of Finance ignoring the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit’s report on these assets, all of which are up for sale, where it has an assessment of $7.6 billion at 49 percent, way above his $5 billion to $7 billion?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a couple of different valuations that are available. One is the boards’ valuations and the other is independent commercial valuation. I think the difference in the numbers that the member is looking at is that the board of Solid Energy has a considerably higher valuation for Solid Energy than the independent commercial valuation. Apart from that, they are fairly similar, and, of course, those valuation issues would need to be resolved before the Crown sold any shares.

Mr SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is this the member that wanted to sell Kiwibank?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sell what?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Kiwibank.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to oblige by your ruling, but if Mr Smith here, who is famous for giving—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member—[Interruption] Order! Look, there will be silence from elsewhere in the House, and the right honourable gentleman will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! I do not want that sort of carry-on. Unlike in previous Parliaments, it is now possible for members to interject while questions are being asked. It is unwise, though, if they do not wish those interjections to be picked up on, and it is unhelpful to the order of the House. I would appreciate the member, though, just asking his question; he does not need to respond to some of those unnecessary interjections.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the value of Mighty River Power is in the order of $3.8 billion, will the Minister of Finance undertake to this House that if National sells Mighty River Power, it will do so for the expert-assessed value, not at a discount price its mates can afford?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member means by “our mates” Kiwi mums and dads, the 2 million New Zealanders who are in KiwiSaver, then of course we want to make sure that they get reasonable value out of a share sale—because they are who will mostly be buying them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister of Finance understand that the so-called mates called Kiwi mums and dads already own those assets; or is he plainly in la-la land on this issue, given that Treasury, his department, has advised him that within 10 years they will be in foreign ownership?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That has not been the advice from Treasury. And in respect of the evaluation, the member is raising a reasonable question, and that is that at some point closer to the sale of these shares, the Crown will need to come to a view about what value it expects would be a fair value for the shares. We are not at that point yet, but it is likely to be somewhere around, in the case of Mighty River Power, what he is suggesting. There are other views that it might be worth quite a bit more than the current book value, because of low interest rates around the world. We have yet to see.

Rt Hon John Key: Has he seen any reports dated 2008 of a political party wanting to have the mixed-ownership model applying to Kiwibank; if so, which political party was it?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The very obvious response to that inappropriate question is that that Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat, right now. [Interruption] Order! Just because a member in the House does not like a question being asked—the question is in order. It relates to strategic assets and the sale of strategic assets. The right honourable Prime Minister asked whether the Minister had received certain reports. The Hon Bill English is to answer it.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If I was not sure which political party it was when the Prime Minister asked that question, I am now. I think it was New Zealand First that advocated the mixed-ownership model for Kiwibank in the 2008 election.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is patently obvious that he has received—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. If the member does that again, he will be leaving the House, because that is not a point of order. Points of order relate to the proceedings of this House, not to whether that member happens to like or dislike an answer or anything said in this House. That does not provide grounds for a point of order to be raised and the business of this House interrupted. I am deadly serious. The member will cease that abuse of that point of order process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: It had better be a different point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: There have been countless rulings that say that the Minister is not responsible for another party’s statements or policies—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now starting to dispute my ruling, and if he is not careful he will be leaving the House.

Welfare Reforms—Effect on Sole Parents

4. HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she agree with the comment in today’s New Zealand Herald that she is stripping away the rights of beneficiaries that she herself had as a sole parent; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I think it is important that we hear the entire statement, which said “Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has defended herself against claims she is a hypocrite for stripping away the rights of beneficiaries that she herself had as a sole parent.” It is that member, of course, who made the statement, and I totally reject it. Maybe he should look in his own backyard.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was advised by the Clerk of the House that the word “hypocrite” was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. If a member chooses to use the word in relation to themselves, that is their business. What is not in order in this House is to accuse another member of hypocrisy or being a hypocrite. But if a member chooses to use it in relation to themselves, that is their right.

Hone Harawira: Point taken; thank you very much. Does the Minister accept that being on the domestic purposes benefit, getting a student allowance, having a Housing Corporation house, and getting a Housing Corporation loan when she was a young mum, while overseeing the cancellation of those same benefits to other young mums now that she is Minister, are reasons why beneficiaries think she is being duplicitous, or does she think that comments like “I pretty much fell apart because I was exhausted. I went back on the DPB” should apply only to her, and not to any other young mum?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I must say that I am kind of surprised that the member advocates for us to go back to the early 1990s. To be clear, there was nothing like what we have as far as the support that there is now for beneficiaries. For example, the Government now pays around $2.7 billion in Working for Families entitlements, compared with about $1.1 billion for the equivalent payments in 1999—and this is more than double. So there is more support going to beneficiaries right now. I think that member needs to look at the fact that he puts them down so much, and thinks they are so worthless that they are not worth jobs and that they are not worth the level of support that this side of the House is putting around those very people.

Hone Harawira: When the Minister talks about young mums going out to look for jobs, does she think young mums should be allowed to go to the front of the queue of the 150,000 people who are already unemployed, or does she think that the young mums should be made to wait until the 150,000 get jobs first, and can she please tell us where the jobs are for the 150,000 who are already unemployed, so that young mums can then get in line for the next jobs?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member could look in his own patch, actually. I have a newspaper article here about the forestry industry that is saying they cannot get enough workers, because of the drug taking that is going on, and some of those workers are not stepping up and do not actually want the jobs. I was in Kawakawa just a few weeks ago, when I heard about someone who had 19 jobs and could not fill them. Two young women had gone into a job in hospitality in his own patch. Within 3 days their boyfriends came along and told them they did not want to see them working, because they did not want to see them getting ahead of themselves. We are going to back those young women. We are going to back them into work and try to get them off benefits. That member may not think that they are worth it, but we do.

Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry—Job Cuts

5. Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he support proposals to make redundant 63 people in policy and diplomatic positions within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; if so, why?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade change document released to staff on 23 February proposes a structure with 63 fewer diplomatic and policy positions than currently exist. Given the 16 vacancies that currently exist in these roles, the proposals would mean 47 fewer actual diplomatic and policy people. That needs to be seen against the background of the 114 new diplomatic positions created under the so-called step change process in 2008. In a press release I issued immediately following the distribution of the document, I described the changes as a genuine attempt to create a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that can meet New Zealand’s current and future needs. A 1-month period in which staff will be consulted is now under way. My press release of 23 February emphasised the need for the consultation to be open and genuine.

Hon Phil Goff: When he is prepared to see 63 people working hard in the interests of their country sacked, why is he also prepared to see $903,000 of taxpayers’ money being spent on building a luxury swimming pool at the New Zealand embassy in Tokyo?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The suggestion that the ministry will spend large sums of money on swimming pools while diplomats’ jobs are on the line is ridiculous. The story floated by that member on Television One last night was a complete beat-up. The document that I understand to be in question was an engineer’s recommendation of what should be spent, and it was distributed to those who might tender for the property outsourcing work, should such outsourcing proceed. There is no proposal to spend the money at the moment. Can I further assure the member that early in January of this year, when it became clear to me that some jobs in the ministry were on the line, I asked to see the chief executive and I told him that I thought that all non-essential capital expenditure should cease if there was to be discussion about staff positions going. Two days later I received his confirmation that such steps had been taken to ensure that non-essential capital expenditure had ceased.

Hon Phil Goff: If there was no such proposal, what were the construction engineers bidding for?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The document, as I understand it, that the member refers to was one of a large number of documents—a very large number of documents—provided in the context of a full disclosure of the ministry’s property interests. Over time, as the member will know, the ministry does contract engineers and other professionals to carry out survey work and recommend expenditure proposals. It is over to the ministry to decide how to configure its budgets, and in this case it will do so after receiving clear advice from me as to what is appropriate in the context of the staffing restructuring discussions.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the ministry now preparing to spend $1.33 million on refurbishing the residence in Niue for former backbencher Mark Blumsky, who has been politically appointed as high commissioner, and why would you spend that much money in a very small country of 1,100 people while at the same time you are getting ready to sack 63 core staff members in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who have worked hard for their country?

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is not doing either of those things, but—

Hon Phil Goff: Why would the member? You would never have done those things, Mr Speaker.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Can I confirm, as the member has suggested, that there was indeed a recommendation to spend over $1 million refurbishing the residence in Niue occupied by High Commissioner Blumsky. This matter was drawn to my attention by High Commissioner Blumsky, who told me it was barking mad. I agreed with that assessment, and told the chief executive that for that sort of reason there should be no non-essential capital works in an environment in which staffing losses were under discussion.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Minister tell the House that the $155 million in capital spend that is being proposed will not go ahead at that level, including the $2.5 million refurbishing of the residence of the High Commissioner in London?

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Are you sure you wish me to proceed, Mr Speaker? I can confirm that, having received a general instruction from me that it would be inappropriate to conduct major capital works of a non-essential kind in an environment where there was a discussion about staffing losses, the ministry came back to me asking for an exemption from that general rule for three or four specified types of capital works. To the best of my knowledge, London did not feature on that list.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Minister think that New Zealanders suffering traumatic experiences overseas, such as the three young women hospitalised in Bangkok, would prefer to have an 0800 number to direct New Zealand consular assistance in those circumstances, rather than projects such as the examples I have used, or, indeed, the Minister’s own $75,000 air force flight for the day to Vanuatu when he could have got there commercially for $4,000?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: On the last point, I want to confirm that I could not have made that trip commercially. On the earlier point made by the member, can I say this: the question as to whether consular services should be outsourced, and, if so, to what extent, is a perfectly valid question for discussion. I believe it is important that New Zealanders who are caught in distressed circumstances abroad are able to have their needs dealt with efficiently. I think that there will be some very difficult questions that need to be answered before there are significant changes in the consular process. What I would say, though, is that the ministry makes the point to me that a significant number—indeed, the majority—of calls that come in on the current system, are routine in nature and need to be diverted to other arms of State. It is not unreasonable that they should have a mechanism for working that drafting process, but I agree with the member that any steps we take forward in this area need to be looked at very carefully, because New Zealanders are entitled to expect a good service in that regard.

Welfare Reforms—Obligations and Incentives

6. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Social Development: How do the Government’s recently announced welfare reforms balance obligations with incentives?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): As part of our welfare reforms we are introducing greater work preparation and work availability obligations, alongside incentives for beneficiaries to get into work. For sole parents we are introducing a benefit run-on payment. This is for those who find employment before their work obligations require them to. Their benefit will be reduced by $100 per week until it is gone, and it recognises the fact that it can be quite difficult to go from being on a benefit to getting paid—gaps between those wages coming in and that sort of thing—in recognition of them going out there and getting that job.

Scott Simpson: What support will be available, given the Welfare Working Group’s recommendation that we address “incentives for parents to have additional children while on welfare”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Under the new reforms, the Government will provide financial assistance for women, especially those aged 16 to 18 with dependent children, to access contraception, particularly for those who choose to use the long-acting, reversible contraception. This will cover the cost of attending medical appointments so that cost is not a barrier for women choosing that option. The assistance will be available to women on a benefit with or without children.

Scott Simpson: Will sole parents be penalised for not finding work or getting a job?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let us be clear: if a person is looking and applying for work but is not successful, they will not be penalised. These reforms are about requiring beneficiaries to get work-ready. This is a fundamental shift to policy settings to focus on greater obligations and incentives in a modern, active welfare system. We are requiring beneficiaries to be available and looking for work, but I repeat: if they cannot find a job, they will not be penalised.

Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that despite boasting this week that 13,000 people came off the domestic purposes benefit since Future Focus was introduced, 14,465 have gone on to the domestic purposes benefit, making the figures worse than when she started?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What it is is a moving. So you have people moving in and moving off all of the time. That is kind of what happens with the benefit system. So the member might like to actually recognise and acknowledge that most of that percentage increase has actually been those with the Care of Sick or Infirm benefit, so not just for children, or for children who actually need extra assistance and have that and are not work-tested at all.

Oil and Gas Extraction—Hydraulic Fracturing

7. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement that he is “not aware of any reason to justify a moratorium” on fracking in New Zealand?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes.

Gareth Hughes: Are moratoriums on fracking in France, South Africa, Bulgaria, and states in Australia, Canada, and the United States a reason to consider a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I am aware that there are four or five jurisdictions that do have a moratorium. There are many hundreds that do not, including New Zealand.

Gareth Hughes: Are Selwyn District Council, Christchurch City Council, and Kaikōura District Council all wrong to have voted to call on the Government to enact an immediate moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: No fracking has occurred in Selwyn, or in Christchurch, or in Canterbury. No fracking is currently occurring in Selwyn, in Christchurch, or in wider Canterbury, and no fracking is planned to occur in Selwyn, or Christchurch, or Canterbury. It appears there is a natural moratorium.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not whether fracking was happening in those districts—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the member’s question very clearly and he asked whether these councils were wrong. So he asked the Minister an opinion. The Minister gave his opinion in response to the question, and where a member seeks an opinion like that there is no particular answer.

Gareth Hughes: Is the Minister aware of numerous peer-reviewed scientific reports such as by Professor Vengosh, currently in New Zealand, of drinking-water contamination by modern fracking practices, and is this a reason to justify a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Of the few international scientists saying that fracking is of significant concern, there are hundreds who are saying that it is not. But I actually take my advice from officials and from the Taranaki Regional Council. They are very experienced in this technology in the New Zealand context and they say that there are no environmental effects from fracking that has occurred in New Zealand for the last two decades. Furthermore, the technology is getting better and better.

Gareth Hughes: Is this Shell Todd Oil Services and Taranaki Regional Council report from 2011 that found discharge of fracking fluids in Taranaki that resulted in groundwater contamination that was unsuitable for drinking water, stock use, and irrigation a reason to justify a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The Taranaki Regional Council asked Hill Laboratories recently to do water-quality tests on areas that were alleged to have been affected by fracking. The tests came back. The report is on my desk. It says that there is no contamination. Landowners were concerned there might be, but it seems there was not. You might also be interested to know that the Taranaki Regional Council has got scientific evidence now from over 1,000 seismic events in Taranaki that shows that earthquakes are not related to fracking practice, anyway. The fact of the matter is that the science says that in the New Zealand context, done properly, fracking should not be of concern.

Gareth Hughes: Regarding that report and those wells also outlined in the Shield Petroleum and Taranaki Regional Council report that found that over 2007 to 2009 fracking fluid leakage happened at those two well sites that breached the consents, and that we saw in the Kapuni wells, where we saw that benzene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and naphthalenes all exceeded Ministry for the Environment acceptable criteria for drinking water, are those two cases justification for a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I do not consider that is a justification for a moratorium on fracking. It might interest the member to know that fracking is being used in both petroleum and geothermal energy resource use in New Zealand. Geothermal is something that the member supports. I would hate him to close the door—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: —on renewable geothermal—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat now. That was not what the questioner asked, and the Minister saw me on my feet and kept getting out what he wanted to get out. Question time is about answering questions, not about making statements the Minister may wish to make. If the questioner is foolish enough to ask a broad question then, OK, Ministers can often get out a statement they want to make, but that question was pretty specific, and I think I let the Minister go on long enough. But I do not want to see that happen again.

Gareth Hughes: Will it take a major groundwater contamination and Kiwis getting sick before he puts a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The member may promote scare tactics. The reality is that in the New Zealand context over the last two decades there have not been environmental incidents. Fracking is used in geothermal renewable generation. He should be very careful. If he rails against fracking, he rails against renewable geothermal in this country, which also employs thousands of New Zealanders.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Have Māori tribal nations on the East Coast been consulted, specifically about the possible practice of fracking in their waters; if not, why not, and what will the nature of the consultation process be?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I am advised that it is not proposed to do fracking in the waters off the coast where the member indicated. He may be interested to know that fracking is actually very, very expensive on land. On sea it is almost prohibitive, it is so costly. It is rarely done internationally and it has not been done in our waters nationally, as far as I know.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table three papers. The first is a peer-reviewed study by Professor Avner Vengosh and others from the National Academy of Sciences that outlines methane contamination of drinking water in 85 percent of fracking water samples in the US.

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.

Gareth Hughes: The second document is a US Department of Environmental Protection report outlining over 60 cases of water contamination in fugitive methane migration resulting from fracking in Pennsylvania.

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.

Gareth Hughes: Lastly, I seek leave to table the Shell Todd Oil Services Ltd Maui and Kapuni Production Stations Monitoring Programmes Annual Report 2009-10, which outlines contamination of benzine, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and naphthalenes from the fracking pits.

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 Dr Nick Smith: How does the Minister reconcile those that propose 100,000 green jobs from the development of geothermal energy, which involves fracking, with those same parties wanting a ban on fracking?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not see how the Minister is responsible for other parties’ views on those matters.

Export Sector—Performance

8. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister for Economic Development: What reports has he received demonstrating New Zealand’s improved export performance?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I have received the 5-yearly Census of International Trade in Services and Royalties. It shows exports in commercial services have increased to $4 billion in 2011, which is an increase in 60 percent over the last 5 years, and there has been significant diversification away from traditional tourism services towards computer services, management fees, and royalties. This is good news for New Zealand, as these sorts of service exports are less affected by the distance from markets, which has always been one of the challenges in the past for New Zealand, relative to other countries. It comes on top of recent news that New Zealand’s merchandise trade grew nearly 10 percent in the last calendar year, and these are all signs of the strengthening export growth story.

Mark Mitchell: What reports has he received showing that this export-led growth will continue?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have received the HSBC report The World in 2050. According to HSBC economists, New Zealand is first amongst all developed countries in terms of its export-led growth potential, with GDP growth forecast to average 3.4 percent over the 10-year period to 2020. This is an encouraging projection, ahead of others like Australia at 2.4 percent, Canada at 2.3 percent, and the UK at 1.6 percent. New Zealand’s strong outlook is attributed by these economists to the Government’s focus on exports, investment in technology infrastructure like ultra-fast broadband, and New Zealand’s strong performance in education and skills training.

Hon David Cunliffe: By how many billions of dollars is his own Government projecting the current account deficit to worsen over the next 4 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The pre-election update last year forecast the current account deficit to widen by about just under $5 billion over the next 4 years. The main reason for that, apart from export prices coming off their record highs, is the Canterbury rebuild, which is forecast to increase import payments. But I think that just underscores the requirement to get stronger export growth.

Mark Mitchell: How important is export-led growth to boosting jobs and incomes in New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Very important. As a small trading nation, New Zealand’s economic growth strongly relies on our ability to trade successfully with the rest of the world. Growing exports boost our incomes relative to other countries’, increasing our standard of living and making New Zealand a more attractive place to live and bring up a family in. New Zealand cannot become prosperous by trading with itself. New Zealand’s exports as a share of GDP sit at around 30 percent, in comparison with around 40 percent to 55 percent in similar-sized countries overseas. That is why this Government has made it a priority to reverse the unbalanced concentration of growth in the non-tradable sectors by ensuring that businesses have access to the necessary skills, capital, resources, infrastructure, capital markets, and export markets needed to build a stronger economy.

Education, Ministry—Confidence

9. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Education: Does she have confidence in her Ministry?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: When was she notified that a convicted sex offender had breached bail conditions and had been working in schools with young children?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: On Friday.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: When were parents notified that person A, a convicted sex offender, was before the courts in Auckland?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Due to the court-imposed suppression order, which was not varied until late on Friday, the two affected schools were notified on Monday.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I seek leave to table a letter circulated to parents late—very late—on Monday, 27 February, detailing the arrest of a former teacher for breaching bail conditions but with no mention of the nature of the previous convictions.

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 Nanaia Mahuta: Why did it take her ministry some days to properly communicate—fully communicate—with parents the risk—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the member please get on with her supplementary question.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Why did it take the Minister some time to properly and fully communicate with parents the risk that their children faced, and should they have to find out on the 6 o’clock news?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I just explained, the court suppression order of all details related to person A was not varied until late on Friday, after the school community had left. The letter was prepared with the detail that we were allowed to give under the suppression order on Monday, and went home—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, what happened to Saturday and Sunday?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —with students at the end of school. Perhaps if the member was really interested in the idea, he would show me the courtesy of listening. They went home at 3 o’clock on Monday afternoon.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I seek leave to table a letter from a parent, which was sent to me on 28 February, claiming that the Minister knew of this offence last week, yet as late as last night no support or counselling services had been offered to children and parents where person A—

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

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

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What immediate support from Monday, 27 February was offered to children, parents, and staff; and did she ensure personally that that support was actually delivered?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The traumatic incident teams made available by the Ministry of Education were available to the school from Monday.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I seek leave to table a document circulated as late as today at 11.31 a.m. offering support advice to parents, for them to administer themselves, from the ministry and Child, Youth and Family.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table—sorry, the source of that document was?

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: An email.

Mr SPEAKER: An email from?

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: A concerned parent.

Mr SPEAKER: An email from a concerned parent. 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.

Child Poverty, Abuse, and Neglect—Green Paper for Vulnerable Children

ALFRED NGARO (National): To the Minister of Social Development, can she enlighten us with what response—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should ask the question as it appears on the Order Paper.

10. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What response has she had to the Government’s Green Paper for Vulnerable Children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I would like to inform the House that we have received over 8,470 submissions from members of the public, some of them big organisations representing a big membership. I understand that this is a significantly high number of submissions for such a process, and I want to thank every person who has made a submission.

Alfred Ngaro: What has been the response from some of the public meetings held around New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There have been over 130 community meetings up and down New Zealand. These have been right across the board, with child protection and support agencies, parents, teachers, doctors, and even children themselves. I know that the member himself held a number of meetings all throughout last week especially with men’s groups, focusing on how fathers can play their part in this process, and my thanks go to him for his contribution.

Alfred Ngaro: What have been some of the main things New Zealanders have been saying in their submissions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would be fair to say that there has been quite a range of views that have come forward, but when you do read the submissions, there is a certain number of themes that come in. Many were around information sharing and how it happens from agency to agency, and also with our communities and community agencies; changes to the Privacy Act, with some suggestions that it apply to young people aged 16 and under; mandatory reporting has certainly been topical; tagging mothers and children, and whether or not that should go through the health system; and compulsory well child checks—amongst many things.

Prisoners, Transgender—Chief Ombudsman’s Report

11. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she agree with the finding of the Chief Ombudsman that “transgender prisoners are particularly vulnerable to abuse and/or sexual assault”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): Yes to verbal abuse, as are many prisoners, but no to sexual assault. All prisoners are assessed for safety and security on a case by case basis. I am advised that only five out of our 8,500 prisoners identify as transgender, and the Department of Corrections believes that all prisoners should be treated with decency and humanity, in safe and secure environments that acknowledge their gender identification.

Jan Logie: In light of the Ombudsman’s report that says “abuse (of transgender prisoners) goes unrecorded in male prisons”, what actions will she take to ensure transgender prisoners’ safety?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My understanding is that the Ombudsman spoke to only one transgender prisoner, and I am advised that there is no evidence of widespread sexual assault.

Hon Maryan Street: What assurances can the Minister give that transgender inmates are protected from harm in prison, and that their physical and mental health needs are promptly and appropriately addressed?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I can assure that member that the Department of Corrections is fully aware of the duty of care that it has to all prisoners, and continues to make improvements. The department does deliver a pretty good health service to prisoners, which, indeed, the Ombudsman did acknowledge in the report.

Jan Logie: Will she consider changing the Department of Corrections regulation that requires full gender reassignment surgery before a trans person can be placed in a prison aligned to their gender, especially given that the Human Rights Commission inquiry into transgender discrimination found that only a small minority of trans people complete such surgery?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, but the department will continue to assess the needs of prisoners on a case by case basis, and common sense is also important. A man who is transgender but pre-surgery is still a man, and to move him to a women’s prison would raise a number of safety issues. By the same token, we cannot move a female prisoner into a male prison. But I am satisfied that the department is focusing on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending, which will ensure that fewer prisoners, transgender or otherwise, end up back in prison.

Jan Logie: What level of sexual assaults on trans people needs to occur before the Minister acts to ensure their safety in prison?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said earlier, there is no evidence that there is widespread sexual assault.

NZ On Air Board—Potential Conflicts of Interest

12. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he stand by his primary answer to Oral Question No 11 on Wednesday, 15 February 2012?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: Yes.

Clare Curran: Has he or his office received an email dated 18 January with an attached report from the chair of the New Zealand On Air board, Neil Walter, entitled “This story seems to have taken on a life of its own”, which devotes several paragraphs to addressing conflict of interest matters of “one particular member of the board”?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, the Minister has received that email, but I think we would have to be quite clear that it is an email that is more about how New Zealand On Air was dealing with inquiries from the media on that issue. That is an article that it was circulating.

Clare Curran: Has he or his office received correspondence from Sussan Turner, the Chief Executive Officer of MediaWorks, dated 19 January that reads: “I am conscious that this NZOA Air Child Poverty doco issue has political nuances and so if there is anything you would like from us on this topic please feel free to give me a call to mobile … We have taken a “no comment” position on it and are maintaining that but of course if there are any aspects you would like to discuss I am happy to talk them through with you.”?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, he did, and he sent that email to the member some days ago.

Clare Curran: Has he or his office received correspondence from the New Zealand On Air board chair, Neil Walter, dated 23 January 2012, advising him that the board does not intend to take any further action on the scheduling of programmes in a pre-election period, following legal advice, and advising the Minister that he was “discussing with Stephen McElrea how best to refute some of the wilder accusations made against him”, and noting that “The general question of political appointments is getting more attention now”?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, and that was an email that Minister Foss sent to the Labour Party.

Clare Curran: Is he still satisfied that Stephen McElrea has acted appropriately in his role as a New Zealand On Air board member at all times?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Minister has confidence in the chair and the arrangements in respect of New Zealand On Air, and he has confidence in Mr McElrea.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table four documents released under the Official Information Act. The first is an email dated 18 January 2011 at 4.40 p.m.—

Mr SPEAKER: Just before the member goes through all these documents, can I check: have these been released publicly, or just to the member? I think it is important that we do understand.

Hon TONY RYALL: If I could assist. An Official Information Act request came from the Leader of the Opposition to Mr Foss. He has responded, and has sent that information to the Labour Party, and I presume Labour is seeking to table the information—

Mr SPEAKER: That is fine. I thank the Minister.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table four documents. The first is an email dated 18 January 2011 at 4.40 p.m., sent from the chair of the New Zealand On Air board to a number of recipients, including the Minister’s office, with an attachment document entitled “This story seems to have taken on a life of its own” by Mr Neil Walter.

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.

Clare Curran: The second is an email response dated 18 January at 5 p.m., from the Minister’s office to the chair of the New Zealand On Air board, saying “thanks for passing this on.”

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.

Clare Curran: The third document is an email dated 19 January from the Hon Craig Foss to a number of recipients, thanking the Chief Executive Officer of MediaWorks, Sussan Turner, for a document she has sent to him.

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

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

Clare Curran: The fourth document is an email entitled “NZ On Air”, dated 23 January, sent from the chair of New Zealand On Air to a number of recipients, including the Minister’s office, providing an update on the board’s intentions with regard to the “firestorm”, and outlining his discussions with Stephen McElrea on refuting the allegations.

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.

Point of Order—Ministerial Responsibility, Phrasing of Questions

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. It relates to the Prime Minister’s supplementary question on question No. 3 and the Hon Nick Smith’s supplementary question on question No. 7. I do not want a ruling today, but I perceive that there was a different logic that was applied to question No. 7 than was applied to my objection to the supplementary question in question No. 3, and I invite you to re-examine the Hansard and see whether we are correct or not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think I need to do that, because I recollect both questions reasonably clearly. The right honourable Prime Minister’s question was cleverly crafted to ask the Minister whether he had received any reports on a certain matter. The supplementary question from the Hon Dr Nick Smith was not crafted so carefully and did not fall within the Standing Orders. The one from the right honourable Prime Minister did, the one from the Hon Dr Nick Smith did not, and that is the difference. Ministers can be asked about whether or not they have received reports on certain things, but they cannot be asked directly about matters relating to other parties. That is the difference.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This National Government believes that we can, and we must, support people off welfare and into work. We have heard from the left and from the Opposition members, who do not believe in them enough to actually back them into work but would rather keep them down—keep them down. “Let’s not believe in beneficiaries and their ability to get off welfare and into work and to get ahead. Let’s keep them down—particularly, let’s keep down the women.” That is what we constantly hear from those members: keep them on the domestic purposes benefit, keep them dependent on welfare intergenerationally, and do nothing about it but hand-wring and scaremonger—scaremonger, I say. Who is the beneficiary basher? It is those who simply wring their hands in despair, who think that the answers to the questions are too hard, and who are ill-prepared to step in and actually have an active system that works for people and that supports them to recognise what they can do instead of what they cannot.

