Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Volume 678
Sitting date: 21 March 2012
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Personal Explanations
ACC, Minister—Actions Resulting in Ministerial Resignation
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation in respect of my former role as Minister for ACC and issues that have been raised in recent days.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This afternoon I have tendered my resignation from all of my portfolios to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister has quite properly accepted my resignation. I do so because I made not one error of judgment but two in dealing with a conflict of interest in respect of a friend who had made repeated attempts to me, during my period as Minister for ACC, to advocate and interfere on her case.
The first error I made was in July last year, when she said to me that there were concerns about what her status was prior to her accident. I provided a letter providing knowledge of her in that pre-accident period. The letter did make it plain that I did not seek, in any way, to interfere in ACC decisions about her claim and was made in the role of being a friend. It was an error of judgment, firstly, in doing the letter, but more so in it being on ministerial letterhead. Yesterday I asked ACC to go through and check all of the correspondence that I had over my 3 years as Minister, and there was quite a lot, with this particular person. The letter that I, for instance, wrote in March last year very properly said “I cannot interfere in your case. There are proper processes for you to go through.” In December prior to that, in 2010, I too wrote another letter to her in response, and acted absolutely properly and managed the conflict of interest correctly as well.
The second instance that brings me to the point that the proper thing for me to do is to resign is that there was a letter in March of 2010 where a member of Parliament was advocating for this person to the Associate Minister for ACC, who was then Pansy Wong. Pansy Wong, quite properly, said that this was a friend of hers too—she was on her campaign committee—and declared a conflict of interest and referred that letter back to me. ACC prepared a formal response to that letter, and I signed out that error back to that constituent without acknowledging that I too had a conflict of interest. It was that second letter, in which I having erred not once but erred twice, that has brought about my resignation this morning.
I do want to put on the public record that I did not in my view interfere in any way in the judgment calls that ACC made about that particular person’s claim, but I do accept that the signing of those two letters is not up to the standard this Parliament can rightly expect of its Ministers. I firstly want to again apologise to the Prime Minister, to my caucus colleagues, and to my family and staff. It is my intention to serve out this term of Parliament. I love this place. I am disappointed I am not going to be able to continue my work in some of those areas I have a passion for, but I apologise to all my fellow representatives for those misjudgments.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek the leave of the House to table the four letters, albeit one letter does have some personal information, and I assure the House the only information that has been removed is personal information that it is not proper to put before the House, so that it is quite clear as to the events that have occurred.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for those documents to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Government Financial Position—Current Account Deficit
1. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand today reported on the current account for the December quarter 2011. This shows New Zealand’s position improved a little, in line with market expectations. The current account deficit narrowed to $8.3 billion, or 4 percent of GDP, in the year to December, from 4.3 percent in the year to September.
Shane Ardern: What are his expectations for New Zealand’s current account position over the next 4 years?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the Budget Policy Statement Treasury predicted the current account deficit would widen to more than 6 percent over the next few years. That would be driven by one of two main factors—a lift in imports due to the Canterbury rebuild, and also an increase in business investment. Getting on top of the current account is a significant challenge. We are aided by the fact that there are record high volumes of dairy exports, so continued export performance will help. I am a bit more optimistic than Treasury, as is the Reserve Bank, which is forecasting a 5 percent rather than a 6 percent current account deficit.
Shane Ardern: What measures is the Government taking to rebalance the economy, reduce New Zealand’s vulnerability to overseas debt, and ensure we live within our means?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: This is a long-running issue in New Zealand and reflects some fundamental imbalances in our economy. In the past 3 years the Government has taken a number of steps, such as reforming the tax system, and setting the Government on a faster return to surplus in 2014-15 because that is one of the most important contributions a Government can make to lifting national savings. We will also continue to focus on the competitiveness of our businesses, because maintaining New Zealand’s competitiveness is critical to improving the current account deficit.
Shane Ardern: How does New Zealand’s present current account deficit compare with the position in the 3 years until 2008?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The current account deficit has been affected particularly by the recession, but it has improved in recent years. It did fall to less than 2 percent in 2010, mainly because of the recession, but New Zealanders have started saving more and borrowing less. Between 2005 and 2008 the current account deficit averaged more than 8 percent per year, reflecting fast growth in Government spending and big increases in debt, as well as poor policy settings that squeezed the productive sector of the economy.
Hon David Parker: Why is Treasury asking high school kids “to propose policy options that address New Zealand’s long-term fiscal challenges,”? Is it because Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research forecast a growing current account deficit, is it because Treasury calculates that the country’s international debt will grow by $50 billion over the next 4 years under his Government’s policies, or is it because his Government is so clearly out of the ideas needed to properly rebalance the economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be interested to know that Treasury is doing that because of a statutory requirement put in place by his Government, which is that Treasury produce long-term fiscal estimates every 4 years. That report is coming up in the next couple of years, and Treasury is taking a broad, public education approach to compiling that report, which is required by law.
Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a statement from Treasury saying that it is going to secondary schools to invite proposals for policy options to address—
Mr SPEAKER: Is this a media statement?
Hon David Parker: Yes, it is a statement from Treasury. It is not a political party one.
Mr SPEAKER: No, it is just a media statement for the daily media. I do not think we need to table statements for the daily media.
Hon Dr Nick Smith—Ministerial Resignation
2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he expect all his Ministers to comply with the responsibilities set out in the Cabinet Manual?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. Ministers are expected to comply with the guidance set out in the Cabinet Manual and to seek advice from the Secretary of the Cabinet as necessary.
David Shearer: Did he ask Nick Smith to resign; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No; the Minister offered his resignation, and I accepted his resignation because, as the Minister said himself, he exercised poor judgment in supporting an ACC claimant while he was Minister for ACC.
David Shearer: When did he first become aware of Nick Smith having written inappropriate letters on behalf of his friend Bronwyn Pullar?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first letter—the reference—I was made aware of on Monday evening, and the second letter, the one that the Minister made reference to in the House today, which was back to another former member of Parliament, I was made aware of this morning.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When did the Prime Minister, or those in his office, know of Ms Pullar’s frustration with ACC, that she was pressing his Minister for help, and that Dr Smith had told Ms Pullar that his helping would be inappropriate? When did he first learn of that?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to answer that question. I simply do not know. I know the claimant, and in my early days as a member of Parliament I was aware, right back then, that she was frustrated with ACC. I understand she has sent significant correspondence to ACC over the years, but I am not in a position to know when the Minister was first made aware. You would need to put that question to, I guess, the ACC office.
David Shearer: Does he still stand by his statement yesterday: “If you are going to sack Ministers for what I think he would accept as an error of judgment but not a terribly significant one, you’d be sacking a lot of ministers.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and that was because in relation to the first error of judgment, when the Minister wrote a reference for the claimant, although I consider that to be unwise, and although I consider that to be an error in judgment, I did not consider it, on balance, in relation to everything else the Minister had done to be a sacking offence.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Prime Minister cause to be released the long trail of emails and correspondence between Dr Smith and Ms Pullar; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the Minister has made it clear that he is prepared to release those particular four letters. The member, if he wants any other correspondence, should ask for it under the Official Information Act.
David Shearer: Does he still believe, in light of today’s events, that this is “an error of judgment but not a terribly significant one,”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I consider the first instance to be exactly that. I consider the second to be one too many.
Kevin Hague: Does the Prime Minister stand by the repeated assurances given in this House yesterday by the Minister for ACC, Judith Collins, that the matters concerning Dr Smith’s conduct will be covered by the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation, given that it is now clear that those matters fall well outside the powers and functions of the Privacy Commissioner?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is at the risk of paraphrasing the Minister, but anyway, if the member is asking whether there will be any further inquiry, I have not seen any information that would indicate to me a further inquiry is necessary. There are inquiries that will be undertaken by the police and the Privacy Commissioner, but I do not see the need for any further inquiry.
Better Public Services—Justice Sector
3. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Justice: What steps is the Government taking to improve public services in law and order?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): As part of the Government’s wider focus on better public services, last week the Prime Minister set two targets for improving performance in the justice sector. The first is reducing the rates of total crime, including violent crime and youth crime, and the second is reducing reoffending. Criminal offending is like a tax on every New Zealander. It has an appalling cost for victims, their families, and communities. The Government has clearly shown its commitment to improving law and order in New Zealand over the past 3 years, and further reducing crime and reoffending is a key target that will benefit all New Zealanders.
Jonathan Young: How has the Government’s focus on law and order in the past 3 years affected New Zealand’s crime rate?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Under this Government the public is safer than it has been for many years. Crime is now at a 30-year low. The number of people going through our courts is falling, and we are experiencing the first sustained fall in the prison population since the 1930s. This is excellent news for New Zealand. The total recorded crime rate for 2010—[Interruption]; they do not like hearing this, do they—was a full 26 percent lower than its peak in 1992, and 80 percent of all serious crime is now being resolved. This Government is clearly focused on preventing crime, addressing the drivers of crime, the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders, and better support for victims. Our approach is clearly working.
Jonathan Young: What is the Government doing to achieve these targets, and why?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Over the last term this Government has driven more than 20 significant initiatives to improve the justice sector and to make New Zealand a safer place. These include the Policing Excellence programme, addressing the drivers of crime, making sure that the worst recidivist violent offenders are in jail, and initiatives to speed up court processes. We have and are expanding alcohol and drug treatment rehabilitation programmes. We now know that we can reduce reoffending, and we are working with iwi and community groups to deliver rehabilitation to offenders. The cycle of violence and reoffending—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Question time is not a time for speeches.
Charles Chauvel: What steps has she taken to address the current level of widespread breaching of police safety orders and the chronic underfunding of important public watchdogs like the Ombudsman and the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, and to lift the current burglary clearance rate from below its miserable level of under 25 percent?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: In relation to the police safety orders, of course, this Government brought them in. Under the previous Government they did not even exist. I have had a look at the breaching rates on them and, actually, they are not anywhere near what anyone else would expect. When I was the Minister of Police I made sure we had monthly statistical indicators. They are on the police website, and I am sure that member would be improved if he had a look at them.
Local Government, Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual
4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Will he take the same approach to compliance with the Cabinet Manual as Minister for Local Government as he did as Minister for ACC?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: For a start, I am not the Minister for ACC, but I would simply answer yes.
Mr SPEAKER: The question is to the Minister of Local Government.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is true, Mr Speaker. I am sorry, I should have said that I have not been the Minister for ACC, but my answer remains the same, yes.
Hon Annette King: As the acting Minister, I presume, can he confirm that it took two attempts before he got his Cabinet to accept his eight-point local government reform plan paper because, one, it was rushed and incomplete with an unrealistic timetable; two, Cabinet was concerned at the need for more local government so soon after the last reform; and, third, many issues were still outstanding, with no decisions made, leaving confusion, and questions to be answered?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.
Hon Annette King: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said yesterday that the test as to whether a council’s activities are a public good would be “extremely broad”, and, if so, how does this match with his statement that councils should focus on things only councils are able to do?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: More often than not.
Hon Annette King: If boat races, bronze statues, fireworks, rugby games, cycleways, theatre, stadium, to name just a few, are core local Government businesses, can he tell the House what is not?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We are going into a discussion at the moment with local government about what is appropriate.
Christchurch, Recovery—Rental Situation
5. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by all his recent statements?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): Generally yes, although as the seismic events and the recovery unfold, material facts will and are changing, so positions previously stated will evolve.
Denis O’Rourke: Does the Minister think it acceptable that Christchurch residents who have in many cases lost their homes and experienced thousands of earthquakes should now suffer rents often in excess of 50 percent above reasonable market rents; if so, at which point will he intervene—100 percent, 200 percent, 500 percent?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It does not matter how loud the member likes to yell out those figures, if they are not backed by some factual material they are worth nothing. What I can tell the member is that today’s newspaper has a considerable number of properties to rent in Christchurch, TradeMe has 612, and there are three agencies in there inviting people to make contact because they have more properties. I do not doubt that there are some landlords who want to create an environment where they can raise rents. I am sorry the member is helping them.
Denis O’Rourke: What are the reasons he believes the best solution to the Christchurch rental housing crisis is to leave it to the market, and, in doing so, why is he putting the interests of profiteers ahead of serving the needs of the people?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Firstly, I reject both aspects of that question, but would simply say the Government is offering to buy 7,000 households in Christchurch, and so far around 3,000 have settled. They have taken a cheque for either their land or their house, and they are moving on. That is going to create opportunities for people, both in the rental housing provision sector and in new building, and it is happening. If the member looked at the property section of today’s Press, he would be better informed than he appears to be.
Denis O’Rourke: Does the Minister not understand basic third form economics, especially that when demand outstrips supply, prices soar, and when will you do something about it?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What I do understand about economics—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, I could barely hear my colleague’s very intelligent question—because I have seen—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I heard the question perfectly clearly, and the member’s description of it is his business.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What I do know is that people who want to profiteer in these situations need an advocate to get the circumstances right so that they can enjoy that excess profit. The member is helping them with that.
Hon Lianne Dalziel: Can I take it from the Minister’s answer that if we were able to produce evidence of significant price-gouging in the housing market in Christchurch, he would be willing to look at intervening in those instances?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has already put two temporary villages in place, with a total of, I believe, 70 units. We have a further 70 units available for relocation, and we are looking at a site. I am hopeful that we will have 20-odd people relocated on that new site very, very quickly. But what I would also have to tell the member is that if she also looked at the property pages of today’s—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would not mind the Minister giving the member a lecture, if he answered her question first.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: But I did.
Mr SPEAKER: The member asked specifically whether, if the Minister was shown evidence of rent gouging—or something to that effect—the Minister would be prepared to investigate. Now—
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, she said “intervene”.
Mr SPEAKER: Oh, intervene. I will invite the member to repeat her question, because I believe that the Minister did not answer her question, at all. The member is welcome to do that; she does not need to if she does not wish to.
Hon Lianne Dalziel: Well, it is just that I did not have it written down. I am going to try to do it as best I can. Do I take it from the Minister’s answer to the previous question that if we were able to produce evidence of price gouging in the Christchurch rental market, he would investigate intervening in the market?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My point before was that we have intervened in the market, in what I think is a relatively significant way and in a timely fashion. I have said repeatedly that we are monitoring that situation and looking at it carefully. I think it is very important that people do inform themselves of what sorts of rents are on offer out there, and do not pick out extreme examples that happen in any market.
Mining in Conservation Areas—Prime Minister’s Statements
6. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “I am not going to do something silly with the Department of Conservation estate”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
Eugenie Sage: Would allowing foreign-owned Bathurst Resources Ltd to dig up and destroy around 200 hectares of distinctive habitats on conservation land on the Denniston Plateau to mine coal be “doing something silly” with our conservation land?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is characterising incorrectly what might happen on the Denniston Plateau. The company in question has resource consent, as I understand it, from a historical consent that is there, but an access agreement may be required. If that is required and the Minister of Conservation grants that, then that will be publicly notified. As part of all of that process, the company would be expected to follow the high standards for mining on conservation land.
Eugenie Sage: Well, if the Prime Minister has said that that access application will be publicly notified, why has he allowed the Minister of Conservation to back down on her promise made in 2010 that “significant applications to mine on public land should be publicly notified”—the Minister who has said that the Bathurst Resources application will not be publicly notified?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Minister is not backing down from her assurances. That was made as part of the schedule 4 stocktake process in July 2010. The proposed changes are now being considered as part of the wider review of the Crown Minerals Act. It would be my expectation that once that law is passed, that will be exactly the case: when there is mining activity undertaken on the conservation estate, it will be publicly notified. But as I said to the member earlier, in the case of Bathurst Resources and its consent for the Denniston Plateau, that is a historical consent that has already been granted.
Eugenie Sage: Does he accept that his plans to officiate at the opening of Bathurst Resources’ new head office this evening may send a message that the company’s access application to the Department of Conservation, which has not yet been granted, should be granted?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. What it does show is that as Prime Minister of New Zealand I support the creation of jobs in New Zealand. I am supportive of those who want to undertake mining and exploration activity in New Zealand, providing they do it in a way that balances both the economic advantages and the environmental responsibilities that come with that. In my opinion, if I did not go to visit companies that have either resource consent applications pending or access consents pending, I would not be visiting many companies in New Zealand.
Eugenie Sage: Is it commonplace for the Prime Minister to officiate at events of companies that have controversial applications that are before the courts and before another Minister in his Government?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is the member’s characterisation that it is controversial; I do not see it as controversial. I do officiate at lots of companies around New Zealand, as I support the economic development of New Zealand. It is part of my ministerial activities, which are publicly listed each and every week. I personally, for one, will be proud to be at Bathurst Resources tonight as the company looks to expand its economic activities in New Zealand. I will leave the member to be standing out the front in the rain, protesting—as the Greens always do.
Eugenie Sage: How many more mining companies will the Prime Minister encourage to mine conservation land before the Government amends the Crown Minerals Act, and acts on its July 2010 promise to allow significant applications to mine on conservation land to be publicly notified?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It would help if the member paid attention in question time. As I have said all the way through, that was a historical—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Dr Russel Norman: Point of order. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not a gratuitous attack on the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister attacked the questioner for no particular reason, by saying that she was not listening. She was clearly listening and she was trying to engage in the debate. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members should not be commenting on a point of order. I think the member’s characterisation of his colleague’s question is perhaps a little overly pure, because I certainly heard some innuendo in the question put to the Prime Minister. I mean, the member saw me—where I believed the member had asked a very straight question, I pulled the Prime Minister up when he started to comment on what the member should do. On this occasion I felt the question did contain innuendo. Although I would not want the Prime Minister to go any longer down that track, I think members need to try to avoid—if they do not wish to get that kind of response from a Minister—putting innuendo into a question.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me spell it out again. As part of the schedule 4 process that took place in July 2010, the Government made a commitment that it would change the Crown Minerals Act. In changing the Crown Minerals Act, we made it clear that, going forward, future mining on conservation land would be publicly notified. That law change has not taken place yet. In the case of Bathurst Resources, the Denniston Plateau is part of a historical consent. So if the member is asking me whether I am going to visit companies that have historical consents, well, to the best of my knowledge I do not have any of those in my diary. But I do not really know; I will have to go and check that, if she is really that concerned. But in future, for companies that want to mine on the conservation estate once the Crown Minerals Act is amended, then the applications will be publicly notified.
Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table a 2-minute, 35-second video produced by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of the landscapes, habitats, and species of the Denniston Plateau.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Business, Innovation and Employment, Ministry—Expected Costs of Establishment
7. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Economic Development: What, if any, are the capital costs, write-downs and redundancy costs expected from the merger of the Ministry of Economic Development with the Ministry of Science and Innovation, Department of Labour and Department of Building and Housing?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): The specific costings for the items sought by the member are not available at this time. As stated last week when the planned merger was first announced, a due diligence process is now under way, and Cabinet will receive a report next month that will provide further information. We are confident, given our recent experience with other public sector structural change, that the costs will be able to be met within baselines. We also expect savings through better coordination, better-quality advice, and giving businesses one agency to talk to, and that these will outweigh the costs.
Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a document created by the Parliamentary Library, depicting the Ministry of Science and Innovation’s shiny new logo, which so far has been relevant for only 404 days. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has—[Interruption] Order! This is a point of order. Members have the right to refuse the tabling of a document. [Interruption] Order! Now, look, we will cut out this chipping across the House while a point of order is being considered. Let me check with the honourable member. That is a document created—
Hon David Cunliffe: From the Parliamentary Library.
Mr SPEAKER: —by the Parliamentary Library. 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 David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table this document created by the Parliamentary Library, depicting the Ministry of Economic Development’s new website branding, which was relevant for no more than 235 days.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon David Cunliffe: Why was a full due diligence not completed on the full costs of the merger prior to its announcement? If one was completed, who conducted the due diligence and what was the result, and if one was not completed prior, why not?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Because the Government took a strategic decision—
Hon Member: Oh!
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It did. It took a strategic decision to, in principle, merge those ministries, and then a full public due diligence process. The reality, as the member knows, is that you have to go through a process and that involves a significant number of officials and people and a significant amount of time. It is appropriate that Cabinet make a strategic decision first, and then that work is done once Cabinet is keen to move forward.
Hon David Cunliffe: Why did the Government merge or propose to merge the Ministry of Economic Development with other entities, when it has yet to receive any advice from any of the six ministerial committees it has announced it will set up to discover an economic development strategy from amongst its laundry lists of action plans?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is just simply incorrect. The reality of the situation is that the Government has been working, as he knows, across a huge range of areas in the wider economic development space. The Government’s view, though, is that there is a real opportunity to get some real strategic go-forward in the areas of innovation, for example; in the areas of skills, which the previous Government going back many years grappled with and failed; and also in the areas of productivity and competitiveness. Actually, I note that the member himself said that there could be value in the new joined-up entity and that he did not want to take an ideological stand against it.
Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with commentator Colin James that the proposed restructuring is “1980s MBA-think.”, which reverses the correct order of form following function and function following strategy, and, instead, puts the organisational cart ahead of the strategic horse?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member would be more familiar with 1980s MBA-speak and MBA-think than me. I do not agree with Mr James on that. What I do agree with is a number of stakeholders who have responded to the Government’s announcement very positively. For example, the chief executive of Business New Zealand said it will reduce levels of duplication, and that will be appreciated by many enterprises. Science New Zealand said that Crown research institutes and Science New Zealand welcome this integration: “The new Ministry will integrate and strengthen the government’s policy capability around innovation,”. The New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association, which is not one that I regularly quote, said “There is no doubt that the number of ministries can be reduced and this should improve operational efficiency and help cut operating costs.”
Child Health Targets—Infant Immunisation and Rheumatic Fever
8. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made in relation to the Government’s key result of increasing infant immunisation rates and reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever?
Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Great progress. As you are aware, 92 percent of all 2-year-olds are fully immunised—up from just over 70 percent back in 2007, and district health boards are on track to meet the 95 percent target in June this year. We are also investing $24 million to significantly reduce rheumatic fever rates in vulnerable communities. This Third World disease is serious and after years of promises and inaction by the previous Government we are determined to do something about it.
Dr Paul Hutchison: What new action is the Government taking to further increase infant immunisation rates and reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever?
Hon JO GOODHEW: Building on the target’s success, we are introducing a new target from 1 July 2012—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Minister. Some interjection is OK, especially if it is humorous, but rheumatic fever among some parts of our community is important and I would quite like to hear the Minister’s answer.
Hon JO GOODHEW: Building on the target’s success, we are introducing a new target from 1 July 2012 that 95 percent of 8-month-olds complete their scheduled vaccinations by the end of 2014. Early immunisation protects vulnerable children against polio, whooping cough, hepatitis B, and pneumococcal disease. The Minister is advised that, as of 16 March this year, 101 schools are signed up to the programme, which covers more than 35,000 children. More than 1,000 kids have been swabbed so far to prevent them from having rheumatic fever.
Medical Equipment, Subsidised—Glucose Testing
9. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he support Pharmac’s provisional decision to engage Auckland company, Pharmaco, to be the sole supplier of new diabetic meters?
Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: The Minister supports the work Pharmac is doing within its significantly increased medicines budget to deliver the best possible services for New Zealanders, including access to medicines. To make a change like this, Pharmac has to enter into a provisional agreement, as it has with Pharmaco, and then undertake a very thorough consultative process. Pharmac is now considering the 3,000 submissions it has received.
Hon Maryan Street: Does he see any difference between engaging a sole supplier of a medical device, without consumer testing, that allows people with a chronic illness to manage their condition, and engaging a sole supplier of a pharmaceutical that has known effects on known symptoms?
Hon JO GOODHEW: The Minister is very aware of how important this matter is to people with diabetes, and can assure them that Pharmac is considering every submission. This, in fact, is not new territory. Back in 2005, when Pharmac began supplying meters and testing strips, it put in place new funding criteria, which are still in place today. At the time, Diabetes New Zealand said 40,000 people would be affected, and the then Minister of Health, Annette King, said in this House that there would always be debate about which products ought to be used and which ones ought to be subsidised. I am advised that this settled down after—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just urge Ministers, if they are not clear on answering a question asked, not to go on too long in giving an alternative answer.
Hon Maryan Street: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked, in fact, whether there was any difference, in the Minister’s view, between engaging a sole supplier of a medical device and engaging a sole supplier of a pharmaceutical.
Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Associate Minister to answer. I realise the Associate Minister is not the Minister.
Hon JO GOODHEW: Without understanding to which other particular example the member refers, I am simply able to answer based on the consultation process that is currently under way with Pharmaco, and to say that I cannot compare the two. Therefore, that is my answer.
Hon Maryan Street: Why was the CareSens meter not consumer tested to discover how useful a diabetic meter that is not backlit is to a type 1 diabetic who is having a hypo event in the middle of the night, and why would such a meter be preferable to the well-established Accu-Chek meter, which is backlit?
Hon JO GOODHEW: I am not able to comment on what meters have been tested or have not been tested; that will, in fact, be a matter for Pharmac. But I am able to comment on the fact that this particular process is a thorough consultative process where all of the submissions will be considered, and any concerns—which may mirror the member’s concerns—will be addressed at that time.
Hon Maryan Street: Is he at all mindful of the fact that this proposal by Pharmac has caused great consternation amongst the 150,000 people who use such meters, and is there any part of this diabetes debacle for which the Minister accepts any responsibility, given that he is the Minister of Health?
Hon JO GOODHEW: As I have already outlined to the member, there have been processes before about which large numbers of people were very concerned. In fact, 40,000 people with diabetes in the past were very concerned. I am advised that if a new company is selected, there will be training provided in the use of its meters, and opportunity for patient engagement. But, in fact, I remind the member that the decision has not been made. This is a consultation process, and perhaps the member is jumping the gun.
Welfare Reforms—Future Focus
10. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for Social Development: Has she received any reports on the Future Focus welfare changes in 2010?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Yes. I have seen reports that say that since Future Focus changes in September 2010, 52,300 people who were on the unemployment benefit have gone through the reapplication process. As a result, 12,481 people cancelled their benefit. Of these, 6,479 did not complete the reapplication process, 2,459 cancelled for other reasons, but 3,389 told Work and Income that they had actually found work and should not have been receiving the benefit anyway.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Has Future Focus had an impact getting young people off welfare?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. It is having an impact on the entire welfare population and on youth in particular. In February this year, main benefit numbers were 4.2 percent lower than for the same month last year. That is 14,411 fewer people on welfare, and last month we had 2,920 fewer young people on benefits than in January. We will continue our focus, and the next stage of reforms, I am confident, will also make a significant difference.
Jacinda Ardern: Can she confirm that the number of people in receipt of main benefits has increased since her Future Focus reforms were introduced, including those on the domestic purposes benefit, and has increased in total by almost 80,000 since she came into office?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: That member chooses to wear blinkers, but actually we went through the worst recession that we have seen. Hence we have had such an increase in people on benefits. I think it is an important point to make that when we came into office, we had a system that was able to support people. Her colleague was making allegations such as that there would be 24,000 more people on the unemployment benefit in Christchurch, but here we are, a year later, and there are only 100. Actually, we have held, I think, and supported those who needed it most, but we have also managed to move people into work and have done an outstanding job with that.
Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very straight question: whether the Minister could confirm that benefit numbers have increased since Future Focus was introduced in 2010.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, the last part of her question was around the 80,000 more since I have been the Minister, and that is the part of the question that I answered.
Mr SPEAKER: It would have been helpful, perhaps, had the Minister not criticised the questioner right at the outset of answering her question. The question was a fair enough question, and the Minister did answer the last part of the question. The question did not criticise the Government. It just asked whether the Minister could confirm certain figures, and to accuse a member of being blinkered because they ask a question is not reasonable. Does the member have a further supplementary question? I am prepared to offer the member a further supplementary question should she choose to use one, because I was not happy about her being accused of being blinkered.
Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that the number of people in receipt of main benefits has increased since her Future Focus reforms were introduced?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have the unemployment benefit figures in front of me, and in the last 12 months, I can assure the House, they have gone down by 7,837.
Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry—Meeting of Heads of Mission
11. Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Have New Zealand heads of mission overseas been recalled to a meeting in Wellington on 2 April, and if so what is the cost of holding this meeting?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): No head of mission has been recalled. The member should know that that term has a particular connotation in the diplomatic community, and it does not apply in this instance. It is now clear that significant modifications are called for to the change proposals circulated to Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff. To the extent that large-scale outsourcing arrangements are not proceeded with, different arrangements involving enhanced responsibilities—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I implied no such connotation in the use of the word “recall”. Recall, to most New Zealanders, would mean “to call back to New Zealand”. I therefore ask you to ask the Minister to answer my question, which did not have the connotations he alleged.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have got to accept the Minister’s interpretation of a question. However, the question was very specific and did not invite the Minister to carry on with the information he was providing to the House. The Minister has denied that heads of mission overseas have been recalled to a meeting in Wellington. He has denied that. That leaves, I would have thought, the questioner with very good supplementary question material. But the Minister should not go on with the rest of the information he was providing, because the primary question did not ask anything about that. It asked whether or not heads of mission had been recalled to a meeting in Wellington on 2 April, and if so, what the cost is of holding this meeting. It did not ask about other arrangements, at all. The Minister has interpreted the question in the way he did, but there is, I would have thought, plenty of room for supplementary questions.
Hon Phil Goff: Is the ministry bringing back its heads of mission from overseas on 2 April, and if so, what is the cost of doing that?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: It is now clear that significant modifications are called for to the change proposals—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are hearing a regurgitation of the previous answer. It is not answering a very simple and direct question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the member’s complaint is a fair point of order. The question was very specific. It asked whether heads of mission were being brought back to Wellington for a meeting on 2 April. I do not want to get it wrong. What I will do, in the circumstances, is invite the Hon Phil Goff to repeat his question.
Hon Phil Goff: Have heads of mission been called back to New Zealand to a meeting in Wellington on 2 April, and, if so, what is the cost of doing that?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The chief executive has signalled to heads of mission that they can expect an invitation to a meeting in Wellington in April to discuss their roles in the change process. This has been necessitated by the fact that large-scale outsourcing proposals involved in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade consultation process will not be proceeded with. Many, but not all, heads of mission are likely to attend. I am advised that the process is likely to cost around $200,000. Given the key role that our heads of mission will play in achieving $25 million a year in operating economies, that does not appear to me to be unreasonable.
Hon Phil Goff: Is the Minister telling the House that he is bringing back most heads of mission, at the cost of at least $200,000, to tell them that his restructuring proposals are not going to go ahead in the form that he proposed, because they are unworkable?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Let me be very clear about this. I have not asked the heads of mission to come to Wellington. The chief executive has invited heads of mission to come to Wellington for the meeting. I have indicated to the chief executive that I support him in issuing that invitation. The proposals that have been put out to staff for consultation clearly require significant modifications, and those modifications will involve an enhanced role for those heads of mission. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Hon Phil Goff for a further supplementary question, I take his supplementary questions to be serious. I ask his colleagues to enable the Minister to be heard.
Hon Phil Goff: Has the Minister allowed to be spent millions of dollars on consultants for the change process, 34 staff to be listed in his staff directory as being in the change programme office, and now several hundred thousand dollars to be spent to bring the heads of mission back, all to tell them that the proposals that he has been labouring on for over a year are not going ahead?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The chief executive circulated detailed proposals for change, because the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade needs to undergo significant modernisation to ensure, for a start, that its footprint comes close to matching the significant changes that have taken place in New Zealand’s trade and economic interests. The member might like to reflect on the fact that Mr Allen confronts this task because that member was asleep on the job when he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Hon Phil Goff: Is the Minister now telling the House that it is all Mr Allen’s fault, and that, in fact, Mr Allen did not consult with him closely at every step of the way about the direction of the change and the fact that he, as Minister, expected $40 million in cuts from his ministry?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have made it very clear that the proposal circulated to ministry staff comes from ministry management, and not from me. Any concerns that I had about those proposals were made known to the management prior to that consultation process. Many of those concerns have been reflected in the feedback from heads of mission and from staff. Now that that process is drawing to a close, I want to facilitate decisions that will ensure further work can take place in those areas in which productive change can occur, but also ensure that debate can be curtailed in those areas where it would only be destructive for it to continue.
Hon Phil Goff: Does this Minister take no responsibility for the restructuring proposals and the $40 million in cuts, and are those $40 million of cuts in this document all a figment of the imagination of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I can confirm that a figure of $25 million of economies was sought in a letter sent to the chief executive by Treasury and by the State Services Commission. Certainly, in part the proposals that have been put forward by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade management team are an attempt to meet that request from Treasury and the State Services Commission. They are also, though, a significant attempt to modernise a ministry that has escaped change for many decades. I invite the member to consider whether, in part, this is necessitated by the neglect of previous Ministers like himself.
Hon Phil Goff: Are the Minister and the Government expecting the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to make savings of $40 million per year by 2014, which it states in its briefing to him it is required to do?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The member is confused. The briefing to the incoming Minister was written by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade without knowing who had been elected as the Government, and who the Minister being appointed was. The figure that I refer to is a figure of $24 million, which is contained in a letter from the Secretary to the Treasury and the State Services Commissioner to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and that is the request that I have told him I support.
Climate Change—Effect on Sea Levels
12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is he concerned by a recent report of an international team of scientists that, even with a two degree celsius rise in average global temperature, future generations could face sea levels of up to 12 to 22 metres higher than at present?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Yes. The estimates of sea level rise in this report are in line with estimates from the science community over the past few years. But I note that the author himself puts these estimates in context by stating that such changes could take centuries or millennia and that “The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of sea level is 2 to 3 feet …”.
Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of that reply, is the Minister concerned that the Government’s current guidelines for local councils on sea level rise for 2100 are 28 percent lower than the level estimated by the scientists; if so, will he inform the local government and environment Ministers that we have now got it wrong?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The current guidelines for local authorities that they consider the consequences of a mean sea level rise of at least 0.8 metres is in line with the findings of the report for sea level rise out to the end of this century. The lead author of that report just mentioned, himself said: “The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of sea level is … (0.8 to 1 metre) …”. This is in line with the Government guidance.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Working on the understanding that the guidelines actually were 0.5 to 0.8—so, not exceeding 0.8—is the Minister concerned that no consideration appears to have been given to the prospect of sea level rise in the rebuild of Christchurch, given that a city’s life cycle is over centuries, and will the Minister now act on my report of August 2011 that the rebuild should account for a sea level rise of 2 metres by 2100, bearing in mind the report of the conference in Berlin, which suggested by consensus a sea level rise of 0.9 to 1.6?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The Ministry for the Environment has provided guidance to all local councils regarding planning for an expected increase in sea levels. In terms of the specific report the member refers to, I would encourage the member to make a representation to the local councils if he feels that any specific factors do need closer attention.
Dr Kennedy Graham: How can it be, more broadly, when the global economy was projected by the OECD last week to quadruple by 2050, and, without new mitigation policies, global energy demand to be 80 percent higher, and 85 percent reliant on fossil fuels, and emissions 50 percent higher, that the Minister can repeatedly assure this House that every Government, including New Zealand, is doing enough to combat climate change?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The member is correct: climate change is a global issue, and a global response is needed. New Zealand is committed to fulfilling our international responsibilities. New Zealand is a small player, but we are doing our fair share, and our guidance will continue to be informed by sound science.
Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a report by the Geological Society of America in Geology online, dated 19 March, headed “Implications of global sea level for Antarctica deglaciation”.
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.
Dr Kennedy Graham: The second document is an OECD report, 2012, of last week: OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Consequences of Inaction.
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.
General Debate
General Debate
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Whoever would have thought that Esko Aho, the great right-wing leader of Finland, the great right-wing Prime Minister of Finland, would become a Labour Party icon? Is it conceivable that the Labour Party leader, trying to cut out a new bit of space for a demoralised, beaten, and shoddy-looking party, would choose a right-wing party leader from a country on the other side of the world to be his role model and, worse than that, that he would decide that New Zealand should set itself the target of becoming like Finland?