Let us be quite clear: at the moment we spend 90 percent of our spend in employment assistance on just 10 percent of our long-term liability—on those on the unemployment benefit. So we spend pretty much nothing, or a minimal amount, on those who are on the domestic purposes benefit, the sickness benefit, or the invalids benefit. So even when they, as you say, do want to get into work and do want that extra support, how the system has been under the previous Government is that we did not give them that support. This is fundamentally going to change the system so that they get the support that they need so that they can get ahead.

It quite amuses me that the honourable member would like to go back to the early 1990s. I have heard the cries of how it was back in my day. It does quite amuse me, and I give due respect to those members in my own party who were around in the early 1990s, but it would be fair to say that I have never heard a great reflection on that time in terms of welfare reform from Opposition members or from the left. They do not normally brag about how great it was in the early 1990s for beneficiaries—

Hon Member: They are now.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —but they are now. Now we are constantly hearing how great it was in the early 1990s, when I was on a benefit, and that we should go back to that time. So instead of a time like now, when we spend more than $1.2 billion more just on family tax credit support for those who are on benefits, at a time when actually our expenditure on childcare assistance just for those on benefits—

Moana Mackey: You got the TIA, then you cut it for every other young mum.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Listen up, you might learn something. The childcare assistance for those who are on benefits has more than tripled. It has more than tripled. Yes, let us give it some actual numbers. In 1999—let us go for that year—there was $50 million actually, in support; now there is $188 million per annum. That is where that support has gone, and we think it should be more. This side of the House actually thinks we should be paying more for those who are disadvantaged, for those who are struggling to get in there, and that is what these reforms are all about. I am not going to join the negative ninnies from over on the left who believe that keeping people down, that actually not backing them into work, and that looking at what they cannot do instead of at what they can is the way forward.

Quite frankly, the work that was done in the 2000s has led to ongoing dependence on the welfare system. It has seen 29 percent of those who are currently on benefits having subsequent children while they are there. We need to give them that sort of support. If we are serious about getting those women, in particular, out of hardship, there is a better way to do it than what we saw back in the 2000s. We saw sickness benefits going up by more than 18,000 when there were jobs supposedly there. We hear constantly about all these jobs that were there and the unemployment rate in the mid-2000s. In fact, the number on the invalids benefit went up by over 50 percent, and the number on the sickness benefit went up by just under 50 percent, when all these supposed jobs were miraculously there and had been created by the Labour Government.

What happened when things got a bit wobbly out there? What happened when we had the effects of a global recession? It was those very people whom they had not actually educated at school who fell out of this system.

DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition): Talk is cheap, and that is all it is—it is just talk—because when you look at the figures of what that Minister has been talking about, there are 60,000 more jobless—60,000—and 82,000 more are on benefits. The domestic purposes benefit is up. That is the reality of what this Minister is talking about. But do you know something else? A lot of this is just simply a smokescreen this week. All of these reheated, cobbled-together welfare changes that have been touted around the country are just a smokescreen. I will tell you what they are a smokescreen for. It is about the economy and where people think the economy should be going. They are worried about what is happening with their assets. They are worried about what is happening to their power companies.

Last year the Prime Minister told us that those power companies were going to be sold off for $10 billion. This year it was $6.5 billion, then it was $6 billion, and now you have the Minister of Finance saying that it is a guess, and not even a best guess at that. We are selling off our assets, and the country knows this. The country is aware of this. We are selling off our best-performing assets at sale prices to overseas investors. They are returning dividends—

Hon Member: That’s not true, David.

DAVID SHEARER: They are returning dividends, they are efficiently run—very efficiently run—and the only way the overseas buyers will get more money out of these assets is by hiking up power prices. We know that, and New Zealanders know that, and that is why the party over there is so nervous about talking about asset prices and wants to bring up welfare. Well, it might work, but underneath it all people are worried about that.

And if that is not bad enough, let us talk about the Crafar farms, because the country does not want this Government to sell off our best-performing land to overseas owners. That is what it does not want the Government to do—

Hon Chester Borrows: Why did you sell so much?

DAVID SHEARER: You can interrupt all you like, “Mr Crocker”, but I can tell you this—I can tell you this. You go and ask people what they want, and I will tell you they do not want our land sold off to foreigners when there is no value for New Zealanders in this—no value for New Zealanders. New Zealanders are the best farmers in the world, and we are selling off our land—our land—to people who do not know how to farm. The worst thing about this is we are putting Landcorp up, our own State-owned asset, to help these overseas interests, Shanghai Pengxin, to get across the line. That is what the Government is doing. It is putting up our Landcorp, our State-owned enterprise company, to help farm these farms in order for this deal to go through. That is absolute nonsense, and the Government knows it and the country can see right through it.

And if that is not enough, we are about to sell off our legislation, to allow pokie machines to be increased in the convention centre in Auckland, so that Skycity can build a convention centre. Nothing is sacred. Everything in this country is up for sale: our assets, our power companies, our farmland, and now our legislation. We are prepared to sell off legislation, to enable Skycity to be able to have more pokie machines in order to build a convention centre. And that is an absolute disgrace. The Government is selling off all of our assets in order to be able to tell this country that we are moving to a brighter future. Well, you do not sell your way to a brighter future. You do not sell your way to a brighter future; you develop your economy; you put together an economic plan. But there is no economic plan here. This is about short-term interventions in order to be able to get across the line. Putting up welfare policies in this week, when the real issue is about selling our assets, does not fool anybody.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): The Leader of the Opposition, the current leader, has just sat down, and he has talked about how you cannot sell your way to a better future. But I think you can work your way to a better future, and that is why I am so proud of the Hon Paula Bennett and the work that she has done in the welfare policy area to actually encourage—particularly young—beneficiaries into work.

In fact, what I have seen from Labour over the last 10 years I have been in this House is a constant drain—what we are talking about is “low-grade, demeaning work”, to quote the Hon Ruth Dyson. She was talking about people who work at McDonald’s, and she was talking about people who work as cleaners—in fact, the very people who actually help keep this country running. And she referred to them as doing low-grade, demeaning work. That is what Labour thinks about it.

But the Hon Paula Bennett says she has got some faith in teen parents, she has got some faith in young people, and she has got some faith in beneficiaries that they want to be able to experience what she was able to experience, actually. She was able to get ahead, to get her qualifications, and to work very hard. Sometimes she would have a setback but she would come back again. That is what happens in the real world.

What I heard yesterday in the House was Metiria Turei, a co-leader in the Greens, referring to women abandoning their children when they went to work. This is the same woman who talked to the New Zealand Woman’s Weekly where she said: “My daughter saved me.”, and good on her. In fact, she went on to talk about how as a solo parent she found the energy and the drive to go to university and get a law degree. I think most of us would say: “That’s a fantastic achievement. Well done, her!” So why was she not abandoning her child when the rest of us, who are working mothers, were apparently abandoning our children when we went back to work? Frankly, that is the sort of level of personal abuse that the Hon Paula Bennett has had to put up with. And I think we will mention Hone Harawira and the abuse in the New Zealand Herald today.

Hon Member: Who? Who’s he?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, people do wonder who he is. Well, actually Paula Bennett has had the courage to do what no other Minister of Social Development has done in our lifetime, and that is to actually have enough faith in young people, particularly sole parents, to say to them: “I know you can do better. I’m going to help you do better.” This is not about punishing parents, this is not about being difficult with parents; it is actually about giving them some choices, some options, some ability to get ahead. Because frankly the alternative is a life of poverty, in a State house, nothing to leave for their children—

Hon David Cunliffe: Where are the jobs?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And the Hon David Cunliffe says: “Where are the jobs?”. Well, actually there are an awful lot of jobs out there, Mr Cunliffe and I suggest he just listens to what Minister Bennett said today in the House about the thousands and thousands of jobs. And he might be looking for a job, but I can tell him there is probably one on SEEK right now. He could do that now. But the fact is that people will not get jobs without the education and without the work ethic.

Hon David Cunliffe: They can’t all be stupid and lazy.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Cunliffe says they are all stupid and lazy. Well, I am sorry; I do not agree with that at all. I, in fact, think that we should have faith in people, and where they need education and training, why can they not have it?

Hon Annette King: Does caring for children count as a job?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, and Annette King says caring for children is not a job.

Hon Annette King: No, I said it is a job.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is a job, she says. Yes, it is. But do you know what, Mrs King? Actually, if a mother wants to go out to work and get an income and get ahead, why should she not? I bet that member did. Why is it that one can do it only if one is married and not a solo parent? Why is that? Why is it that we want to leave these women in poverty all their lives so that they can be abused by people? Why is that? I do not think that is fair and nor does Minister Bennett, and I agree with her.

We should not condemn people to lives of poverty because we want to sit back in our middle-class worlds and tell them how to run their lives. Well, Minister Bennett has got more faith in beneficiaries than that member ever did when she was the Minister. [Interruption] That is exactly true. Why is it that she has got so little faith, and why is it that the Labour Party has moved so far away from wanting to get people into work and a life out of poverty? Why is that? Do you know why it is? It is because it does not want them to have choices. Well, frankly, I think we should have more faith. I am very proud of what Minister Bennett has done, and I congratulate her. I wish that member over there had had the opportunity to take that courageous decision.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Yesterday at the Australian Senate in Canberra, I was present at the launch of the Australian International Parliamentarians for West Papua, hosted by the Australian Green Senator Richard Di Natale. Also present were Green, Labor, and Liberal members of the Australian Senate, and a number of West Papuan leaders-in-exile. We were also pleased to welcome the international lawyers for West Papua, represented by Jennifer Robinson—who, coincidentally, is the lawyer for the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange—and the Vanuatu MP Ralph Regenvanu.

The Acting Foreign Minister for Labor in the Australian Parliament opposed the participation of the Labor members coming to our launch, but some of them came anyway. This was interesting in itself. Why was there an issue, and why would anyone want to stop the participation of MPs on an issue of this regional importance? If New Zealand citizens wish to raise a flag within this nation, whether it is the tino rangatiratanga flag or the All Blacks flag, no one gets locked up. If a citizen in West Papua raises the flag—the “Morning Star” flag it is called—they face 15 years in prison. Since 1969 these people have lived under a level of oppression that no one should have to accept, and the New Zealand and Australian Governments have been largely silent. Right now in a country just north of Australia, the Indonesian military enforces these laws, and tortures and murders citizens. Right now, five West Papuan leaders are in prison for daring to hold a meeting in a soccer field—because they were not allowed a building—to discuss self-determination issues; self-determination being the right of citizens to choose their own governance. The Jayapura Five face trial in an environment that is neither safe nor just.

The New Zealand Green Party in conjunction with the other international parliamentarians are calling for regional solidarity and support for West Papua. We wish to see things happen immediately, like about the Red Cross, which was expelled from West Papua. Which other country in this region has the Red Cross been expelled from, and yet our Governments turn their backs? For the recognition of these people’s Melanesian status at the Pacific Islands Forum, which other Melanesian country is kept out of the forum by Governments such as ours? For journalist access, in which other country are no international journalists allowed across the border, and why are we colluding with this?

New Zealand has military ties with Indonesia. These include bilateral training and symbolic recognition of what is happening in West Papua. What the parliamentarians internationally and in this House who are friends of West Papua are calling for is a recognition that there needs to be peace, there needs to be justice, and there need to be human rights. We have a proud tradition in this House of standing up for our more vulnerable neighbours in these issues. Without the New Zealand Government I have been assured by many Pacific people that Bougainville could not have been negotiated—and that was a National Government. It was very important that we led with our role in supporting East Timor after the holocaust in East Timor for its citizens. Yet, we are still silent, still colluding, over the issue of West Papua.

The people of West Papua who are refugees, and who attended the meeting in Canberra yesterday, are asking for us to take a constructive role in the region and calling for a peaceful dialogue with Indonesia. It is not about attacking an important neighbour like Indonesia. It is not about denying the relationship. It is about saying to Indonesia: “Yes, democracy is developing positively in your country, but something is happening in a dark corner that you are not prepared to talk about, and we want to help you talk about it.” The land of the “Morning Star” is victim not only to human rights abuses but also to illegal logging. When I came into this House and put forward a bill to stop the loopholes for the products of illegal logging, it was voted down immediately by the Government, and yet this is part of the blood on the barbecue; this is part of what happens when we allow kwila, which is illegally logged by the military in West Papua, to be brought into our country.

We are also implicated through the Freeport-McMoRan mine. If you have never heard the word “Freeport-McMoRan”, go and google it, and have a look on the map at these vast, huge, open-cast pits that have been dug in what they call the “head of the mother”. The land of the “Morning Star” is the one place where you cannot raise a flag, and it is the one place where people are being tortured and killed. My plea to this House is that all of us, across parties, act responsibly in support of the freedom and justice and human rights of West Papua.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable Minister, I just want to mention to the House that the Standing Orders have been amended to discourage the reading of speeches. I did not interrupt the honourable member for, essentially, reading a speech to the House, because this is the first general debate, but general debates—of all debates—should not necessitate members to read speeches, unless it is something particularly technical that a member wishes to be covering. That was not a particularly technical speech, because the member was present at the occasion she was talking about. I did not, out of courtesy, interrupt the member, but I will in the future, because I want to hear debate in this House, not speeches read in this House, especially in the general debate.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): Those pioneers of the welfare State would never have envisaged the benefit system that New Zealand has today. They would have turned in their graves to see healthy 16 and 17-year-olds starting a decade on the dole. Working-age people keen to get into work is what we need in this country, and that is basically what the Dominion Post editorial says today. I want to commend the Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, for the brave announcements that she has made, because she is tackling head-on a major problem for New Zealand society. One in eight working-age people are on a benefit. This country cannot sustain that. It needs a clear signal, and the signal that this Government has sent is the right one.

As the Dominion Post says today, we are restoring that social contract. We have to have incentives to work, and that is what this Government is determined to do. It is no good having 220,000 New Zealand children being brought up in benefit-dependent households, and it is very disappointing to see that the Labour Party is sticking to the same old tired philosophy of trying to buy votes through supporting greater and greater welfare payments. It is not the way that this country is going to get ahead. It is not the way.

What we have heard today from David Shearer, unfortunately, is once again a whole lot of descriptive guff, but there is nothing in there about what he is going to do or how he is going to do it. If you want to know how this man is struggling as leader of the Labour Party, just go online and listen to his interview with Larry Williams on Friday afternoon. That shows a man who really is struggling in that role. It is like in medicine. You get an inexperienced surgeon and an inexperienced anaesthetist operating together, and people die. What you have got here is a very inexperienced leader coupled with a totally inexperienced chief of staff, and it is falling apart, because, quite frankly, when things start going wrong there is no one in charge over there.

But the one person who is very happy is the man who is doing the Kevin Rudd impression over there: Phil Goff. Phil Goff is not going away. He is counting the numbers. He knows that the time will come when all those people over there on the Labour benches get very tired of being hammered week after week, and get very tired of being embarrassed by their new leader, by his inability to land any punches on the Prime Minister, and by the bumbling and stumbling. The other guy who is very happy is David Cunliffe, because he can see the opportunity coming as well. I mean, first it is a beard. What next, a ponytail? But anyway, a leadership challenge is in the offing. Meanwhile Chris Hipkins sees the long game turning up for him.

So it is total disarray over there. But really they are fundamentally misaligned with the way the New Zealand population is. What they wanted to do was extend the in-work tax credit under Working for Families to beneficiaries—totally out of line with what the New Zealand people wanted. They wanted to further disincentivise work. They were going to say “Actually, well, you don’t need to worry about working; go on a benefit, and you’ll actually get all the benefits through Working for Families anyway.” But the New Zealand public saw through that. They knew that that was not the way to get ahead.

So fundamentally the Labour Party, when it comes to welfare, is totally off the planet on this stuff. Paula Bennett is the best Minister for Social Development that this country has ever had—brave decisions, which are going to fundamentally realign the system. These people can laugh, but they are going to be there for a heck of a long time. They will be there until the day that they realise that this Government’s policies are actually right. Annette King and Phil Goff are listening very carefully, because actually they know it is the truth. They know that the rudderless direction of the Labour Party at the moment is not going to take it anywhere.

Meanwhile, we are getting on with doing what the New Zealand people want us to do: managing the economy, rebuilding Christchurch, and putting in the incentives to work. That is the way that this country is going to get ahead. The people have a lot of confidence in John Key—in the fantastic leadership we are having from the Prime Minister. In the face of difficult fiscal challenges and a difficult environment, we have had the leadership that is putting New Zealand on the right path. They say there are no jobs; the ANZ Job Ads review for January showed 30,000 jobs available. There were 62,000 jobs created in the last year. So fundamentally, on welfare the left has lost the argument.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I do believe in work ahead of welfare.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Well, go and do some.

Hon PHIL GOFF: But I want to tell you—I want to tell that member—something. When there were 150 jobs advertised in my electorate at the New World supermarket, 3,500 people queued up for those jobs. You know, if you want to get people off welfare, you do two things. First of all, you make sure there are jobs to go to. And there are fewer jobs in New Zealand today than when that Government held its Job Summit. The second thing you do is make sure that people have the skills to go into the jobs. And you do not give people the skills by cutting back apprenticeships, like this Government has, or cutting back the financial ability of people to get those skills, like the Minister for Social Development did. She cut back the very scheme that gave her the chance to get skills and get a job.

I want to talk about foreign affairs now. Which one of Mr McCully’s three stories do you believe? Do you believe the story yesterday, where he said publicly no, it was not $900,000 to build a swimming pool; it was ¥900,000? That would have been NZ$15,000. So the first story was that they were doing the pool, but it was only costing $15,000. The second story was the story he said on TV last night: they were doing the pool, but he said he would be asking the embassy whether it was really needed. Then we got the third story this afternoon: there was never going to be a pool; some misguided engineer went out and did a whole lot of work bidding for a proposal that the ministry had never made. You know what that is? That is BS. That is just wrong. There was a proposal; I have got the tender sheet. And the engineers that were bidding for that were bidding for it because the ministry said that job was available.

I ask the Minister this: when he is laying off one in four of his workforce, why are we building swimming pools for $900,000 in Tokyo? Why is the Minister taking a plane ride at a cost to us as taxpayers of $75,000 because he preferred to go by Air Force jet, rather than paying $756, which is the return fare to Vanuatu if he had gone commercially?

Michael Woodhouse: He’s making the numbers up.

Hon PHIL GOFF: No, it is quite true. Ring the travel agency. It will show you that the Minister could have done the trip for $756, or a little bit more if he went via Australia. It is no wonder that the hard-working people—they are losing their jobs. These people have gone out. I was their Minister for 9 years. I have watched their competence, their commitment, and their sheer dedication and hard work. And he is telling one in four of them that they are down the road.

It does not stop there, Mr Speaker. You were once Minister for International Trade. Do you know what happens now to someone who accepts an assignment, maybe in Geneva, for the World Trade Organization? They give up their job security. They have to relinquish their position with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They go on a 3-year posting, and when they get back they can apply for a new job. But if they do not get it, they go into what is called a surge pool—a surge pool. What image does that engender? It is like being thrown into a washing machine. They go round and round and round in that for a little while, and if they cannot find a job then, they are down the road. I ask you, what young, talented person would take up a job with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade today, when they have absolutely no job security? What young person with a family would go on a posting to an expensive place to live and get their kids educated in, when they have to pay for that themselves, or a certain percentage of it?

What this Minister is doing is destroying one of the best ministries that this country has: the people who go out and work in the interests of New Zealanders, pushing the trade, pushing for security issues, and doing the consular assistance. What will New Zealanders think when they or their family are in trouble overseas—they are in hospital; they desperately need help—and Minister McCully says “Here’s an 0800 number. If you’re lucky, they’ll speak English.”? They expect consular assistance. I expect that for me; you expect it, Mr Speaker; we expect it for our kids. If they get into trouble overseas, one of the fundamental responsibilities of any Government is to be there to help its citizens in trouble, and this Minister is contemplating doing away with that assistance. That is wrong—that is fundamentally wrong. They did a survey of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff recently. They showed that more people, in what was once our proudest ministry, had become “disengaged” than in any other Government department. What was our finest-performing ministry is demoralised and disillusioned, and this Minister is the person who is destroying it.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Social Development): I am pleased to follow the Hon Phil Goff, who has just resumed his seat. By now, having listened to the wannabe and the guy who got the job, some of those members on the other side will be shaking their heads, wondering whether they can have the vote again tomorrow.

I am proud to be part of a Government that believes, like other New Zealanders, that people who can work should work. It is an ethic that has kept New Zealand great for a long time and will continue well on into the future. Getting off welfare and getting into work means a better life—a better life for the individual concerned, and a better life for their family.

I want to speak about the independent youth benefit and the new terms of that particular benefit. This country under this Government cares enough to intervene in those young lives. Previous to this, those young people on the independent youth benefit, about 2,500 of them, were given the money and they walked away. They were given the money and the country walked away from them. Now, under this Government, we are saying this. A card will be given to those young people so that they can go on to purchase the food and other requirements that they need for daily life. Their rent will be paid for them and their power will be paid for them, and they will have some small amount of discretionary money that they can spend according to their own will. But most of all and best of all, they will be given a budget mentor to help them and walk alongside them, to make sure they learn the lessons that many of us learnt when we were young from our parents because our parents were there and our parents cared enough to show us the way we should go. And that is the way it should be.

Similarly, then, for those young mothers, about 6,500 of them, who are under 20 and solo parents; they will be given the same assistance. They will be given a card that they can buy good food with—not takeaway food, not alcohol, not tobacco. They will have a small amount of discretionary spending up to a maximum of $50. But the rest of the money will be available for them on a card to use as they need to meet their requirements in clothing, food, and other necessities. Again, a budget mentor will be placed with them to encourage them to attend schooling, to attend classes, training, parenting courses, and so forth. As we saw on a television item last night, they are getting up to an extra $30 a week for attending those courses, for turning up, and in this way we are helping them through. It seems ridiculous to me that in a world where 3 or 4 years ago we put a spaceship on Mars we neglect our young people who are the most vulnerable in our community, and I am proud to be part of a Government that cares enough to intervene in people’s lives to that degree.

We are similarly encouraging solo parents to be work-ready for part-time work at the stage that their children reach 5, and to be work-ready for full-time work when their youngest child is 14. What we normally hear from the other side of the House—strangely silent at the moment—is “There are no jobs! There are no jobs!”. Well, I would just like to relate to the House an email I got yesterday from a man from a labour company operating out of Palmerston North. He said they put about 80 people into work placements every day of the week. He said they constantly ring workers asking them to come into work, and they constantly either cannot get them on the phone—so if they are not on the phone, they are not work-ready—or they get responses like: “I’m sorry but I don’t like doing that job.” They have no tolerance towards drugs. They screen for police records—do Ministry of Justice checks—and also for drug testing and driver licensing. They lose about two out of 20 because they cannot pass a drug test, they lose about two out of 10 because of their criminal records, and they lose about three out of 10 because they have not got a driver’s licence. But he finishes off by saying this: “Therefore, to sum up, if you don’t take drugs, if you have a fairly clean MOJ check, and you have your own transport, you can virtually be guaranteed a job.”

There are jobs out there for people who are willing to work. There are jobs out there for young people who say they are willing to work and stay off drugs. There are jobs out there for people who are not dishonest and who are not habitually offending, and some people with low infringement type of offences are still encouraged into work and can still find work on a day-to-day basis. There are jobs for people who want to work and are prepared to make themselves ready for work. I am so proud to be part of a Government that supports that sort of thinking from our young people.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Tens of thousands are to be made work-ready and work-prepared for an economy that is not work-creative. That is simply what is going on in this country.

But I want to talk about the form of democracy we have where the Prime Minister of this country slides away from his responsibilities for his Ministers, and again he did it today. You see, he has spent, by my observation, in the last 2 years less than 3 hours a week being responsible for democracy in this country. In the last 2 years, since 2010, no questions have been asked of the Prime Minister on a Thursday. Since 2010 no questions have been asked of the Prime Minister on a Thursday, which suggests he is not even here.

He does not bother to come to the House. In fact, if he was on an Indian reservation, he would get a name like “Don’t Come Thursday”. It would be “Mr Don’t Come Thursday” or “No Show John on a Thursday in a Democracy”. That is what we have today with these assets being sold, which the people all own and have built up—

Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that there is a very explicit Standing Order that forbids members commenting on the absence of any member from the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is not Thursday yet.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Sorry.

Mr SPEAKER: The member should be sorry. I failed to observe he had not resumed his seat during the point of order. The Hon Anne Tolley is quite correct, but I listened carefully to the Rt Hon Winston Peters and he was not referring to the absence of a member from the House right now; he was commenting on the attendance of members historically. It is a fine line; I may seek a little guidance on it for the future but I chose not to interrupt today, and I ask the member maybe to avoid any further reference to any absence of members from the House in the rest of his speech.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We need to get more cameras here in this place, because then some people would stay for more photo opportunities on a Thursday. I am trying to be creative here. We need more cameras, so that the man can stay for another photo opportunity.

We know from the best assessment given by Government officials that these assets on the hock are at a median 49 percent out of about $7.6 billion. Yet we have a Minister of Finance and a Prime Minister going around telling the country that it is somewhere between $5 billion and $7 billion. Let us say, as Mr English said, that they get their best guess of $6 billion. That is a 20 percent rebate and discount, and guess who it will go to? Not to every New Zealander. Not to mum and dad investor. Not to people who built this asset up. No, it will go to—

Hon Members: Their mates.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —their mates. That is the way that they believe in democracy.

Hon Tau Henare: Their mates!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, I know. Look, Mr Henare, I can say this: there is a stack of members here who have got exactly 2¾ years to go from this House, and go they will because of these sorts of policies. If I was in that caucus, I would be telling them to draw back from this stupidity, because it will cost them plenty come election time.

But they will press on regardless of all evaluations by, for example, the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit, which is a unit that has got together a range of valuations: Solid Energy at $2.23 billion at 49 percent; Transpower at $1.53 billion; Mighty River Power at $3.63 billion; Genesis Energy at $1.63 billion; Meridian Energy at $6.5 billion—that is $15.52 billion, of which 49 percent is $7.6 billion.

So what does Mr Key say? Well, he will settle for $5 billion, so that his mates can get the rest. And you know what will happen the next day.

Hon Member: He’s a trader.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, this is what a junk bond dealer from Merrill Lynch would do. They would not look at the national interest. Oh, no. They would just do the deal for their mates and those people who shuffle paper and who have an unadulterated devotion to a thing called greed.

This is a Government not for ordinary people. This Government is not a Government for the New Zealand people. It is a Government for the elite, those over-mighty, rich subjects that so diligently back the National Party. It is not the majority it is interested in, just that of its mates.

Hon Member: What about Grey Power?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, do not worry about Grey Power. Grey Power is starting a petition and then they will be out in their hundreds and thousands to try to make sure that the recalcitrant, wayward member from Whanganui exits this place, as he should.

It is a scandal. You know, last year there was Bill English travelling around Asia, telling all the people over there that the country is for sale, but he never told the people back here that it is for sale at a massive discount, did he? Then he said that it was not even his best guess; it was just a guess. The Prime Minister then tried to quantify that, and when he was asked in the House about what he had done, what did he do? He flicked the question to somebody else. He ducked it.

Well, you can guarantee every question from now on will be: “Does the Prime Minister have confidence in so and so?”, and we will see what happens then, because he will not be able to pull that stunt in the future. Selling highly profitable State assets is foolish and short-term. It is even worse for National to flog them off, as I say, to its mates.

And how many times has Mr Key, since he became Prime Minister, spent at Macquarie? I would like to know. I ask one of those backbenchers over there to find out.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): It is my great pleasure to stand and speak in this general debate and to support not just the Prime Minister, John Key, but also the Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, for the reforms in welfare that were recently announced. These changes are welcome, and we all know that because the statistics are quite clear. We know that 13 percent of our working-age population are on the benefit. We also know that $7 billion is spent on benefits annually. That is $20 million a year, a week, a day, sorry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh! What is it?

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: If you think in terms of 5 minutes, then it was $67,000 for the 5-minute speech given by Mr Peters. But crucially it is about the 200,000 kids who grow up in welfare-dependent families every day, and that is an abomination. Long-term welfare dependency, as has already been demonstrated by the speeches today, is about failure for those families and failure for those kids.

This National Government is about standing up and making change. It is about doing something about an area of the law that does not work. We believe that those who are able to work should work, but we also know that those who are looking to work also need encouragement, they need support, and sometimes they need a little bit of financial incentives. But crucially in terms of the reforms, we believe that those who genuinely need help will receive that help. So these reforms are not just window dressing; it is about changing the focus, the attitude, and the behaviour of those who are on welfare. There will be a greater emphasis on work and support in every way, because it is about supporting the aspirations of those who are on a benefit to go forward and get work. It is about getting behind people so that they can achieve what they aspire to be, and not what they cannot be.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does that go for the Palagi policy?

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: We want to target those resources, Mr Peters. We want to target those resources at the long-term welfare-dependent, because we want to support young people in order for them to stay in education, or for them to get training, or trades training, and get into work.

We also want to provide financial incentives, to provide for budgeting services as Mr Borrows has already mentioned, and also for parenting programmes for those on the domestic purposes benefit in order for them to get the wraparound service that they deserve. So we are no longer going to hand over benefits without some level of obligation and some level of commitment from those who actually receive those benefits.

I stand here next to my colleague Alfred Ngaro. As migrants to this country we came here for jobs and opportunities. We came here not to be on long-term welfare dependency but we came here to gain the jobs and opportunities and live in a better country. So this series of reforms will be about work availability. It will be about delivering expectations and obligations. It is really about a partnership between the State, which provides funding for beneficiaries, and those who receive it.

I just recall in last year’s campaign I met a young 18-year-old lady who was heavily pregnant and who had an 18-month-old son.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: She’s still laughing.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: She was living in a cold, damp garage. Mr Peters might want to laugh at this young lady, but she was a person who definitely needed help. She was falling through the cracks and living in squalor in a damp, cold garage. These reforms will actually support this young lady by giving her income support, by giving her some budgeting services and by allowing for her to get some parenting services and also for her to access training in order for her to go forward in her life. This lady would support these reforms of National. It is about getting people back to work. It is about supporting those who want to work. I support these reforms. I support our honourable Minister and the Prime Minister in bringing about long-overdue reforms.

Debate interrupted.

Personal Explanations

Ship Grounding, Rena—Salvage Contracts

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I seek leave of the House under Standing Order 354 to make a personal explanation in respect of allegations that were made against me by the Hon Winston Peters during question time today.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought by the honourable member to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Today in question time Mr Peters alleged in the House that I had given big contracts to brothers involved in the construction business during my role as the Minister with responsibility—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I never said that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —for the Rena recovery. I have checked the Hansard, Mr Peters.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Personal explanations should not be interrupted.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had absolutely no involvement in any of the contracts involving heavy cranage in the Rena recovery operation. It is my understanding that all contracts that have been entered into have been with the salvage company directly, and did not involve either Ministers or officials.

It is not surprising, given that I have three brothers with substantial businesses involving heavy cranage and a substantial portion of the New Zealand crane fleet, that sometimes they will be involved in high-profile projects such as the Rena recovery. I also wish to put on record that I have absolutely no involvement in those businesses nor any financial interest in those businesses. I have made plain in detail to the Cabinet Office and to the Prime Minister those businesses, and have ensured in all of my ministerial roles that I do not create any conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

General Debate

General Debate

Debate resumed.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I would like to begin my general debate speech by congratulating and acknowledging Bret McKenzie. For those at home who do not know who he is, he is one-half of the Flight of the Conchords, and earlier this week he made us all proud as Kiwis when in Hollywood he took the stage and took an Academy Award, an Oscar, home for the best song in a motion picture. Mr McKenzie is a Wellingtonian, so he is carrying on the recent tradition of bringing Oscars back to Wellington, and we congratulate him.

The award-winning song was Man or Muppet, and it served as inspiration for a cartoon in this morning’s New Zealand Herald. In this instance I think my former colleagues in the media have got it 100 percent right, and for those at home who may be watching, this is the cartoon that Rod Emmerson put in the New Zealand Herald this morning. It shows Kermit the frog asking Paula Bennett whether she is a Minister or a Muppet. I think it is a little bit unfair that Mr Emmerson has actually singled out Mrs Bennett, because I think there are a number of Ministers on the other side of the House who could be put at that piano. In fact, there would be a number in Cabinet who could have a good old singalong around that piano. It does pose a serious question, and, as I say, I think Mr Emerson has hit the nail right on the head around the performance of some of our Ministers that we have in our Government at the moment. They had a swagger about them after the election, but as a couple of months have passed that swagger is starting to disappear.

What is a muppet in this context, we say? If we go online to the Urban Dictionary, a muppet is “a person who defies explanation with regard to common sense and logic, exhubing an air of confidence that is mutually exclusive to that of their accomplishments or ability”. So let us have a look at some of the potential candidates whom we could put in this category for Minister or Muppet, as Mr Emmerson has pointed out, because do not forget—

Chris Hipkins: It’s only a 5-minute speech.

KRIS FAAFOI: It is; I wish it was a 10. Do not forget this is a Government in which John Key said he expected high standards from his Ministers and said if they did not meet the high standards that he set, then obviously he would take the necessary action.

Let us look at Mr McCully, the gift who keeps on giving—the gift who keeps on giving. He is the Minister who had his private email account hacked by “Anonymous” and what was in those emails? In those emails was the public revelation that the Government is worried about resisting China, and that will cause us as a country severe diplomatic embarrassment as we go forward. As Mr Goff had pointed out in his contribution, this is at a time when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is looking at reducing its staff by 350 jobs. This is also a Minister who is presiding over a ministry that is considering spending almost $1 million of taxpayer money on a pool in our embassy in Tokyo. This is a Minister whom John Key is still backing, and still has confidence in.

Can I move to Maurice Williamson and Jonathan Coleman, because they are the Ministers who have a duty under the Overseas Investment Act to ensure that overseas purchases of New Zealand farmland, amongst other things, have to have substantial and identifiable benefits to New Zealand. But that decision was wrong. In any sense they got a smack-down from the High Court, told that their decision was wrong, and went back to square one. That was very, very embarrassing for the Government, but these are Ministers whom John Key still says he has confidence in. These are Ministers whom John Key still has confidence in. Again, it is an example of the rhetoric of the Government not meeting the reality.

Let us look at the evidence of the failure of National since it came into office in 2008: 40,000 fewer jobs under the National Government since it came to power, and 36,000 jobs promised in the year to March 2012. How many were delivered? Ten thousand, which is 30 percent of what it has promised us—another example of overpromising and under-delivering—and 60,000 more jobless Kiwis under National.

I would like to go back to Bret McKenzie, because in his post-Oscar speech backstage he said: New Zealand is “a great place to grow up. You can do whatever you want there. Whereas in America I think everyone’s obsessed with their careers, in New Zealand you get to just live your dreams.” Well, not everyone’s dream is to win an Oscar. That is a great dream, but a lot of Kiwis’ dream is to have a job, to have a safe community, and to make sure that their kids can grow up in a great country. That will not happen when our Ministers are behaving like muppets.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): It is with great pleasure that I take this first opportunity to speak in a debate in the House, and speak to the issue, which is very important to this nation, of welfare reform. As a former police officer in Northland I can assure you that this is something very much at the forefront of this country’s future. I just wonder whether the member opposite who just resumed his seat, Kris Faafoi, was able to turn his attention from the pictures that he saw in the paper and alluded to, and to flip it over. He would note that there is a very, very positive editorial headed “Reforms aim to break welfare cycle”, which shows some very, very positive affirmation of the steps that the Minister for Social Development is making. Although pictures often paint an interesting story, if the member took time to read the editorial he might find out an entirely different picture.

I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development for the commitment, dedication, and passion that she shows for this role, and which no one can argue she does not have for this area. Welfare reform is a “must-do”, on two levels: firstly, because it is financially unsustainable, but, more important, because the welfare system has become a welfare trap. The net result of this is that too many people in our nation, often through no fault of their own, are missing out on the opportunities to build a life and a career.

A key focus of our reforms is to provide early and effective intervention to those people who are at the highest risk of long-term welfare—those who are essentially on a collision course with a benefit—and, in particular, those aged 16 and 17 with no education, training, and employment, and teen parents who, tragically, are in a position where most of them will move on to an adult benefit by the time they are 18. I say that we can and should do better for these people.

These young people are no different from so many others in New Zealand. They have hopes and dreams, and when we ask what those dreams are, we know that they will always struggle to achieve those while dependent on a welfare cheque. We owe it to them and to New Zealand to do better, and that is exactly what this Government proposes to do.

One of the fundamental failures in the lives of so many of those young people is the lack of parental guidance, and, importantly, personal responsibility seems to play a very minor part in the lives of these vulnerable young people. So many of these young people lack even basic life skills and a sense of personal responsibility, not to mention the education and training, all of which significantly diminishes the opportunities for these young people.

These reforms are aimed to provide wraparound mentoring, support, education, and training to fill the gap that so many of these young people’s parents did not. It also provides good-quality child care, to provide young teen parents with an opportunity to go out and strive for that life. These reforms will help young people to take control of their lives and their destinies again. An essential in achieving this is the youth support providers helping young people to manage their budgets, helping young people to pay essential bills such as power and rent, and giving them an allowance and a payment card to meet their living costs.

I want to say that this is a vital circuit-breaker on two levels: firstly, because it helps give young people control over their lives again, and, secondly, because it ensures that the support that the State is providing is going towards helping them get into work, and not simply perpetuating dependence. This is a tremendous investment in the lives of some 1,400 young people currently not in education, employment, or training, 3,000 of whom are currently on benefits. These reforms are about investing in these young people and believing in them and their potential, rather than writing them a welfare cheque and hoping for the best.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, kia ora tātou katoa e hoa mā i roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi. I ētahi wā i a au e noho nei i te Whare Pāremata ka āta wānanga ki roto i a au anō he aha tāku i konei, he aha te pūtake o taku noho ki konei, ka pērā anō hoki mātou o te Pāti Māori. Nā te kaha o te iwi, āe, nā rātou tonu mātou i tono mai ki konei, ka mutu, nā runga anō i te here ki te Tiriti o Waitangi e mōhiotia nei e tātou ko te tāhūhū kōrero mō te whenua nei. Arā, ko te noho tahi, o te Kāwanatanga, o te Karauna me kī, me te tangata whenua. I tonoa mātou e ō mātou ringa raupā, te hunga e noho mai rā i te wā kāinga, ki konei kia noho hei waha kōrero, kia noho hei rōpū motuhake mō te Ao Māori i roto i te Whare Pāremata, ka mutu, kia noho hei kaitiaki, hei mea akiaki i ngā kaupapa tuku iho, ngā mea i waihotia mai ai e kui mā, e koro mā, ā, kia noho motuhake nei a Aotearoa mō ake nei.

I ngā marama tata kua hipa ake ko te kaupapa nui e kōrerohia ana, ko tērā ko te Tiriti o Waitangi. He pakanga i whakahaeretia mai ai kia whakairi te Tiriti o Waitangi ki te taumata tiketike e tika ana mō tēnei take. I kōrero pakanga i te mea koinei te āhuatanga kua roa te Ao Māori e pakanga ana kia kitea mai ai te puāwaitanga o tērā moemoeā, ā, kia whakanuia te Tiriti o Waitangi, ka mutu, kia eke ki ngā tūmanako, i tūmanakohia e ngā mātua, e ngā tūpuna. Kai te mōhio tātou i te pōti kōwhiringa pōti kua hipa ake, i puta te kōrero i a Nāhinara, ko tāna hiahia ki te hoko i te whā tekau mā iwa paihēneti o ngā kamupene e whā. I kaha whakahē te Pāti Māori ki tērā whāinga, ka mutu, i tuhia tētahi kirimana ki waenganui i a māua ko te Nāhinara, arā, te kōrero e kī ana i te reo Pākehā “The Māori Party does not support partial asset sales. The Government agrees it will not put partial asset sales in confidence and supply measures.”

Nā, koinei te pūtake o tērā kōrero. Ko tā mātau e whakapono nei, ko ngā rawa o Aotearoa me noho ki Aotearoa nei. Kaua e hokona ki wāhi kē. Ko tā mātau, ko te kī atu ahakoa kai a Nāhinara ngā pōti, arā, ki te taha ki te ACT me te United Future, ka eke panuku tērā kaupapa, kaua mā runga i te āhuatanga o te pōti o te Pāti Māori. Ka kaha tonu mātou ki te whakahē i tērā kaupapa, ā, koinā tā mātou e kī nei, hei tiaki i ngā rawa a Aotearoa, ki Aotearoa nei. Ēngari, mēnā koia tērā tāna e tūmanako nei, ko tā Nāhinara e kōrero nei au, kei te whakaaro ake mātou, ko wai i tua atu o ngā iwi, o ngā hapū o Aotearoa, kia noho hei hoa haere i te mea ka tiakina paitia ngā rawa e te Ao Māori i te mea nō konei, mēnā ka pā anō rā ki ngā rawa ā-awa, ā-maunga nō konei. Ka riro mā te Māori, mā ngā iwi tonu ērā e tiaki. Nō reira, koinei mātou e kī nei me noho ēnei rawa ki konei, me whai wāhi te Māori i roto i ngā nekeneke o te hoko ā-rawa.

I ngā wiki tata kua hipa ake, e hia kē nei ngā Māori kua eke atu ki roto i ngā hui i karangahia mai e te Karauna, e Wiremu English mā, ā, ka mutu, ko tā rātou ko te kī, ā, kāo, kei te whakahē mātau i tētahi paku kōrero, e whakaiti nei i te mana o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nā wai rā, nā wai rā, ka puta tētahi kōrero i te Treasury, te Tari Pūtea me te kī atu, ā, he mahi huna pea tō ētahi ki te ūkui i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Waimaria ana i kite mai ai e te Pāti Māori, ā, he mahi huna tō tēnā rōpū, ka mutu, i pērā anō hoki te tirohanga o te tangata whenua. Āhua whakakeke nei te Ao Māori i tana noho i waenganui i tērā hui, nā runga i tērā mahi huna a te Kāwanatanga, ēngari, i kōrerotia wā rātau kōrero mō te mamae, mō te pōuri o ngā kerēme Tiriti, ā, mō te mamae ka hokona ētahi rawa. Hoi anō, ko te katoa i kī mai, kāo, kaua e ūkui i ngā kōrero katoa o te Tiriti o Waitangi, kaua e whakawaiwai, kaua e whakaiti rānei i ngā kōrero mō te Tiriti. Kua rongo a Nāhinara i te kōrero o te Ao Māori mai i ngā tōpito katoa. Puritia, tiakina, whakawhānuitia ngā here o te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Nā, kua kī mai te Wiremu English nei, ka āta whakawhitia atu te wāhanga o te Tiriti ki roto i te Public Finance Act, tērā pea, kua eke panuku te hiahia o te Ao Māori kia pērā rawa te āhuatanga o te Tiriti i roto i ngā nekeneke o te Tiriti.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ka huri ki te reo Pākehā mō tētahi wā poto kia mōhio ai he aha te tikanga o taku kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, and salutations to my colleagues in the House this afternoon. There are times, as I sit here in Parliament, when I really have to ask myself what I am doing here, and what keeps me here. All of us of the Māori Party think that, too. The people have been strong about that, yes, because after all they were the ones who sent us here, and, furthermore, because of the obligation to the Treaty of Waitangi, which we know is the founding document of this country; and hence of the Government, the Crown, and, presumably, the indigenous population living together. Our people on the home front, the ones back there, sent us here to represent them and to be an independent party in Parliament for Māoridom, and also to be a guardian and one to urge along policies handed down relating to things that our ancestors left to ensure that New Zealand remains independent for all time.

In recent months the main talking point was the Treaty of Waitangi. A battle raged over the elevation of the Treaty of Waitangi to where it should be in respect of this matter. I say “battle” because Māoridom has fought for a long time to realise that dream for the Treaty of Waitangi to be celebrated and hence fulfil the hopes yearned for by parents and ancestors. We know for a fact that during the election just past, National promoted the notion that it wanted to sell off 49 percent of four energy companies. The Māori Party strongly opposes that aim, and as a consequence an agreement was written between us and National, which says in English “The Māori Party does not support partial asset sales. The Government agrees it will not put partial asset sales in confidence and supply measures.”

Now, the reason for that statement is this. We really believe that New Zealand’s assets must remain here in the country. They must not be sold offshore. We say that regardless of the fact that National has the votes, alongside those of ACT and United Future. The sale is a foregone conclusion, but not as a consequence of the Māori Party vote. We will continue to vigorously oppose that policy, and that is why we are making this statement: protect New Zealand’s assets; keep them here. If indeed that is what National is hoping to achieve, I am thinking to myself, who better than the tribes and subtribes of New Zealand to be in partnership with? Māoridom will do a fine job of looking after assets, because they are from here. If the assets concerned relate to rivers and mountains from here, Māori and their tribes will take charge of those. That is why we are saying these assets must stay here. Māori must be at the bargaining table for the sale of assets.

Over the weeks just past, many Māori have attended meetings called by the Crown, by Bill English and by others, and there they have said to them no, we oppose a small statement that belittles the status of the Treaty of Waitangi. And then information eventually emerged from Treasury that some may have been secretly trying to delete sections relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. Luckily, the Māori Party spotted this and found this group working away covertly. Local people also discovered this happening. Māoridom became somewhat muted in the midst of that forum due to the secretive actions of the Government, but chose instead to confine their remarks to expressing their hurt and sadness in respect of the Treaty claims and the hurt at the intention to sell off some assets. Nevertheless, everyone said to us no, do not delete all references to the Treaty of Waitangi, do not water it down, and do not belittle the statements about the Treaty. National has heard the message from Māoridom across the country: retain, protect, and extend Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

Now, Bill English has said to us the part relating to the Treaty will be carefully referenced into the Public Finance Act as a means of fulfilling Māoridom’s aspirations in terms of Treaty involvement.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will switch momentarily to English, so that the meaning of my address is understood.]

I am aware that pretty much most of the speeches by new members have been given, and in light of the fact that that is complete now and that almost in a sense we are almost starting with everybody on a clean slate, I just perhaps draw your attention to possibly tomorrow or some other time asking members to look hard at the pronunciation of the Māori language in the House. I say that this is a matter of order because I am aware that it states in the Standing Orders that members must try as best they can. The part for me is simply to remind members—in fact, to ask you if you could remind members—about that, because unless we actually talk about it and put it in front of the House, it might not be well known to new members. So I raise that in the hope that that might be considered for tomorrow.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his explanation. I am sure that members who are listening will take cognisance of what has been said. And the member is correct—people should try to make correct pronunciations in Māori. Thank you, Mr Flavell.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 28 September 2011.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Consistent with the discussion at the Business Committee yesterday, I seek leave for all of the remaining questions on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill to be put as one question and voted on as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

Clauses 16 to 23 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I move, That the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I do so with great pleasure. In fact, I am sure members across the House will have great pleasure that we have now reached the momentous stage of the third reading of this very important piece of legislation—a piece of legislation that this House has dealt with thoroughly. I do not think there can be any doubt anywhere in the House that we have dealt with this matter thoroughly, and that the Royal Society now has a greater prominence in our political history and discourse than it has ever had before, as a result of us being able to examine each clause of this bill in significant detail. I want to note for the record that the memorandum of understanding signed between the Royal Society and the Council for the Humanities to set in place the changes to legislation to incorporate the humanities within the Royal Society’s ambit gave the Royal Society 5 years from 2009 to achieve legislative progress. Is it not great that halfway through that period we reach today—

Chris Hipkins: Ahead of schedule.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —that is right, Mr Hipkins; we are ahead of schedule—and we have the Royal Society Amendment Bill before the House to do just that? I want to thank all members of the House for their participation in this debate. We had a number of extremely interesting and informative contributions. We heard from a member of the Royal Society, Moana Mackey, although fortunately she did not go too much into her dissertation topic on blowflies and sheep, which is a subject I would encourage all members to engage with Ms Mackey on. As a member of the Royal Society, she is fully aware of the importance of the bill. Other colleagues on all sides of the House participated well in the bill.

What the bill does is incorporate the humanities into the Royal Society’s work. That is a good thing. It allows those who have contributed in the area of the humanities to be recognised, allows for the humanities to be advanced in a way that is appropriate to the importance of the humanities to our society, and also allows for other types of science to work more closely with the humanities in the development of knowledge—

Dr David Clark: An excellent thing.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —an excellent thing indeed, Dr Clark—in New Zealand. It is a bill whose time has come—finally—and I think we on this side of the House are extremely glad to be able to say that we support this bill. The Royal Society itself I am sure will be pleased to see it pass. It has already been acting in a way that the bill prescribes. It has already been including the humanities in its decision making. There are new structures within the Royal Society to allow for that. The bill also made some other minor technical changes around changing the name of the academy council to the academy executive committee, in order to avoid confusion. As I have noted in many of my other calls on this bill, there was some dissent. It is important to note that that dissent existed within the Royal Society, but I think in the intervening period the society has got on with doing what it needed to do. Therefore, this legislation will pass—3 years ahead of schedule—and will put into place formally in law the very thing that the Royal Society wanted.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is good to speak during the third reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. One does so with a level of a heavy heart, in the sense that during the 49th Parliament we had a strange situation occur where the Labour Party trivialised the democratic process in this House, tried to draw this particular bill out, and made the whole process a considerable farce.

In actual fact, it was a talking point among those who were waiting within the Royal Society to see this process concluded that it was quite a shameful process. It is really a dark blemish on the conduct of the Opposition in the way that it conducted itself over this. When you consider it, one would have expected a lot more dignity around dealing with a process that was to do with an organisation that goes right back to the very founding days of New Zealand. When you look at the Royal Society of New Zealand, you see it was set up in 1867, and for the bill to be held up by some juveniles on the other side of the House was quite shameful.

Hon Member: Shameful.

COLIN KING: It was indeed. It is worth reminding those people over there—

Sue Moroney: Didn’t you go to the select committee hearings? It was already in place.

COLIN KING: We have Sue Maloney—Moroney—it is sort of catching these days—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! That was out of order.

COLIN KING: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for that reminder. Sue Moroney, who was also part of that Parliament, was doing her utmost to support the member who was promoting this bill in drawing it out to a level that was an embarrassment to the Labour Party.

It is appropriate that we are now at the stage of giving the go-ahead to this piece of legislation. It was dealt with very professionally in the Education and Science Committee, where Mr Grant Robertson was very collegial, but when it came down to the issues around another piece of legislation that was going to go through the democratic process, Labour started playing games.

It was resolved back in 2008 that the Royal Society should extend its compass to include humanities, and, effectively, it has done that. It is not the only royal society or science body to extend and widen its scope to humanities. It has been done in other countries, as well.

While it was doing that it also saw fit to conduct some housekeeping. This bill basically brings the Royal Society to a stage where there is consistency and clarity around some of its terms and traditions. One is the 3-year process around elections, and the other was to do with the academy council and the point where you have the council of the society. So that has been tidied up. It is quite appropriate. It makes good sense.

When we look at the definition of “humanities”, it is quite interesting. Whilst the Labour members filibustered away for the better part of 12 months and obstructed the process of democracy, we did learn one or two things, and, as it says, “humanities” includes English and other languages. It is quite interesting. There was a lot of debate around the process of that, because in the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill there was the term “American studies” and we were sort of bemused at why that should be in there.

When we look at that definition of “humanities” today, it included “English and other languages, history, religion, philosophy, law, classics, linguistics, literature, cultural studies, media studies, art history, film, drama, and American studies”. So there is a difference, and it is quite clear. Although there is English language, there is a distinctive difference between that and American studies.

It is the object of the society to move to advance and promote in New Zealand not only the sciences and technology but also humanities. That is quite a major step forward. When you consider the Royal Society in the context of those 140-odd years—145 years, but it could have been 144 years if Labour had not filibustered and tried to obstruct the processes of democracy—it is actually quite a step change. Effectively, when you stop and think about the Royal Society, our relationship with it here in Parliament has been through the wonderful sessions that we have enjoyed in Parliament itself, where it has had eminent people come forward and articulate very, very important contributions towards not only modern technologies and science but also what is especially relevant in the context of New Zealand being situated geographically on so many fault lines.

I am very confident that, empowered with this legislation, the Royal Society will endure for many, many years more. Considering that it has lasted 145 years, I am quite confident that it will go on for many centuries. However, in time we will see that this will no doubt come together again, and there will be further clarifications around what is necessary to keep the Royal Society vigorous, focused on the horizon, and rewarding those eminent people who make a contribution, whether it is to technologies, to science, or to humanities.

It will foster in New Zealand, within the community, a culture that supports technologies, sciences, and humanities, and that is very important. It will encourage, promote, and recognise excellence within the sciences, technologies, and humanities. It will provide an infrastructure and other supports that are necessary to the professional needs and development of science, technologies, and the humanities.

By doing so, it will establish and administer the membership’s codes, because when you think of some of our very eminent contributors to technology, science, and the humanities, they do need to be recognised. Anything of that nature really does hold up a role model and example to our younger ones coming on. It was quite significant that inside the Education and Science Committee today we heard that we still do not have enough scientists coming through, and we should do all we can to achieve that.

What we should not do, though, is stand in the way. We should never stand in the way of the democratic process, like Labour did when it used this particular bill to obstruct the structured process of democracy. It was a major dark moment for the Opposition during the 49th Parliament.

On that basis, I take great comfort in seeing that this pre-eminent organisation can now get on with its business with a very well-refined bill. It gives me great pleasure to support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It is in absolute delight with this robust and continuing debate that I stand in support of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. As we know, it is here to incorporate the humanities into the Royal Society, bringing about a series of minor changes—minor changes—which for some reason took an incredible amount of time to go through, and a very great number of clauses. But before I discuss that, I should acknowledge the honourable member who is sponsoring this bill for leading the process. I think it is always important to give thanks. As someone with my own member’s bill—

Hon Member: Beg for forgiveness.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —indeed, beg for forgiveness. There are very important lessons we could all learn. But as someone here with my own member’s bill now, I am incredibly keen on aspects of very important legislation, to be able to stand and make sure I understand the process fully and to engage with it. So I am incredibly grateful for this chance, post my maiden speech, to stand to speak on this topic, to follow the lead of the honourable member, and to have a chat.

I thank my colleague Colin King for his words as well, because learning is important. I said in my maiden speech that ideas are powerful, and something like the Royal Society of New Zealand is ultimately about ideas. When we talk about the filibustering or the slowness of the nature in which this bill has had to come through Parliament, at one level that is a good thing. Thoroughness is good; rigor is important in study. However, there was a rigor mortis. There was a rigor mortis, I think, in what was happening. But, you see, the flip side to all of that really was that that whole filibustering, that dragging everything out, and slowing it down was completely against—completely against—the intent of the society in wanting to celebrate ideas. Ideas, importantly, are always about progress. It is all about progress. One of the most unfortunate elements, I am told, as this bill has dragged its way through, was trying to block one of the great ideas and bills that was put through last year.

As we stand here though, I just need to say—as we are talking about support of course, and with my constitutional bias—that I do need to let members across the way, in particular, know that my support for this bill is not due to the title “Royal” being in there. I do know that it is a jolly good reason to support a bill, but that is not the reason. This bill is ultimately about knowledge and it is about learning. It is a bill that is important for advancing and celebrating learning in the area of the humanities. More often than not, for those who know their history, there has always been a great division between the humanities and the sciences and this has always been rather counter-productive.