I think we need to understand a few things about Finland. Firstly, New Zealand surpassed Finland in the OECD better life rankings in 2010. We are ahead there. We have more consistent growth rates than Finland. But Labour members do not know these facts about Finland. They know only a few. I could give them some more. New Zealand has lower unemployment than Finland. New Zealand has lower inflation than Finland. We have better food and agricultural production than Finland. We have less than half the homicide rate of Finland. We have much higher economic freedoms than Finland. We spend more on education than Finland does. We have more women in third-tier education than Finland does. But this is the country—Finland—that David Shearer wants us to become like. That is the great Labour vision.
I, for the life of me, cannot believe that that is what the Labour Party wants. I do not believe it. There has got to be more to it than this, and I think the answer lies in the advice that Mr Shearer got in putting that speech together. He is new. We all know he is new and that he just wants to please everybody, and in particular he wants to please his deputy, Mr Grant Robertson, the great Labour apparatchik in political circles. Grant Robertson knew these things, so he said: “I’m going to set him up. I’m going to set him up.” Yesterday, when the Prime Minister unveiled some of this stuff in question time, who sat over there next to Mr Shearer, smiling? Oh, and how wide was that smile? You could drive a truck through it. He is trying to stay straight-faced now, but he cannot. He cannot stay straight-faced, because he knows that this is part of his cunning plan.
When the big event came and Phil Goff moved on—but has he moved on; we will come back to that in a minute—Grant Robertson was too new, too raw, to put his name forward, and a little bit too timid, I suspect. So we had the battle of the Davids. We saw David Parker disappear pretty early, then David Cunliffe and David Shearer had a bit of a go, and it must have been a real coin toss there. However, David Shearer came through, and who sidled up beside him to become the deputy? The most ambitious man in the Labour Party: Mr Robertson. I think you have got to hand it to him. In a machiavellian sort of situation he is fantastic. That is unbelievable, is it not? You can actually get someone to go out there and make a speech saying: “I want New Zealand to be like Finland, which has worse unemployment than us, has less growth than us, can hardly feed the people who live there, has a terrible homicide rate, hardly educates its people, and has no respect for women.” That is what he wants for New Zealand. That is a master stroke—a master stroke—from Mr Robertson, who wants to set up Finland as being an icon for New Zealand, touted by poor old Mr Shearer. Sooner or later, Mr Shearer may wake up.
Then there is the issue of Phil Goff. How many times did we see Phil Goff on TV? Three, four, or five times a week? More than we saw of him as the Leader of the Opposition. Tell me he is not on a comeback trail. He is in the paper; he is here, there, and everywhere. It is unbelievable. If you measure the column centimetres—Phil Goff versus David Shearer, and then throw in a bit of Grant Robertson—you will see that poor old Mr Shearer is in third place again. It is not tidy. Mr Robertson, if I were you I would be moving out of that seat over to where Annette King is and giving Phil Goff a big shove sideways, because it looks to me like he is on the comeback trail.
One of the interesting things is that it appears that the rest of the Labour Party members, who sit there now in stunned silence at this revelation, have not quite worked out what is going on. Trevor Mallard always laughs, and that is a sure sign he is thinking: “Oh, I didn’t see that coming.” They have just worked out what Mr Robertson’s cunning plan is: to set up Mr Shearer as often as possible.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): That speech was from the Minister of Transport, who has come up with one good idea, and that is the changes to the give way rules, which now mean we give way to the left. That is what happens. So Gerry Brownlee has finally come up with a good idea—to give way to the left on this side of the House.
We need to be absolutely clear about what happened in Parliament today. We heard from the Prime Minister that if somebody writes a letter on ministerial letterhead asking for an intervention to give someone a comparative assessment of their health about their capacity to work, on ACC letterhead, that is just an error of judgment and it is not sufficient to breach the Cabinet Manual. That is what we heard from the Prime Minister today. The Cabinet Manual may as well go in the recycling bin all around Wellington because this Prime Minister has decided that it does not matter—it does not count.
Hon Lianne Dalziel: It does matter.
GRANT ROBERTSON: It matters more than that. You are right, Ms Dalziel. It matters because it is what holds Ministers to account. New Zealanders deserve to know—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a series of quotes by Helen Clark on the Cabinet Manual. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the source of this document?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The source of this document is numerous quotes by the Rt Hon Helen Clark about how the Cabinet Manual is just—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that he has interrupted a member’s speech gratuitously, and that is not on. The Leader of the House should know that.
GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. You are very sensitive on the other side of the House today, Mr Brownlee. What we heard from John Key today is that writing a letter on ministerial letterhead to intervene in an individual ACC case does not meet Mr Key’s threshold of what is unacceptable for a Minister’s behaviour.
The Cabinet Manual could not be clearer, Mr Brownlee. The Cabinet Manual says that a Minister should be very careful not to use information they access in the course of their official activities in a way that might provide some special benefit to family members, whānau, or close associates. Bronwyn Pullar was a close associate of this Minister—we all know that—and now we have the situation where we have ministerial standards reaching an all-time low under this Government. This came from a Prime Minister who said he was going to increase standards. He said “I will take the action necessary if Ministers do not meet their standards.” Mr Key has failed that test today. Mr Key has said that the Cabinet Manual, the document that upholds constitutional accountability in our country, is worthless to him. It is worthless to him. This is just a continuation from this Government—the actions of Dr Smith and the way John Key has responded—of this Government’s new slogan, “Crony capitalism”. That is what we see from this Government. At every step of the way it is about cronyism. Take Steven Joyce and Skycity: “Let us make sure Skycity can have some more pokie machines through a deal by Steven Joyce.”
Stephen McElrea, who is on the board of New Zealand On Air, is the chair of the Prime Minister’s electorate committee. We still have not heard from the Prime Minister as to what role he played in that appointment. What did he know about that appointment? We have cronyism from beginning to end with this Government. We saw it just the other day. I do not mind Dr Wayne Mapp. He is a cheery old fellow. But he has been appointed to the Law Commission without any proper process from this Government, once again. Sometimes Mr Mallard thinks that he taught at a polytechnic, but that is not fair. Wayne Mapp is a good person. He did not deserve to be put in the situation whereby he was appointed to the Law Commission with absolutely no process whatsoever.
We know that right from the top in this Government cronyism is alive and well. We saw it most rightly in the MediaWorks debacle: a $43 million loan going to the company that Steven Joyce has long had links with, then, lo and behold, that very company hosts the Prime Minister’s Hour. Cronyism was alive and well. The Prime Minister’s office was involved in writing communications for Radio Live so that the office could cover up its involvement in it. This is cronyism. Dr Nick Smith’s example is only one small part of a ministry that has gone beyond the standards that even we thought they would stoop to. [Interruption]
What was that from Jonathan Coleman? Dr Coleman, of course, knows all about this. His standards have been high right from the beginning, right from the Mt Albert by-election on. He is now in this Cabinet, which has reached a new low in standards of behaviour. We have a Cabinet Manual that is created to protect New Zealanders’ interests so that they know that conflicts of interest will be managed. And today in this House the Prime Minister has said that that Cabinet Manual means absolutely nothing. He has lowered the standards of behaviour of Ministers, not increased them. From the beginning to the end of this administration we have seen cronyism. This Government is a total shambles.
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration): I want to contrast the two speeches last Thursday, dubbed by the media “Super Thursday”. What we saw from the Leader of the Opposition was him trying to say that we need a new New Zealand and we need to be like Finland. You would have thought that the research unit in the Labour Party would have at least done some work, would you not? But, alas, Mr Shearer got up for his big speech and pretty much the first thing he said for this parliamentary year was “We want to be like Finland.” What I could not believe when we delved into it—and it was exposed yesterday by the Prime Minister—was that Finland has a mixed-ownership model. Its big energy company, Fortum, is 51 percent owned by the Government. Then we went on and also exposed that Finland has a higher rate of unemployment than what we have here in New Zealand.
We discovered in Mr Shearer’s speech last week that he is a quiet supporter of welfare reform. Is that not surprising? We also found out from Mr Shearer last week that he supports lifting education standards. Is that not great? If Mr Shearer was here I would like to ask him whether he supports national standards. That is one thing Mr Shearer should come down to the House and say: “Yes, I support not only the welfare reform that this Government is delivering but also the roll-out of national standards.”, which is going very well up and down New Zealand and is being well received by parents in my electorate of Ōtaki.
Also what we heard from Mr Shearer last week was that not only does he want a new New Zealand; he wants a brighter future. But one thing is for sure: our campaign pitch last year resonated right across on the other side of the House, and it is now imprinted in Mr Shearer’s brain that indeed he wants a brighter future for New Zealand.
What we found from Mr Shearer’s speech was that actually he wants to move the Labour Party towards the centre. In my humble view, Mr Shearer has not even shored up the left of his support. With the ports protest, we did not see Mr Shearer proudly holding the banner out the front with the union workers at the Auckland port; we saw Mr Cunliffe out there. Lo and behold, we still have the battle of the Davids. Mr Cunliffe dragged Mr Shearer along to the protest by those Auckland port workers. I am sure Mr Cunliffe, when he gets up in his general debate slot this afternoon, will indeed confirm that.
Contrast Mr Shearer’s woeful contribution in his speech last Thursday with what the Prime Minister announced: policy of substance, better public services, more efficiency, reducing costs, and better results for New Zealanders. It is worthwhile running through those 10 platforms, where we have got stretch targets over the next 3 to 5 years.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Which targets?
Hon NATHAN GUY: Reducing the number on the working-age benefit—and I am sure Mr Mallard’s electorate will be pleased to hear that in Hutt South—getting a greater participation in early childhood education, which is hugely important; lifting the rates of infants being immunised; reducing serious assaults on children, and I am sure we would all agree with that; lifting those 18-year-olds up to getting National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, which is hugely important if you want to move to a productive New Zealand economy; increasing the proportion of 25 to 34-year-olds who have trade or tertiary qualifications; reducing overall crime, and we heard that today from Minister Collins, who is doing a fantastic job in her work as Minister of Justice; reducing the overall reoffending rate; the one-stop shops online to help grow New Zealand’s business—and I want to make another contribution on that in a moment—and ensuring that we have more digital transactions for the New Zealand public. There are big reforms happening in this space, big targets that this Government is going to be held to account on, to ensure that we reach them.
The other big news of last week in this speech by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, was the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, rolling four agencies into one, which is going to be hugely important to drive our economy forward.
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Huri rauna tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Four years ago the armed offenders stormed the homes of innocent families, broke down doors, smashed windows, overturned furniture, forced people to their knees in front of their children, refused them access to water and even the right to go to the toilet, degraded and dehumanised civilians, set up armed barricades and stopped traffic, boarded kōhanga reo buses and scared the crap out of little kids, and gave Tūhoe another reason to hate the forces of the State.
That exercise in police terror, carried out on 15 October 2007, led to people all over the country being charged with terrorism, amidst heightened global concerns of terrorist activity, and created within the wider society of New Zealand an instant and unreal fear of the kinds of images that we have been barraged with on mainstream TV.
Although those charges were very quickly thrown out, the State simply had to follow through with new charges, because it had already been running its campaign for more than 12 months. It had gone in fully armed and under the full glare of the media. It had made a very public commitment to the most serious charges in the history of our nation, and it simply had to justify its involvement in what turned out to be an extremely violent police operation.
That operation came to an end only yesterday with a decision that should have been about by the triumph of justice, but was not. All it was, was a sad and sorry end to a tragic raid into the heartland of the Tūhoe, because for all of the drama, the high expectation, and the grainy videos yesterday the jury could return verdicts on firearms charges only. That is all we got, after a 4-year campaign that cost the taxpayer millions and millions of dollars, divided the nation, and gave people a genuine reason to fear their own police force.
Today, the day after the case ended, justice is still denied to the people of Tūhoe. Today I remember those who died with a cloud of doubt hanging over them and their families, and who will never now get the chance to refute the allegations made against them. Today we recall the statement made by one of the defence lawyers, who said that the Crown case could best be summed up with the simple words “Māori plus guns equals crime”. Today we can still feel the deep-seated racism that not only exists but flourishes within critical agencies of the State, and today the hearings may be over for the Urewera Four, but not for the people of Tūhoe.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I regret to interrupt the honourable member, but I just do want to make clear the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders of the House prohibit reference to matters that are before the court, and that includes up until the sentencing of anyone who has been before the court. That is Standing Order 113/3. Members are not precluded from commenting on matters that are before the court, but they should advise the Speaker in advance if they intend making any reference to matters before the court. I just ask the member to be aware of that for the future, and to be careful of what he says in relation to this matter, because it is still before the court. The people whom the member has been referring to have not yet been sentenced, and great care should be taken in making any reference to it in the House.
HONE HARAWIRA: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I deliberately spoke to a lawyer about this speech, to ensure that details of the case were not actually raised in my speech. I am referring in specific terms to issues that arose from the not guilty pleas, and in particular the primary charge, which got held over. So I am not talking about the charges for which they have been found guilty and for which they are due to still come before the court.
Mr SPEAKER: Often, lawyers are not experts on the Standing Orders of this House. It is Standing Order 112 that requires members to advise the Speaker and give the Speaker written advice of what they intend to cover, because all matters relating to the charges relating to those people are matters that are still before the court. I just ask the member to be careful in reference to that matter.
HONE HARAWIRA: Kia ora. There has been no apology. There has been no compensation. There has been no public acknowledgment of the need for change in police operations or for new engagement policies as a result of the litany of errors we now know as Operation Eight. We know that, because just last month the armed offenders went back into Tūhoe, smashed up somebody’s house, terrorised the inhabitants, and got nobody.
Today I am proud to say that Mana will stand alongside those in our society who reject tyranny, and stand against those who would use the Terrorism Suppression Act and the Search and Surveillance Bill to crush independent thinking, to force us to fear what we say and to hide what we do, and to stop us from choosing freedom over oppression. Today I salute Tame Iti and his comrades for their dignity, for their courage, for their passion, and for their love of this land.
Tomorrow I pray for an end to the kind of blind police operation developed in a silo of ignorance and fear. I look forward to a time when local issues can be handled with a modicum of intelligence, a minimum of fuss, a measure of goodwill, and the realisation that brutalising communities in the defence of justice leads not to justice but to the growth of injustice, disharmony, and righteous anger. Thank you very much. Kia ora tātou.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe. I too apologise in advance for not being aware of that Standing Order. I also wish to speak about the Terrorism Suppression Act, but I will be guided by you, Mr Speaker, if I step out of line. I intend to talk about the bigger picture and the issue of the 15 October events.
Mr SPEAKER: As long as the honourable member does not talk about the matters particularly before the court, I invite her to proceed.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the member gets going I think it would be useful for you to indicate the matters that are still before the court. There are clearly a large number of cases that were dropped and charges that were dropped. The question of guilt or innocence is no longer before the court; it is only the matter of sentence that is awaiting adjudication now.
Mr SPEAKER: In respect of the wider picture, no charges remained under the Terrorism Suppression Act or, actually, were finally brought under the Terrorism Suppression Act. So as long as the member stays in that general territory I do not see that the member is going to be in breach of the Standing Orders, at all. In respect of the matters on which the people were convicted, that is a matter that preferably there should be no comment on. They relate particularly, as I understand it, to charges in relation to the illegal use of arms.
Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is worth bearing in mind that in respect of the matters that were before the court, as I understand it, the jury could not reach a verdict on certain charges that were before the courts. Therefore, there is still a question about whether or not the Crown prosecutor will retry the case, and therefore they could well fall within the Standing Orders that we are talking about.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard very briefly.
Hon Trevor Mallard: The member is quite plainly wrong. The trigger that sets it off will be the re-laying of the charges.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept the Hon Trevor Mallard’s view of that. What I would just draw to members’ attention, though, is the new Standing Order that requires members to advise the Speaker in writing if they intend to comment on matters that could be seen to be matters before the court; this is clearly something that is in that territory. But I think the member understands what areas to avoid now.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On 15 October 4½ years ago an event appeared on our television screens that looked more like an American macho cop show than anything we had seen in this country for many years, but it was real. It reminds me of the Ahmed Zaoui case—a situation where over-assumption and then scrambling to save face resulted in considerable breaches of human rights for communities across Aotearoa New Zealand. The Crown had also determined to test the Terrorism Suppression Act, and therefore it was testing it against a group of citizens across the country, some of whom did not even know each other, and yet were dragged into a debacle that has gone on for the last 4½ years.
Firstly, however, before I talk about the Terrorism Suppression Act I want to mihi to the whānau of Tūhoe Lambert from Waikaremoana. Tūhoe Lambert is unable to receive justice, because he passed away in July last year. So his whānau will never receive any of the justice that he sought through the process after he was charged. I guess the Green Party today wants to pay respect to that whānau for the price that they have paid for what has become one of the most bizarre cases in the history of New Zealand law.
The most abusive and bizarre behaviour occurred during a paramilitary lockdown on 15 October at a small community called Ruātoki in the Bay of Plenty, where whānau were dragged literally out of their beds or confined in their homes, where their roads were blocked, and where their children bore the brunt of what the children of Ruātoki now call the ninja attack. Three hundred armed, faceless, military-style police entered that community at dawn, and the scars are still being carried by the children of Tūhoe. Those scars will be carried for a very, very long time. It is easy for us as adults to rationalise what happened, but they cannot forget and they will not forget.
Whānau and hapū organisations have talked to me personally about the traumatic reinforcing of the marginalisation and fear of the Crown since a history of abuse that goes right back to the original raupatu and to the police and military invasion of Rua Kēnana’s community at Maungapōhatu early in the last century. So for the Ruātoki community it has been another round of oppressive attacks by the armed State in the name of the law, where people were held at gunpoint literally on the confiscation line. If people do not know what I am talking about they should read our history; it is very instructive.
Why did the Crown do this? Did the Crown need to do this? Did the local police liaison people not know where to find Tame Iti, who has been a resident of that area all his life, and who is well known in the rohe as a social and community worker with local youth and community issues? As Tame Iti said many times: “Why didn’t the police just come and talk to me?”.
But something else was being tested that day. It was the internationally motivated Terrorism Suppression Act. That day saw the fears of many of us that the Terrorism Suppression Act would be attempted to be used against the activist community, and citizens who dared to challenge dominant culture views—particularly tangata whenua—would be at risk. And how right we turned out to be.
Even though the police case was not accepted by the Solicitor-General, the price is being, and has been, paid. The whole house of cards came down because the Solicitor-General said that it could not be called terrorism. It led to a bunch of charges that are currently partially before the court to this day. However, the Supreme Court refused to allow some of the evidence that has been used in the latest case, and the whole terrorism suppression meme that these people were a bunch of people about to destroy the fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand as we know it fell apart, not only in the media, not only for those who know about it, but also in the face of the Supreme Court law.
But people have to realise the cost that this has been to these communities and realise that people who had all their charges dropped are still paying thousands of dollars for their legal aid repayments. The 15 October debacle requires the following: no retrial, apology to Tūhoe, and an independent inquiry. And I just want to say, as a citizen and MP—
Hon TAU HENARE (National): I was waiting for a, I suppose, better speech from Grant Robertson, but all he did—
Hon Member: No, you weren’t.
Hon TAU HENARE: I was. All we heard was him gloating—gloating in the fact that the Opposition has scored a goal. After 3½ years all members opposite had to do was to get up and say what Labour proposes to do in the next couple of years. But what did we hear from Grant Robertson? What did we hear? A horrible attack on a person who has spent nearly 20 years in this place. So what I want to do today is hit back to them—hit back on these people. I want to mention a few names. The Hon Dover Samuels—sacked as Minister of Māori Affairs but never given his job back by Helen Clark. No evidence of criminal behaviour was found, but he was not given his job back. In fact, what he got was to be the Minister of State, whatever that is. Ruth Dyson—drunk in charge of a vehicle. [Interruption] Oh, she was not?
Hon Member: She wasn’t.
Hon TAU HENARE: Oh well, I do not know. Phillida Bunkle—yep, I remember Phillida Bunkle—and Marian Hobbs. Harry Duynhoven—
Hon Trevor Mallard: When are you getting to me, Tau? What about me?
Hon TAU HENARE: Ah, you are coming. It is here—it is here. Harry Duynhoven had his ministerial powers suspended after inadvertently breaking the electoral law by renewing his Dutch citizenship. Lianne Dalziel was fired because she lied. John Tamihere—he resigned his portfolios because there were reports that he accepted $195,000 from Waipareira Trust.
Hon Annette King: Your friend.
Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, absolutely. He was my lawyer. Here is the thing: he told voters that he was not going to accept any payout, but he did.
Hon Trevor Mallard: If you’re guilty, get John.
Hon TAU HENARE: I am getting to you, Mr Mallard. I am getting to you. David Benson-Pope—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Referring to “you” is referring to the Speaker, and I hope you are not getting to the Speaker.
Hon TAU HENARE: Yep, OK, we know. Taito Phillip Field—we know what happened to him. His mates tried to cover up for him and then they distanced themselves. They were members of the Labour Party.
Michael Woodhouse: Remember what he was guilty of? Working hard for his constituents.
Hon TAU HENARE: Working hard for his constituents in Thailand. David Parker—he resigned as Attorney-General and transport, energy, and climate change Minister.
Then there was my good friend Winston Peters. He stood aside from his foreign affairs, racing, and associate senior citizens portfolios outside—
Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: What about Pansy Wong?
Hon TAU HENARE: Oh yeah, but I am talking about their side. See, I am talking about their side, because they did not have to get up and gloat. They did not have to get up and gloat, but they did.
And then we come to Trevor Mallard. Trevor Mallard—the violent one, the one with the anger problem, who, I might add, has just come back from England because, after 30-odd years in this place, he still does not know about parliamentary practice. So he went over. He travelled to England. He travelled to England to learn about parliamentary practice after nearly 30 years in the place. I would have thought—
Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is quite alarming. He is accusing my colleague of going to England to learn about parliamentary practice, but he is going to Uganda to learn about it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will sit down. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I guess the score is about one all at this stage in terms of spurious points of order, but I do not want the score to be raised by anyone in the House. That kind of point of order is totally out of order.
Hon TAU HENARE: I am going to Uganda to teach them about parliamentary procedure—that is the difference. And I am going with a Labour member. Oh, so what do we say about that? And also a Green member. The fact of the matter is—the fact of the matter is—that we should not gloat about the demise of anybody in this House, because all we heard today was a pretty sad story about a person who has given his life for this place. He made an error. He stood up, he copped it on the chin, and he did what everybody has been baying for. I just want to say before I close that I hope that it does not happen to anybody else in this Chamber.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Today is quite a sad day for Parliament. It is a sad day for the Government. I think it is a particularly sad day for the Government, because today is the day when the Prime Minister stood up and told the House that the Cabinet Manual does not matter—that the provisions in the Cabinet Manual do not matter and that he is not going to enforce the standards of behaviour required by the Cabinet Manual.
Back in December 2008 John Key said that he expected high standards from his Ministers, and that if they did not meet the standards that he set, then he would take action as necessary. That was in December 2008. How does that contrast with what he was saying just a day or two ago—in fact, yesterday—when he said “If you are going to sack ministers for what I think he would accept as an error of judgment but not a terribly significant one, you’d be sacking a lot of Ministers.”?
So how many other Ministers in his Cabinet does he think do not have the judgment to be Ministers, and why is he not sacking them? Why is he not sticking to his December 2008 comment, when he said that he was going to set high standards for his Ministers? That has gone out the window now, and it seems that Ministers can go into bat for people in their own ministerial portfolios—for people whom they are friends with—and John Key does not have a problem with that.
John Key has never been good at managing conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are rife in this Government, and John Key does not care about that. We saw that with Pansy Wong, we saw that with Richard Worth, and we saw that with many other Ministers in this Government, and John Key does not care about the conflicts of interest.
Let us look at what the Cabinet Manual says and at why John Key should hold his Ministers to account for it. Paragraph 2.59 of the Cabinet Manual is very clear: “Ministers themselves are responsible for proactively identifying and reviewing possible conflicts of interest and ensuring that any conflicts of interest are promptly addressed …”. That did not happen in this case.
That did not happen in this case, and John Key should have taken action earlier. He should not have waited for Nick Smith to resign. As soon as he found out that there was an issue, he should have demanded that Nick Smith disclose to him all of the relevant information, and then he should have taken action. He did not do that.
He is the Prime Minister. He is responsible for Ministers’ conduct. The very first thing he should have done is say “Nick, I want all of the relevant information. I want you to disclose for me every piece of correspondence.”, and he did not do that. He did not exact from his Ministers the very high standards that he said he was going to exact from his Ministers before he became Prime Minister—or when he first became Prime Minister. He has lowered those standards.
“A conflict may arise”—this is the Cabinet Manual again—“if people close to a Minister, such as a Minister’s family, whānau, or close associates, might derive, or be perceived as deriving, some personal, financial, or other benefit from a decision or action by the Minister or the government.” That is clearly the case here. There is no question that when John Key saw the letter yesterday that Nick Smith had written, he, clearly, should have known that that provision in the Cabinet Manual had been violated, and Nick Smith should have been stood down there and then.
For the Prime Minister to come to the House today and say that having seen that letter yesterday—not what happened today; what happened yesterday—he was still comfortable with Nick Smith remaining as a Minister is simply not good enough. It was very clear yesterday what should have happened. The Prime Minister should have taken the right course of action and he did not do so.
That is not acceptable from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised New Zealanders higher standards of ministerial conduct and for 3½ years he has failed to live up to that promise. This is not the first time we have seen National Ministers with massive conflicts of interest and the Prime Minister not doing anything about it.
There is another concern with this ACC case. It says that there is one rule for the National Party and its mates and another rule for all the rest of New Zealand. There are unresolved issues here. The question I have is: why is it that ACC officials—senior ACC officials—were meeting with Bronwyn Pullar in the first place? Why were they meeting? That does not happen with other ACC claimants. Why was it? There needs to be a full inquiry into this issue. Nick Smith’s resignation does not bring an end to the matter. There still needs to be an inquiry.
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): The member who has just resumed his seat, Chris Hipkins, has said that today is a sad day for this Parliament. Well, actually every single day is a sad day if you are a member of the Labour Opposition.
If we look back at last Thursday, we heard a speech from the leader of the Labour Party that was a classic example. It was meant to be about the dawning of a new day or the dawning of a new New Zealand. Perhaps he actually should have renamed it the dawning of a new Finland, because that is what he spoke about. I want to take another little glimpse at the connections Labour has made with Finland and to look back at something that was in the Listener in 1985. The comparison was being made by Roger Douglas. He was talking about the use of Rogernomics in Finland—actually, it was the birth of the expression “Rogernomics”. Unfortunately, what we saw back then, and it is possibly something the current leader is wanting to follow, was that Douglas was relying on the fact that Finland had made these reforms, but he did not bother to check whether those reforms had got the outcomes that were expected. As we heard from Gerry Brownlee today, sad to say, actually New Zealand is doing far better in many, many areas than Finland. So it is really unfortunate that the leader of the Labour Party also has not bothered to do his homework and check his facts as to whether any of these reforms will lead to anything.
Harking back also to the Labour Party, its leader for 9 years, Helen Clark, referred to this Cabinet Manual, which the previous speaker referred to, as only a guide—only a guide. From listening to the member who resumed his seat prior to my speech, you would think this was the Holy Grail and this would be absolutely everything. But, unfortunately, Labour’s leader for 9 years referred to it as only a guide.
I actually want to focus on two key areas in the limited time that I have. One of them is the work that has been started—probably, of any of the issues that my constituents bring into my electorate office, it is the one that they are hanging out for—on reform of local government. The complaint that they have is about their rates—over and over and over again. We have local government that is actually not living within its means. Interesting to say, the Dominion Post has said that in its opinion the councils have shown a disturbing lack of appreciation of the circumstances faced by their communities. This is actually what is important. If we look at what is important to our constituents, to the people of New Zealand, we see that they are tightening their belts on a daily basis. What are we doing with this reform? We are simply saying to local government: “You need to do the same. You need to tighten the belt.” It is interesting that Local Government New Zealand has come out and said that it supports the reform in principle. That is why this work is so important. It is refocusing the purpose of local government, introducing fiscal responsibility—that is something that the Government here, central government, has to operate within—strengthening council governance, and also streamlining council reorganisation. It is about making sure that the rates that locals pay every single day are accountable, that they are manageable, and that they are not excessive. If they have gone up 7.6 percent when the CPI has increased only 3 percent, something is going on. So that is what we are looking at. Seven percent every year is excessive, and we have got to do something about that and get on top of that particular trend.
The other thing that I do want to touch on, and that I am enormously proud of the Prime Minister announcing last week, are the targets. Some targets in particular I think it is worth bringing to the attention of the House, and they are the ones around the support that this Government is giving vulnerable children. One of the things I have spoken about a lot in this House and in my community is the need to increase participation in early childhood education. The one thing that I do not think there would be any disagreement in this House on is that the first 5 years of a child’s life are vital, and children getting the best start possible in education is the one thing we should all agree on.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Today we learnt that the number of New Zealanders leaving permanently for Australia has reached a new high—1,000 a week—and that excluded the Minister of Local Government, or the former Minister. We take no pleasure in the resignation of Dr Nick Smith, who made a contribution to restraining some of his more slash-and-burn colleagues from their tendencies. I want to wish him and his family well for the future. But the fact is his resignation was necessary from the day that he wrote on ministerial letterhead a letter that could have been perceived only as inappropriate influence for a friend of his, who was also a friend of the Prime Minister and a friend of the former president of the National Party. Unfortunately the responsibility for that must rest with the Prime Minister, John Key.
John Key said he would be “principled and transparent” and would “expect high standards from Ministers”, except that has never been true. Pansy Wong was allowed to continue in her portfolio weeks after evidence of her and her husband’s joint use of ministerial privileges for family business was in the public domain. Richard Worth paid the price, but not before, sadly, becoming an object of ridicule in this House and in the media.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the honourable member. I confess I let Hone Harawira get away with reading a fair part of his contribution in this general debate, but he is a much newer member than the Hon David Cunliffe. The Hon David Cunliffe is a very experienced front-bench member and does not need to read a speech in the general debate. I invite the member to join the debate rather than read a speech.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: With great pleasure. Murray McCully has made a habit of sending official information from his private email address and no one understands why, and John Key has done nothing. Bill English was allowed to rent his family trust’s home from the taxpayer at an awfully inflated sum—double that of a normal member of Parliament—and John Key did nothing. Rodney Hide took a taxpayer-funded junket with his girlfriend right round the world, which included a family wedding and a holiday in Hawaii, and John Key did nothing.
How about this one: David Carter sought briefings on ministerial business from a company he owned shares in and had to back down only after being sued for it by the Auckland Jewish congregation, and John Key did nothing. And Paula Bennett savagely breached the Privacy Act to attack New Zealanders who had dared to question her policies, and John Key did nothing.
But John Key has done some things. He has said the following, which we call the Key doctrine: “If you are going to sack Ministers for … an error of judgment … you’d be sacking a lot of ministers.” I call this the Key doctrine.
Well, here are some errors of judgment from the Minister whom John Key cannot tell whether he is a bird, a plane, or Superman: Steven Joyce. Steven Joyce negotiated in secret with Telecom New Zealand to write down the law by $400 million to $600 million, according to the Ministry of Economic Development, for the broadband roll-out, and John Key cheered him on. Steven Joyce deferred $43 million of spectrum licence fees from, principally, a company that he himself used to own and run. It is the same company that gave John Key a free hour—the Prime Minister’s Hour—just before the election. Of course, John Key did nothing.
Steven Joyce is negotiating in secret with New Zealand’s largest casino for between 500 and 1,000 extra pokie machines. That would entirely pay off a convention centre in less than 5 years, and John Key thinks that is a good way of doing business.
John Key set the standard in negotiating down the law to suit Warner Bros. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was a precedent New Zealand cannot afford. And John Key set the standard.
The standard of appointing his own electorate chairman, Stephen McElrea, to be deputy chair of New Zealand On Air puts political control over the use of taxpayers’ funds, like the time he allegedly stymied the bio series of the Government of Helen Clark. That is political control over taxpayer funds. It is a direct appointment by the Prime Minister of his own political henchman, and he thinks that is appropriate.
Is it any wonder that this Government has had the most rapid onset of “second-term-itis” in New Zealand political history? The most rapid onset. And now Murray McCully has become synonymous with political bravery, being a quisling for his own reforms.
MELISSA LEE (National): That is the worst possible delirious answer in this debate. I think that member who just sat down, David Cunliffe, must have a really, really short memory. I have not been in this House very long, not as long as that particular member, but let me just mention one name: Mike Williams. Goodness me! Talking about Mike Williams, I do not really want to go into detail about Mike Williams, but it is like the pot calling the kettle black. It is as if appointing to certain boards members of the public who happen to belong to a certain political party never actually happened under Labour. Let me also remind that member of the name of a particular former Minister who took a very long time to be sacked: Taito Phillip Field. He actually got convicted and served time in prison. It is as if the transparency and the standard that Labour is hoping for is a Government led by David Shearer as Prime Minister. Really?
Did you hear the Leader of the Opposition last week talking about the aspirations for New Zealand? He wanted New Zealand to be like Finland. He wants a brighter future, but he actually wants to compare New Zealand to Finland. I am a little bit confused. Finland in the OECD’s Your Better Life Index is lower. New Zealand actually surpasses Finland in that particular index. Does that actually mean that the Labour leader, David Shearer, actually wants New Zealand to have a lower standard of living? Is that the brighter future that David Shearer is actually hoping for? And is that why the two Davids, the two front-benchers, plus Grant Robertson have big smiles on their faces—smiling like the Cheshire cat, hoping that he is going to stumble and actually make that kind of mistake again. Let us actually have a look at Finland again. Earlier some National members talked about that. We have more consistent growth compared with Finland. We actually have lower unemployment than Finland. We actually have lower inflation than Finland. We actually have better food and agriculture than Finland. We actually have fewer male deaths compared with Finland, and we actually have lower homicide rates compared with Finland. We have much higher economic freedom than Finland as well.
In the last 3 years, the National-led Government has actually managed New Zealand’s economy well. How do we know that? Because the voters in the 2011 general election voted for a National-led Government once again. New Zealand overwhelmingly voted for National because New Zealand voters are not stupid. If they did not do well and if National was not going to be a safe hand in managing the New Zealand economy and the Government and all of its portfolios, the New Zealand public would not have voted for National once again. Some people might say that the New Zealand public voted for National members because they are good looking, or they are articulate, or whatever. But let me tell you a lot of people in New Zealand want New Zealand to do better. The economic well-being of this country, especially in the very difficult and tough economic times that we have had to go through, is one of the reasons why New Zealanders voted in large numbers for National, and I think we are very lucky that New Zealanders actually think with that perspective.
In the next 3 years, this Government is focused on making our country more competitive so that it can fulfil more of our potential as a nation, and we want to keep our promise to New Zealanders. One of the ways that we are doing that is by way of improving the welfare system, and spending $8 billion and having 351,000 people on the benefit is not the way to go.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): There are times when you wait in this debate for an enlightened contribution, but unfortunately that was not one of them. Did we hear about the per capita GDP of Finland? Oh, no—cannot mention those facts. Or the total GDP per capita compared with Finland’s? No comment about that. Or the take-home pay of the Finnish people compared with New Zealand’s? No, that member could not mention that because that is a comparison that National members cannot even stand up against.
But our Government has a Cabinet Manual. Clearly Merrill Lynch never did. And all over New Zealand there was a huge sigh from local government at 2 o’clock this afternoon. There was a massive sigh from local government all around this country. But if the Prime Minister and Nick Smith think that they have dodged the bullets over the ACC dispute or debate, then we have got news for them, and it is all bad. We want to know the facts behind this.