This bill, and again I do thank the honourable member for bringing it forward in that timely manner, shows that incorporating humanities into the Royal Society of New Zealand will allow a far more holistic, robust, and, some could say, organic approach to research in this country. In fact it is going to ensure that the humanities are recognised for being the major contributor to New Zealand society that they are. It is a delight to be able to stand and take a call, because I am someone who has benefited from the humanities over the years, having studied and worked in a lot of the areas of which the bill’s digest talks to, actually—particularly a love of philosophy. It is marvellous to see that being incorporated—and it is good philosophy too, not the stuff that pops out these days, the sort of pop philosophy, but, you know, good stuff and something that the Royal Society would happily celebrate. There are things like theology, of course. One must acknowledge that, and our colleague across the way, of course. It is great to see that religion and theology are going to be acknowledged by the Royal Society. As someone, too, who has enjoyed the arts, media, and film, again it is tremendous that the Royal Society now is going to embrace this.

Again, when we do look at the humanities in fact they derive initially from the liberal arts, the earliest forms of learning that humanity has known, and so it is great to actually be able to draw this into a bill—to draw it in beside the sciences so that together they can help New Zealand progress in the way that I am sure we all want it to do. When we do talk about benefit, though, I think it is really important to make the distinction that science is about talking about the nature of life. The humanities is actually trying to find what the meaning is, and bringing those two pieces together under the umbrella of the Royal Society is going to bring great strength, robustness, and rigour to New Zealand.

I think also it is really good to see that the Royal Society is going to be celebrating the contribution that so many of our academics, in particular, play in the humanities. There is the chance to become a fellow or an honorary fellow—whatever the appropriate other gender title would be—and the chance for them to be—

Simon Bridges: “Fellow-esses”.

SIMON O’CONNOR: “Fellow-esses”, yes, “fell-esses”, ladies—I should really work on this. But I think it is really important to acknowledge that this bill is going to give the opportunity to a large number of New Zealanders who have great success in the fields of the humanities to be recognised for what they to do, to be members, to be fellows. I think that is really important, not only for what they do.

Simon Bridges: I thought we passed this bill last year!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, if only we had, Mr Bridges; if only we had. But here is this opportunity now.

Simon Bridges: This is like Groundhog Day.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I know; it just goes round, really. But I think it is important to add words. Words, as I have said before, are powerful, powerful things and it is a marvellous thing that this bill is here. I just want to come back, though, to the importance of celebrating success. That is something I believe in very strongly, and one of the reasons I came to National actually—celebrating success. This bill provides that opportunity to celebrate the success of those who work in the humanities of New Zealand. Twice a year, of course, we have the royal honours where great Kiwis across the spectrum are recognised. Well here is another opportunity under this Royal Society to celebrate humanities in New Zealand—those people who are contributing in marvellous ways.

Simon Bridges: I want to know why Bob Clarkson hasn’t been given a knighthood.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, exactly. Maybe this is something that could be considered in a future bill—not just fellowships but titles with those as well.

I come back to what are really the core purposes. The Royal Society is now here not simply to celebrate science but here to also celebrate the humanities. That is absolutely the most marvellous aspect of New Zealand society. I for one, who again has benefited so strongly from the humanities, say it is great to be standing here today and celebrating that in so many different ways.

As I said at the start, there has often been a division and I think it is absolutely marvellous that groups that are often celebrating division and are always worried about things are actually, after a very long time, prepared to come together and to celebrate that. So of course—

Simon Bridges: Why worry? Be happy.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh yes, but we do continue to speak, because ultimately I think what we come back to with all of this is that the Royal Society is an opportunity for Kiwis to speak. We do it in all sorts of different ways. There are some of us standing here in the House, and there will be some outside who choose to protest—not necessarily on this bill—but this Royal Society is a chance for Kiwis right across the academic and intellectual area now to celebrate.

It is an absolute delight to stand up here in support of this bill. Again, it has taken a long time to get here. I think it is important to echo that. I am a great believer in echoing what has happened. As this bill has taken a long time, I think it is important too that my gift in response is to reflect that back in this performance, to make sure we go through it bit by bit. That is my celebration, that is my gift, and I do notice now of course that this bill will bring in theatre; this will bring in theatre. So this is my small contribution to that theatre, to reflect it back at you, that ability to just sort of discuss and debate, to keep repeating those aspects, and to drive them home. I feel that by doing that you will all experience—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

SIMON O’CONNOR: So, once again, thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next member, I just want to inform the member that you have to be careful in using the word “you”, because you are actually referring to the Speaker. If you look at Standing Order 104, I think it is, you actually speak through the Speaker, to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think that echoes the whole point of the learning that this bill is all about. So thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Dearie, dearie, dearie me! Oh my Lord! I find it particularly ironic that we are sitting here being lectured on how Labour filibustered the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill by members who are now filibustering the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It would be fine if the speeches showed any understanding at all of what the Royal Society is or what it does. I think members might need to go a little bit further than Wikipedia when they are researching the Royal Society. What we learnt from Colin King is that science is good. The member who just took his seat, Simon O’Connor, likes the fact the title has got the word “Royal” in it, because he supports the monarchy, and it is all about robustness, and goodness, and technology, and science, and good things like that.

Hon Member: Eh.

MOANA MACKEY: Eh. That is the extent of understanding on the opposite side of the House about this incredibly important organisation, the Royal Society of New Zealand.

As a member of the Royal Society I am personally affronted—personally affronted—that the Government will not let this very good piece of legislation pass so that the Royal Society can get on with doing what it has been doing, as Colin King said, for 145 years. I am very, very comforted by the fact that Colin King informed the House that he has no reason to believe that the Royal Society will not continue for another 145 years. I am sure it will come as a great relief to this organisation that Colin King has confirmed its existence in New Zealand will carry on into the future, and, by the way, science is really, really good and important. Well, the reality is the Royal Society has been operating in a multidisciplinary way for a long time, and this bill merely reflects that fact.

The member who took his seat said that science and the humanities have been at odds with each other for ever. Well, that is actually not true. When Captain Cook came out on the Endeavour he brought a number of people working in the humanities with him. He brought artists. In fact, it was normal for scientists and people working in the humanities to work together all the time. In fact, often that line was blurred. It has really only been in recent times that we have seen this separating out and this distinction of science versus social science versus humanities. So it is good to see the Royal Society reflecting the multidisciplinary approach. In fact, when the Royal Society first started in the UK it was perfectly normal for all these different disciplines to work together and actually draw on the strengths that each different discipline brings.

It is important to note that, as my colleague Grant Robertson said, this move was not unanimously supported by members of the Royal Society. There were some who were concerned that this might dilute out the focus on what is seen as pure science. But I personally think that when you look at the work that is being done, you see that multidisciplinary science is incredibly important. That is why the last Labour Government set up the centres of research excellence—to try to get industries, universities, and Crown research institutes, across all disciplines, working together on topics that are of significant economic, environmental, and cultural importance to New Zealand. That is why we set those COREs up—as they are called—and they are working very, very well. Multidisciplinary sites are the way of the future—very much so. So it is great that the Royal Society of New Zealand is picking up this approach in its constitution and in the way it organises itself.

I do not believe that it will have a negative impact on the role the Royal Society plays in promoting science. It will merely extend out the areas in which it tries to draw public attention and political attention to what under this Government in particular is a lack of science funding and a lack of support for scientists. Getting rid of scholarships that keep postdoctoral scientists in New Zealand is not a smart idea if you really want to see science at the heart of our economy. We hear a lot of rhetoric. Over the last few years we have heard a lot of rhetoric from the National Government about the importance of science, and it has not been backed up by action. All we have seen is funding cuts.

Hon Steven Joyce: Rubbish!

MOANA MACKEY: All we have seen—oh, the Minister of Science and Innovation says “Rubbish!”. Yeah, well, he should perhaps go out and talk to some scientists about how happy they are. I have a friend who has a PhD and is very well qualified, and she is being fired from a Crown research institute because of health funding cuts. Science funding comes from right across the budgets, and the National Government manages to slice away at science funding by cutting other budgets like health funding. Well, she is now looking at where she can go and work overseas, because the funding simply is not here in New Zealand to have those opportunities for scientists. So it is great that Colin King thinks science is good, but, in fact, if you are really serious—

Colin King: It’s not good; it is excellent.

MOANA MACKEY: Oh, he thinks it is excellent. It has been upgraded from good to excellent throughout the course of my speech—good to excellent. But that has to be backed up. It has to be backed up by proper support from the Government and by more than just a photo opportunity with the Prime Minister. I like the Prime Minister’s science awards; I think they are a good idea. I like having a Prime Minister’s science adviser. I would rather see him be more independent—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Well, maybe if the Prime Minister listened to him from time to time.

MOANA MACKEY: That is right. It would be nice if the Prime Minister actually listened to his science adviser from time to time.

One of the things the Royal Society has been particularly effective at is promoting scientific issues. There was a lot of controversy when the Royal Society actually signed a petition in favour of genetic modification research. It has not been afraid to take controversial positions. So, far from what members on the opposite side were kind of saying, which is this idea that somehow the Royal Society is going to control what science is studied in New Zealand, that somehow it is going to control or dictate—I think the member said there were certain parts of philosophy he did not like—the fact is it does not do that. The Royal Society is not about telling scientists what they should and should not do. It is about the promotion of science, it is about the promotion of scientific issues, and it is about the setting of professional and ethical standards for the members who belong to the Royal Society.

I suggest that members on the other side might want to come along to some of the Speaker’s Science Forums, which are run by the Royal Society here in Parliament. They are a very good opportunity not only to see the kind of amazing research that is going on in New Zealand but also to learn a little bit about what the Royal Society actually does—what it actually does.

Simon O’Connor: You’ve got time—keep telling us.

MOANA MACKEY: It is an indictment on the National Party research unit that it could not even go on to the Royal Society website and print off for the members who are filibustering and making speeches what the Royal Society actually does.

As I said, I hope we can pass this bill now. I am about to take my seat so that Catherine Delahunty can give her contribution. Let us then pass this bill into law. I congratulate Grant Robertson on the excellent role he has played in shepherding this bill through Parliament. There is no doubt that there is not a single member of Parliament who does not know about the Royal Society now and is not aware of the intricacies of the legislation governing it. I commend this bill to the House, and I say could we please not have any more dreadful filibustering speeches from the National Party. As a member of the Royal Society, I find very, very offensive and worrying the level of scientific illiteracy on the other side of the House.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. It is great to take a call, finally, on the third reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It has been an exciting, dynamic process to date. I was on the Education and Science Committee, and I really enjoyed working on the Royal Society bill. One of the members previously referred to it as a farce. Well, farce is a form of theatre, and this is about the humanities going into the Royal Society. Farce often occurs in this House of Parliament. It is quite a normal part of our experience as MPs to witness and sometimes participate in farce. However, this farce was more enjoyable. I am not sure that it was enjoyable for the Royal Society, but it certainly was for some of us, because we had some wonderful MPs, some of whom are no longer in Parliament, make glorious contributions on the nature of science and the nature of these debates. I actually enjoyed it, because rather than abusing each other we were actually talking about something that is really important to everybody and in a way that was reasonably civilised. That is pretty unusual for this particular Parliament, which is unfortunate, because I think the public would like us to reach that level more often.

Farce or not, it was an interesting debate, and I think the Royal Society members who presented at the select committee would have been astonished to see what happened to their little bill and how it turned into a cause célèbre. Grant Robertson did an excellent job of raising its profile. It was well supported by many members of the House, and it played its part, as bills do, in the history of this House. Of course, it was contextual, and there were other things going on in the background, but I do not think any party in this House can really accuse anyone of never making use of things such as bills to delay other bills, etc. We all need to own what we do.

Colin King: Oh!

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: We all need to admit what we do, Colin, because we all do things for perhaps less than pure reasons, which brings me back to the bill. Pure science—it was really interesting meeting some of these scientists, because the concept of pure science, as Moana Mackey has said, is somewhat outdated. People no longer talk about purity in science, and in some ways that is a good thing. For a long time we have moved on from the idea that only the physical sciences, only the pure sciences, can be included in the Royal Society or any other kind of scientific endeavour. But there is something lost to science that this bill does not cover, and that is the independence of science. As a person who spent many, many years in front of hearings, panels, resource management hearings, town and country planning hearings, mining hearings, etc., there is a real lack of independent science. Since the loss of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research—which I am old enough to remember and which actually made a real contribution in this country—what we struggle with is that the Crown research institutes and even groups like the Royal Society, which are always looking for funding, have to find money to allow them to do things that they want to do. In that process they often lose focus on the idea of public-good science, and we had an example of that at the select committee today. Public-good science is not necessarily well served by this bill, but the Royal Society does its best. It has actually brought up many good issues in this country, not all of which the Green Party has agreed with. I think on the GE one you would have to say that we were robustly in opposition to the Royal Society’s position. However, we do think this bill is important, because we do think the humanities are inseparable from other forms of science.

Having worked in social science, having taught social science, and having been involved in many, many causes and things associated with the humanities, I think humanity is always good to have. No matter what you are doing, it is always good to remember that you are a human. It is good to remember that we are not living in an ideologically pure, theoretical, scientific universe; we are actually living in a universe where our humanity, especially in science, needs to be present. Otherwise, we invent things like nuclear weapons. Otherwise, we invent things like chemicals that have intergenerational capacity to destroy people’s lives. So it is very important that the humanities are included in the Royal Society’s work, even though some of the scientists, in a kind of—dare I say it—dualistic and patriarchal manner, were a little bit nervous about it. But, as Moana said, the majority of them have already moved on. This bill was really about recognising what already is rather than breaking new ground. The ground was broken quite some considerable time ago.

What I would be hoping for the Royal Society—and it would be interesting if we ever became a republic, because what would you call it? Would you call it the “Republic Society”? It does not have quite the same ring to it. But it would be quite interesting. I would also be interested in whether we would change the word “fellow” and get a little bit more modern with that, as well. What would we call it? I have got this strange addiction to the word “person”—that actually you could refer to people as “people”, rather than having to give them a gender. But maybe I am a little bit advanced for the Royal Society, and maybe it is impossible to distinguish between scientists; they all have to be given these obscure titles.

Back to the Royal Society bill. I think it was a very interesting debate and I really enjoyed aspects of it, but I do think that it is very important that the Royal Society continues to develop. For example, in terms of mātauranga Māori, a form of science that the Royal Society has yet to really fully acknowledge—it is starting to—we really need to recognise that there are many ways in which science is expressed, and not just in Pākehā terms. There are some exciting scientific projects going on in Aotearoa that I know people are involved in that include mātauranga Māori and Pākehā science in a wonderful coming together, in a very humanitarian coming together, to deal with challenging issues such as toxic sites—which is one of my particular portfolios and interests—from both cultural perspectives. There is science in everything, just as there is humanity in everything, and the more holistically we approach these issues, the more effective we will be in creating societies that are environmentally sustainable and fair. The Royal Society bill really did appeal to the Greens, because it is about taking a more holistic approach to the whole thing.

Apart from that, I did witness some of the disquiet that some of the members had at the select committee, but I do feel that they were expressing a minority view. I mean members of the Royal Society, not members of Parliament. In fact, for once, everyone on the select committee agreed. There was a glorious calm, a genuine interest in the issue, and then we got to Parliament and into the House, and everything went into its usual state.

It is very important that we acknowledge public-good science, and that is one of the things that I hope the Royal Society will continue to do. But, again, as I said, it is constrained.

I just wanted to say that David Clendon and I are really thrilled to take a call at this point, because we have enjoyed the ride, we have enjoyed the process, and we think that the Royal Society bill will go down in history as one of the more passionately debated bills of such import to the nation that we have ever heard. I am not being frivolous; I actually think that at the heart of this, as I think another member said, is that learning is what we are human for. We learn good things or bad things, but if we do not have a focus on recognising that we learn all the time, we do not advance as a culture or as cultures. Whether the Royal Society bill has really changed the culture, I do not know, but I do feel as if we certainly gave it a very, very good airing. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is very much of a privilege for me to speak in this debate on this Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill at this time, particularly so as the new member for Coromandel following the previous speaker, Catherine Delahunty. We have both travelled from that iconic part of New Zealand, a place of beautiful beaches, and lovely bush, and scenic attractions, to participate in this important debate. In doing so, and rising to support the progress of this bill through the House, I am conscious that in the entire 145 years that the Royal Society has been in existence, since it was incorporated as a body corporate, at no time in that 145 years has it ever probably had as much scrutiny as it has in this House over the last 12 months. The reason for that scrutiny, of course, was that this was the bill that, ironically, was used so shamefully, so dramatically, and so cynically by members opposite to filibuster that very, very important piece of legislation around freedom of association for our university students to be members of their student unions.

I find that shameful filibustering to have been completely reprehensible. It was, indeed, a misuse, I think, of the process of this House that such a minor piece of legislation, albeit important, was used in such a wilful manner. The filibuster was, in fact, a shameful piece of this House’s history, but it did, however, provide an opportunity for members both at the Education and Science Committee and, indeed, in the House through the various stages of progress of this bill, to study and investigate the Royal Society in a way that I suspect nobody fully intended when the bill was first introduced by the member for Wellington Central.

The functions of this small piece of legislation are, however, very important, because in a small little country like New Zealand we need to make the most of our academic and scientific study, our research, and our investigation, and we need to make the most of what is available to us no matter what the core academic discipline. I come to this House with a background in one of the humanities, in law. Although I have never practised law, I did study it to keep my parents happy, and qualified with an LLB from that very fine academic institution, the University of Auckland. I am just delighted as a student of one of the humanities that the kind of study and research and academic rigour that can be applied from that area of academic pursuit can now be included in the good work of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

Humanities are, of course, academic disciplines that study, as the name would suggest, the human condition. Of course, those studies primarily use analytical, critical, and/or speculative methods of study, rather than the purely empirical approaches taken with the natural sciences. Examples of the humanities studies have been alluded to by my very good friend and colleague from Kaikōura. They include the ancient and modern languages, literature—as I have mentioned—the study of the law, history, philosophy, religion, which of course will be of interest to my colleague the member for Tāmaki, and the visual and performing arts, including these days music and theatre.

Simon O’Connor: Social media.

SCOTT SIMPSON: Social media indeed, maybe. Indeed there could be social media. These days the realms of definition are extended and I am one who supports the extension of that breadth.

Sciences are, however, by definition seeking a more testable explanation in predictions about the world and what occurs in our world. Humanities look more at the human side of things, as indeed the name suggests, so this bill will strengthen the society by extending its work, by extending its reach, and by extending its output. I do not accept for one minute that by including humanities in the work and goals of the society it will in any way dilute the output and good work of the Royal Society. Indeed, it is my view that the reverse will be true. By extending, growing, and stretching the realms of study, research, and investigation, the society and our country, New Zealand, will benefit.

Humanities share the evidenced-based approaches to science. Countries similar to our own such as Scotland and Canada are nations that have academies that already accommodate across the range of academic disciplines, including the humanities. I think that is a very desirable approach and that for a small nation such as us that is an appropriate way to foster study, research, and innovation. Like the member for Tāmaki, who spoke earlier in this debate, I too share a desire to see our little country continue to punch above its weight in terms of our output, in terms of our academic rigour, and in terms of the science and approach our sharpest, brightest brains can bring to our society and our nation.

A desire to integrate the structure and function of research in New Zealand combined with a recognition of the need to build on and integrate the very complementary knowledge provided by different academic disciplines across the range of modern studies is, in my view, a very good thing indeed.

I want to just comment briefly on a matter that was raised by Catherine Delahunty in her address in this debate. Extending the rights, honours, and privileges of fellowship, membership, and recognition to those with the appropriate level of study, research, and innovation from the humanities section of academia is entirely appropriate, and, in my view, completely overdue. I welcome those initiatives. I am not prepared at this stage to enter into a debate as to what may or may not be the best way of naming those things or those people, but it seems to me appropriate that for a society with such a rich heritage, with such a diverse background, and that has been so important to our nation’s forward advancement over the 145 years that it has been in existence, a name such as “fellow” is entirely appropriate. I do not think that it is in fact a sexual stereotype in terms of gender. It is a bit like using the term “chair” or “chairman”. In fact there are probably plenty of other examples.

The genesis of this piece of legislation goes back to November 2008. It has had a long gestation. Part of the reason for the length of the gestation, of course, was the way that the legislation was held up, slowed down, and, indeed, in my opinion, almost ridiculed, last year by members opposite. I think that that only cheapened the intent of what was a very important but relatively minor change to the structure and form of the Royal Society. The decision to make the change was based on a desire to integrate the structure and function of research in New Zealand, and a recognition of the need to build on and integrate complementary knowledge provided by the full array of academic disciplines. I am in favour of that. I have risen and I have spoken now for some few minutes in support of that, and it is my intention to continue to do that, because that is, I am sure, why we have come here: it is to advance New Zealand, and it is to advance our opportunities as a nation, and the Royal Society does it in a most admirable way. It has a fine tradition, a fine heritage, and one that we as New Zealanders can all be proud of. It is with very great pride and a sense of honour and privilege that today I speak in support of this bill. Thank you.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of this bill. I would like to acknowledge that due to circumstances beyond our control, this is the first time we have had an opportunity to speak on this bill. New Zealand First would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work done by the previous members of the Education and Science Committee, and to make particular mention of the previous chair of that committee, the late Allan Peachey. I do note, however, that while I mention that we have been absent for the progress of this bill up to this point, as I listen here today I am somewhat glad for small mercies.

The Royal Society of New Zealand has had a proud history of encouraging, promoting, and recognising excellence in the areas of science and technology, and it is with pleasure that we support a bill that expands the society’s objectives to include the advancement and promotion of the humanities in New Zealand society. I also note that the society has a role in advising the Government from time to time. The New Zealand First Party welcomes anybody who can advise the Government on how to be more human.

I believe that it is also worthy of note that this bill began its life outside of Parliament and was brought here after a full and robust internal consultation process by the society itself, and with the overwhelming majority support of the society’s fellows—I see no problem at all with the word “fellows”. Hence, I would assume the relative speed by which the select committee has been able to address these amendments, and it is not the intention of New Zealand First, I would wish to assure the society and my colleagues, to impede its progress any further.

New Zealand First does wish to use this opportunity to recognise previous comments made in this House about the visionary way that the Royal Society sees economic potential for New Zealand through the bringing together of the best of our talent and the best of our brains, once this bill is enacted. I would like to close by quoting Mr Garth Carnaby, the president of the Royal Society of New Zealand: “For the first time there will be an organisation in New Zealand that promotes excellence in research and scholarship across all disciplines and all areas of knowledge.” New Zealand First supports this bill.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am very proud to speak in the third reading of this bill as a former member of the Education and Science Committee. This was a topic on which we did some serious work on the committee, so it is nice to have it finally in the House for its third reading. But I do want to start by commending the speaker from New Zealand First who preceded me, Tracey Martin. It would have been great to have heard more about New Zealand First’s commitment to the Royal Society in New Zealand—we only got a glimpse of it then. So thank you for that and I look forward to further contributions. I also want to just take a moment to pay tribute to the former chair of the Education and Science Committee, the late Allan Peachey. I think it has been very fitting also today to hear a contribution from the new member of Parliament for Tāmaki, Simon O’Connor.

So in terms of this legislation I was a bit horrified to find that one of the Opposition members was accusing this side of the House of not having a real understanding about the Royal Society, and I do want to correct one of the members opposite by saying that I had quite a lot of involvement on one particular project with the Royal Society when it was around the promotion of science in schools and in the whole awards programme that was put together to do exactly that. I think that is one of the things that is really important in terms of the work that the Royal Society does.

Clearly, this is an organisation that has been around for quite some time. We have had some of the history, and I could go over that, but I think we have covered that well. I could come back to that, maybe, a bit later speaking in this third reading. For an organisation that has been around since 1867 it is incredibly important that the opportunity is taken to review the way the organisation is structured, in its shape and form.

Although there is obviously consensus in the House about passing this legislation, I do want to just bring to the House’s attention that it was not all smooth sailing in the select committee, that we did actually have some submitters who were opposed to this, who were unhappy with the consultation that was undergone around this time, and I think it is important that we do recognise that a full democratic process should be undertaken in this instance, where a proper select committee scrutiny was provided, and there was definitely not full support from the submitters who appeared before us. If you look back to when you have an organisation that has a number of branches involved and a New Zealand - wide organisation, sometimes what happens is that there is some tension between the branches and the New Zealand - wide, or the national, organisation. That led to some tension, and it led to some very strongly worded submissions that were opposing this piece of legislation. So I do hope in the interim, given that there has been quite a passage of time since it was first introduced, that those branches have managed to deal with those issues and complaints that they had at the time, and that they have been able to work with their New Zealand - wide organisation in overcoming their opposition. Clearly it would not be healthy for the Royal Society of New Zealand—such an esteemed organisation—to have tension within its own branch structures. So I am hoping that with the passage of time—and I do say it has been quite lengthy—there has been the ability for the Royal Society to mend those bridges and to resolve any of the issues that it had within its branches.

It is quite interesting, because we talk about the fact that we do have broad agreement for this bill, and I am actually looking at some of the Hansard notes from Grant Robertson, who of course now is the deputy Labour leader. He spoke very strongly and he used words about consensus and collaboration in the House, which are all fantastic words and they are good examples of when the House can work together incredibly well. But as those of us who were in the 49th Parliament know, and as those who were interested in the bill following on the members’ day Order Paper know, actually it descended into quite a level of complaint and criticism. And if I was the Royal Society, I would be fairly annoyed at the amount of time that this bill actually took due to the Labour Opposition being so vehemently opposed to the voluntary student membership bill that followed behind it. So although Grant Robertson, who is the member of Parliament in charge of this bill, talked about consensus and collaboration, it was absolutely anything but. Given that we are talking about science, and given that this is the Royal Society and its mandate, I thought I would give evidence of some of that delay.

I am now looking at some of the speeches in the Committee stage. It was interesting when we had discussions about the title. I know how many Committee stages you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, have presided over and how you would appreciate that debate on the title clause at the Committee stage generally moves quite quickly. But instead we had the then member of the Local Government and Environment Committee David Shearer, who is, of course, now the Leader of the Opposition, speaking at quite some length about whether we should describe, define, or go into some detail about the word “a”. There was lengthy, lengthy description about “a”, whether the word should be in there, and whether it was clearly defined. If we did not think that that was riveting enough, we then moved on to a definition of “the”. So for Labour, which now has the member that I refer to as its leader, it is a bit tragic if it has to spend so much time defining words like “a” and “the”.

Then, of course, we got on to some really chunky discussion, and that was the definition of “society”! I can tell you, if I was the Royal Society I would have been highly insulted. It would have been offensive to the society that members of the Opposition took to this important legislation with such frivolity and with absolutely no rhyme or reason other than a clear intention to disturb the progress of the House, when it was a bill in the name of one of its own. That is quite staggering. Just to remind you, that person now is Labour’s deputy leader.

Actually, this side of the House does take science seriously, and it is great to be in the House with the Minister of Science and Innovation, the Hon Steven Joyce. Of course, he is also the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, which is a fantastic bundling of those important areas that, to this side of the House, are extremely important. I am speaking to this because one of the Labour speakers suggested that National is not that interested in science. Well, that is absolute rot. I want to give some examples of why we are interested. If you look at the Primary Growth Partnership, you will see it is investing almost $500 million in research and innovation in the primary and food sectors. And we have seen just in the last few weeks information out from Statistics New Zealand showing the level of exports growing, and the growth in particular of the dairy sector. So, clearly, research into this area is vital.