We remember that John Key said: “I expect high standards from my Ministers.” If those are high standards, then you could parachute them out the backside of a rabbit. That is what you could do with them. He said: ‘I expect high standards.” That was his boast. If any member of Parliament from another party had written as a Minister a letter on ministerial letterhead like this, National members would be screaming for blood. But there they sit, all mute, on the backbench, hoping: “Well, Nick’s gone; maybe they will put me there.” You can see the egregious, self-centred concern they have, not for Nick. They remind me of the Highveld in Africa, where there are a whole lot of animals grazing there, and out of the long grass comes this lion. And they all run like nobody’s business to get out of the way. But as soon as the lion gets the first one, they all stop and start grazing. That is the National Party. That is the National Party. They emulate and resemble nature.
The Prime Minister, Mr Key, knew about this case. My question is: when did he know and how much did he know? That is where this issue is going now. He can think he can hide behind the second letter, pulled out from 2010 as being the second unforgivable sin—not the one just last year. The unforgivable one was the one in 2010, which we did not know about. We want to see all the emails, all the texts, between Miss Pullar and Nick Smith.
Su’a William Sio: Were there any photographs?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, there may be photographs. I am not pushing it too far, because we are going from what we know, and we are not going to speculate on what we do not know.
Let me make it very, very clear. What did the Prime Minister do about it when he knew? He knew, for example, that Miss Pullar was putting pressure on Nick Smith. What did he do about it? Apparently, nothing. Did he advise Nick Smith as to what should be done? Did he advise any of his other colleagues? He knew what was going on. Take former party president, Michelle Boag. Why was she involved? Why was this woman involved? She is someone who got lined up at court for trying to pervert the course of justice—do you remember—in a massive commission of inquiry. And she got fined for it. Nothing—no problem for the National Party. Talk about standards! They have not got any.
Today we learnt about the second error, the letter of 2010. You know something? This is not going to be a Pansy Wong situation, where she jumped ship and said: “Look, I’m resigning. I’m coming home, Sammy.” Oh, no. We know that there was a lot behind the Pansy Wong story, which goes all the way to a former National Prime Minister—and they know as well. The problem with this Government is it did not press on and it should have. In this case, we are. We are going to find out what it knew, when it knew, and what it did not do about it when it should have acted.
Why did the Prime Minister not instruct his Minister to tell Miss Pullar to go and get help somewhere else? Why did he not do that? The issue is not a case for the Privacy Commissioner—[Interruption] Pardon?
Hon Shane Jones: We want to know.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because he thought he could slide by and none of us would know. But unfortunately this is a small country, and the National members are now finding out again what they should have acted on when they first knew.
It is not a case for the Privacy Commissioner any more. This goes to the quality and transparency of Government.
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Gloating, as the Hon Tau Henare has noted, is never an attractive option, yet despite some pretty cute attempts from some of the speakers opposite today, that is exactly what they have been doing. It began with Grant Robertson, it continued with Chris Hipkins, it became particularly odious under David Cunliffe, and now we have just had it from the 35th member of the Labour Party caucus, Winston Peters. Revelling in another’s misfortune, when that person has acted honourably—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not a debatable issue, because we had an election. There is no 35th member of the Labour Party caucus.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: There’s a proud party called New Zealand First.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No—that is not a point of order.
TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to advise the member that apparently not even the Labour Party caucus wants him, either. But I want to say that revelling in another’s misfortune, when that person has acted honourably—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This member has been in the Parliament now for, I think—
Hon Members: 3 years.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Three years? Sorry, I thought he was new—a number of months, anyway. He should know by now, Mr Assistant Speaker, that he must not comment on your very wise rulings.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is perfectly correct, Mr Mallard. I was actually thinking of frivolous interjections, but you are right.
TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think Mr Mallard is well aware of what he was attempting to do there, and I think it is unfortunate that he wanted to interrupt me when I was making the point about the courage of the Minister, who, unfortunately, has resigned today. I simply want to say that I am very proud to be—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member cannot refer to the courage of members. It can be seen as a personal reflection under Standing Order 117.
TIM MACINDOE: The Minister has acted with dignity, and I am very proud to be his colleague. I send my best wishes to Nick and his family at this time.
I am also proud to be a member of a very busy, focused, and effective Government. New Zealanders’ enthusiasm for our Labour opponents’ policies is currently about as warm as the climate in Mr Shearer’s beloved Finland at this time of the year. Understandably, given the overwhelming rejection Labour received from New Zealanders just a few months ago, it is now licking its wounds and wondering how it can reconnect with the electorate. Well, nothing Labour members have said or done to date, and certainly not in today’s general debate, indicates that they have a clue.
Yesterday during question time we heard from the member for Rimutaka, who enjoyed his own contribution in inverse proportion to the rest of his audience. We heard an attempt to ridicule this Government and our Ministers—wait for it—for having a series of plans. “Far too many plans”, he spluttered.
Hon Annette King: No, he didn’t.
TIM MACINDOE: Yes, he did, Ms King. He read out a whole lot of plans and strategies, yet this was the same Mr Hipkins who, along with his colleagues, half of whom are now pursuing other career opportunities, repeatedly bleated during the previous 3 years: “Where’s the plan? The Government hasn’t got a plan.” And every time they were told the plan they feigned an inability to understand it. Well, perhaps they were not feigning it.
They are leaderless and directionless, and their demeanour indicates, as do their statements, that they are hopeless. In stark contrast, the National-led Government is forging ahead with a visionary and appropriate programme to steer our country through very difficult times. We have a widely respected Prime Minister, a talented and united ministry, and a busy caucus blending industry and experience with a superb group of new MPs, who demonstrate that the National Party is in excellent shape and clearly is the right team in the right place at the right time. I want to congratulate my new caucus colleagues—one of whom, Ms Barry, is sitting just in front of me—on their superb maiden speeches, delivered in this House just a few weeks ago.
There is strong support in the Hamilton West electorate for the Government’s determination to rein in Government spending; encourage appropriate investment; deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health-care; facilitate economic growth; lift educational achievements for those who are struggling; and implement important reforms to deliver better local government and to get our economy into surplus. These are the issues that matter to New Zealand. They are all areas where our Government is making significant progress, notwithstanding the major problems we face—indeed, most countries face—at the present time in each and every one of them.
In the remaining time I want to focus on another major programme that we campaigned on last year and that we will begin to implement this month. In our previous term, despite vocal criticism from the depleted party opposite, the Government implemented the highly successful Future Focus programme to begin rebalancing our welfare system. The results to date have been very encouraging. Just by requiring people to reapply for the unemployment benefit after 1 year, so far 12,500 people have cancelled their benefit. Of that number, more than half did not even complete the application, and more than 3,300 of them had already found a job. As of last month, year 1 Future Focus results included 10,400 fewer New Zealanders being on welfare, while a further 2,300 people who were on the domestic purposes benefit—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Boring repetition.
TIM MACINDOE: —took up part-time work. Mr Mallard finds all this boring. Well, I think every one of these people will be delighted with those results, and we are certainly proud of them as a Government. Thirteen thousand went off the domestic purposes benefit into work, and 50 percent of beneficiaries did not require a single hardship benefit.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
Bills
Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill
Third Reading
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I move, That the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill be now read a third time. Can I say at the outset that I wish to acknowledge my thanks to the House for allowing us to move directly to the third reading. It certainly was a prudent thing to do given the time this bill spent in the Local Government and Environment Committee and the fact that it received unanimous support at its second reading.
But before I speak about the bill, I should acknowledge an event of some tragedy that has overtaken the communities of Bluff, Rakiura / Stewart Island, and Invercargill: the sinking of the Easy Rider. This is the first opportunity I have had, and I inform the House that tomorrow there will be a large funeral for the four people whose bodies have been recovered. It will be held at Rugby Park Stadium in Southland and I will be attending. I am sure the House would wish me to convey to all the friends and families of the people who lost their lives our very best wishes. We understand their grief, we feel some of their pain, and our prayers and thoughts are actually with them. I think we would also want those families who do not have their loved ones back to know that we are thinking of them. I think perhaps at this time we should also acknowledge Dallas Reedy, the survivor. In the annals of human survival, 18 hours in Foveaux Strait is a feat that is rarely matched anywhere in the history of humankind. We just wish Dallas well as he adjusts to actually surviving, and losing his mates, and finding a purpose for his life from this point on. So I think the House should do that, and I will certainly take the good wishes and our thoughts to the families and friends tomorrow.
This bill has certainly had an interesting passage and it is great to get to the third reading. I think at earlier stages in the process of this bill I said that I first became aware of the problem in 1994 when I was the member for Awarua. The pressures that visitors created for the small community of Stewart Island was a significant issue. For a number of years we had tried to put in place a voluntary scheme; for various reasons that was not able to be achieved. A bill was drafted. It was sent back for further consultation, I think twice, before we were able to table it and meet all the expectations and criteria set out in the Standing Orders. The bill then received two extensions in the select committee, as we worked through some issues, which perturbed the then Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, and probably perturbed his officials even more. But we have come through that, and I feel a little bit like uttering the comment that Edmund Hillary related to John Hunt, after he had achieved a milestone on Everest. However, I do know that that is probably unparliamentary.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think so!
ERIC ROY: I think that comment will be used more than once in the South Sea Hotel in Oban after today, when I expect that the House will again generously support this Stewart Island visitor levy bill.
Can I also at this stage thank those members of the select committee. During the course of this process I note that 18 people have been on the select committee and every single one contributed to trying to find solutions to those issues that needed some resolution. I think sometimes members’ bills and local bills are when Parliament is seen at its finest. There are no political divides. People genuinely try to find solutions, and at the end of it there are small communities or individuals, quite frequently, for whom we do make a difference.
Stewart Island is one of those communities that, as I said, has been under a significant amount of pressure. As we have gone through the process here, members have extolled the uniqueness and the beauty of Stewart Island. I think it is appropriate at this third reading that I also amplify a little bit about the pressures of living on Stewart Island, in the way that their cost structure is just so much higher than certainly all mainland communities, and probably higher than many of the island communities around New Zealand, as well. Of course there is the transport component in every single thing that happens across one of the wildest stretches of water in the world, which we have just referenced a little bit earlier. Even things like construction have a very high cost. There is no really good quality aggregate on the island for building roads or making concrete. So every single thing that is used on the island, virtually, has to be transported on to it.
And add to that the difficulties of, for example, power generation where currently the residents and consumers on Stewart Island are paying 58c a unit for power generation. The last time I was on Stewart Island was about 4 weeks ago at a symposium that was looking at the various options from running a cable across to Stewart Island to hydroelectric, to wind, to wave, to current—just about every alternative that one could imagine was analysed, and some direction was able to be found going forward.
On top of that, because of the high costs, the very nature of the community of Stewart Island has changed. I did say at the outset that it is a community that has been under some pressure. We have seen, for example, the fishing industry, which was one of the bigger parts of the island in recent years, shift itself to Bluff for perhaps two reasons. The first is the cost of processing on the island. The second is that for reasons of sustainability some of the quota management areas have been subdivided. For example, in the pāua fishery it was very easy to spend one’s time in and around Stewart Island and deplete the areas immediately adjacent. So that has been separated out, and we have a more spread harvest, which has taken some of the activity away from Stewart Island.
Currently, I guess, the two significant industries on Stewart Island are aquaculture, where there is a large mussel production base, some salmon production, and, more recently, farmed oysters as well. But the big earner and the big change in Stewart Island has been catering to tourists, and, especially since the Rakiura National Park was established, this has gained some momentum. I think in an earlier speech I talked about cruise ships. It was a rare thing a decade ago to see a cruise ship arrive at Stewart Island. Last year in total there were 13 that visited the island. This year, so far, I think the number is 19 different cruise ships that have come.
Hon Trevor Mallard: What do the islanders think of the pink shirt?
ERIC ROY: The islanders are people of impeccable taste and they love their MP. Can I just say to any member who has any doubt whatsoever that if they are on Stewart Island, hospitality will be afforded to any member of this House who goes and says: “I supported Eric’s levy bill.” And treats such as kina roe, blue cod, and all those delicacies, which I have not yet spoken of, will be available to any member who uses that secret password on Stewart Island.
It is just great that we have solved a bit of an issue. One of the last points of concern I would like to make has been that this bill might set some sort of precedent. I guess in answer to that, the House does set precedents in what it is doing, but I have made the point in previous speeches in this House in relation to this bill that the situation on Stewart Island is so unique, with the very small population catering for tens of thousands of people, that it is not likely that the exact circumstances will be replicated. People go to Stewart Island for all sorts of reasons. There are trampers, fishers, birdwatchers, or people who just want to get away and enjoy the serenity while there is some very poor cellphone coverage, and they are able to just chill out. I just again thank the House for its participation in this process. I look forward to the conclusion of this matter with the passing of the third reading. I thank all members for their efforts.
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): This House does join with Eric Roy in sending our condolences to the families of those who lost their life on the Easy Rider last week. I thank the member for raising that matter today.
I want to start off by congratulating Eric Roy on bringing the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill to the House. I think he shows what a good local representative can do. In fact, I think he probably should be the next Minister that comes into Cabinet, following the resignation of Nick Smith today. Eric Roy has the experience and he has the integrity to make a very good Minister, and perhaps he will get that opportunity. But he is well known for supporting local activities. Some members come into this House wanting the title. Others come in to work hard in their electorate, and I just want to say that Eric Roy is one of those.
But I do take exception to one thing that he said. He said this bill is very unique, for a unique part of New Zealand. I am sure he has not forgotten that I represent a very unique island group in New Zealand—the Chatham Islands. I have been the member there for 16 years. The Chatham Islands are an island group that has fewer people on it than they do down on Stewart Island, and they have very similar issues to the people of Stewart Island. You see, people have discovered the Chathams, and increasingly people are travelling there to visit them. They also have the same problem of a very low rating base and very little ability to raise funds as a local authority. They have a high cost for electricity, very poor roading, a high cost for shipping, and so on.
So when we look at this bill, Mr Roy, I am saying that it is not unique. It is a bill that could be applied to other parts of New Zealand, particularly when they face the issue of raising enough money to invest in infrastructure. I think that is going to become a whole lot harder under the local government reforms that we have just had announced by the Minister a couple of days ago, because with capped rates in areas like the Chathams and small local authority areas like the West Coast and others, the ability to raise additional revenue is going to be very difficult indeed. Therefore such local authorities will be unable to invest into much-needed infrastructure. The idea of a levy is one that has been thought of by Southland District Council—good on them. But I would say to the Government that maybe it is time to listen to the former Minister of Tourism, the member for West Coast - Tasman, Damien O’Connor, who raised in his second reading speech that if we are prepared to put a levy or a tax on for Stewart Island, why do we not consider a levy or a tax on all visitors coming to New Zealand that would then be shared among councils around New Zealand, particularly those with low rating bases that are unable to raise enough revenue to put into the infrastructure that they need?
Having said that, Labour supports this bill. We had some concerns about it when it went to the Local Government and Environment Committee, but most of those concerns were actually ironed out with a very good select committee process. Now, after a lot of frustration, particularly from the Mayor of Southland District, Frana Cardno, who, when I read newspaper reports, got quite irate about the delay in terms of getting this levy through and the long process of it happening, I know that it is going to be welcomed by the people of Southland. I am certainly going to take up the member’s offer, just to mention his name when I go over to visit Stewart Island. You see, Stewart Island, like lots of small places in New Zealand, is a popular tourist destination. I think the member said 19 cruise ships and something like 40,000 visitors arrive down in Stewart Island. I read somewhere that one small outlet on the island served 400 cups of coffee in just 4 hours. Now, that might not sound like much, but when you have a very small rating base and very small-business people, then it is difficult for them to be able to provide everything that might be needed for tourists coming on to the island, without additional help from a levy such as this.
We support this bill. I am pleased it is happening for the member, but let us not forget the other communities around New Zealand that have growing numbers of tourists, low rating bases, and an inability to raise the capital for a lot of infrastructure that would, in fact, bring even more jobs and opportunities to their area. I would hope that Eric Roy will now take up the challenge of talking to his Cabinet colleagues and saying what about a visitor levy from those who come into New Zealand that could be shared across those councils that are providing very good services in their local areas?
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to congratulate the member of Parliament Eric Roy on shepherding this local bill, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, through the House, and add my voice to the view that Stewart Island is indeed unique. I spent a bit of time on Stewart Island a few years ago. It is a pretty special place.
In the time that I was spending weeks at a time on the island, there were no cruise ships. There was certainly fishing activity, and it was a very busy place. The pressures that those cruise ships and the visitors have brought to Stewart Island have certainly increased over the years, but the population has not significantly increased. Therein lies the problem of a small community in a highly desirable destination funding the infrastructure for that visitor presence on the island. Yes, of course they get the benefit of those visitors. Tourism is a wonderful source of income, as is fishing, for the locals of Stewart Island, but none the less a very small population and large visitor numbers over the years—which are increasing—have meant pressure on the ratepayers of Stewart Island to fund that necessary infrastructure.
Those of us who represent small communities—I can think of, perhaps, the Mackenzie District Council, for example, which has a small, static rating base and a desirable destination for visitors—come under the same sort of pressures, but I have to acknowledge and agree with my colleague Eric Roy that in the case of Stewart Island, this is acute. It might well be that the Chathams are under the same sorts of conditions, and maybe in time they will also bring a local bill to the House for our consideration. I reckon that that probably would also enjoy support from members who understand the pressures that ratepayers have under these circumstances.
This is a really interesting bill, because it does what we would not consider doing on the mainland, if you like, and that is it imposes a levy on visitors. We would not do that in Ranfurly, because there are many roads into Ranfurly, and the cost of gathering that—
Eric Roy: Hubodometers on your bike trail.