Today in the House we have seen in question time some questions around fracking and its use in geothermal energy. In my own electorate, in Taupō, science and innovation is alive and well with the Clean Energy Centre, which of course is focusing on the development of further geothermal techniques, which are so important in terms of achieving our renewable targets. So the areas of tertiary education, economic development, and science and innovation are so interwoven with this Government’s economic growth agenda. They form part of the 120-point economic development plan; I could talk for 10 minutes solely on what we are doing with the high-tech sectors. There is just so much information to cover with the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and the importance of science and making sure that we get it right. This side of the House is giving it the attention that it is due, so I am proud to support this bill in its third reading.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I rise to give my support to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and to note the bizarre contributions from the National members, who now seem to be filibustering it. We have quite some interest in getting it moving along now, so all I would like to do is note my great support for this piece of legislation.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to speak on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. This is a very important piece of legislation to me on a number of levels. Firstly, I am proud to be standing here as the chair of the Education and Science Committee, and I want to acknowledge the former chair of the Education and Science Committee the late Allan Peachey—an incredible New Zealander who had a commitment not just to science but also to education. I just want to acknowledge him this evening.

The other person I want to acknowledge is the new Minister of Science and Innovation, the Hon Steven Joyce. I think it is very significant—and it has been mentioned by members earlier in other speeches—that he has the portfolios not only of science and innovation but also of tertiary education and skills. The reason that is relevant to this legislation is that if we want to show how much we value the Royal Society of New Zealand and the work of the society, then we must approach it from a number of different angles. It cannot be about just one organisation; and I am going to address some of those issues later on in my speech.

But at the outset I want to touch on that issue of value. On this side of the House we have been very clear that we value science, not just through the way that we approach tertiary education, and not just through the huge investment that we have been making in the area of science but also in the way we value it in this Parliament.

There has been mention this evening of what the passage of this bill has been. I know that there are probably a number of people around New Zealand at the moment celebrating that tonight is the night that this piece of legislation goes through, because they have been waiting years for this legislation. These people, who are associated with the Royal Society of New Zealand, were subject to the filibustering of the Labour Party. We know, and we have heard in this House, that the Royal Society has been waiting a very long time for this piece of legislation, and it is so important.

As one of the few members of this House who has a science degree—I have a Bachelor of Science in genetics—and also a law degree, I say that what this bill is about is recognising not just the role that the Royal Society plays in terms of science but also the importance of the humanities. As someone who has both a Bachelor of Science in genetics and a law degree, I consider myself adequately balanced in both the sciences and the humanities. And so it is a very important piece of legislation.

I think we just want to make that point: if you value science, then you probably should not be holding up a bill that is so important. There are so many people from the Royal Society who are respected, but they have had to wait years, and I know they will be sitting around New Zealand celebrating at this point in time as we, hopefully, pass this bill through the House. Anyway, I just wanted to touch on some wider issues in terms of science investment.

We have also shown how much we value science by the Prime Minister’s appointment of Sir Peter Gluckman. I am very fortunate to have had a little bit to do with him in the last couple of months. He is, I believe, one of the most trusted New Zealanders, and I think that shows the value that New Zealanders are placing on science.

Also I was fortunate to be able to attend the Prime Minister’s Science Prize ceremony, where there was an outstanding New Zealander, Bailey Lovett, who won, I think, the Prime Minister’s Future Scientist Prize. I want to acknowledge her this evening. But what it shows you—and it comes back to the points I made at the beginning of my speech on this bill—is that it cannot be about just a piece of legislation going through the House and one organisation. Although it is doing great work, we must also invest in our young people, and I think the Prime Minister’s Science Prizes are an outstanding example of how we are investing in some of our young people. But also it is about tertiary education reform. Obviously the Minister is doing a lot in that area, but we have also put significant money in.

I look forward to being involved in projects like the Wynyard Quarter innovation precinct and projects like the advanced technology institute. We have announced that that is a significant amount of money, but also that there will be centres both within Auckland and Canterbury, and I look forward to those discussions about where that science infrastructure exists within New Zealand. As I said before, you can have national organisations like the Royal Society of New Zealand, but you must also have good science infrastructure. It is not just the investment in people, whether it is through the Prime Minister’s Science Prizes, but it is also that investment in good science infrastructure.

The other point that I would like to make this evening is just to pay tribute to some of those outstanding New Zealanders who have come before us in this House, but also who have come and made a significant contribution. I know lots of people often mention Ernest Rutherford, but he did win the Nobel Prize, I believe, for chemistry in 1908. It is important to look back, when you have an organisation that has been around for a significant period of time, like the Royal Society of New Zealand, and occasionally reflect on those outstanding New Zealanders who have made a contribution. They have made a contribution not just in New Zealand—which is going to lead me on to my next very important topic—but they have made a contribution internationally. And that is what I want to touch briefly on.

It is a freaky coincidence, but we had GNS Science in front of our select committee today on the contribution that New Zealand makes to science internationally. That is where I think the Royal Society of New Zealand has a very good reputation internationally. GNS Science was in front of our select committee today, and unfortunately we are all aware in this House—members are very aware—of the situation in Canterbury. There is a huge amount of science that is going into some of the issues in terms of seismology in Canterbury. GNS Science in itself has got an extra $3 million around natural hazards research.

There are a lot of things that are happening in the world, particularly with many more international disasters—whether they are tsunamis or earthquakes—and there are some quite incredible areas whereby we need to be investing, and this Government is investing. We saw that through that extra $3 million that has gone into an organisation like GNS Science. But just to wrap up, in terms of our science investment, we acknowledge this evening that this side of the House does value science. We value science through how we invest money in infrastructure, and we announced a significant amount of that in the Budget.

We also value science through how we invest in our young people, how we value science through our tertiary education system and our secondary schools, and how we value and uphold those science leaders within our community—those who have come before us, like Sir Ernest Rutherford, and those who exist today, like Sir Peter Gluckman.

That leads me to some of the provisions within this bill. As members have already mentioned, one of the key areas and the key amendments in this bill is around that recognition of the humanities. One thing that frustrates me is that sometimes members think that certain sides of the House care only about maybe economic reform or science particularly. But, actually, what is great about the amendments that are going through here and what is great about the Royal Society’s shift to recognise humanities is that it shows how well they are balanced. But I think it is also part of a wider global movement, which is understanding that sometimes the solutions to some of these problems are complex and involve not just looking at issues from a science perspective but also understanding issues from a humanities perspective and some of the social consequences. So that is what these amendments were about in terms of the committee.

I think it is also important to just take you through a little bit of the history in terms of this decision by the Royal Society to extend its academy to include researchers from the humanities. There was a memorandum of understanding signed by the society and Te Whāinga Aronui, the Council for the Humanities, in 2010. We also know that this approach is not happening just in New Zealand; it is also happening in other jurisdictions like Scotland and Canada. So I think that is very important, because, as I said before, we know that this is a wider movement in terms of the way that we address domestic and global issues that we face, both in New Zealand and throughout the world.

So in conclusion it has been an absolute delight to speak on this bill. On this side of the House we value science, both in terms of our science infrastructure—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): It is a pleasure to have almost the last word on a bill that has had a very protracted journey through this House. Its time in the House was, of course, extended by the rearguard action against the particularly appalling legislation, the voluntary student membership bill, and the Greens look forward to being part of a future Government that will turn round that bill and give us some legislation that puts a proper support around students and, indeed, our tertiary institutions.

The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is something dear to my heart and we have been very pleased to support it. My own academic career, if you like, has bridged the gap between arts—or humanities—and science. I was fortunate to do a Bachelor of Arts at Auckland University in the late 1980s, having come to tertiary study as an adult. There were remarkable people there at the time. Some of the lecturers and teachers were people like Barry Gustafson, Andrew Sharp, Linda and Graham Smith, Colin Lankshear—good thinkers, people who understood both the history and the present moment, and who anticipated some of the shifts in education and, indeed, in science that were inevitable as a result of the so-called neoliberal revolution of the 1980s and 1990s.

From that, I then went to Lincoln University to do a master’s degree in science. And it was a real revelation to me, I have to say, having come from one world view informing learning and knowledge in an arts context, to go to do a science degree and discover people coming from a fundamentally different world view, and holding a different set of expectations and experiences about teaching and learning. It was a revelation, and I think that, as Moana Mackey has commented in her contribution, we are now coming back to a place, even in the Western tradition, where, historically, there were remarkable men and women who understood natural science, who understood geology and astronomy and biology, but also knew their classics, knew their history, knew their culture, and this is a step back towards formalising a better integration of those two very different perspectives. C.P. Snow, who in the 1930s—1931, I think—delivered his seminal lecture, Two Cultures, captured very well the extent to which science and humanities had got locked into their separate silos for a variety of reasons, and were creating different languages, and, more important, they were making us almost unable to share knowledge, to share experiences, across so-called natural science and the humanities.

This bill is a step towards, as I said, formalising what is actually almost these days common practice in bringing together multidisciplinary approaches—multifunctional approaches, even—to solving problems and dealing with the challenges, scientific, cultural, social, and economic, of the 21st century. I was fortunate this morning, in fact, to be on campus at Lincoln at its orientation programme. I was there as part of the Greens on Campus. It was rewarding to see the waves of students desperate to find out more about the Green Party and to get involved with us, of course. But, more so, it was interesting to talk particularly to some of the postgrads, who are now doing things like postgrad degrees in international conservation management and postgrad degrees in ecosystem management. And these are relatively new disciplines. Historically, you would study ecology, or you might study biology—whole organism biology, molecular biology—or you might study planning. These disciplines are now being brought together in programmes that will enrich us as New Zealanders, the individuals pursuing those programmes. My own experience of teaching ecosystem management, for example, requires you to have a good understanding of the core principles of ecology, which in my view should inform economics, but also should aid us in understanding the day-to-day impact of the human relationship with the natural world, with ecosystems upon which we depend and that we are capable—and have proven ourselves capable—of extensively modifying, not always in ways that are positive for us or those ecosystems.

So it is a pleasure to be part of the wrapping up phase of this bill, if we like. I believe the Royal Society will continue to go from strength to strength. I think it is important to acknowledge, as my colleague Catherine Delahunty mentioned, that in this coming together of science and humanities, we should acknowledge and even pursue the contribution that forms of indigenous knowledge have to make, not least of all mātauranga Māori. Those remarkable people, those Polynesians came to New Zealand and became tangata whenua, became Māori. They survived and thrived in this place, because they were very good at observing natural cycles. They developed over not very many generations an extraordinarily subtle and complete understanding of the biology, of the geology, of the meteorology of this country in a way that enabled them to survive and to thrive. They also embedded that within a cultural framework that acknowledged the metaphysical and the spiritual, and I think what I consider the false distinction between so-called objective scientific knowledge and the metaphysical and the spiritual is something that has not served us well. I think, in all humility, that bodies like the Royal Society and scientists generally are now starting to re-engage with the spiritual, with the non-objective world, if you like, and I think that will serve us well into the future.

So I will just wrap up my brief comments. I say again that the Greens wholeheartedly support this. It has been an interesting journey in more ways than one, and we do wish the Royal Society well in its future and, indeed, the scientific endeavour upon which our future economic well-being certainly will, in part, depend. Kia ora.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I have always wanted to attend a session of the “Young Nationals Toastmasters workshop”, and that is what it has felt like this afternoon. It is an experience I always wanted to have, and it is fantastic to be here and to share in this learning moment for the National backbench.

It is a sorry moment; today we are going to see the back of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is like saying goodbye to an old friend. It has been part of our life for a long, long time, and so many Wednesday afternoons have been whiled away as we listened to the warbling of our colleagues on this bill. I am pleased to say that Labour supports the third reading and the passage of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill

Second Reading

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I move, That the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill be now read a second time. It is with some expression of delight that, first, I have the opportunity to speak in the House, which does not occur very often, and, second, something that had its genesis almost two decades ago is coming to fruition finally. So although the gestation period was a long one, the bill actually came to the House and was tabled in the House on 13 October 2010. The Southland District Council first started to move on this in the previous year, in September 2009, and on the fair island of Stewart Island in that time strangers have become friends, friends have consummated their friendship, and babies have been born. In this widest perspective Governments have been re-elected, and Australian Prime Ministers have become persona non grata and stayed persona non grata, and on Stewart Island in the year of our Lord 2012, 19 cruise ships and the first two tranches of some 40,000 visitors have arrived. So the 200-odd ratepayers are creaking at the seams—

Hon Member: 400.

ERIC ROY: No, ratepayers. Please listen. The population is approximately 429, but the ratepayers are about half that amount. They have to provide the facilities for the increasing—but desired—visitor numbers attending Stewart Island.

Can I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members for the work they have done. During the period that this was in the select committee, with three extensions of time, some 18 different members attended select committee sessions on the bill.

Dr Cam Calder: Only one chairman.

ERIC ROY: Yes, only one chairman, and can I acknowledge his diligent work in actually seeing this coming to fruition, as well. Because there has been some change in personnel in the period, it probably does befit the occasion that I just remind the House why the bill is here. We have a situation that is particularly unique. Stewart Island—predominantly Rakiura National Park, a settlement in the northern bay of Paterson’s Inlet, Oban, and a few sundry others—is required to host visitors. Very much of its business is around an increasing number of visitors, and it is straining at the seams to provide the facilities that are required. So this bill provides an opportunity for the Southland District Council to manage a levy-collecting system where visitors will contribute to ongoing maintenance, upkeep, creation, and mitigation of the effects of visitors on Stewart Island.

I would have to say that all members of the select committee engaged in this in a very serious way. There was a degree of cordiality and an ongoing desire to find solutions. So why was the bill so long in the select committee? Well, there were a couple of issues that did present themselves and gave some concern not only to members of the select committee but, I guess, to wider communities as well. One could see a certain degree of eagerness in the wider local government communities that this might be a mechanism by which they could get themselves out of trouble where situations of less than better management might have created some financial pressures. I need to just emphasise right at the start—and if members want to look on the second page of the commentary—that this in effect says quite clearly that this bill does not create a precedent for other local governments to follow. The situation on Stewart Island is sufficiently unique, and I mentioned the 19 cruise ships that have been there thus far this year, up from 13 in total last year. So it is a place of increasing desirability to visit, and there is a need to accommodate these increasing numbers. It is a blemish against New Zealand as a whole if we have less than adequate facilities in this very special part of New Zealand.

Although this is something of a unique situation, it is not an exclusively isolated situation. The Chatham Islands has legislation that ensures the collection of a levy on freight that goes across the wharf, that they might use that in a way to develop facilities on the island. In talking earlier to the Hon Annette King, she said would it be possible to have a Supplementary Order Paper included into the bill in the Committee stage to include the Chatham Islands. Well, in essence, the answer is no. It is totally outside the scope of the bill. Can I just say to Mr Twyford, who is looking somewhat disturbed about that notion, that not only is it outside the scope but there was a significant amount of consultation with all parties, and we have not had time to do that for the Chatham Islands.

Can I just say that 15 submissions were presented when this bill was in the select committee. Fourteen were in favour; one was opposed and the rationale for their opposition was that the Government should just provide some more money to put in the facilities. That of itself would create something of an unusual precedent. There is a wide degree of acceptability in this. The legislation itself does provide some real robustness and transparency about how this would work, in much the same way as legislation around road tolls in Tauranga provides a very clear and transparent system about how that money is collected and what the toll is set on.

So the first instance that the select committee had some difficulty over was what it might mean in terms of a precedent. Can I also say that, in that regard, it is not unique to New Zealand. There are a number of countries around the world—Australia, UK, US, Ireland, quite a bit of Europe, Switzerland—where various mechanisms to cope with visitors are in place. So we are not setting ourselves up as somewhat unique, or in some way creating some international first that might cause some repercussions. I just need to assure the House that this is quite an elegant solution in terms of accommodating the pressures of visitors in that area.

I have not at any stage stated what I think the visitor levy should be, because there is going to have to be some work done on how the Southland District Council, which is charged with the responsibility, might want to deal with a cruise ship that might have 2,000 visitors on board, but only 300 get off. So there are some areas where that will need to be dealt with.

One of the other areas that challenged the select committee was precisely what a visitor is, and I think other members who have been on the select committee might want to expand a bit on that. What I was quite happy to do, or had in the first draft of the bill—which perhaps might be called a Henry VIII clause—actually empowered the Southland District Council to make those sorts of rules. But quite clearly that was not acceptable, so we spent some time looking at precisely who is a visitor and who might be excluded, the issue of Māori land on Stewart Island, and what happens to people who actually fly by helicopter or fixed-wing plane or use a boat to enjoy the wider national park without using the facilities that are in the Oban township itself. All of those things are dealt with under the interpretation of precisely who is a visitor.

Can I again just say that I am really happy that after such a long gestation and birthing process this bill is now in its second reading. I thank the House, thank members of the select committee, the officials, and those people who put in submissions, and I look forward to this bill being passed in short order through its Committee stage. I look forward to any issues that people might want to raise at that time, and I think that will be an appropriate time to answer any questions. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Labour supports the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. We voted for it at the first reading, we took part in the discussions at the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we are happy to support it at this second reading.

I want to acknowledge the bill’s sponsor, Eric Roy, the member for Invercargill. It is really an essential part of the great New Zealand democratic tradition that, despite the modern reforms of MMP, the great New Zealand democratic tradition is about local MPs and local electorates. Not everyone might agree with me, but actually that is a very important part of our history, and this bill reflects the real desires and aspirations of the people of Stewart Island—

Eric Roy: Kia ora.

PHIL TWYFORD: —Rakiura to you, sir—and they have been served well by their MP patiently shepherding this bill through the House. Eric Roy deserves, I think, congratulations on that. I also want to acknowledge my old select committee, chaired by the able Chris Auchinvole, the Local Government and Environment Committee—the very collegial and productive committee that saw this bill through the necessary scrutiny.

I do note that there has been a bit of disgruntlement about how long it has taken to get this bill back to the House, and I read in the Southland Times that a number of local politicians have been somewhat critical of the delays. Stewart Island ward councillor Bruce Ford, Mayor Frana Cardno, and the Chief Executive of the Southland District Council, David Adamson, are all on the record as criticising the delays. In fact, one of them said: “[I’ve spent] 30 years on the damn thing,”. Well, Eric Roy brought it to the House only a couple of years ago. I did note that in the Southland Times it records one Eric Roy also criticising the lengthy delays facing this report.

So what does the bill do? It creates a mechanism for the Southland District Council to levy visitors to the island of Stewart Island, for the purposes of building up a fund that can be used to support the construction of necessary infrastructure: public toilets, wharves, and other infrastructure that is necessary for visitors to the island. We have all heard that Stewart Island has, I think, a resident population of between 300 and 400 people. It is a tiny little community in one of our most pristine and most precious parts of New Zealand, which is visited by in excess of 35,000, maybe 36,000, visitors a year. As Mr Roy pointed out, there is a growing cruise ship trade. I think all members of the select committee agreed that this was a reasonable and practical request, which was worthy of our support.

I read that ships carrying up to 1,400 passengers are now visiting Stewart Island, and that is great for the local economy, which is very reliant on the tourism trade. The owner of the Kiwi-French crêperie, Britt Moore, told the Southland Times that one day last summer she served 400 cups of coffee in 4 hours to cruise ship visitors. Well, after all that coffee being drunk, it is very obvious to me that good public toilets are going to be needed around Halfmoon Bay for the visiting tourists.

I want to touch on some of the issues that we dealt with at the select committee. One of them was the purpose clause. We had the officials redraft the purpose clause to make it absolutely clear that the purpose of this ability to levy a tax on visitors to the island was for the support of necessary tourism infrastructure on the island, so that makes it crystal clear that that is what the money has to be spent on. We spent a lot of time on the definition of “visitor”, and I think we came up with a pretty good solution, which excludes people who live on the island, excludes Māori with an interest in Māori land on the island, excludes people who are working on the vessels that are taking people to the island, and excludes dependants of ratepayers on the island. I am sure we will go through this in more detail in the Committee stage, but I believe we came up with a pretty good solution for the definitional issues of the “visitor”.

Included amongst the amendments was the definition of an “approved operator”, which is the people who are bringing these cruise ships into Stewart Island. It allows the flexibility for the council to negotiate with approved operators of these cruise ships, so that they can levy the fee through the operator, and not have to have a financial transaction with every one of those cruise ship passengers.

Probably one of the most interesting debates—and to be frank, it was never really resolved—was around the issue of whether this law had any kind of precedent value. That was the main objection that we raised at the first reading. It was whether or not what Eric Roy came to this House and asked us to consider would in fact complicate the law regarding the funding of tourism infrastructure around our country, and whether or not it would have unintended consequences that we needed to think about. We pondered it long and hard; I am not sure that we came up with any definitive answers.

I know there were some concerns from officials that there was, in fact, a precedent being set here, and Mr Roy has pointed out that although this is the first arrangement of its kind in New Zealand, there are plenty of other such arrangements overseas. I know a number of people have raised the fact that tourism operators in Milford Sound have a kind of levy arrangement, but, as we were advised, it is a voluntary arrangement that they have. Others raised the idea of people having to pay a departure tax at the local airport, and it is clearly to be distinguished from that kind of arrangement, because departure tax is really a tax for the use of a certain piece of infrastructure, whereas what this bill does is give a local authority the power to levy a tax on any visitor to a certain defined territory, and as far as I am aware that is not found anywhere else in the law.

So it is a precedent, but what I would say is that it is our duty as lawmakers to address the needs and concerns of the communities that we represent up and down this country, and we have to find solutions that are practical, effective, proportionate, and affordable. I think those are the tests, and in my view, having listened to the submissions, and having listened to the advice of the officials at the select committee, this bill passes all those tests, and I hope that it will satisfy the people of Stewart Island in their desire to have access to a fund that will deliver the kind of infrastructure that they want to provide, and that we all want to see provided.

A number of people have used the idea that $5 per visitor might be the kind of levy that would end up being imposed. I heard the member say that he has not said that, and he does not know what it would be. It would need to be properly worked out—

Eric Roy: It won’t be more than that.

PHIL TWYFORD: The member says it will not be more than that, but for argument’s sake, if it was $5, then we are looking at an income stream of about $150,000 a year. I think that $150,000 a year would provide the basis for a pretty reasonable programme of investment in local infrastructure on the island.

Back to the question about whether or not this is a precedent, I would say that it is a precedent. There is no doubt about that. The real issue is whether it is a good precedent or a bad precedent, and only time will tell. But I, for one, am satisfied, and my Labour colleagues are satisfied, that this is a good bill. It is worth supporting, and we hope that it meets the needs of the people of Rakiura.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): It is a pleasure to rise. I acknowledge the contribution from a fellow member of the Local Government and Environment Committee from last year, Phil Twyford. I must acknowledge also the excellent chairmanship of the then chairman, Chris Auchinvole. It was a very collegial committee, and this bill, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, was given significant consideration and debate, for reasons that many speakers have brought out.

I have to confess a family link with the small Stewart Island community. An aunt of mine, Esther Paton, I am led to believe did actually run the small hotel in Oban many, many years ago.

Todd McClay: Have you visited?

Dr CAM CALDER: I have visited Stewart Island. There are a couple of small churches, some excellent shops, some tourist organisations, and a visitor centre, and I think the community centre, which contains the library, was actually developed by the hard work of the local community, which we have heard is only around about 400 people. Opinions differ as to exactly how many ratepayers there are, because, of course, there are people who have holiday homes there, but there is a small—very, very small—number of ratepayers in the rating base.

It is tiny compared with, say, North Shore City. I see the ex-Mayor of North Shore City sitting over there.

Andrew Williams: 250,000 people.

Dr CAM CALDER: Thank you very much—250,000 people—but I think on Stewart Island it is a mere 400 or less, according to the information I have.

Simon Bridges: There’d be more visitors than that.

Dr CAM CALDER: And how many people visit Stewart Island? Well, we heard from Eric Roy—and I must take this opportunity to compliment Mr Roy. He is a bit of a Renaissance man, and I have had the pleasure of going fishing with him. I caught my first wild trout in the Joes River with Eric Roy some years ago.

He is also Deputy Speaker in the House, as we know, and of course for many years—since 1994—as the excellent MP he is, he has pushed away on behalf of his local community, on behalf of the people of Stewart Island, and on behalf of those small number of people who live in a small paradise, it has to be said. They do not live in “Taradise”—Taranaki—they live in Stewart Island, in Rakiura, which is another paradise.

We are blessed in this country with many, many beautiful parts of the world.

Simon Bridges: Tauranga.

Dr CAM CALDER: I hear Tauranga has been put forward by my colleague on my left. Stewart Island, however, we know is special. It is special—very special.

As a student at Otago University, one of the joys I had was at Easter when we would go regularly on an Easter tramp, so to speak, and one year it was to Stewart Island. We got off the ferry after a reasonably smooth crossing, much to our delight, at Halfmoon Bay, and we tramped through to North Arm Hut. I am not sure whether North Arm Hut is still there. I am hoping to go down with the member for Invercargill at some time in the future and ascertain that for myself. It was set about 10 feet above a beautiful little estuary.

Above the fireplace on the lintel were written the words “Peace and tranquillity are here.”—“Peace and tranquillity are here.”—and that, in fact—

Simon Bridges: That’s a bit new-age.

Dr CAM CALDER: The member for Tauranga says it is new-age. Well, in fact, this was a few years ago. That word had not been invented at that stage, Simon, but there we are. It was indeed true, however. “Peace and tranquillity are here.”, and that really reflects the “mori”, if I may use that term, the spirit, of Stewart Island.

Hon Members: Mauri.

Dr CAM CALDER: “Mowri”—is it “mowri”?

Hon Members: “Mau”.

Dr CAM CALDER: Well, we need to go through this at some stage. Thank you for the contribution from across the House. I should have just used the word “spirit”, obviously.

It does reflect the spirit of the island, and that is why 40,000 visitors—40,000 visitors—are drawn to that particular piece of our New Zealand paradise. They come by ferry, they come by plane, and they come, as we have heard from the member for Invercargill, by cruise liners. I think 19—19—are due in this cruise season, and that will only increase with the attractiveness of New Zealand to tourists from all over the world.

Obviously there is a small rating base of around 400, including those who have holiday homes. It is asking a huge amount of these people, many of whom are permanent residents. Some, of course, have links with the island through long-term family links and maintain a holiday home there. It is only reasonable, we thought as a committee—and it was a collegial discussion on this, and I acknowledge the cooperation from all sides of the House, including the previous speaker, Mr Twyford—to, basically, dramatically reduce that rating burden on those residents there.

Just as a point, it is a beautiful place. We have people who are interested in kayaking, people who are fisherman, and people who come to get the white-tailed deer. Tramping on the way to North Arm Hut we did catch a glimpse of one. This was when I was a student. I did a little bit of work as a student, but at Easter we took off.

I must say, in a rush of enthusiasm we decided to go from North Arm Hut to Mason Bay and back in a day. I have to say, that was a bit of a trek. It was a bit of a trek, but we came back in a day. It was my first experience of “sahib’s knee”, which at a later date I was to find recurring in the Himalayas. But I do digress slightly.

This is a wonderful bill. There is a cost to the community of their providing these essential services. We heard from the previous speaker of the effect of serving 400 cups of coffee to cruise ship visitors. There is a cost to the community for these essentials and the infrastructure. There are not many roads there, and that is a lot of its attraction. There are not a lot of roads, but there are other essential services that need to be maintained, and the cost to the community will be dramatically reduced if this visitor levy goes through, which I am sure it will, with the support that we have seen in the House today.

To administer the levy, the bill provides for the Southland District Council to establish a subcommittee, and this subcommittee will consist of representatives from the tourism industry, the community board, and the district council. At this stage we do not know what the amount of the levy will be, but as we have heard, at this stage $5 is likely to be the figure. The bill also establishes the governance and administrative arrangements for the levy, including the process for setting and regularly reviewing the same.

There will be opportunity to debate this excellent bill in the future. I will commend the bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I rise and I am very proud to speak in support of the second reading of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I am also very proud to stand as the other local member for Rakiura, with Stewart Island / Rakiura coming within the boundary of the massive electorate of Te Tai Tonga. I also acknowledge the member sponsoring this bill, the member for Invercargill, Eric Roy, for his work in leading this bill to this stage. There has been quite a long whakapapa to this bill. As the other speakers have mentioned, it has taken decades. But referring just to the bill itself—

Hon Tau Henare: What’s it called again?