JACQUI DEAN: Well, yes—hubodometers. My colleague is being particularly helpful with my speech and he is suggesting that hubodometers on the bike trail are an option—as indeed they are—but the point is there are many roads in and out of Ranfurly. There are many roads in and out of Ōāmaru, of Wānaka, and of any number of small visitor destinations in New Zealand, but there are only a couple of ways to get to Stewart Island. You can either get to Stewart Island by boat, or you can arrive on an aeroplane. I think I prefer the aeroplane. I know it is bumpy, and I know you tend to wave around a bit, but you can get airsick, or you can get boat sick. There are two ways to get to Stewart Island, and so it becomes a little bit easier to collect the levy.
I think the provisions in the bill that describe how that levy is to be utilised are quite useful. What this bill will do is give the Southland District Council—and that is on behalf of the Stewart Island community—the legal mechanisms to receive the levy moneys and also the ability to spend the levy moneys. I think I read something around—did I read $16,000? I beg you pardon; $160,000 per annum is projected to be brought in from that levy. That represents about 40,000 people going to Stewart Island each year.
That $160,000 will enable the local community to upgrade the sewerage system, water supply, and—I do not know, it will be up to them, obviously—maybe some walking tracks and footpaths. That is the stuff of local government, and that is the stuff that this local community will be able to spend the money on. I want acknowledge that Eric Roy has been working on this issue since 1994, and if you do the maths that is quite some considerable time to consider—
Eric Roy: Just after I left school.
JACQUI DEAN: Just after he left school, in fact, which has given plenty of time for the consideration of this bill by the wider community and by Parliament. I understand a number of parliamentarians have also considered this bill.
The powers that this bill gives to the Southland District Council are that it can collect and spend the levy by establishing a subcommittee consisting of representatives from the tourism industry, the community board, and the district council. I am assuming that the community board refers to the Stewart Island Community Board, so it will indeed be the locals, together with the tourism industry, who will be the people charged with spending these fees.
It is interesting that through the course of this bill a number of changes were made to it at the select committee, and I am interested that new clause 3 was put into the bill. It clarifies that this levy would not impact on the locals. It would impact on visitors to the island, so it would not impact on those fishermen who came and went from the island, or, indeed, anybody else who had business in Invercargill. They would not be impacted, so this is quite tightly focused on where the levy needs to be collected from.
I am very pleased to stand up to speak in the third reading of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I want to congratulate, once again, Eric Roy on doing what a good electorate MP should do, and that is looking after the interests of his constituents, and with that I commend the bill to the House.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I too would like to stand up and congratulate Eric Roy, the local member down there, and to tell him that he is very, very lucky that he has got the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill going through now, because I am guessing that under the local government reforms proposed by National none of this would be allowed. I am not quite sure whether tourism infrastructure would be allowed to be a core part of local government services. So good on you, Mr Roy. I think it is great that you have done that.
I guess the question is whether, without the reforms, the member who has just spoken, Jacqui Dean, would be bringing a local bill to the House. I know that her patch, the Mackenzie District—indeed, one of the smallest in this country—is hosting well over a million visitors who pass through that area every year, and is actually paying for toilets, for the provision of water, and for other services for those million-plus people. In fact, I am not sure of the final figure; probably 1.5 million people travel through the Mackenzie Basin. The costs are, as has been acknowledged, a dilemma for many, many small councils throughout the country.
Can I firstly, though, acknowledge the victims of the terrible tragedy in Foveaux Strait with the Easy Rider. I understand that the boat had a chequered career. It spent some time in Westport, which is, indeed, my home town. I think it was a tug or a boat used around the harbour. It had been altered—I am not sure whether “upgraded” is the word. It had been used around the coast of New Zealand for a number of activities. It is a very, very sad and tragic situation that we have down in Southland. We hope that the families and the community can get through their pain and their suffering, and our hearts go out to them.
Can I come back to this bill, though—and I will not take too long—just to say that it is a good bill, because it does in fact levy the people who use the services of Stewart Island, of the national park there, and the wonderful facilities down there at Rakiura. But the same situation applies, as my colleague Annette King said, to New Zealand across the board. We have a number of councils—not just the Chatham Islands Council, not just the Westland District Council, not just the Mackenzie District Council or the Kaikōura District Council, but a number of councils—that are burdened. In fact, the previous Minister of Local Government said they were unreasonably spending money on providing promotion and services to tourists, people who probably would be quite happy to pay for the right services and to support environmental safeguards.
In Government I have always been an advocate of an environmental levy. It is not a tax, as such, and it should not be paid when people leave the country; it should be paid when they come in. They should know they are paying it as part of their airfare, and that it goes towards environmental infrastructure: to toilets, to signage, and to good, smart investment in infrastructure, such as will happen on Stewart Island under the committee, I am sure. But that wisdom and that management should be allowed to prevail right through New Zealand, and there should be a fund generated from people coming into this country, so that we can help and assist the councils to provide infrastructure that supports our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. It is an aspirational brand. We are not perfect, but for most people in the world we match up to it pretty well. But locals and people who travel around the country more often than the casual visitor might start to notice things that we are not doing quite right.
We would like the councils to spend a bit more money. Depending on the outcome of the proposed local government reforms, I guess they might or might not be allowed to do that. We hope they will, because it is a core part of supporting the community, supporting infrastructure, and generating income from tourism and domestic visitors who come in and out of their districts.
We support the bill. I support the bill. I think it is a good move. The alternatives, unless we have a universal levy across the country on people coming in and out of our country, are bed taxes, airport taxes, voluntary levies, targeted rates, and any other sort of imaginative idea that councillors and people up and down this country have to pay for the essential things that this levy will pay for on Stewart Island but also need to be paid for around the rest of this country. Congratulations, Eric Roy. You have got it through just in time, and I hope the people down there appreciate that. Kia ora.
EUGENIE SAGE (Green): On behalf of the Green Party we extend our condolences to the families and friends of people on the Easy Rider for their tragic loss. Co-leader Metiria Turei is attending the tangi of some of the victims of that accident in Foveaux Strait, and our good wishes go to those families in working through all of the grief that they are feeling.
The Green Party supports the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, and I congratulate Eric Roy on his leadership in expanding the revenue sources for the local council to include this levy. I think what we are seeing with the Government’s proposed local government reforms and the Government’s concern about the rise in rates spending is that instead of looking constructively with local councils for other potential revenue streams, the Government is focusing very much on rates. This bill is very wise because it is diversifying that revenue stream.
As other members have pointed out, there is an advantage in having a consistent nationwide levy similar to the one that is proposed here, so that we do not get a succession of local bills proposing ad hoc measures by which councils can endeavour to provide the infrastructure that our tourists need. We have had issues in areas like Damien O’Connor’s electorate, where councils have been unable to fund dump stations and the range of public toilets that are needed for visitors. What this bill does is provide some funding for that for a small community that has got limited rates funding.
Rather than have an ad hoc series of local bills, I support, as I said in my second reading speech, a much more nationwide contestable fund to which local authorities could apply to get funding for local government infrastructure in order to service visitors. It is ironic, I think, that this bill is going forward at the same time that the Government is looking to constrain the core services of local authorities. I notice in the bill that some of the funding that the levy will generate is to go to the provision of walking tracks and amenity areas close to the national park, and I wonder whether that sort of function will be considered part of the core functions of local government under the changes to the competencies that are being proposed to the Local Government Act. It is that breadth of function that is really important for local authorities.
The Southland District Council has recognised the vital role that tourists play in Southland and the national economy, and through the bill it is seeking to ensure that it maintains the areas that tourists come to to visit; that it provides the services that tourists expect, such as a solid jetty, good walking tracks, and good toilet facilities; and that it has the ability to fund this. If we have local councils having their competencies restricted, it does not encourage them to take a wide look at the economic activities that can occur in their areas. If they are to be restricted in providing good quality local infrastructure, does that mean that some of those community development functions that the Southland District Council is seeking to help fund through this bill will not be able to be progressed?
We also note that 86 percent of Rakiura / Stewart Island is conservation land. If we are going to maintain good infrastructure, we need to maintain the natural infrastructure as well, because of the ecosystem services that those wild lands on Rakiura provide. That means undertaking good pest control so that visitors, when they come here, can enjoy the full diversity of the birdlife, the other wildlife, and the plant communities that have not been devastated by possums and deer. So instead of cutting the Department of Conservation’s funding, actually increasing it so that it can do adequate pest control is equally important in maintaining the infrastructure on Stewart Island, because those forested and natural areas are part of that natural infrastructure.
We support the bill, and we encourage Mr Roy to show the leadership he has provided here to encourage his colleagues to look at diversifying the revenue streams for local councils elsewhere in New Zealand to include a return of the regional fuel tax, and to recognise the value in councils engaging in all of the competencies that they are currently able to under the Local Government Act 2002. I commend the bill to the House, and I am pleased to support it. Thank you.
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am delighted to take a call on this local bill, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I want to start by acknowledging Eric Roy. I think what we are seeing in the House this evening is a fantastic example of a local member of Parliament working over a long period of time for his constituents. I understand that he has been working since 1994 to try to get what is, I think, access to better services for the people of Stewart Island and better infrastructure.
Can I also, as has already been acknowledged this evening, send out my thoughts and prayers to the people of Southland. Obviously we know that they have been mourning with the Easy Rider tragedy, and I think all members of this House would be thinking of the people of Southland at this time.
Can I also acknowledge some comments that Annette King made earlier in the House this evening. I am fortunate to represent not just the people of central Auckland but also many islands in the Hauraki Gulf. I represent Waiheke Island, Great Barrier Island, and a number of other islands, and some of the issues that have been raised in this debate, and also through the passage of this legislation, are applicable to other islands. But what I would say is that what Mr Roy has done is win the argument through the select committee process to get good support for this bill, to say that there are some unique things about Stewart Island—and I want to touch briefly on some of the unique things about this particular island. He is an example of an MP who has really fought for his local community in delivering this bill to the House.
Some of the unique things about Stewart Island that I think we should all acknowledge this evening are that 85 percent of the island is in a national park. I think that Rakiura National Park is 10 years old now. As has also been mentioned by the Green Party, we have a number of special New Zealand species on the island, from the kakapo to the kiwi, so it is a very important part of the conservation estate for New Zealand, and I think we can acknowledge that many people want to visit the island. In fact, my understanding is that there are around 40,000 non-residents who visit the island a year. We estimate that the levy should raise about $160,000. I think that is very, very significant for a small community like the community on Stewart Island.
The other core point that I want to make today is that the Local Government and Environment Committee did make a number of changes. We did have that discussion as to whether this was setting a precedent for other islands within New Zealand and whether this was a unique situation. I think the select committee process was very valuable because we did make a number of changes. For instance, the new clause 3 to clarify that a levy could only be applied to visitors travelling to the island and not to all people travelling to the island was, I think, very significant. We also added a new clause 5—because we obviously heard about implementation issues—to allow the council to make bylaws to prescribe the rates of levies and the means of collecting them. We thought that was very important from an operational perspective. Then we deleted clauses 6 and 7 and inserted a new clause 6, which I think really was about consistency.
The point that I would make, and it has already been made by Annette King this evening, is that by passing this legislation I think we are really helping the people of Stewart Island to be able to deliver the visitor infrastructure that it is very difficult for them to be able to pay for. The second thing we are doing is improving the viability of the island as a tourism destination. The third thing that I think we are all acknowledging here this evening is that this is a very good example of a local member doing a very good job over a significant period of time, advocating for his community, to deliver some legislation that will make a real difference to a small, isolated community in New Zealand, and there are many members in this House who represent communities like that. I commend this bill to the House and I commend Eric Roy for his long advocacy for the people of Stewart Island. Thank you.
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill; New Zealand First is certainly in support of this bill. Firstly, I also endorse the comments of other members in terms of the condolences to the family, whānau, and friends of those lost in the Easy Rider tragedy. Foveaux Strait, as we all know, is a very unforgiving piece of water and has had many tragedies in the past also, and this latest tragedy is a great shame and a great loss to many in Bluff and Stewart Island.
I also would like to comment and applaud the local MP, Eric Roy, for carrying this through over many years. Apparently this issue goes right back to the 1970s originally, and the islanders have been asking for the last three or four decades for assistance. So it is good to see that this is finally coming to be. I also acknowledge the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Chris Auchinvole, for helping to move this through. I notice that the chairman just arrived in the Chamber a short while ago, obviously in time to hear the adulations that were going to be bestowed on him. I say well done to him also for pushing this through.
Stewart Island is only a 1-hour ferry ride from the mainland, from the South Island, and 15 minutes by air, but it is a community that is very unique in New Zealand in terms of being the third-largest island in the New Zealand nation. As a result, with fewer than 500 people living on the island it has some unique demands and requirements that many other communities in New Zealand who are not out on an island limb, out in isolation, in a sense, do not have to put up with.
You can imagine what the impact must be when a large cruise ship arrives in port there and several thousand tourists invade what is a small community with fewer than 500 people, where there are only 12.8 kilometres of sealed roads and 8.3 kilometres of gravel roads, where many of the people literally have to walk down the middle of the road because there are no footpaths, and where the infrastructure is not able to cope with the tourist numbers that arrive. Over the summer the New Zealand tourists and international tourists that arrive on ferries too put a huge amount of pressure on the likes of the public toilets, on their infrastructure, on their water—they have no reticulated water—and on the basic utilities on the island.
Of course, we have there the Rakiura National Park, which was opened in 2002, covering some 157,000 hectares of land. Eighty-five percent of Stewart Island is taken up by that wonderful national park, and having such a wonderful national park brings with it its own pressures and brings with it tourists and all sorts of visitors who wish to see that wonderful piece of native and natural New Zealand bush. Therefore, this is a good step forward to provide a levy so that visiting tourists and visitors to the island can help contribute in a relatively small but significant way to some of the costs to assist the locals.
I applaud the Stewart Island Community Board and also the Southland District Council for pushing this through and being behind this scheme. The local community board has played a pivotal role in bringing this forward, and it is to be congratulated as well on the consultation that it undertook. The board put out something like 485 fliers a few years ago, received 129 responses, and of those 129 who responded, 119 were in support of this levy being implemented. That is a very good result and it shows that there is strong support for this.
New Zealand First does support local initiatives and local choice by local communities. We feel that it is up to a local community to determine how they can assist themselves with funding of this nature, and we certainly feel this is very appropriate for an island in a situation like this, where they have very limited ways of otherwise securing revenue and income to try to cover the costs of the necessary infrastructure. This is a wise move, with cross-party support, and it is very good that we all in this House are supporting this initiative; it will greatly assist. The $160,000 on the face of it does not seem a lot of money, but if you multiply that over a number of years and you expand that out, it will incrementally provide a good amount of basic infrastructure that they do require.
It is ironic that this bill is being put through this week, in terms of what has happened in local government this week. There have been so many things happening in local government in New Zealand this week, both good and bad, and it is perhaps time that the members in this House reflect on what local government means to New Zealand. We are central government here, but we must remember that much of the services and much of the infrastructure around New Zealand, and much of the community facilities and the community amenity values that are provided, are provided at local government level. Certainly, it is often with support from Government and funding support from Government, but at the end of the day it is our 70 or 80 local authorities around New Zealand that provide much of the local community infrastructure, and we must be mindful of that.
I am very concerned as a former mayor, as a former councillor, and as a former community board member about some aspects of the moves by the Government this week, in terms of cutting into local government. Certainly there are savings to be made, certainly there are savings to be had, and certainly we can be more frugal, as we can in all areas of life, and I certainly support measures to save money, but I certainly do not support measures that will affect local communities and where local communities could actually be very adversely affected as a result of some of the proposed cuts by Government in local government. Therefore, this perhaps is a very timely reminder of local government being called on to try to put through something that will support their local communities, and this has been done in this case on Stewart Island by the locals supporting themselves, standing up for themselves, and putting their best foot forward to try to improve their local amenities and their local community services.
We strongly support the bill. In terms of New Zealand First, we think this is a great initiative on behalf of the community—the community doing something for itself—and also the central government people working with local government to ensure there is a better outcome for all. It is a great shame if, in this country, we are going to start seeing increased conflict between local government and central government, because at the end of the day we are only 4.5 million New Zealanders. We rely on working together to make this country a better place, and I certainly would not like us to start moving down the track of central government becoming very adversarial towards local government, because that will not see this country going forward in the future. Thank you.
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a great pleasure that I also get to speak to the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. Like everyone else I would like to pay tribute to my colleague Eric Roy. As a new member of the House I can say he has certainly demonstrated to me that determination and perseverance can definitely achieve results in this House.
I am embarrassed to say that I have not actually visited Stewart Island myself, but, of course, I have heard many, many stories of the whitetail, the pāua, and the seafood that come from Stewart Island. Another thing that I can really identify with is the fact that many of the residents there are direct descendants of the whalers and early Rakiura Māori, with combined family histories reaching back almost 200 years. Some of the houses built by the early Norwegian whalers are still lived in today, and their distinctive alpine architecture somehow is no longer out of place in the roaring forties of the Southern Ocean. The reason why I can identify with this is that I have a community in my own electorate, at Pūhoi, which was first settled by the Bohemians, and we still have some of the original families there. The culture and the spirit of the place can really be captured only when you have original settlers in a town like that. So I really can identify with the spirit that is being captured on Stewart Island.
The other thing I would like to mention is the fact that there is consensus in the House and support in the House for this bill. But there is one member, whom I would like to mention, who has really put himself on the line in terms of support for Stewart Island, and that is the Hon David Parker. While down on Stewart Island—and I note that my colleague Eric Roy was talking about the challenges associated with roading, aggregate, getting metals to the island, and, obviously, having to pass over one of our most difficult stretches of water in the country—Mr Parker was helping with some roading and some infrastructure. Unfortunately, he got caught on the wrong end of a tar truck and was covered in tar, but, luckily, it was cold mix tar and not hot mix tar.
I think that one of the big issues for Stewart Island and its future survival is going to be based around tourism, because, unfortunately, some of its business has declined over the years. As Mr Roy mentioned, 17 cruise ships arrived last year and this business is going to continue to grow, hopefully, in the future. But I think that in relation to tourism the fact is that we are competing globally. There is definitely competition out there. When tourists are coming down to our beautiful part of the world, they are looking for a good experience—and they get a good experience. However, part of that is being able to provide world-class infrastructure and facilities for them. I think it is very clear that, because of the small population on Stewart Island, it was too big a burden for a small population like that to be able to keep investing in infrastructure that was experiencing such a large amount of tourist traffic that is growing on the island. I think that it is not only important to preserve our environment, which obviously is critical, but it is also very, very important to be able to continue to invest in our infrastructure and to provide world-class facilities.
Like Mr Williams mentioned, on the face of it $160,000 annually may not appear much on the surface, but, in actual fact, to a small population, a small island like Stewart Island, that is actually a significant amount of investment going into their infrastructure each year and will allow them to maintain that infrastructure for future growth, and future growth in their tourist industry. Finally, I just want to say that again I commend Mr Roy for shepherding this bill through the House. I want to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I am not going to praise Eric Roy. I am sick and tired of hearing people in this House praise Eric Roy. For goodness’ sake! The member for Invercargill is simply doing the job that he is paid to do for the good people of Southland, and he is doing it very well, and I do not intend to go along with all this mushy, cross-party praise of Eric Roy. We have had quite enough of that—we have had quite enough of that.
I believe that $5, if that is indeed what visitors to Stewart Island are going to be required to pay under the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, is a small price to pay. I think that $5 is a small price to pay for what is a fantastic experience, visiting Stewart Island. I have enjoyed the amber delights that are served at the South Sea Hotel. I have sampled the fish and chips at the fish and chip cart in Oban, and many other delights in Stewart Island. The place is one of the jewels of our country, and I think that this bill offers an excellent solution to the challenge faced by the community in Stewart Island of providing infrastructure like public loos that are of an acceptable standard for the 30,000-odd people who visit the island every year.
I am sorry only that Eric Roy did not take up my offer at the Local Government and Environment Committee to bring along samples of the Bluff oysters and the venison, which would have perhaps speeded the bill’s progress through the select committee even more. Labour supports this bill.
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I rise to speak in favour of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I am bound to say that I have not had the opportunity yet to visit Stewart Island, and more is the pity; I would love to get down there. I have—
Hon Annette King: What about the Chathams?
PAUL GOLDSMITH: The closest I have been is Bluff, and I have seen it. I have not been to the Chatham Islands either. There is a long way I have got to go.
I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee last year either, but instinctively I am not generally in favour of new taxes and levies. I think we pay enough taxes and levies as it is, and I do not share great enthusiasm for giving local government power—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Miserable.
PAUL GOLDSMITH: —hang on, I have not finished yet—and giving local government the opportunity to raise new taxes, but in this situation the logic does seem to be reasonably compelling. We have here a situation where there is a very small, remote community, where a large number of visitors come, up to 40,000 a year, and we do need to get some basic infrastructure in place there and find a better way of paying for it.
I salute Eric Roy for his efforts here. The widespread support that this bill has had in the House is surely testament to the efforts of Eric Roy and the widespread enthusiasm that people in the House have for him and his efforts. I remember playing in the Parliamentary Rugby Team with him in the 1990s, and he—[Interruption] Well, that is right. He was galloping around the place, and we played in Southland. He is a very well-regarded local MP, and this bill, I think, is just a small way in which he can improve the life and economy of part of his electorate in Stewart Island.
I would like to just draw attention to some of the details that were handled by the select committee—amendments to clause 4, for example, on definitions. The provision of a definition of “approved operator” is intended to assist the council to enter into contracts for transport operators, such as cruise ship operators. The council, then, would be able to gather revenue from operators on behalf of passengers rather than separately from each visitor. I think that is a better way of handling the situation.
The committee also recommended replacing clause 18 to make offences infringement offences. The cost to the council of prosecuting offences by a visitor as a summary offence would be substantial, whereas an infringement offences regime would be more appropriate for the kind of thing that we are dealing with. Unfortunately, if you introduce a levy, you do have to have some sort of arrangements for dealing with people who will not pay, and I think that is a simple way of doing it in a relatively cost-effective way.
It is my expectation that with this bill and with this levy Stewart Island will be in a much better place in the next few years to create a warm and inviting environment for visitors, whose numbers will surely only grow over the next decade, as more and more people realise what a wonderful part of the world this is, and what a wonderful place it is to visit. Now I think we are in a better place because of this bill, so I commend this bill to the House.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill and congratulate the member Eric Roy.
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I would like to speak in support of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. The miraculous thing about it really is that it has been such a long time coming. We have heard various members talk about the long journey for this particular bill. I would have thought it was a bit of a no-brainer really that the Stewart Island people should be helped in this way. Four hundred people cannot possible sustain the visitor numbers that come through there.
Unlike my colleague Paul Goldsmith, I have been to Stewart Island. For somebody who has been involved in tourism, gardening, and walking in the New Zealand bush—my “Cathedrals of Green”—Stewart Island certainly has an enormous amount of attractions. I felt as a visitor there that it would be appropriate to contribute in some way—and what better way than a visitor levy? For 40,000 people visiting at the moment it would be $160,000, so about $4 a head, which is about the same price as a cup of coffee. It is not too much to ask, and it would make a huge difference to the ability of those 400 people on Stewart Island to actually put in the sorts of amenities that they need if they want to please the visitors who go there in their droves already.
The cruise ships have been referred to. It is all very well to have international visitors going to a place like Stewart Island and taking advantage of the short walk tracks that can be easily managed in an hour or two, but for the people like me, who like to go for a longer walk, there is a walk that takes 12 days and takes you right around the island. I think it is one of the few places in New Zealand where you can still do it—
Paul Goldsmith: Have you done it?
MAGGIE BARRY: Not the whole thing, but we can add that to the bucket list for sure.
I think when it comes to unique properties, Stewart Island has much to commend it. So too do the outlying islands. We heard Nikki Kaye talking earlier about the islands of the Hauraki Gulf, and the member for Rongotai talking about the glories of the Chatham Islands. All of these places have things to commend them.
To me, Stewart Island has unique properties in the sense of its vegetation and its wildlife. It is pest-free, apart from the odd marauding visitor, no doubt. It is a place that has the ability to show New Zealand in the way it used to be to people who want to see it and who want to experience a kind of ecotourism that I feel will become more and more popular in years to come. So for the islanders, by virtue of this levy, tourism, which is a very good source of income already, will be able to generate more income for the people of Stewart Island and enable them to live there.
As Eric Roy pointed out very carefully, it is a very expensive place to get to. We saw through the tragedy in Foveaux Strait—an extremely wild stretch of water—that it is difficult and dangerous and that you need to make a conscious decision to go there. When you get there it is very expensive infrastructure-wise to set up businesses and to have cellphones and the other things that we who are living in more built-up areas all take for granted.
To me, the ability for people on Stewart Island to make a couple of hundred thousand dollars—and that would tend to grow as people realise and recognise that there is so much to offer on Stewart Island—would be something that would generate more and more interest the more people go there, and come away from it extolling its virtues. So as a source of income potentially into the future, the levy is perhaps the salvation of Stewart Island.
As with many small islands it is very difficult to keep young people there. It is very difficult for an island to provide employment and to be able to look after itself through fishing quotas, mineral exploration, forestry, or any other things—horticulture is not really a possibility because of the transport and the logistical issues—so to be able to generate income from tourism that does not really impact too hard on the tourist I think is a fantastic idea. Four dollars is not going to put anyone off visiting. It is really a very painless levy. In Palmerston North I think you have to pay more than that to get out of the place, and it is worth every cent. I speak now without any major disloyalty—
Hon David Carter: It’s always a pleasure to leave.
MAGGIE BARRY: It is always a pleasure to leave, indeed. Gary McCormick used to not think so. I spent a year in Palmerston North—in fact, I lived in Feilding, mostly because Tom Scott called it the “Athens of the South Pacific”, and I felt that that was sufficiently intriguing. For Palmerston North itself the contentious nature of that departure tax has been well versed, and I will not track through it now, but it is nothing like the sort of levy we are talking about here. I think that 245 kilometres of walking tracks—all of which can be accessed from the town of Oban—make Stewart Island potentially a place that can develop very well in ecotourism.
There is talk of the pristine beaches and the sheltered inlets and so forth, so even for the more lazy visitor, shall we say, there is plenty to commend them.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh, leave yourself out of it.
MAGGIE BARRY: We talk, of course, about the blue cod, the oysters, and the salmon, which are not going to be going anywhere across the House any old time soon, because clearly some of them do not deserve it. It is very much a place where generosity of spirit and some largesse—a quality that appears to be missing from members on the other side of the House, not to mention a sense of humour—are all to be found in the people who live on Stewart Island. Although they deal with their tragedies, they do not have to put up with the sorts of horrors that the Opposition has to from within its own ranks, but that is another story.
I do not want to digress and take up the House’s time with that. But I would commend that Eric’s levy bill be supported. It has been a long time in coming—a very long journey. I am glad it has gone directly to its third reading. How good would it be if Eric is able to go to that funeral tomorrow, to a community in pain and in grief at a funeral, and be able to tell it this good news? I think it is entirely fitting that the House has managed to put this bill through at this time. I commend this bill to the House, and I would hope indeed that we can get it through in a timely fashion with a minimum of fuss.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill
First Reading
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I move, That the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a first time. This scheme and this bill are about farmers and local residents doing for themselves, drawing on New Zealand’s penchant for being self-sufficient and using what is available to them to make life better for them.
Andrew Little: What about the taxpayer contribution?
Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Well, I am glad the member asked “What about the taxpayer?”, because this scheme was built from local farmers recognising a need to up their productivity and also maintain water quality for their standards and for their residents. Back in the day there was a scheme where they could obtain a subsidy, dollar for dollar. For every dollar they put in, the taxpayer subsidised them so that they could build a water race scheme built on Cold Creek, which runs off the side of Taranaki, so that they could provide consistent, high-quality, clean fresh water for their stock, for their farming practices, and for their residences. There are about 350 households, marae, and entities that are drawing water from this scheme.
What they had to do in those days was be able to guarantee that they could raise production by 10 percent, so the farmers also had to put up the money themselves. All the householders were putting into it, but it was the farmers mainly who were putting into it because they had the businesses that were going to support the scheme, and they were going to gain the productivity bonuses from it. They had to put the money in up front. Remember, this was a period of time when interest rates were incredibly high, approaching 20 percent, and penalty payments were over that. So young farmers who were purchasing farms, buying herds, etc., and who were contributing to this scheme were having to find money, and a lot of money, at a time when it was particularly difficult. A young farming partnership at that time that I am aware of, the Ardern brothers, who were farming in this location as part of this scheme, had to find $13,000 out of their new farming enterprise in order to be able to commit to this scheme and to be able to get the Government subsidy. So when Mr Little asks “What about the taxpayer?”, I can tell him that the taxpayer contributed then, but the productivity that has been gained since that time has been approaching probably 60 or 70 percent in terms of coming out of that particular area.
Hon Trevor Mallard: They’re all paying their tax, are they?
Hon CHESTER BORROWS: And they are all paying their tax—that is right—especially in a good year. In a good year they pay more tax than probably anybody sitting in this room. In any event, the reason for this bill, then, is that in order to obtain the subsidy, the group wanting to build the water scheme had to vest legal title of that subsidy in an entity. A couple of members of the scheme were at that time serving as members of the Egmont County Council, so the ownership of the scheme was vested in the county council. Later on, with subsequent amalgamations of territorial local authorities, the ownership went on to the South Taranaki District Council. Then, moving on down the track, the farmer owners of the scheme sought to run the scheme themselves in order to be able to administer, maintain, and keep the scheme. They do all the billing, they do all the maintenance, and they pay for everything. They have also been to the council on a number of occasions, and four times over the last 12 years the South Taranaki District Council has voted to vest ownership back in the owners of this scheme—back into the farmer owners and the household owners who are running and maintaining this scheme. It has agreed to do that. It has voted to do that four times. Eventually, we find ourselves here today.
The question may well be asked as to why, then, we need to do this. The reason is that the legislation that was passed in the early 2000s meant that if there were more than about 250 consumers on a potable water scheme, it had to be in community ownership. It could not be just simply divested from the council to those who were running, owning, and managing the scheme today—hence the need for a local bill, because, as I said earlier, there are about 350 households that are connected to the scheme.
There is another way round that, and I understand that there are a number of questions that various parties may have. Support from across the House—which I am grateful for—is for the first reading only, but there are ways round that. For instance, if the scheme was deemed to be non-potable, then there could be a filter at every house. In that way it could be divested in any event. There have been some concerns from the Inland Revenue Department and from the Ministry of Health. They will be addressed and answered through the select committee process, I am quite sure.
There are also concerns from local iwi. The reason why local iwi are upset about the process is that during the decisions to vest this back in the residents in the area, the iwi had not been consulted as well as they should have been by the South Taranaki District Council. The farmer owners have sought to rectify that. Just last week we had a discussion with them, albeit through the process there had been some public reporting of it, and the two marae that are on the scheme had also been approached. However, there was an expectation—maybe it was somewhat naive—that the marae themselves would keep their iwi informed as to what was happening in respect of the water scheme, and we found fairly late in the day that that had not taken place.
It is important to note too that this is a bill that is about concrete and pipes. It is not a bill about water, and it is not a bill about the mauri of the stream; this is about concrete and pipes. The water race scheme would continue to get its consents through the Taranaki Regional Council, and I understand that iwi have an argument about whether that should be the case or whether they should be the kaitiaki of water in their area. The proponents of the bill would argue that that is not an argument for them but is an argument to be had at a higher level.
There is another argument that has been voiced about the nature of the asset. In other words, if this is a State asset—Taranaki being a rohe where there are no other real State assets that are owned, and so nothing that is available for the yet to be negotiated Treaty settlement—then iwi obviously have an interest in the Cold Creek scheme. The point that the residents would make is to ask what actually is the value of what the council has at the moment, because it is the operators, the owners, and the consumers on the scheme who are doing all the work and paying all the bills, and the council’s quantifiable dollar interest is negligible. So there is an argument around that.
In the end, though, I think another point to make is that this is community ownership at its lowest level. Whereas the thrust behind the Act that prevents vesting of a water scheme, a potable scheme, that would vest ownership in the owners negates that being able to be done, because there are too many consumers on the scheme—so a scheme of that size should be in community ownership—the proponents of this bill would say that this is about as low a community ownership as you could possibly have. That is because those who are relying on the scheme, those who are consuming from the scheme, those who are running businesses from the scheme, and those who built the scheme, maintain the scheme, and paid for the scheme are, in fact, the local owners. So there should be no real argument about the community aspect of it or community ownership, because it will be owned by the community in the community that it serves.
There is one other issue that has been raised, and that is making water available to the township of Ōpunake, which is in a slightly different catchment. In emergency situations, pipes have been run from the tail of the scheme across to Ōpunake to provide clean water, which it normally gets off the mountain but which after a heavy rain is unable to be done. That facility is still open, and the owners of the scheme are quite happy for that to continue.
I do commend this bill to the House. I am grateful for the indications of support that it has had from across the House at least for the first reading, and I look forward to the select committee process through the Local Government and Environment Committee. Thank you.
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): Labour will be supporting this South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we support its first reading. But we do need to tell the local member, Chester Borrows, who is bringing this bill, that we have some serious concerns with the bill, not the least of which is that this bill overrides the Local Government Act 2002 when it comes to the ownership of water supply and the provision of water in New Zealand. We will be wanting to ask questions at the select committee as to why we should do that, because on this side of the House we strongly support public ownership of water for New Zealanders. The most crucial element you can have in your diet is the water that you drink every day, and it must be available, affordable, good-quality water. So we will be asking why we should allow the Local Government Act to be overridden by a local bill.
The Local Government Act that we passed when we were in Government states in section 130(3)(b) that a local government organisation must “not divest its ownership or other interest in a water service except to another local government organisation:”. Furthermore, section 130(3)(c) states that a local government organisation must “not lose control of, sell, or otherwise dispose of, the significant infrastructure necessary for providing water services in its … district,”. It does provide an out in that legislation. It is to do with the closure of a particular water service or transfer, and it relates to the size of that water service. It has to be one that is delivered to fewer than 200 persons—persons who are ordinarily resident in the district. This bill covers many more people than 200 people; in fact, it has 162 connections with 400 people across the area that it covers. So we will certainly be asking questions as to why this Parliament should override that very good provision to ensure public ownership of water supply.
People need to know, if they are listening to this debate, what this bill actually does. I do not know whether they got the sense of that from the member, who put a lot of the background into it, but what it actually does is it gives a process—a process—for the transfer of the Cold Creek rural water supply scheme from the South Taranaki District Council over to the Cold Creek Community Water Supply Ltd, the company that has been contracted by the council for some time to actually run this water scheme. So it provides the mechanism; it does not provide the transfer.
There are a number of issues, if the water supply was to be transferred, that we would also raise. One of them would be this. From what I can see, this water supply is going to require quite a lot of upgrading in the future, and we will want to know whether the owners of this new water supply, the new company that takes over, will be coming cap in hand to the Government for there to be additional Government money to go into the maintenance of this small water supply. You see, we have had experience of this in the past when, under the previous National Government, small hospitals were handed over to community trusts.
Hon Parekura Horomia: That’s right.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I am sure that the member, my friend and colleague Parekura Horomia, knows this very clearly, because Te Puia Springs hospital was one of those that was handed over to the community trust out of public ownership. When it came to maintenance on that hospital, there was no money to be had. So it is all very well transferring over, but what about the maintenance, what about the upgrading? And I gather from what I have read that there is going to be a lot of upgrading necessary in the future for this small water supply. I do not want to see, if this goes through, that we then have the farmers coming back to this House asking for taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money for that upgrading and maintenance.