RINO TIRIKATENE:—it came through to its first reading. It is the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. The bill itself came through for its introduction on 26 May 2010, and then on 16 June 2010 it had its first reading. It has had some 20 months with the Local Government and Environment Committee and with the drafting with officials, so it definitely has had a lot of attention put to its provisions.

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

RINO TIRIKATENE: Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Tēnā koutou e ngā mema o te Whare. Picking up from where we left off, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill has had a long gestation period. There have been 20 months between its first reading and now coming back for its second reading. I have not been, obviously, a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which was considering the bill, but I understand, having read through the bill as it has been amended, that there has been considerable time and considerable amendments made to the bill. In spite of the length of time it has taken, I do believe that the bill as it now appears has been improved. Definitely there are some very good, elegant solutions put in place in the drafting of the legislation.

To get to the crux of what the bill does, it enables the Southland District Council to set visitor levies for, and collect them from, passengers travelling to Stewart Island / Rakiura. The visitor levy will be used to enhance services, facilities, and amenities provided for such people. Obviously, this is a unique situation that has led to the introduction of this bill, and it is really based around the unique situation of the Stewart Island / Rakiura community. There are only 200 ratepayers in the district and I think the total population is just a little over 420, so it is a very small population and rating base, yet there is a growing demand and a growing tourism industry in such a beautiful place, which has seen an increase of, I believe, over 30,000 visitors annually to Rakiura. Also there has been a substantial increase in cruise ship visitors to the island. So in light of all of that, it is impractical to demand that such a small ratepaying base provide all the amenities with such a high visitor population. So this bill provides a fair mechanism whereby the council can levy a reasonable levy. I understand there has been discussion that it will not be more than $5 or around that vicinity. So it is a small charge, but it will mean the collection of additional funds that can go directly into the community to enhance and look after the amenities, services, and facilities for all of the visitors to the island.

There were concerns raised, I understand, at the first reading around the fact that this could set a precedent for other tourist spots to follow. That has been addressed in this bill through making it a very specific focus that it specifically relates to the Southland District Council and specifically to Stewart Island / Rakiura. It does not have any wider implications and it is in recognition of the unique aspects and the issues that Rakiura faces, as I have just mentioned previously. However, as the local member who shares the Chatham Islands with the Hon Annette King, I am aware that there are similar small communities that do face similar issues. They are not exactly the same as Stewart Island / Rakiura, but the Chatham Islands is a very small community. It only has a very small rating base and it has a growing tourism industry. I know that there is a lot of emphasis being put on the Chatham Islanders to grow their tourism industry. The unique wildlife and birdlife and the beautiful scenery that is on both the Chatham Islands and Rakiura are world renowned. That will be one matter that I will be discussing with my colleague Annette King when we have further conversations with our constituents on the Chatham Islands and the Chatham Islands Council, because in a way this bill is a model for a very unique situation and a unique community such as the Chatham Islands.

This bill is a local solution to meet the growing infrastructure needs of Stewart Island / Rakiura, and I have acknowledged the local member whom I share Rakiura with, Eric Roy, for being in charge of this bill. As I mentioned, the bill has been substantially redrafted. Just looking through the pages, practically the whole bill from its first reading has been overhauled to how it appears now, in its amended form. It has been for the better. If I just go through a few of the clauses, I particularly note clause 3, the purpose clause, which has been very much refined in terms of the purpose of the bill. It says that “The purpose of the Act is to provide a mechanism for the Council to set and collect levies and obtain revenue from passengers travelling to Stewart Island/Rakiura,”. It is fine tuned and very much hones in on the purpose of the bill, when it becomes an Act.

Also, regarding the definition of “visitor”, there has been a lot of thought that has gone into the drafting of this definition. It covers only visitors who are those persons who travel to or from the island, whether for a single day or for any continuous period less than 21 days by any transport vessel. But there are a number of exclusions to the definition of “visitor”: ratepayers, residents, dependants of ratepayers, and beneficiaries of the Rakiura Māori Land Trust. I would like to acknowledge the addition of the exclusion of the traditional landowners, the Māori landowners of the Rakiura Māori Land Trust, which is the second-biggest landowner on Rakiura. It is also well drafted to exclude the persons involved in carriage and transportation and long-term visitors, of course. A good addition has been the omission of children, those under 18, from the definition of visitor.

All of those positive changes and really productive and very good drafting that have gone on as a result of all of the select committee’s review and amendments are to be commended, and I look forward to speaking again when it gets to the Committee stage of the bill. Kia ora tātou.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I advise the member that under Speaker’s ruling 25/2 you must call. I cannot anticipate what you are going to say.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. The Green Party supported this bill at its first reading and we will support it at the second reading. As the member for Invercargill and other members have noted, the bill will provide the Southland District Council with the legal basis to both receive and spend the revenue that it gains from a levy on visitors. I understand that the bill has been needed because of case law that the district council’s powers under the Local Government Act are not unfettered and that if the Southland District Council passed a by-law to levy visitors without this bill, such a by-law would risk being ultra vires if the levy was considered to be a tax.

Rakiura / Stewart Island is our southernmost permanent settlement and the land of glowing skies. Those dramatic sunrises and sunsets and the natural wonders of Rakiura, including knee-deep mud on some of its tramping tracks, may attract visitors, but, as we know, the rates revenue generated by its 400-odd residents is very small. The Southland District Council has a population of about 28,000 people, but its annual rates income in its 2010-11 budget was around $34 million. So as the district council, the Stewart Island Community Board, and a number of individual residents have made clear in their submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee, the island community lacks the ability to fund both the infrastructure and the capital development projects that they believe are necessary to service the increasing number of visitors to the island since the national park was established in 2002, and from the increasing number of cruise ships. As both the council and the community board have noted, the roading maintenance and construction costs on the island are significantly higher than on the mainland, because of shipping costs.

When I checked the Department of Conservation’s visitor numbers going through the visitors centre, they had increased from 45,000 to 62,000 immediately after the national park was created, and then settled to around 56,000 in 2005-06. So although these numbers are significantly less than those visiting some of our longer-established national parks, they are significant on the island. The Southland District Council has described the situation as being akin to sharing a house with three people but every weekend having to host 300 visitors with no way of recovering the infrastructure costs associated with their stay. Some of the projects needing investment include maintenance and replacement of the jetty at Ulva Island, potentially replacing the diesel generators that provide power with alternative energy sources such as wind and solar, more toilets at road ends, and maintenance of the walking tracks outside the national park.

Although we are very pleased that a local solution has been developed here, and as the member for Invercargill noted, the bill’s commentary does provide that it should not be taken as a precedent for other local authorities, I can certainly see other councils, such as those on the West Coast—Westland District Council, Buller District Council, and Grey District Council, which also have very high visitor numbers and a low rating base—wanting a similar model there. That is where I think the bill highlights a much wider national issue: the limited ability of councils with a small rating base to fund the infrastructure and amenities that are needed to ensure that visitors enjoy the experience and that we also sustain the qualities of the natural environment and natural assets that attracted people here in the first place.

As other members have noted, these tourism taxes are used quite widely overseas. They take the form of entry fees, hotel bed taxes, or sometimes vehicle charges. Some of the Canadian states have a hotel room tax, and in France visitors have to pay a flat-rate tourism tax. But when councils in New Zealand have attempted it, such as Westland District Council, which from memory experimented with a tourism tax based on the number of toilet pans, there has been strong resistance to that. So I think we need to provide some more thought on some new tools and a consistent approach around New Zealand to how local authorities can ensure that visitors contribute to funding the facilities and infrastructure that they benefit from. One suggestion in the past has been that there be a tourism levy on all visitors, and that that provide a contestable fund that local authorities could apply to.

I would like to acknowledge the work that the Local Government and Environment Committee did in the 49th Parliament and the quite substantial changes that it made to the bill, as the member for Te Tai Tonga has noted. Those included how visitors were defined, and I was very pleased to see that visitors who spend all of their time within Rakiura National Park are defined as excluded visitors so that they are not subject to the levy. This is particularly important because, of course, our conservation legislation safeguards free access to national parks and protected lands.

I think we need to acknowledge the enormous contribution that the Department of Conservation makes to both managing the national parks and providing quite substantial infrastructure for visitors in the form of walking tracks, campsites, roadside picnic areas, short walking tracks, and, of course, tramping tracks and huts. On Stewart Island we have got the 29-kilometre Rakiura tramping track and the 120-kilometre north-west circuit.

The Department of Conservation operates on an annual budget equivalent to the Hamilton City Council, yet it has responsibility for a third of New Zealand and an extensive marine area. The tactics being adopted by this Government, of slashing the department’s budget by $54 million annually and of restructuring so that 104-odd staff positions were lost, are the wrong ones. We need to ensure that the department that manages the infrastructure for tourism in terms of those natural assets is properly funded, because, of course, 86 percent of Rakiura / Stewart Island is conservation land, and the wonders of the Rakiura National Park and the opportunities it provides for tramping, hunting, fishing, and walking along wild coasts are what draw the visitors. Just as this bill is intended to help the Southland District Council adequately fund the jetty at Ulva Island, improved energy generation, and other infrastructure to benefit both international and domestic visitors, we need to adequately invest in funding the Department of Conservation so it can sustain those natural assets. Anyone who has visited Ulva Island and watched kākā tearing the bark off trees knows what a special experience that is. So although we support this bill, we would also like to see increased funding for the department that protects those natural assets. Thank you.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I have listened to the speeches that have been given on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill with considerable interest and I would like to compliment the previous speaker, Eugenie Sage, and the member for Te Tai Tonga on the careful observations they have made without actually going through the select committee process, because you are smack on the button. It was a very prolonged process for this particular bill—

Hon Trevor Mallard: But very well chaired, I’m told.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, I would not know about that. You know, take what you can and when you get it, I guess, Mr Mallard; thank you. I guess I would take a measure of responsibility for the time that has been taken over the bill because I think I was probably one of the most concerned people of all on the Local Government and Environment Committee with regard to setting precedents. I was very, very concerned about that. It is nice to hear that people recognise that Stewart Island is, people have said, unique and a little bit different. I think the important thing that needs to be remembered about this, though, is that this is not a complete answer for what I term the Kaikōura syndrome, of a very small rate base with large demands for infrastructure. This is designed entirely to help them with the infrastructure that services tourism. When I felt this was coming our way, my wife and I went down in the winter and visited Stewart Island. A great little aeroplane took us across, and the pilot said: “If you get scared just be like me. Shut your eyes before you land.” It was a wonderful experience, and I did indeed go to Ulva Island and I saw 11 species of birds that I have not seen in my usual residence at Lake Brunner, so it was good and I enjoyed the whole thing.

But I rise to support the bill, and enthusiastically so, and we did have a large throughput of people on this committee who have all had experience with this particular bill. I think we had 18, which is exceptional. But we did have a pretty good collegiate structure, and I would particularly like to thank the people who led for Labour and for the Greens—in fact, every party made a good contribution. I would like to thank too my deputy chair for that period, Nicky Wagner. We all got really involved in this. We felt it was a deserving bill, and we wanted to do it properly. It stretches back to 1994.

A speech would not be complete without recognising the efforts of the local member, Eric Roy. Goodness me, he really has worked on this—

Hon Annette King: A very good member.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: A very good member. I would agree with you there, from the other side of the House. Exceptionally good. There you are, Mr Roy, I have said it three times, so you need not expect it to be said much more in the speech. But I would like to acknowledge also the work of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Southland District Council, because we largely identified potential problems and referred them to the department and referred them to the council, and on some occasions we asked that they work together without it being through the committee so that they could get their definitions right, and definitions were one of the major concerns that we had. You would wonder, looking at it—16 submissions; only one against—why did it take so long? But it was this matter of defining exactly what was required.

The purpose of the bill, just to go through it—it has actually been well gone into already—I think it is a noble purpose. Once passed, the bill will be of great benefit to the people of Stewart Island, or to the council, as long, again, as people do not think: “Oh, well, that is that—fixed.” It ain’t going to be a lot of money for an infrastructure of that sort. Let us remember, if you want to go out at night, you take a torch, because the street lights are not there. You are stepping back in history. I was reminded very much of my time in Hokianga, when I went down to Stewart Island.

So there are things, I think, that need to be carefully considered before people think it is a catch-all, but it will improve both the opportunities for tourism on the island and reduce the pressure that tourism currently places on the island’s infrastructure. I have heard an awful lot of figures for the number of people who actually live there. I refer again to the member for the district. Is it 429?

Eric Roy: Roughly.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: How can it be “roughly”? OK—429, approximately. [Interruption] OK, thank you. Nineteen cruise ships go there over an annual basis, and that is an awful lot of people. When it came to the committee, as I say, this was a bill with a good purpose, and I think we have significantly improved the wording of the bill and the way the visitor levy will be administered. Again, I would like to acknowledge the work of the officials, because they came up with some excellent reasoning, some really good consideration, and some good solutions. We have, in fact, been quite ruthless with the original text. I am not sure that we have had another bill go through the committee that has been quite so exercised in surgery. But we have now a bill that better reflects the original intent.

I would like to just touch on some of the changes that we made and describe why we thought they were necessary. One of the most significant changes to the purpose clause was to change from a charge being levied on travellers “to, or from,” Stewart Island, which was a fairly simplistic approach initially, to a charge levied only on those travelling “to” the island. We believe that this better reflects the intent of the bill—that the levy be charged only on visitors to the island, rather than on any person travelling between Stewart Island and the South Island. In addition, we expanded the purpose to set out exactly why the bill is required, by adding the phrase “in order to better provide services, facilities, and amenities for those persons while they are on the Island.” In other words, they should be able to see what they get. It is a bit like paying your parking fee for your boat trailer at Lake Brunner—try parking somewhere else where you do not have to pay; it is going to be very awkward. So there are benefits attached to it, and we hope that benefits will pertain to this, as well, and that people will see the benefits.

The changes to interpretations of various terms are fairly standard, in line with other changes to the bill. I would like to point out, though, that we have much more clearly defined what a “visitor” is for the purposes of this bill. I would commend anyone to have a look at the empowering bill papers just to see how carefully crafted the “visitor” definition is. Rather than including every traveller to and from the island and leaving it to the council to define exceptions—which was, I think, one of the council’s initial requests—we thought that was heading for trouble, so the bill now clearly defines a “visitor” as someone who is not a ratepayer, not a resident, and not staying for longer than 21 days, amongst other provisions. We felt it was important to make these definitions clear in the bill to ensure the intentions of Parliament in passing this bill will be clearly reflected in its outcomes.

As with other changes, clause 5 brings the wording of the bill more clearly into line with its overall purpose and clarifies the rights and responsibilities of the Southland District Council. A notable change is the obligation on the council to erect and maintain signs advising visitors of their obligations, the rate of the levy, how it is to be paid, and the offence for a breach of a by-law.

A number of speakers have commented on the careful drafting of this bill, and I too would like to commend those who drafted it, because it is not one that leaves too many loopholes or misunderstandings. I think it is about as thoroughly done as it could be done, and that is why I have confidence that it will apply to Stewart Island quite adequately and quite appropriately, and I am not sure I agree with those who say that this could be transferred to other islands or to other communities, because—

Hon Annette King: Well, what about the Chathams?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, I would not deny the Chathams, but I think they have a different problem.

Hon David Carter: Yeah, they’re represented by the member.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I am sure their representation is not a problem, Mr Carter. Indeed, we heard my colleague Mr Finlayson just saying how good the representation is.

Hon Annette King: That’s right.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: He did. He did, and I would not argue with him.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Kissing cousins.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes, that is right. I would not argue with him, but, no, I am afraid I do not see a direct analogy between Stewart Island and other islands or the West Coast, which I am very, very dearly married to. But this is purely for Stewart Island and it will work. Stewart Island is a beautiful place and well worth visiting. For the fewer than 430 people who live there, however, it is their home. For too long those ratepayers have been effectively subsidising the services enjoyed by those of us who visit, and we owe it to them to support this bill. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, and I am very proud to be doing so, particularly as the name Stewart is part of my family’s heritage. As some of you who were here in the Chamber and heard my maiden speech 2 weeks ago will recall, my mother’s maiden name is Stewart. The Stewarts were from Wyndham in Southland, so in a sense this is almost like bringing the money home to the family. I am sure part of the Scottish heritage would love to be getting part of the levy that is being paid.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Might be related.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: I am sure I am related. I am sure there is a plot of land somewhere there on Stewart Island that our family has, and I will certainly be going there one day to look up that plot of land.

However, I would like to congratulate the member of Parliament from Invercargill, Eric Roy, on bringing this bill through the House and through the select committee process. He is to be congratulated. This has been a long time in the coming. And before the honourable member Chris Auchinvole leaves, I say also to you, Chris, as chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, well done on following this through, and it is a great achievement.

Can I also particularly congratulate parties on the cross-party agreement on this. I think all of the parties have worked very well to bring this through, and it has been very much a non-political, cross-party agreement. New Zealand First, as most of you know, was not in Parliament in the last 3 years, in case you had not noticed. We are back and I am one of the members who can safely say that we would have certainly been supporting this bill had we been on the select committee at the time.

Can I also congratulate the Stewart Island Community Board and also the Southland District Council. This is a great achievement on their part, and it is a milestone in local government. We have heard recently from the Government benches how the Government would like to see reviews in local government. It says that local government is charging too much for rates and charging too much for its services.

Here is a classic example of a local authority—the Southland District Council and its local community board, the Stewart Island Community Board—standing up for themselves and saying: “We cannot put this all on the ratepayers. We cannot charge this all to the ratepayers.” The ratepayers, when there are only something like 400 residents, cannot afford to provide all this infrastructure. And well done to them for standing up on behalf of local government and saying: “We need to find some other means of charging for this infrastructure growth.”

In 2007-08 there were something like 32,000 visitors to Stewart Island and by 2010 that had risen to 40,000 people per year, including those 19 cruise ships this season. That is quite a large growth when you have only 400 local residents. This is a huge drain on them.

I am informed that, for instance, at least half of the people on a daily basis who are in Oban and around that area are simply pedestrians and tourists walking around the area. In many respects they have very limited footpaths, and most of the people end up walking on the roads themselves because of the lack of footpaths. They have a lack of public toilets, the sewerage system is inadequate, the walking tracks and the jetties need upgrades to sustain the number of people visiting the island, and, quite frankly, it is a difficult situation when you are in that predicament of so few people trying to cover such a great cost.

And this is very important for New Zealand’s tourism. Stewart Island is one of the jewels in the crown of this great country, New Zealand Aotearoa, and it is wonderful that we are looking to Stewart Island as one of our future significant tourist places. The national park there, which was founded in 2000 and opened in 2002 with 157,000 hectares, the Rakiura National Park, covers about 85 percent of Stewart Island / Rakiura. Again, that is an amazing place when such a large percentage of the landmass of Stewart Island is covered by national park. Having a national park like that, of course, brings added pressures to a small community the likes of Oban and the likes of Stewart Island.

It is only an hour by ferry and 15 minutes by air to get to Stewart Island. It is so close and yet it is really one of our remote jewels of the New Zealand tourist trail. They have only 12.8 kilometres of sealed roads on Stewart Island and 8.3 kilometres of narrow gravel roads, so there is not a lot of roading infrastructure, and there is no reticulated public water supply. Again, these funds will assist them in the future to provide for some of those infrastructure assets.

There are only 250 occupied dwellings on Stewart Island, and, as a result, the people there—I think for many, many years, quite rightly, and this goes right back to the 1970s—have been asking for this support. I think it is incredible that it has taken this long. We have heard that it has gone through many, many members of Parliament over the years, it has gone through a number of councils, and it has gone through many, many processes.

It is a little bit of a tragedy and perhaps something we need to reflect on that here there has been a community, a very small community in New Zealand, that has been struggling and has put out its hand for assistance, and, quite frankly, we the lawmakers and we the Parliament perhaps have ignored this for too long. I hope this is not mirrored in other communities in New Zealand. I certainly would like to think that other communities who are under stress, who are having difficulties with providing for their communities, having seen this example might look to the same situation to get relief in their situation.

This does get back to the comment I made at the beginning of my speech about local government. I honestly do believe, as a former mayor of the fourth-biggest city in this country, that this National Government, and, indeed, other Governments in the past, have often underestimated what local government does provide in the way of infrastructure in this country. They underestimate what the local councils, the district councils, and the regional councils do provide in this country, and it is very, very important.

It reflects on the likes of our tourism. You have to remember that our tourists do not come just to Auckland. They do not come just to Wellington. They do not come just to Christchurch. They go all over New Zealand, and many, many, many hundreds of thousands of our tourists go to very, very small communities in our country, and they require public toilets, they require walking tracks, they require parks, and they require the infrastructure that is needed for them to have an enjoyable stay in this country. I certainly hope that this is respected by this Government, to reflect on the fact that local government provides much of this infrastructure, and much of that does fall back on the individual ratepayers and the ratepayers who are funding those councils to provide that infrastructure.

Can I also say in closing that I am very pleased that this was the result of very good community consultation. I note that in 2009 there were something like 129 respondents to the 485 flyers that were distributed on Stewart Island, and of the 129 who replied, 119 were in support of this levy. So it has very strong local support. It also means, as a result of this levy, that instead of the ratepayers having an increase in their rates of something like $353 per year to try to cover the $160,000 that they estimate would be generated on an annual basis from this levy, the levy will assist them by providing that $160,000-plus towards those necessary footpaths, tracks, public toilets, water infrastructure, and other things.

So in closing, New Zealand First is very supportive of this. This is an initiative of the local community, and New Zealand First always favours local initiatives. If a local community deems something to be appropriate and fit, and when you have resounding support from the local community, we certainly believe it is very, very appropriate. We very, very strongly support this and we commend this to the House.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I rise to support, as does virtually everybody else in this House, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. Of course, it is a local bill, brought to us by my colleague the very honourable MP for Invercargill, Eric Roy. The bill is designed to address an issue specific to Stewart Island / Rakiura. It is the problem of how 400 permanent residents can provide the infrastructure needed to welcome and to look after about 40,000 visitors per year to the island.

Of course, Stewart Island is very famous for its tourism. It has beautiful bush, fabulous beaches, fishing, and a unique natural environment. It is particularly well known for its iconic birds such as the kiwi and the kākāpō. I believe that, in fact, Stewart Island is the place you are most likely to see a kiwi in the wild. Eighty-five percent of the island is the magnificent Rakiura National Park. But to attract and entertain the tourists who visit the island, the community needs to create and maintain visitor walking tracks and tourist roads, and, most important, to provide public toilets for their guests. All these projects are capital-intensive and have ongoing maintenance costs. All these projects are difficult to fund from a small number of ratepayers. The member Eric Roy and the island community have been working on these issues and looking for solutions for many years, and have finally decided that a levy is the best way to fund these costs. This bill provides the mechanism to do just that.

Because the island can be accessed only by air or by sea, the bill allows the Southland District Council on behalf of the Stewart Island / Rakiura community to collect levies from visitors directly via an approved operator. Approved operators are the people who operate the airline or the ferry companies, or maybe cruise liner operators. The bill also provides mechanisms to set and review the amount of the levy, and to establish a subcommittee of stakeholders to administer that levy. Their first job will be to establish the price of the levy, and then to make sure that that money is spent wisely for visitors.

Eric Roy’s consultation with the community and with the Southland District Council was extensive. So this bill was well-thought-out before it came to the House. However, the Local Government and Environment Committee spent some time considering a series of issues. The first was the definitions of “visitor” and “excluded visitor”, because who should pay the levy is fundamental to the success of the bill. The final definition of a visitor agreed by the committee, after we had taken considerable advice, was that a visitor was one who travels to the island but is not a resident or a ratepayer, or a dependant of a resident or a ratepayer, or anyone who has an ownership interest in the island. An excluded visitor includes those who are under 18 or those who travel to the island as part of their job; also, anyone who stayed any longer than 21 days or remained entirely within the boundaries of the Rakiura National Park. We also introduced a clause that ensures that the levy money is only used for funding activities that benefit visitors, or to mitigate the effects of visitors on the island environment. That seemed pretty fair to us. Finally, we recommended that any offences—in other words, people who did not pay their levy—were infringement offences. We wanted to do that in order to streamline the process and to make it more cost-effective for the council. New clause 25 requires that the infringement fee be no less than $150 and cannot exceed $500.

Stewart Island, or Rakiura if you prefer, is a beautiful place, and it is a wonderful place to visit. I have visited Oban and further afield, and I thoroughly recommend it to anybody who enjoys a natural environment, a unique place and a very special place to visit. I support this bill as an intelligent solution to a problem of a very small population struggling to provide the infrastructure for over 400,000 tourists, and the funds to mitigate the wear and tear of those visitors on their island environment. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I would just like to acknowledge a couple of people. One is my colleague Annette King, who passed over her opportunity to speak on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. As a former Minister of Tourism I have some views on this, and I would like to express them. I would like to acknowledge also, actually, the similarities, despite what we have heard from some of the speakers, of places like the Chatham Islands, places like the West Coast, places like Kaikōura, and places like Westland itself. In fact, of the whole region of the West Coast, 85 percent of that area is in conservation land—exactly the same percentage as that on Stewart Island. So the dilemma for the people of Stewart Island—and I acknowledge my colleague Eric Roy, what he is doing for them—is something that I think the country as a whole is facing. The Chatham Islands certainly do, Westland, the West Coast, Akaroa—there are a number of places around the country wanting to be destinations for tourists, and wanting to show off with pride what they have to people who have come from around the world, but struggling to literally pay for that.

I thought we could call the bill the “National Party (Wake Up) Bill”, because what is happening here is that a tax is being brought in and put in place—or, the ability to do that. For a party that has always maintained that less tax is good, less tax is better for everyone, and if we pay too much tax we will be ruined, it may have learnt something from Greece, perhaps, because if you do not pay any tax, that is where you end up. This bill brings in one more levy—or a tax, or call it what you like—a charge on visitors to Rakiura, which is necessary to protect the environment and enhance the visitor experience. Well, the dilemma of how you pay for adequate facilities, as I say, is faced by many councils up and down the country. In fact, I am not sure what the Minister of Local Government, Nick Smith, will say about this—a council imposing a greater rate or tax. I imagine he might be jumping up and down in his usual manic state trying to say that rates are all bad and we have got to get them down.

The reality is that we need taxes and we need rates spent wisely to maintain infrastructure, to maintain the communities, and to provide opportunities for industry and tourism. This is one such levy, and Labour supports it. But we have got some fairly ad hoc arrangements. This adds to the smorgasbord of opportunities around the country. There are a couple of airports—I dare not name them, because if the tourism industry was to be true to its word, because it campaigned against a proposal that I myself put up, if it is true that any additional charge will keep people away from our country, then there is a risk that this might stop people going to Rakiura. I doubt it. I confess, I have not gone to Stewart Island. I would love to go. This is not going to reduce my desire to go to that wonderful place. Neither will a charge imposed on visitors to this country reduce their desire to come here. The important thing is that any levy, or any rate, or any tax we gather is spent wisely for the purposes for which it was laid down.

Hon Tau Henare: The tourism spokesperson and he’s never been to Stewart Island!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have to say that I think the Local Government and Environment Committee has done a good job to tidy that up and make sure that it is spent for the right reasons. The member over there should listen, he would learn a lot more. It is never too late to learn. Can I ask the Government whether it will consider a visitor levy on everyone coming in to provide a fund so that all the other councils in the country that are strapped for cash can apply for a fund that provides toilets and basic signage.

I would just like to take the opportunity now to offer my condolences and apologies to the tourist who came to this country and, unfortunately, turned the wrong way on to a roundabout and lost his wife as a result. That was a tragic accident, but our police, for whatever idiotic reason, decided to prosecute that poor guy. Anyway, he was let off. The point being that I am guessing the signage that we have around this country was not adequate enough to show that person where he should and should not turn. The point being that we need proper infrastructure to properly protect and look after the tourists that come to this country. That was a tragic accident. We need to make sure there are proper safety requirements, that there are proper infrastructure requirements and environmental protection on Rakiura, the West Coast, Northland, Akaroa, Banks Peninsula, and right around this country if we are to uphold the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. It is a valuable brand. This levy will assist in upholding that brand down in that wonderful Stewart Island / Rakiura.

But the question for the Government is: is it going to do anything else to try to protect the rest of the conservation estate, because what it has done is chop the Department of Conservation budget? It has chopped the budget and it has allowed the Southland District Council to bring in a levy that will effectively do the same or replace the money that they will not have on the island to manage the environment. It is a bit of a merry-go-round, really, and I have to say that the Government has got to be a bit more consistent.

I appreciate that Eric Roy has brought the bill to the House. We support it. We support it because it is a smart and a very good bill, but the principles behind this apply to the whole country. So what are we going to say to the Chatham Islands residents—the few over there who are trying to generate a bit more tourism, who have incredible natural resources but have huge costs? What are we going to say to them when they ask us “Can you place a levy on either the goods or the services or the visitors coming to our island so we can better protect what we have?” Well, I suggest that we would have to say yes, too. I personally do not have a problem with that. Or what about those on the West Coast who say: “Eighty-five percent of our land is locked up in the conservation estate, there is a small amount of rateable land, we have to maintain the roads and all the infrastructure. Can we have a levy?” And the Government and its agencies have said no. They have said that of all the $500 million worth of coal coming from one mine above Westport—$500 million in export earnings—not a cent goes, as of right, back to the councils on the West Coast.

So we have got some inconsistency right through New Zealand, and all I ask, in Labour supporting the bill, is that we get from the National Government a bit more consistency around protection of the environment, funding for conservation, support for infrastructure, and the key issue of taxation. We do not believe, and most of New Zealand does not believe, the blind rhetoric that comes from the National members that reducing your taxes will make us all better off. Well, they chopped $14 billion worth of taxes for the wealthy, and then told us we could not afford a whole lot of stuff in health and education. And we are supposed to feel better off? Wake up, National—wake up. We support this bill, but let us have some more consistency from the National Government—

Hon Tau Henare: Well, sit down and let’s get on with it.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —particularly from that member, who has been in so many different places philosophically and physically that he does not quite know where he is at the moment. In supporting this bill, can I just say that Labour would like to see more consistency, and I am sure my colleague the Hon Annette King would like to see some consideration for the Chatham Islands, which they rightfully deserve.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is difficult, is it not, when a member gets up and contends that the principles that we are discussing in this bill, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, should apply to the whole country? It makes me think about the communities in my electorate.

I can think immediately of the constraints that the local authorities have in the Mackenzie Country. It would love to be a major tourism destination—and, in fact, is—but the authorities would like to provide more services. So there is the Mackenzie District Council and then there is the Waimate District Council, which also would like to provide amenities for visitors. Again, it is a small local authority with a small rating base and a large number of visitors. Then there is the Waitaki District Council, which also has a small rating base. It has a large amount of coastline, it goes up the Waitaki Valley, and there are all the attractions up there. It too is struggling to provide facilities.

But we are not the Government that gives out willy-nilly, because we understand on this side of the House that we actually have a few economic constraints that we need to take account of. The big difference with Rakiura is the fact that you have to get there by water or air, depending on the day, and that there is a population of something like 460. It swells over the tourism season, thank goodness for them, because they do get a benefit from that. But this is a special case. They have argued that it is a special case. Parliament agrees that it is a special case, and that is why Parliament is now considering the implications of a visitor levy.

I have to congratulate the former select committee on the care that it has taken over this issue in defining what a “visitor” is: it is somebody who goes to the island and not from the island, it is not to be somebody who works on the island, and it is not to be people who live on the island. That is all very carefully crafted. So I think the detail in the bill is good and the principle is good. Stewart Island, since—what—1994, has been looking for this solution to fund its infrastructure, and it is quite good that its member, Eric Roy, is here in the House to champion its cause, as he has done the whole time.

But I just want to come back to the point that the previous member, the Hon Damien O’Connor, made. He never actually has been to Stewart Island, so it is interesting that he can speak so strongly, never actually having been there. He said that those principles should apply to the whole country, but actually, no, they should not. We need to have a look at Stewart Island on its own, and have a look at this case on its merits by way of a local bill. That is what we do in this Parliament, and I am very pleased that we have the ability to do that in this Parliament.

If other communities wish to do that they also can explore the vehicle of using a local bill to promote their own causes, but I do not agree with—and I do not think we should go down this road—having a look at the principle of this applying to other communities. Simply, where do you draw the line? I do not believe you can, whereas with Rakiura I think in this instance they have argued their case, it has been considered by Parliament, and this will go through the Committee process. I congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee on a job well done, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to make just a very brief speech on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill to congratulate the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and say that, unlike our former Minister of Tourism, I have been lucky enough to go to Stewart Island, I think three or four times. The second time was a rather unfortunate visit, before the 1999 election, with a meeting at the school during the morning tea break, which got slightly extended. I made myself very helpful. There it costs $100 to get the photocopier over to Invercargill to get it repaired. I agreed to take it as part of my baggage, but just as we were putting it together, a kid fell off the jungle gym—compound fracture of the arm, awful stuff sticking out. When you are over there, there is no doctor, of course; they have got to ring over and get the local nurse to do the morphine injection. So I took both a kid and a photocopier back to Invercargill on the plane with me. So not all my memories of Stewart Island are good. The two subsequent—

Jacqui Dean: What a guy!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Actually, I felt somewhat guilty.

Jacqui Dean: What a guy!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, no. The play break had been extended, and the kid fell off the jungle gym during the extension, so I felt guilty—that might be the right way of putting it. But it is a—[Interruption] Hallelujah to you too, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just narrow the debate.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: You look more like Graeme Lee every day.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon David Carter: Apologise.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do apologise; that is a most inappropriate thing to say to you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I did not take any offence.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is a well-drafted bill. It is clearly a useful precedent, at least for the Chatham Islands, and I think we should get on with it.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a short call on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I also have had one trip to Rakiura, which, of course, was once called the South Island; the larger land mass to the north was the Middle Island. It was a memorable visit. The arrival was memorable. It was a very lumpy journey on Foveaux Strait, and I arrived there feeling quite green—but not in a political sense—to the extent that I chose to fly back to the South Island after the journey. It is a remarkable place—

Hon Trevor Mallard: You felt like we feel sometimes—green.

DAVID CLENDON: Indeed, yes. You are getting there, Trev.

As Stewart Island / Rakiura is unique, this bill is unique. It is interesting, of course, that it takes an Act of Parliament in order to impose a quite modest levy. Of course, the structure of the bill allows for that levy to be amended appropriately over time, and that is as it should be. A number of speakers have identified the fact that the situation is not unique, however. There are other remote parts of this country that are equally underfunded in terms of requiring significant visitor loads, but there is not a great deal of money there to create infrastructure to support them. That is a point I would like to return to briefly.

I am pleased that this bill is well endowed with caveats to make it very clear that this is not to be deemed a precedent, because I think we do have to acknowledge that levies are problematic and that we need to be fairly light-handed in the way in which we use them. I think that this bill achieves that fairly well. The language of the bill, as other speakers have commented also, is clearly well-thought-out.

The Local Government and Environment Committee has done its job. The definitions around visitors make sure that you do not get regular commuters or locals into the net; it would be entirely counter-productive to start clipping the ticket of people who live on, and commute routinely and often to, the island. Again, it is clearly a job well done by the select committee, and again we are very happy to support the bill’s progress through this House.

As I said, levies, however, are problematic. I would just like to reflect momentarily, if I may. All of us, I dare say, have had the experience, for example, of flying out of some of our provincial airports here in New Zealand. Typically one is welcomed with open arms into the airport, then you discover you must pay a fee to leave, and that has annoyed people on occasion. But again, it is an apparently legitimate means of funding infrastructure that otherwise local provinces would struggle to fund.

In a sense, Rakiura is New Zealand in microcosm. We consider Rakiura a remote place. The Hokianga, parts of the West Coast—these, to us, are remote. To the rest of the world, actually, New Zealand is quite remote. And I know, for example, the Tourism Industry Association is concerned, as it rightfully should be, about the likelihood of parts of Europe and the UK, for example, imposing levies, effectively, on people departing for long-haul flights to destinations like New Zealand. That is a problem for us, and clearly it is one that we have to think seriously about and do wonder at the appropriateness of levies.

Having said that, I think we do need to look at the funding of our extraordinarily valuable conservation estate, of our environment generally. Again, like most of us, we will have travelled internationally. I think my first experience in fact was in Tasmania when I entered a national park, and in order to do that I had to pay a fee as we entered the park. That was a surprise to me, but I felt no resentment; it was a stunningly beautiful place. Again, it was quite remote, and I think that is something that we do need to give some thought to in New Zealand. This is not Green Party policy; I am simply reflecting here about the appropriateness of levies to fund the Department of Conservation and environmental protection in New Zealand.

Clearly, the issue is simple enough to conceptualise. We know from some economic research that there is a willingness amongst people to pay to enter some of our conservation estate. But how does one collect? Where does one clip the ticket? There are practical transactional issues, to generalise, if you like, around the practice of this bill of applying levies in order to protect the qualities that people are going to a place to enjoy.

So with those few thoughts—and, as I say, it is not Green policy—I do think there is a conversation to be had about applying levies more generally. Thank you.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am pleased to speak as the final speaker on this second reading. I was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill brought before us by Eric Roy. It was interesting that on first look it looked relatively simple, but there were some issues that did require further examination, so I acknowledge the very patient and persistent Eric Roy for bringing this back on several occasions to make sure that we were all happy with the end result. I am pleased to commend this bill in the second reading.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill

First Reading

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill be now read a first time. The Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill is a local bill from the Hutt City Council, which, if people are not aware, is for the area of Lower Hutt. It is a bill that is coming in following, I think, one of the most extensive campaigns on graffiti during the local body elections on the part of Ray Wallace, who was successfully elected mayor at the last local body elections. I think it is fair to say that there were several points of differentiation in the campaign, but graffiti was one of them that the public took to heart, and one of the things that Mayor Wallace promised was to attempt to get as much of the graffiti off as possible down in the city, both from public and from private places. He has made considerable progress in this, and this bill is, I think, part of a bigger approach. There has been money budgeted for painting out graffiti. There has been a positive approach with young people in order to attempt to divert them from doing negative graffiti into doing things that are more constructive, like murals and painting. One of the areas that, in fact, has been there for some time is this superb mural in the old village at Wainuiōmata of Tana Umaga and Piri Weepu, which has been done by the young local artists. It is absolutely clear that no one goes near that mural with any question of any graffiti, because it is something that is held proud to the hearts of the people at Wainuiōmata. It is something of their favourite sons done mainly by a number of young people.

The Hutt does have a graffiti problem; there is no doubt about that. I think many communities do. There have been indexes, and people do measures, and it is fair to say that we are not as bad as the old Auckland City and some other parts of Auckland, but it is something that residents are unhappy with. As I say, a lot of progress has been made. One of the areas that we did discuss before the local body elections—and this bill was introduced last year—was the problem that the council had with private owners, often absentee owners, quite often owners of buildings that are semi-abandoned. There are places where there have been businesses in the past. Very occasionally, sometimes, there are houses that have been burnt out or have not been used and they have become the target for vandals and for graffiti. The problem has been—and the problem is—that there is not a right for the council to go on to the land and to paint out the graffiti in order to ensure that the area looks better.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I am working on the assumption that people understand that this bill will go to the Local Government and Environment Committee at the conclusion of this.

There was a problem with privately owned property, and we do have within the Hutt a number of absentee landlords.

Hon Tau Henare: State houses.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is not so much houses; it is more often old commercial buildings. With the development of some of the more successful malls, there are some old shops around that are not used.

Chris Hipkins: Housing New Zealand is an absentee landlord these days.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: With the Housing New Zealand Corporation, you might have to go to Mumbai to get the phone answered, but that is not the point of this bill. The Summary Offences Act does work quite well at catching offenders, but it does not give permission to councils to go on to that private land.

The way this bill has been set out, the requirements are pretty clear. There is a requirement to remove graffiti but, before that, notice has to be given. Ten days’ notice has to be given. One of the problems sometimes is trying to find the owners, and therefore there are some requirements to give the notice in writing and to be specific about what the council intends to do and when it intends to do it. It has to make reasonable attempts to consult. When it serves a notice, it has to either give it to the person or send it to the person by fax or email at the latest address, and also do that for a company.

I want to acknowledge the support that was indicated earlier by the other Hutt member, Holly Walker. In fact, formerly, there was actually a third Hutt member. He is not currently in the House but is just waiting to get in with someone going to London and someone else dying, a couple of heartbeats away: Mr Quinn. There was a political unanimity on this, but Holly Walker has pointed out—and it is something that I would like the select committee to consider and look carefully at—the fact that graffiti is not defined within this bill. There is a question about whether it needs to be, whether, in fact, it is defined in some other places, or whether there is a common law interpretation of graffiti that will actually work for the purpose. As I have indicated to the member, the short answer is that I do not know, and it seems to be a very good thing for the select committee to have a good look at to make sure that it is satisfied. I think it is fair to say that neither the Hutt City Council nor I have such ownership of, or are so wedded to, the exact words in this bit of legislation that we would not be happy about having a change to make it effective and to make it clear—for example, the Umaga and Weepu mural, which I indicated before is on an abandoned building, on something that has been left. There might have been some marginality about the legality of doing it, but I would not want anyone to go painting over that mural, because, in my opinion certainly, I do not regard it as graffiti. There are graffiti arts and graffiti artists, and it is a matter of working through that and making sure that it works well.

I would like to conclude in the way that I started by acknowledging Ray Wallace—the mayor—the work that he has done in this area, and the leadership that he has shown. I do want to commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Primary Industries): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I refer you to Standing Order 283(1), “Speech of member moving first reading”. It states: “The member moving the bill’s first reading must, on the commencement of that member’s speech … nominate the select committee to consider the bill,”. Listening to a very interesting speech by the Hon Trevor Mallard, he did refer to the select committee but not at the commencement of his speech.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think it is fair to say that it was a rather long introduction to get to that point, and I apologise to the House for keeping the member waiting.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is, of course, correct. The member has apologised, I think. The key ingredient was that it was done, so I think we will just accept the apology and move on.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I rise to support this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, which is sponsored by the Hon Trevor Mallard. The phenomena of graffiti and tagging on public and private property in cities have become a real problem in the 20th and 21st centuries, although I have heard that they have identified graffiti in the ruins of Pompeii, so it is obviously not a new phenomenon.

But it challenges communities all around the world. Cities, suburbs, and communities that are dominated by graffiti-laden buildings look and feel unkempt and dangerous. It looks as if nobody cares. It looks as if nobody is engaged with or identified with the community. It looks like civil society is broken and is disordered. Neighbourhoods who look after each other make sure that their communities are clean and pleasant, and they react quickly to any damage to their streets, cleaning up tagging and graffiti as soon as possible. It is a bit of a vicious cycle: people behave badly in run-down - looking, graffiti-ridden communities, and run-down - looking, graffiti-ridden communities make people behave badly. So I do have sympathy with the Hutt City Council and support its struggle to eradicate graffiti in Lower Hutt.

The Hutt Valley has had its fair share—or perhaps more than its fair share—of graffiti, and the public have had enough of it, and it was interesting to hear Trevor Mallard talking about their local body elections, and how they campaigned on removing graffiti. I have to acknowledge that the council has worked hard to control the problem, but nobody really feels that it is making any progress. The council believes that to do the job properly it needs to be able to clean graffiti and tagging off private property. It is well known that the only way to deal with graffiti is to clean it off or paint it out as soon as possible. Those who enjoy tagging and damaging buildings also enjoy viewing their work and showing it off for a long time afterwards, so the biggest deterrent to graffiti is to clean it off immediately.

I note that since June 2011 the Hutt City Council has implemented a rapid response graffiti removal initiative, which commits to removing graffiti within 48 hours. That is a lot quicker than in the past, when it committed to 72 hours. So the Hutt City Council regularly and quickly cleans and removes graffiti from all public areas, but it has had no ability to tackle the issue of graffiti on private property.

This bill is designed to change all that. It empowers the Hutt City Council to clean graffiti and tagging off private property, whether it is a building, a structure, a road or paved surface, or even an object, as long as it is visible from a public place within the district of the Hutt City Council. However, before the work begins the council has to make every effort to consult with the owners of the buildings, and it was interesting to hear Trevor Mallard explaining that many of these buildings in the Hutt Valley are neglected and have absentee landlords. So it is important that it makes every attempt to contact the owners, and that it gives them 10 days’ notice in writing, supplying full details to clean up the property. Then, regardless of whether it hears from those owners or not, it can get on with the work.

So this bill does seem to be a logical and a sensible response to a difficult issue, which needs to be addressed. I look forward to being on the Local Government and Environment Committee as we look at this bill. We will take note from Trevor Mallard that we should consider the definition of “graffiti”. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I rise to support the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, put forward by my very good colleague Trevor Mallard. Today I went to the reaccreditation of Wellington City as an International Safe Community. Our city was first designated as a safe community in 2006, and we became the 100th International Safe Community in the world. It required six criteria to be met for us to become designated such a city by the World Health Organization, and each of these criteria has a number of work streams. The reason why I have raised it is that one of them is graffiti management, and it is graffiti management that is seen to be part of providing a safe community. Under this international recognition a lot of work has gone into ensuring that you can eradicate graffiti, because graffiti is vandalism. It is vandalism of private property; it is vandalism of public property. There is no permission for graffiti; it is illegal.

We do know that here in the Wellington region it is costing us between $2 million and $3 million a year for graffiti. Many councils have put in place plans and programmes to clean up the public sites. I took note of what was said by the last speaker about the Hutt Valley in fact being able to speed up its clean-up of graffiti from 72 hours to 48 hours. The clean-up of graffiti is the key to eradicating it, because if you can get rid of it as fast as you can, then the taggers are not so keen to come back to the same place. They want to be seen; they want their so-called tag to be noticed.

But a problem for the Hutt, and one that does exist in other places but is particularly important in the Hutt, is the amount of tagging that takes place on private property. I am sure there are members of this House who have had their private property tagged. I certainly have: a brand new garage door, not yet painted, with graffiti right across it when you get up in the morning, which means you then have to set about to clean it up if you are a responsible person. Some people in private property do not mind so much. Under this bill a local authority will be able to go in and clean up graffiti off private property where it is an eyesore for the public. I think that is a very good move indeed. Nothing makes a community look worse than graffiti all over the walls of houses, fences, and dairies—anything that is private property—and people do not feel safe in communities where there is a lot of graffiti. So this bill does provide the ability for the council to enter private land and take any action necessary to remove graffiti on any property situated on that land.

It is not an approach that you would call heavy-handed or jackbooted local government, because there are a whole lot of measures that are put in place before, in fact, the graffiti can be removed. First of all, there has to be 10 days’ notice. The council has to give notice to the occupier of that land, it has to give it to them in writing, and it has to ensure that, in fact, it is delivered in a number of ways. It can be delivered in person, it can be delivered at the person’s last known address, it can be sent by prepaid postal address, it can be sent by fax and email, it can be posted to a person’s post office box, and so on. So every effort is made to ensure that the person who owns the private property is notified that it is going to be removed. But if that person does object, then the council will not be removing the graffiti; it will remain. So for those who are worried that local government is going to storm on to private property and start interfering with people’s private property, no, it will not; the safeguards are in this bill.

I think this is a local solution for a local problem, but probably something that other councils will be interested in looking at, because they too will have many private properties that are tagged and destroyed by the inane work of people who have got nothing better to do. Graffiti is vandalism, it is illegal, and I commend the member for bringing this local bill to the House.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I thought I would talk to the House a little about the history of why this bill is important to the Hutt City Council. In 2011 the National Research Bureau Communitrak results showed that 31 percent of the residents were unhappy with the amount of graffiti in their city. This dissatisfaction had increased by 10 percent from the previous year, and we know that residents perceive their city as unsafe when there is a lot of graffiti. So this is now considered a key issue for the residents in Lower Hutt.

The council recently performed a graffiti audit, and in this it was considered one of the worst areas in New Zealand. The prevalence of graffiti vandalism or tagging in the community signals a lack of social cohesion, perceptions of danger, and reduced property values for owners. Therefore it is detrimental to the people of the Hutt to have this amount of graffiti. But this legislation will not address the underlying causes of the graffiti; it addresses only the cleaning of that graffiti.

This council has worked hard to try to get rid of its graffiti. It has spent over $300,000 every year on the eradication of graffiti, but tagging has increased over the last 2 years. In fact, its contractor for the council has cleared more than 1,000 tags every month—1,000 tags every month. That is pretty incredible, and that does not include the utility companies taking away their tags, private property owners taking away their tags, and community groups going and eradicating the tags.

The council has also appointed a new graffiti coordinator, which is a positive step in the right direction. But it is running numerous programmes out in the Hutt. It has got many tools in its box already. It is educating people at various levels. It is running a programme through schools called Tag Free Kiwi. It is providing information to the community on how to report tagging to the council. It is promoting legitimate street art. It has formed the Wellington Regional Graffiti Forum, where the councils across the region have got together with the regional council and the police to try to work out what to do with graffiti problems. It has got effective reporting and database systems in place. And this is my favourite: it has Adopt-a-Spot, whereby a community can go out and adopt a spot, look after its spot, and eradicate its graffiti. Resene, which is a great company out in the Hutt, has come on board and provided the supply of free grey paint to these Adopt-a-Spot initiatives.

So the council has got a lot of tools in its tool box already, and this bit of legislation is one more tool in the tool box. The current legislation does not allow the council to go on to private property to clean up graffiti marks that are visible from a public place, so that is what this legislation enables the council to do. There are safeguards in place, so it cannot come on to your property unannounced. It has to serve 10 days’ notice to the property owner or occupier to tell them what its proposed plan is, when it is going to come on to the property, who is coming, and what they are going to do. So there are safeguards in place, and the owner can object to the proposed action. If an objection is made to the council, it will not take this proposed action.

I have some concerns that I think need to be teased out in the Local Government and Environment Committee. One of them is the definition of “graffiti”; it is not in the bill. The other is the question of who the owner-occupier is, who should be contacted, and who pays for this graffiti removal. Do you know the answer to that, Trevor?

Hon Trevor Mallard: The council.

KATRINA SHANKS: The council is paying for it? That is great, so the council is going to pay for this.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Trying to collect off these people is just hopeless.

KATRINA SHANKS: Yes, that would be right. So there is the question of who pays for this—and Trevor just cleared up that the council will pay for it—and on what grounds an owner-occupier can object. Is there a reasonableness test, or is it just that they object and there is no test for that?

The last issue, which was brought up in a bit of the explanatory note of the bill, is that there is no separate clause in the bill to compel the council to desist from the proposed action if an objection is received. I would like to see that teased out in the select committee process as well.

Then there is the issue of civil liability. If the council goes on to a property and does damage to the property there is no come-back, and I would like that teased out as well in the select committee process in terms of weathertightness, as some cleaning products can cause problems with building materials. I would like that teased out as well, but it is my pleasure to support this bill’s referral to the select committee. Thank you.

HOLLY WALKER (Green): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I take this opportunity, first of all, to congratulate you and your fellow presiding officers, as this is the first time I have risen to speak on a bill in this House. I look forward to you holding us all to the very high standards expected of us by the New Zealand public.

It is a great pleasure to take my first call on a piece of legislation for the Hutt Valley, since that is my home, where I grew up, and where I stood as candidate in the recent election. I have had very productive conversations already with the Hon Trevor Mallard, who is sponsoring this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, and with the Mayor of Lower Hutt, Ray Wallace, and I am confident that we can work constructively together to advance this legislation. The Greens broadly support this bill and will be supporting it to select committee. However, that support is not guaranteed past that stage, as there are a number of issues we would like to see teased out at the Local Government and Environment Committee, and a number of those have been referred to already.

We do acknowledge that graffiti is problematic, and particularly tagging is problematic, and in parts of Lower Hutt, and particularly in abandoned buildings, that is a real problem. We have heard that it is especially a problem on empty and abandoned buildings where the owners do not have the willingness or the inclination to do anything about cleaning it up. It is detrimental to residents’ perception of social cohesion in their neighbourhoods. It feeds concerns about safety and discourages community engagement, and, as we have heard, a number of residents have identified it as an issue that they feel is of concern. We know that swift removal of graffiti is the best way to discourage further, for example, competitive tagging, where a building has been tagged and other taggers come to add their tags as well.

However, when the House last considered local legislation to tackle graffiti, which was the very problematic Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill, we, the Green Party, found ourselves unable to support that legislation. It was very Draconian. It had a much wider reach than this particular bill, and provisions that we felt really scapegoated young people and were quite unacceptable. So I am pleased that this bill is not modelled on that more extensive bill.

There were some provisions in that bill—in fact, I had a look at the Hansard, and my former colleague Nandor Tanczos spoke in favour of those parts of that bill—that do what this bill does, which is allow council officers or council contractors on to private property for the purposes of cleaning up graffiti when the owners are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. Those are the types of provisions that the Green Party is happy to support in legislation dealing with graffiti removal. However, as I have mentioned, we do have problems with wider, more Draconian legislation, and I am very pleased that that is not the case with this legislation.

We do have, as has been alluded to already, a number of concerns that we hope will be addressed at the select committee stage, and our support is conditional on those being addressed. One we have heard is about the definition of “graffiti”, which is something I raised with Trevor Mallard and with the mayor earlier when the legislation was tabled. I do think it is important that it be defined. For example, the Manukau legislation I referred to earlier defines “marking graffiti” as “defacing property in any way”, whereas a dictionary definition of “graffiti” is “writings or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place”. There is quite a big difference between those two definitions, and I think it is important to be clear so that types of expression are not captured that are not intended to be. I think it is good lawmaking to ensure that the terms that are crucial to the legislation are clearly defined, and I think it is very important that that is teased out at the select committee.

For example, we want to make sure that legitimate forms of political and artistic expression—like the mural referred to earlier, or for a property owner perhaps to display something on their fence that may make a political point, or draw on graffiti art techniques—are not considered graffiti for the purposes of this bill and removed by the council. I would also like to echo the concerns raised by the previous speaker about the protection from civil liability for council staff when they enter property to clean graffiti off. For example, if they were to accidentally drive their truck into the fence of the property owner, they would not be liable for the damages caused. I think that is unacceptable, so I would like to see that explored further.

Finally, I just want to acknowledge that there are forms of graffiti art that are legitimate forms of expression, and it is very important that in the discussion of this legislation we do not forget that. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I think it is excellent that we will have Green Party representation on the Local Government and Environment Committee for the consideration of the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I think the Green Party is going to be particularly helpful when it comes time for the committee to discuss and clearly define what it is that we mean by “graffiti”. It was the previous speaker—

Hon Nathan Guy: It’ll have to be broad.

JACQUI DEAN: Well, you see, that is the thing that this committee, with the assistance of the Green members, is going to be able to help us with. What is graffiti? Is graffiti painting? Yes, I think it is. Is graffiti crayon? Is it spray-paint? Is it brush strokes? Is it—

Jami-Lee Ross: It might be stickers, too—stickers.

JACQUI DEAN: Is it stickers? Is graffiti stickers? Well, you know, I am very grateful that we have got the Green Party to assist us with this because I know that the Green Party has some experience with stickers as graffiti. The Green Party may not acknowledge that stickers are a form of graffiti, but I can tell you that during the pre-election period I had some experience with stickers on my billboards—my billboards, not any other party’s billboards. I rang up the Green Party chief of staff and I said “I have got a problem.” Do you know what? They are such fantastic people that that chief of staff of the Greens dispatched someone, and do you know what? The next day the stickers were all gone. So the Green Party is an excellent party and I certainly look forward to—

Hon Nathan Guy: Have you got a Green movement in your electorate?

JACQUI DEAN: It is not a very fast movement. But the Green Party is very good at removing stickers.

This bill is kind of interesting because there are some things that we also need to, as my colleague said, tease out in the select committee, and that is the provision of 10 days’ notice before the local authority can go on to the property. I do wonder about that and I am interested in the view of the sponsoring member, Trevor Mallard, on that, because it seems to me, from the debate I have heard this evening, that the sooner you can remove graffiti, the more effective it is as a deterrent. Did I hear somebody in the House saying tonight that the Hutt City Council now has a 72-hour turn-round target for graffiti? If that is the case and if that is known, why is this bill talking about 10 days’ notice? It just does not seem to be a very good fit to me, so I am very interested to hear that.

We will support this bill to go to the select committee, but I wonder whether it is using a sledgehammer to squash a flea. People generally are pretty house-proud of private property, are they not? I think we need to have a really good look at the provisions in this bill and at how heavy-handed this bill is, but certainly we are prepared to support this bill to go to the select committee.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, and I would like to commend the Hon Trevor Mallard, Mayor Ray Wallace of the Hutt City Council, and, indeed, the Hutt City Council itself for putting this forward.

Graffiti is a subject that is very dear to my heart, and, having been involved with local government for 9 years, it was a subject that I was very much involved in, both as a councillor and as the Mayor of North Shore. We were very proud on the North Shore to be one of the areas with the lowest rate of graffiti in the whole of Auckland, because we really did aim to knock it on the head. Can I at this stage commend, and give thanks to, the likes of the unTAG Trust and other trusts on the North Shore, and indeed in other parts of New Zealand that are involved in graffiti removal. Many of these trusts are supported by local authorities and local councils to remove the graffiti. Our policy at the time was removal of graffiti within 24 hours, and it was amazing how many—some of them volunteers—were out, with the support of the council and with the support of some of the paint companies too, to provide paint and that sort of thing, to paint over graffiti within a very short space of time. We were also the first council to introduce a database to graph the graffiti, keep a record of it, and build up a database of the offenders. By profiling the offenders and the graffiti, we could soon work out who were the regular culprits, and, in so doing, when they were finally caught, they could be taken to court and charged with a series of offences. Often, we were able to recover funds from them to rectify the costs to the ratepayers and to the city.

Where there is graffiti it breeds crime, and it is no wonder that in cities around the world where you see a lot of graffiti it goes hand in hand with crime. Therefore, there is an incentive to remove graffiti as fast as possible, to provide a better environment for the citizens and the residents of any city. People feel threatened and they feel unsafe in an area that has been tagged, and you will know when you go to certain areas that are heavily tagged that you feel a little bit more insecure. We had an experience, for instance—my wife and I—travelling down the rail corridor on one of the trains from Auckland to the central North Island. I was appalled by the amount of graffiti in the rail corridor heading out of Auckland. That train was mainly full of foreign tourists. We do have a Minister of Tourism, but I do not think he has probably ever taken a train out of Auckland and seen the amount of graffiti there is. Perhaps that is something that our Minister of Tourism could do. I cannot recall who he is, because he does not do a great deal in tourism, I believe. Perhaps the Minister of Tourism could put his mind to graffiti as well, as part of his portfolio, to overcome things like graffiti in the rail corridors in Auckland, Wellington, and in other places.

We also, I think, need to put this hand in hand with other bylaws. As a council in the North Shore, we also brought in bylaws to control aerosol spray-cans and access to the actual graffiti sprays. We required that the DIY stores and other retailers put them in glass cabinets. It is amazing; if you take away the source of the graffiti materials—the actual spray-cans—and make it difficult for people to access them, it actually does also reduce graffiti. So I think it is important that around New Zealand we think a lot more smartly on this matter, because it is not just about removing the graffiti; it is also about apprehending the culprits and about taking away the source of the graffiti itself.

In closing, can I say this is another situation that the National Government needs to turn its mind to. It is another cost to local government. We have been hearing for weeks and weeks now of the National Government coming down on local authorities and saying that the rates are going up and up and up. This is another reminder to this National Government that local authorities throughout New Zealand do have to cover a huge amount of requirements on behalf of their communities. Graffiti is yet another cost to councils, yet another cost to ratepayers. If the councils did not undertake the graffiti removal, this country would not remain with its “100% Pure New Zealand” clean, green image; therefore, this is another cost to the local councils. I certainly hope, in commending this bill to the House, that the National Government will give cognisance to the fact that, once again, local government is stepping up to the mark and doing its bit. Thank you.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to support the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill at its first reading. It is interesting that I am following Andrew Williams, who, of course, is familiar with the North Shore and familiar with the kinds of blots on the landscape that are not only to do with graffiti but also to do with the principle and the psychology, really, behind graffiti. Psychologists liken it to dogs marking their territory when they go up against a tree or some other such object—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker

MAGGIE BARRY: Yes, Trevor.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should just sit when a point of order has been called.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That sort of instruction could be used more broadly in this circumstance, I think. This is a bill that has been debated in, I think, a relatively pleasant manner. The member is heading into what is a clear personal attack and should be stopped.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the point of order perhaps prevented something that may or may not have happened, and I can only best guess what that might be. I think it is a general warning: members should debate the bill.

MAGGIE BARRY: In response to the interruption, I would like to finish what I was saying. The psychology behind the people who do graffiti and tagging is that they make a mark on something in the same way that dogs make a mark to mark their territory. If you do not clean it off within a very short period of time, then it is marked again by others, whether it is by a tagger or a dog lifting its leg. If the point is clear, I am happy to make it and move on.

The key thing with graffiti and zero tolerance is that it does need to be cleared up, because it is a blot on the landscape. I would agree with Trevor Mallard that there are many examples around the country. I too have been impressed with the mural at Wainuiōmata. It is indeed a treasure. When something good does emerge in an urban landscape, it is respected by all corners of society. It seems to me that that is a distinction and that is something that when the bill goes to select committee will need to be examined: the definition of what is graffiti and what is a public place. These things do need careful definition, and the select committee is the appropriate place to debate those, which is a good thing, I feel. I am on the Local Government and Environment Committee and I will have the opportunity to tease that out.

The thing about graffiti is that it has worked terrifically well—the zero tolerance and some of the other initiatives that have been raised. Katrina Shanks talked earlier about Adopt-a-Spot. I have been involved in a public memorial in Auckland at the AIDS memorial grove, which has been graffitied by strange and twisted people. The immediate clearing up of the graffiti and then the application of a graffiti guard, which makes the clearing off a very easy process, is a good thing. I approve of these notions and approve of the idea that you try to put in preventative measures or ones that are not going to be at a great cost to the public purse.

All of these things can be discussed, and I think that the overall thrust of this bill is a very good one. For anyone who has been to Lower Hutt recently, it is apparent that there are major issues there, and it has been an issue for a very long time. I would imagine that if this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill does go through in the form that is being proposed or in some amended state as a result of the select committee process, then it will, in fact, be something that might be able to be located, relocated, and applied in other parts of the country, as well. So I commend it; I think it is an excellent idea, but there are a lot of aspects within it that do need further discussion.

I agree with what has been said about the negative impact of graffiti. I feel that it is something that has to be cleared away right away, and there needs to be a public unity around this, because these people who do it are not very much in the mainstream but more on the fringes of society. I am looking forward to it coming before the select committee that I am a part of and to debating it in more detail at that time.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I rise in support of the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, and I want to commend Trevor Mallard and the Hutt City Council for bringing it forward. When we had discussions midway through last year about this piece of legislation, I also discussed the matter with the Upper Hutt City Council to see whether, in fact, a bill that had wider application for both Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt would be useful. The issues are actually slightly different.

In Upper Hutt the bigger problem we have is not so much about graffiti not being removed but about the nature of the graffiti. In Upper Hutt the problem we have at the moment is around etching of windows, where the taggers basically scratch whatever their mark is into the windows of shops. It is actually a heck of a lot more expensive than spray-paint or crayons or whatever other materials often get used. Shoe polish seems to be one of the things of the moment for taggers. But the scratching into the windows is a heck of a lot more expensive and it is not something that the council can remove; it is actually something that the landlord does need to remove. No matter what happens it is expensive, because there are certain products that can remove the scratching once without having to replace the glass panes, but that can only happen a certain number of times before the whole glass pane has to be removed. Shop front windows are not cheap, and we are talking about people who go from one end of the main street to the other, doing over a whole heap of windows, and it starts to get pretty blimmin expensive. So that is the bigger issue that we face at the moment.

But I think, when I have looked into this, the causal issue is the same no matter what the method of graffitiing is. Quite often it is around boredom amongst some of the younger people. They do not have other things to do, and that is something that I know the councils in both Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt are also working on. But there is also an element of dysfunction in the family lives of some of the young people who do this. I know this because we have a couple of graffiti artists in Upper Hutt who have been repeat artists—well, you know, taggers—who have repeatedly been picked up by the police, taken home, and within an hour or two of being taken home they are back out on the street again, doing exactly the same thing as they were doing before they got picked up. I am not sure that there is any legislation that this House could pass that is going to remedy that problem. The problem is a much wider one than simply the graffiti; the problem is the dysfunctional family that is allowing that to go on. These are not even kids in their late teens or anything; some of them are actually very young. Some of them are intermediate school age or even younger, and I think that is a real tragedy. That is a much wider problem that we need to address if we are going to get serious about this.

The bill that Trevor Mallard has brought forward, however, is a very useful one. There are a number of buildings over time that get effectively abandoned, and there can be commercial reasons why they get abandoned, as well. I have a building—it is not really a building, but a property—in my electorate where a large multinational company, and I will not name it, is signed into a long-term lease for it. The owner of the property does not live in New Zealand, but because the people who have signed into it are still paying the lease, the landlord does not actually care what happens to the property. So the property is regularly being done over by taggers with spray-paint or with whatever, and tracking down the landlord to get the landlord to remedy the problem can be difficult, because the landlord does not actually care. The landlord is still getting the rent. It is still getting the money in, so it is not interested in doing anything to this.

The council has actually been pretty—

Michael Woodhouse: That’s a sweeping generalisation.

CHRIS HIPKINS: No, no, this is just one example. This is a specific example I am talking about. I am not talking about this in general, but it is an illustration of where this legislation will be useful. In this specific example, the landlord does not even live in New Zealand and does not care. The council gets on to it and says “We want you to remove the graffiti.”, and now and then it will happen, but not all of the time. This bill here will give the council the power—well, actually, it will not, because this applies only to Lower Hutt, but if it did in Upper Hutt, where the building that I am talking about is—to go in and remove it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: We could shift the building.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Yeah, we could shift the building. You can have the building, I tell you; nobody wants it. But that, of course, raises a wider concern, which is that councils—under this legislation, the Hutt City Council—will need to bear the cost of that. I think that we do need to consider whether there should be some cost recovery mechanism for that, because I am not sure that local ratepayers should be having to pay for the landlords not doing their bit. Of course, that begs the wider question of what liability the people who do the damage in the first place should face, and that is also one of those issues that need to be addressed. It is a good piece of legislation. It is overdue. I think it will be very much welcomed by the people of the Hutt Valley, and I look forward to its passage through the House.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I am pleased to stand in support of the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I think it is timely that more graffiti legislation is debated in this House and I say congratulations to the Hutt City Council on bringing this to the House.

I also have to say that I was a little surprised to actually see this bill in the name of Trevor Mallard. We know that Trevor has an exceptionally busy schedule, being a professional cyclist, part-time MP, and part-time amateur ticket sales agent, so having the time to bring this bill to the House and write such a bill must have been quite onerous. So credit where credit is due. I congratulate Trevor Mallard on bringing this to the House, as well.

Graffiti for communities is quite a scourge. It is a problem that communities up and down the country have to deal with. The Hutt City Council, like many councils, has been having a difficult time, and bringing this bill to the House in the name of Trevor Mallard, after he wrote it during his busy schedule, will help the Hutt City Council, should it be passed by this Parliament, to deal with the graffiti issue.

I have actually had a little bit of experience with a local bill around graffiti. I am a former member of the Manukau City Council, and several years ago the council put together a bill on graffiti, the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill, on which I participated in the discussions when I was a member of that council. Subsequent to that bill being passed by this Parliament, those who know the history of graffiti bills will be aware that the Labour Government in 2008 subsequently repealed the Manukau bill and put in place a new set of provisions around graffiti.

Annette King, I understand, was the justice Minister at the time and I was pleased, as a member of the council at the time, to see the Government of the time debating the legislation around graffiti changes and having in place some nationwide changes. Those who have seen that particular graffiti legislation, and I think this is a question that applies to Hutt City as well, will see that one of the main provisions that the Labour Government’s graffiti legislation put in place was to restrict the sale of spray-cans to those over 18. Graffiti, unfortunately, is committed by many young people around the country, and perhaps that is a particular problem for Hutt City as well.

Someone was telling me earlier that there is a member in this House who knows a little bit about selling items to young people and the problems that can come about through selling items to young people. Does anyone know of a member in the House who knows a little bit about selling items to young people? [Interruption] I can hear someone saying “Trevor Mallard”. Does Trevor Mallard know a little bit about selling items to young people, and the problems that can come out of that? The Government in 2008 did a good job of restricting the sale of spray-cans to those over the age of 18, and I hope that the members opposite know a bit more about the problems of selling items to people who are of a younger age, particularly under the age of 18.

An additional provision that the 2008 graffiti legislation put in place, and again I think this applies to the Hutt City situation, is that the sale of spray-cans in shops is now restricted. Restricting the sale of those spray-cans, keeping them in locked boxes, means that it is much more difficult for people to get access to spray-cans. I would have hoped that after that legislation was passed, councils like the Hutt City Council had reduced numbers of incidences of graffiti. I hope that was the case, because that was an important provision in the bill.

In researching a little bit for my speech that I wanted to give on this bill I did think to myself what the situation could be for Hutt City Council if sales of spray-cans were made online. Access in shops is now more difficult, so perhaps younger people are turning to online sales. The most prevalent place for sales to take place online is TradeMe. So I went along this afternoon to TradeMe and I had a little look online to see whether there were any sales of spray-cans by providers in the Hutt City Council area. My attention was particularly drawn to the TradeMe account of bubs242. You see, bubs242, I understand, is a TradeMe member based in Hutt City. I wondered whether bubs242 had been selling any spray-cans. It turns out that bubs242 has since deleted his account; it no longer exists. I wonder which account the Hon Trevor Mallard uses now. I support this bill and I hope it passes through its first reading.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to thank the vast majority of speakers in the House. Jami-Lee Ross made a fairly appalling speech towards the end, which showed a lack of preparation. I am used to making speeches with a lack of preparation, and I think I can do better. I think after a few years that member might do better as well. There was another member from the Canterbury area, one of the bottle blondes—but I cannot remember which one; was it Dean?—who also showed a lack of preparation.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon Trevor Mallard took a point of order about 10 minutes ago complaining that the speech given by another member in the House was taking rather a personal turn, and now he is doing exactly what he complained about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Firstly, members cannot refer to past points of order. I think the point of order, though, is valid. The debate has been in good humour, and the member referred to some cosmetic attachments in relation to members of the House, and it really did, I think, demean the member’s speech. Could he come back to the bill.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am one of those members who would love to be in a position to be able to use the stuff.

I do want to thank most members of the House for their contributions. I am sure that this bill will get a good hearing at the select committee. I look forward to hearing from people with views on graffiti, from a variety of angles, and getting people in there, like the Law Society, to make sure that we have not got any legal hiccups in it. I think it is a contribution, and one that I hope, if it works, is something that the Government might think about picking up to work more widely.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill

Consideration of Interim Report of Local Government and Environment Committee

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) on behalf of H V Ross Robertson (Labour—Manukau East): I move, That the House take note of the interim report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. An interim report, you may well ask? The Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 8 September 2010. It is now 29 February 2012. So what is this “interim” report all about? Well, this local bill sponsored by Ross Robertson, as I have just said, first originated from George Hawkins some time ago. Mr Robertson took over the bill. It went to the select committee. It has been at the select committee, but very little has happened, except in the meantime the Manukau City Council has gone out of existence. It has now been taken over by the Auckland Council. So the Manukau City Council does not now exist.

What did it want to do? The Manukau City Council wanted to be able to make bylaws prohibiting the business of prostitution or commercial sexual services in specified public places in Manukau City. As that city council no longer exists, what was going to happen? The committee received a submission from the Auckland Council, the new super-city council, advising our committee that it intended to replace the Manukau City Council as the bill’s promoter. The Auckland Council notified us that it was going to provide amendments to make it now the promoter of this bill. It also wanted to change the definition of “district” within the bill. It notified the public of these proposed amendments, and on 5 September 2011 the council sent its amendments to the committee for consideration. At the meeting just before Christmas, it was agreed to consider those amendments to the original bill, because the amendments proposed by the council could apply to a much wider area than had previously been governed by the Manukau City Council, and therefore they affected many, many more people than the original bill did. It was decided by the committee that further submissions would then be called on the bill and on the amendments.

So what is this report all about? It is to tell you just that. That is what the committee is going to do. We make no comment on what might come from those submissions, but the committee will now look at the further submissions and look closely at the council’s amendments.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I rise to speak to this interim report on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. As you have heard from the Hon Annette King, the local bill was sponsored by Ross Robertson, and its purpose was to authorise the Manukau City Council to make bylaws prohibiting the business of prostitution or commercial sexual services in specified public places in Manukau City. It was referred to us, but while we were dealing with the bill, the Manukau City Council was disestablished, and the Auckland Council has now taken over that bill.

I just would like to make a little comment about the amendment that the Auckland Council has put forward. It is amendment 194, and it just makes a couple of very simple amendments. It omits the name “Manukau City Council” and replaces it with “Auckland Council” both in the title of the bill and in the definition of “district”. As the Hon Annette King said, the Auckland Council has notified the public. It has notified the public through the newspapers, through writing to members of Parliament and interested parties, and by putting a public viewing of the amendment in the courts and in the libraries and council service centres. The new Local Government and Environment Committee, which sat on 21 December, agreed to ask for more submissions on the amendment and the bill to make sure that everybody had been consulted, and those submissions close today. So far we have received 210 submissions, mostly from the Auckland area, with 51 people wanting to appear before the committee.

I would just like to note that since the opening of submissions, there has been a lot of interest in this bill, and other councils in areas across New Zealand have expressed a desire to have similar legislation in their areas. The Local Government and Environment Committee is looking forward to working on the Auckland Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill, and we expect to be hearing submissions in Auckland in the near future. Thank you.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I note the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee. I rise to take this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Green Party to say that the original bill, the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill, which was just in respect of Manukau City, was repugnant and we think it is unfortunate that the select committee did not take this opportunity to kill the bill. We furthermore are extremely concerned about the fact that this bill is going to undermine the 2003 Prostitution Reform Act. We think it is unfortunate that Auckland Council is seeking to take over as the promoter of this bill.

I might just go ahead and outline what our concerns are about the bill, which is that it attacks the most vulnerable in society. It will not have the consequences that are intended. It is undermining an Act that was passed by this House in 2003. It runs the risk of driving street prostitution underground. It puts the safety and health of sex workers at risk. It means that street-based sex workers will be less likely to report violence against them to the police. It sets a dangerous precedent by empowering a local council—or a super-city council, now—to effectively create its own criminal law that would criminalise in one geographical area behaviour that exists throughout New Zealand. We are really concerned that it does not work towards solving the identified problems, and—

Hon Tau Henare: What?

JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, I would say that the Green Party certainly will not commend this bill, but it is not a debate on the bill, so we will just say that the Green Party has—[Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Look, members should not engage in discussion across the Chamber. Interjections should be rare and reasonable. The member is on her feet and I will not have cross discussions going on.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude by saying that the Green Party has significant concerns about the bill and we hope that it does not, in fact, pass into law. Thank you.

LE’AUFA’AMULIA ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak for the first time on behalf of New Zealand First on this Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee report considers that this bill should give the Auckland Council a wider jurisdiction under this bill beyond the South Auckland boundary.

As a local resident of South Auckland—to be specific, Ōtāhuhu—I say that this bill and its crux deserve a serious consideration. Prostitution not only exists on Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe; it is being solicited in many parts of South Auckland. In Ōtāhuhu you only have to drive through Atkinson Avenue or sometimes even through Great South Road in Manurewa to be able to experience what actually is happening there. The whole place transforms from a bustling commercial and schooling district into an area of pick-ups and drop-offs for prostitutes.

Under the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 prostitution became decriminalised. Sadly, there will always be a market in the sex industry for prostitution, and it does not help when jobs are scarce—contrary to what the Prime Minister and his Minister for Social Development may think. I would be surprised if the Government supports this bill, considering its current welfare reforms. It opposes the market for job opportunities, does it not?

New Zealand First never supported the Prostitution Reform Act in 2003. However, since it is part of legislation, we must consider the part of this bill that addresses many important issues concerning soliciting prostitution in public areas. Children should not be exposed to used condoms on their walks to school or question the openness of sex being available on every corner of their shopping centres. Parents should not have to explain to their kids why there is paraphernalia dumped in public parks, on beaches, and in and around the local schools and church boundaries. Business owners, local residents, and local communities should not have to clean up the mess the next morning.

Prostitution should have never been so openly accepted with the Prostitution Reform Act 2003. We are now dealing with the consequences of this, and here is the message we are sending to our future generations: it is all right to be openly involved in the openness of sexual activity in exchange for money. It is a career path that children can take and it is being publicly displayed and accepted to practise in our communities. New Zealand is a country that allows for the mixing of family environments and the sexual activity of prostitution. Local businesses, be they small or large, have to accept that sex work is happening on their doorsteps and deal with the problems the next morning.

Thorough scrutiny of this bill is imperative, so that New Zealand communities can feel comfortable and raise our families and our children, and take part in these economies. It allows for our public environment to be protected against the danger of sex work. We need to feel safe in our own communities and we need to recognise the importance of raising our children in an environment where they can dream beyond the prospects of standing at shop corners.

New Zealand First acknowledges that the bill needs to be looked at seriously, and worked on especially in regard to enforcement. It seems that the police can actually arrest under suspicion of prostitution, and enforce a fine of up to $2,000, as per clause 13 of the bill. Clause 13 of the bill gives a constable a power to arrest without a warrant “a person who the constable has good cause to suspect has committed an offence …”. That is rather grey. If they accuse a local contingent who is waiting for the bus or taxi, or somebody from the family to pick them up, they are opening themselves up to come seriously under fire.

Even with this, I am pleased to say that New Zealand First supports the bill and commends the sponsor who brought it to the attention of the House. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the interim report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill.

Ayes 105

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 15

Green Party 14; Mana 1.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 28 September 2011.

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

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): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to raise a point of order, and it is about the House as a whole—the order of the House. Some time today my Acting Leader of the House approached the Labour Party whip—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No, that is not a point of order. Whatever has transpired between the whips of the parties and any agreement is between them. Leave was sought, I put the question, leave was declined, and that is the end of the matter.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It was a long time ago, before the last election, that we were debating this Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, and I was proposing that we have an amendment to the bill that would essentially make the whole bill unnecessary. Clause 5A is about inserting a new clause that just simply says a society—in other words, an incorporated society—have in its rules a requirement that a secret ballot be held of its members, who would become party to the strike before any strike was undertaken. We did discuss this at length at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It was a proposal put forward by Labour to the member. I believe it meets his objectives, which is to ensure there is a secret ballot held should members of unions want to have a secret ballot. What it would do is get rid of the bureaucracy of the bill and the compliance costs that this bill is going to impose, and also the interference of employers, and interference by the State, actually, on the freedom of association of unions as outlined in ILO conventions.

So I am proposing a solution to this bill that, as I said, would get rid of the requirement to have this bureaucratic nonsense that is being proposed by the member. As I said before Christmas, I understand what the member was trying to achieve. So this is a genuine attempt to meet his needs and to find a solution that is not going to cause trouble.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Earlier today my Acting Leader of the House decided to talk to the whip of the Labour Party to see whether we could—

Hon Nathan Guy: Who is the whip?

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, I do not know. Who knows? The whip said: “Yes, not a problem, we can facilitate what you are asking for.” What we have now got in the House is a situation where we do not know who the whip of the Labour Party is. Is it that man over there or is it the black hand of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions? Is it the dark hand of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions? That is right. That is right—Andrew Little. Who is pulling the strings?

I have got news for the Labour Party. [Interruption] You can hear him chipping away in the House. I was asked today a serious question by one of my colleagues: was there—

Andrew Little: You’ve never been taken seriously in your life, Tau.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh yes, we have. Oh yes, we have. Listen to him.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As much as Mr Henare is talking about my favourite topic, which is me, he has not so far actually referred at all to new clause 5A of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill and, as the member in charge, he might want to perhaps bring himself to that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is expressing a view of concern. He has plenty of time in which to get to the bill. I am watching closely the clock and he has a few more minutes to go. I will ask the member to continue.

Hon TAU HENARE: Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. I was asked a very, very important question by one of my colleagues today about certain strike action going on down in the Port of Auckland. [Interruption] Here is the question: did the workers have a secret ballot for that strike? I hope they did. Andrew Little knows, because he is one of the Labour Party—

Andrew Little: It’s not like in your day, Tau.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is good. If they had a secret ballot for that strike, then why does the Labour Party not get in behind this bill and say: “Well, why not have it for every worker in the country?”. Why cannot every worker be allowed to take a secret ballot when there is strike action? Why does the Labour Party not do the decent thing? I know it is hard—I know it is hard for the Labour Party, and at present the young fella who thinks he is the whip—

Simon Bridges: They’re scared of freedom, Tau.

Hon TAU HENARE: It is; it is about freedom. It is about democracy; it is about freedom. It is not about the black hand of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. It is not about the standover tactics that somebody whom I know has been part of for a very, very long time. This is not about that sort of carry-on.

Welcome to the House. Put your credentials on the table, because this bill, when we get around to it, is going to pass with flying colours. Mark my words: democracy is on its way.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to take a brief call to set the record straight with regard to the concerns that Mr Henare has raised about this piece of legislation, the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. I was indeed approached by the Deputy Leader of the House today to ask whether, in fact, we could reach some accommodation to correct for Mr Henare’s total incompetence in shepherding his own bill through the House. I indicated I would look at it and get back to the Government. I got back to the Government whip and said no, actually, sorry, they were just going to have to wear it.

The fact that Mr Henare was too incompetent to move the amendments that were required to this bill at the appropriate moment is not something that this Opposition is responsible for. In fact, it is something the Government is responsible for, and it is going to have to wear that. Perhaps if Mr Henare had paid a little bit more attention, and given a little bit less bluster when he was producing the earlier stages of this bill, the Government might not be in this predicament.

The amendment being put forward by my colleague Darien Fenton is a very sensible one. What it does is it still ensures that the option of a secret ballot is there if the workers want to have a secret ballot, but it prevents an employer going to court and overturning the decision to hold a strike on the basis that it was not a secret ballot. I think that that would be wrong.

The workers, the people who go on strike, could have very legitimately voted in favour of going on strike, and the employer could have that overturned—they could go to court about it—on the basis that it was not a secret ballot. I think what Darien Fenton is doing is actually giving effect to the intention of what Mr Henare says he wants, which is to give workers the choice of having a secret ballot. This, the amendment being put forward by my colleague Darien Fenton, does that.

Then again, I would not necessarily expect Mr Henare to adopt an amendment that made sense, given the approach that he has taken so far to this bill. He has totally hashed it up, and as a result we are going to have to come back and look at it again, so no doubt we will be able to debate it when we go back to the beginning and look at it all again.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a great pleasure to stand here and explain why the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill should not proceed any further. This bill is typical National Party. What it tells us is that the National Party does not trust workers. It has never liked freedom. It has never liked freedom of association. It has never like freedom of choice. The great free-enterprise party, the National Party, hates it when working people think for themselves, exercise their voluntary choice to belong to a union, and challenge management—exercise their own rights, stand up for themselves, and do what anybody in a workplace sometimes does and actually find that management does not know everything. Every now and again workers find that they have to stand up for themselves and challenge what managers want to do. This bill is about trying to undermine the choice of those workers who have exercised their freedom of choice to belong to a union—about trying to prevent them from exercising the fullness of that choice. This National Party does not like workers making their own decisions.

This bill is about seeing unions as different from union members, and seeing union members as something different from their unions.

Hon Tau Henare: What are you reading it for?

ANDREW LITTLE: But unions are their members, and union members are the union. That is the big difference. It is different from the Clerical Workers Union in 1991; it is different from the days—

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.