A question we will want answered is about the fact that the farmers have had water at a very low rate under this scheme. I read from the South Taranaki District Council that the cost of the water will have to go up, and so I do not wish to see that there is going to be a demand made on this Parliament, taxpayers, and ratepayers for there to be some sort of subsidy to go in if they take over the ownership of it. You see, under the local government reforms that were announced 2 days ago, some of those who were very excited about the reforms were Federated Farmers, because they said they wanted to curb local government activities. Well, we will want to be assured that when—and if—this water supply is transferred over, local government is not then going to be asked by Federated Farmers to put its hands in its pocket to support them, because that would be hypocritical of Federated Farmers, having said they would like to see fewer local government rates going into unnecessary activities.
We would also want to know what pressure has been put on the South Taranaki District Council for this water supply to be transferred over to a company. Now, I am not making any accusations, but the chairperson of this company is Mr Ardern’s brother. Mr Ardern, no doubt, has a great interest in what happens, and I understand he has advocated for the water supply to be transferred over to the company that his brother is the chairperson of. I will be questioning at the select committee what pressure has been applied, not just as good local members of Parliament but as interested farmers, interested family members, on the local council to transfer this company over. I think they are legitimate questions, because this is an important transfer—going back to the idea that we do have public ownership of water supply.
I am also concerned about Ōpunake. We just heard from Chester Borrows, who has brought this bill to the House, that the new owners of this company would be quite happy to keep the emergency arrangements that are in place; those arrangements being that the people of Ōpunake can take water from this water supply when they run short. But there is a problem that I have read of, and that is, it is all very well when they are short in the winter, but when the farmers are milking and they need a lot of water themselves, the people of Ōpunake have been given bottles of water. I do not see that as being a good and constant water supply, and I understand that the South Taranaki District Council was very keen to try to link the two water supplies up to give a very solid water supply to the people of Ōpunake.
Shane Ardern: You were OK up to there.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I might have it wrong, Mr Ardern, but I would want to be assured at the select committee about what is going to happen to those people. It is not good enough just to get some bottled water in an emergency because the farmers need most of it.
I am sure my other colleagues will raise quite a number of other issues relating to this bill, but we will support its referral to the select committee. A local member’s job is to bring such a bill. It does not necessarily mean that the local member supports all parts of the bill, and I am sure, knowing Chester Borrows as I do, that he will be concerned for all his constituents, not just a few who might be advantaged by a scheme like this. He will want to be assured that it is for the best benefit of the ratepayers and the taxpayers in his constituency. But he is bringing it here as a local member. That is his job, and we will make sure it gets the scrutiny it deserves at the select committee.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is with pleasure that I stand to speak on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, and I reflect back, having listened to the previous speaker, the Hon Annette King, on the serious concerns that she has expressed. I am quite sure from speaking to my colleagues about this bill, and I am quite sure from my previous experience with the Local Government and Environment Committee, that those concerns—probably very correctly raised—will be answered during the select committee deliberation, which is why I am very pleased to think that there could be universal agreement to refer this bill to a select committee.
I may say that I appreciate the business of water supply in private from my experience especially with dealing with other members of the Opposition. There is almost a paranoia at times—not in this case, but at times there is almost a paranoia from my friend over there over who should own water. I note one of the significant things about this particular proposal—and let us just look at the background to it. I have come into it without having been part of any previous discussion, and I can sense that it is pretty much straight up and down. It is a real Taranaki job.
Hon Chester Borrows: That’s right.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: That’s right. I am told I am right, and it is reassuring to hear that from the member.
It is not a significant economic asset. It is not like the discussions we had over the Auckland water supply. The farmers who use it and who will be the shareholders are the only ones who benefit from the scheme; they are the only ones who are at any risk from the scheme not quite working out. It is about pipes and concrete—pipes and concrete, I say to Andrew Little—not about the water. The bill enables ownership of an asset built by the local committee. And let us remember when this was done. This was done between 1984 and 1987. It was a good, classic instance of a community putting shoulders to the wheel, noses to the grindstone, getting on—
Andrew Little: Using taxpayers’ money.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: No, they did not actually use taxpayers’ money. Read your notes about it. It was a group of farmers and residents living near Ōpunake—sorry, taxpayer, possibly, yes—and they built a water-race scheme in the Cold Creek catchment to supply the farms and the homes with water.
Four times the South Taranaki District Council, which really does know what it is talking about, has voted to vest the scheme back to the Cold Creek Community Water Supply Ltd—four times. Each time it has come across the problem associated with the Local Government Act 2002. The scheme was, as Andrew Little has correctly said, financed by a Government subsidy, dollar for dollar contributions—
Grant Robertson: Oh, there we go!
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: That is right. So we are saying that under a Labour Government the contributions were made dollar for dollar. It was not free. At the time the Government insisted that legal title of the scheme be vested in a local entity. So it was; it was vested in the Egmont Plains Community Board. With local authority amalgamations in 1989, the South Taranaki District Council became the title-holders. The question would be: have the ratepayers contributed to the cost of this operation? Have they? They have not. They have never paid towards the purchase, the maintenance, or otherwise of the scheme, or any other part. It is totally operated by the residents and the beneficiaries of the scheme. Therefore they want ownership vested in them under the Cold Creek Community Water Supply company. That is perfectly reasonable. The company has managed the scheme, including finances, operations, and maintenance of the water reticulation work since 2001.
To reassure the previous speaker, the cost of the water, the price of the water, is not perceived as a problem. The company has large financial reserves. It is not afraid of maintaining the costs itself. But I appreciate the points that have been raised, and I have every confidence—every confidence—that every question will be answered to the satisfaction and reassurance of the Opposition. Thank you.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): It is reassuring to hear that from Chris Auchinvole, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee—
Chris Auchinvole: Previous chair.
GRANT ROBERTSON: The previous chair, sorry. As the Hon Annette King suggested, although Labour is supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee, we do have a number of concerns that we think the committee needs to work its way through. I can see Mr Ardern nodding there.
It has not been an easy process reaching this point. I think that makes it all the more important that the select committee deal with this thoroughly. It is a convention in this House that local bills will be referred to a select committee. The member who brings the bill here is bringing it on behalf of the local community. As previous speakers have said, a member in charge of a local bill does not necessarily agree with every element of the bill. His or her job is to bring that bill here; I believe our job in Parliament is to take that bill to a select committee. But in doing so we have to recognise that sometimes local authorities do not always agree unanimously on things.
I know that on one of the four occasions on which this matter was before the South Taranaki District Council in 2010, the vote was 6 to 4 for the bill to be a local bill. But it also recognises a division within the council. It recognises that there were concerns in the local community about these matters. Therefore, we do need to concentrate very, very closely on what those concerns were. This is not an open-and-shut case of something that everybody in the community wants to have happen and wants to have happen right away so we should just put it through. This is actually a matter of some considerable debate within the community, and it does need to have significant scrutiny.
It has been mentioned by Chester Borrows at the start that the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Health have issues. The issues around the Ōpunake water supply are very important, both as a question of public health and as a question around the ownership of these assets. This does look a little bit like an asset sale bill in some ways, and that raises great, big, red flags on this side of the House. If there are going to be—
Hon Tau Henare: Red flag! Red flag!
GRANT ROBERTSON: We could have a blue flag if you want, Mr Henare. Whatever flag you have, it will be raised in response to what looks like the divestment of an asset—that is a fancy word for the sale of an asset—or getting rid of—
Shane Ardern: There is no sale.
GRANT ROBERTSON: There is no sale; that is true. It relates to getting rid of the asset from the council to a private company that was set up to do only this, to actually take control of this particular asset. So we do have concerns about that.
The Hon Annette King has outlined in some detail the importance of looking closely at the overriding of the Local Government Act 2002. We think that is a serious issue. Public ownership of water is vital. Water is a commodity that everybody needs in our communities, and any sense of it moving into private hands is something we regard as needing to be looked at very, very closely and, in fact, goes against the principles that we have.
But I do want to raise some questions about just exactly how the last decision of the South Taranaki District Council was made to take this matter to be a local bill. It came about at a meeting of the South Taranaki District Council on 15 August 2011. At that meeting in the open forum section, Mr Borrows and Shane Ardern attended that meeting and spoke strongly in support of this process. I am somewhat alarmed—and I have great respect for Mr Ardern—by the minutes of that meeting, which say under a comment that Mr Shane Ardern made that: “If Cold Creek community failed in their divestment request, then there would be some legislative programme through Parliament that would bring about the kind of ownership it desired.”
That is not the kind of statement I think we would like to see in this situation. Mr Ardern has not taken a call, and I suspect he possibly will not, because of the relationship he has with his brother. But I think that that kind of statement could be interpreted by people who have an interest in this as saying: “Well, we’re just going to do this. It’s just going to happen, so you better agree to a local bill.”
That is the reason why we think this bill needs thorough scrutiny by the select committee—to be absolutely sure that this is something that is in the best interest of the local community, and that it has not just come here because of pressure being applied by people in this process. We want a thorough examination of this bill. We have significant concerns about it, around health issues, around the ownership of water, and around the decision as to how this bill came to be here. Our continued support for the bill is not guaranteed beyond the select committee until we go through that process.
HOLLY WALKER (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill on behalf of my colleague Eugenie Sage, who is the Green Party spokesperson on local government and water. Like our colleagues in Labour, the Green Party will be supporting this bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, but we do have serious concerns as well about this bill. I want it to be clearly noted that our support at this stage is conditional on those concerns being addressed at the select committee. I do want to thank Chester Borrows for the additional information he has provided about our concerns so far, but it is fair to say they have not been completely allayed, so I will be outlining those concerns, and we think they are significant. First of all, though, I will just outline what we understand of the bill and what it does, and why we are supporting it—at least to the select committee.
As we have heard, the bill would allow the South Taranaki District Council to transfer ownership of a small-scale water supply scheme to the rural community that uses it. This is about 400 people and approximately 160 households. We understand that the scheme was built by local farmers and residents in the 1980s, and it is currently operated and maintained by those residents. It was funded by a 50 percent subsidy from the Ministry of Works and Development, partly by users, and partly by bridging finance and loans from the former Egmont County Council. This financial support was conditional on the scheme being vested in the local authority. So following amalgamation it is now vested in the South Taranaki District Council. We understand that it has been mooted since the late 1990s to vest the scheme in its users, and that this bill finally advances that. So we are prepared to conditionally support this bill’s referral to the select committee, because we do see some logic. However, we do have significant areas of concern, which I will now outline.
Fundamentally, and first and foremost, as we have heard from some of our colleagues, water is vital, and public ownership of water is crucial, and moves that erode that concept are very concerning. I think it is a little bit flippant of my colleague Mr Auchinvole to dismiss concerns about ownership of water as paranoia. It is actually something that is fundamental to the concerns of many people and should be taken seriously. We are also concerned that the Local Government Act 2002 explicitly prevents local councils from disposing of water infrastructure, and we think that there is a good reason for that. It may be, on balance, that this case is a worthy exception, but we think the bar should be set very high for that, and we will be concerned and interested to see during the select committee deliberation that significant scrutiny is put on the exact reasons why an exception needs to be made to that important principle in this case. We do see a risk of the bill creating a precedent for other water infrastructure to be sold or transferred into private ownership, and that is a significant area of concern for the Green Party. We do not want this bill to create precedent for more privatisation or vesting of water infrastructure. We are interested in the extent to which the scheme’s operation has been subsidised by general rates, because we think that, if this is the case, it raises issues as to whether there are arguments that it should stay in public ownership.
Finally, I think it is really important that the House addresses the significant concerns about the level of consultation with tangata whenua about this bill and the preservation of mauri and the life-supporting capacity of water. We understand that the local iwi, Ngā Ruahine Rangi believe that consultation over a number of years from the South Taranaki District Council has been less than satisfactory, and that they feel that the member, Chester Borrows, who is in charge of this bill brought it to their attention quite late. We think that is very concerning. We think that proper consultation with iwi is vital. We do understand that the advice of two marae who are actually on the scheme is that they agree that ownership should be vested in the company, but if this is not supported by the wider iwi and if it creates a significant new grievance, then the Green Party will be unable to support this bill beyond the select committee’s consideration. We hope that these tangata whenua concerns will also be explored at the select committee, because if it does transpire that a significant new grievance is created, we will withdraw our support for this bill at future stages. So at this stage the Green Party supports this bill’s referral to the select committee. We thank the member for his work, but we want our significant concerns to be noted.
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. New Zealand First is prepared to recommend that this bill goes to the Local Government and Environment Committee for further consideration, but we do equally have some concerns about some aspects of this bill. Water is a basic human right, and here in New Zealand it is something that we all know is abundant but, on the other hand, it is a precious resource and something that we must all be very mindful of taking good care of. In this respect, it is very, very clear that over many, many years the people in this district have tried to provide for themselves with a subsidised scheme, through the Government and their own means, and through the former Egmont County Council, to provide this reticulated water scheme to service the farming community but also something like 540 consumers as well as two marae in the area.
However, I echo the comments of some of the other members earlier in this debate. There are some concerns about perhaps some of the ways that this bill got to this House today. When I look at some of the literature that has been placed before me—which refers to such things as the battle for Cold Creek water going back several years, how this has been somewhat controversial in the local community, the pros and cons of leaving it with the South Taranaki District Council or moving it into the private company, the Cold Creek Community Water Supply—there certainly are some issues around perhaps the methodology by which it has got to this point today.
I am equally concerned that the minutes of the South Taranaki District Council meeting of Monday, 15 August 2011 do refer to some discussions with the mayor and council there, and the executive of the South Taranaki District Council, which in a sense indicated that if they were not happy to go along with this and divest of this water reticulation scheme to this company, then steps would be made to have it put through Parliament anyway. I equally am a little bit aghast to see comments like that in the minutes of a local authority. I was witness to bovver boy tactics myself as the mayor of the fourth-largest city in this country, where similar stand-over tactics were taken to muscle us out of local government in Auckland. It is very concerning to see similar tactics in a sense being used to basically put the pressure on and say: “If you don’t comply with us, the local authority, then we will simply ride roughshod over you and do it anyway.” That is a worry in this country. I have witnessed it only too many times from my own local government perspective, and it is a worry in this country if that is the way central government is going to work with local government.
We have seen this week again that local government is being chopped off at the knees by the Minister of Local Government—or, as of today, the former Minister of Local Government. We all have concerns about the cost to local government of infrastructure for our communities, for the provision of amenities and services. However, I think, as I said in my speech on the previous bill regarding Stewart Island, central government must work with local government for the betterment of this country. I certainly do not appreciate seeing situations arising where representatives of this House could be construed as providing pressure on local government to comply or be walked over.
So we will support this bill going through to the select committee for consideration, but we will be asking some of those very same questions to ensure that this measure is in the best public interest, that public funds are being well utilised in terms of how this is divested and moved across to the private company scheme, and that if any public money has gone into the scheme over the years, it should be repaid to the source it came from, rather than this particular private company, or company as it stands, getting a benefit from public funds. So we will support this bill’s referral to the select committee, but we do raise some alarm bells around some of the issues.
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): An interesting question is raised for us and the Local Government and Environment Committee in the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. It is a little unusual for a water company to use a local bill to gain ownership of a scheme. I think that there are some concerns raised around the House this afternoon, which we will address very carefully in the select committee. It seems to me, from hearing the debate and having looked briefly at the bill, obviously, we will be having a much closer look as it goes through the select committee process. I thank and acknowledge other members for supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee, even though they may some misgivings.
I think, looking at the background and history of this scheme, it is like a number of rural water schemes all throughout New Zealand. This scheme was built in the mid-1980s by the farmers of the day, and, gosh, groups of farmers have been constructing rural water schemes for over 100 years in New Zealand. So a group of farmers got together and identified a source of water. In this case they constructed a water-race, which services 162 connections. So it is a relatively small rural water scheme used for stock water and for drinking purposes. Although it is true that this rural water scheme had the benefit of a dollar-for-dollar grant from the central government of the day, it has effectively been owned, if you like, and managed by the local management committee. Now they seek to have that ownership confirmed in a company that they have formed for the management of their rural water scheme.
In thinking about it, my first thoughts on it are that it is not dissimilar to a number of irrigation companies and a number of irrigation schemes that I am surrounded by in the Waitaki electorate, particularly on the Waitaki River catchment. I think there are similarities for the following reasons. We are talking about water infrastructure. The consent to take and use water is done by—is it the Taranaki district council—
Jonathan Young: Regional council.
JACQUI DEAN: —well, regional council—and that is the same for an irrigation scheme. So we are talking about an intake system—it might be out of a riverbed; I do not know—and, in this case, a water-race. The connections go into stock water and go into home supply. In this case it is gravity fed, I am assuming, so it does not have the expense of having to pump water.
To me there are a lot of similarities to what is quite normal practice in New Zealand with water infrastructure. We need to remind ourselves that we are talking about water infrastructure. We are talking about pipes, pumps, water-races, and other equipment that is used to maintain and develop that system. We are not talking about water as such. So to me I think we need to be very careful that we do not allow ourselves to get sidetracked into the issue of privatisation of water, which does not rightly belong in the context of the argument of this bill.
Andrew Little: We need to make sure the ratepayers aren’t ripped off, though.
JACQUI DEAN: The member across the House mentions ratepayers, and I think we also need to remember that the owners of this water scheme are also ratepayers. Instead of being rated for the maintenance of this infrastructure, they will in fact pay for it by direct means, because they are the beneficiaries and they are the users. So I do not actually accept the argument as advanced by the Opposition.
The Local Government and Environment Committee will give this local bill its due consideration. I want to thank the Hon Chester Borrows for bringing this bill to the House on behalf of the South Taranaki District Council. We look forward to some good and useful debate on this issue. Thank you.
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a great pleasure to stand and speak on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. You would have thought that after the last couple of days, this Government would be very alert to promoting things on the basis of sleaze, of dodge, and of more graft, because that is what sits behind this local government bill. Our position is clear: we will support this bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, because if there is one piece of local government legislation that needs scrutiny, then this, surely, is it. We have to get past the purple phrases and the great story about the noble, struggling farmers of the slopes of Mount Taranaki / Egmont and what they did.
This was a scheme that was funded, at least in half, by the taxpayers of New Zealand. It is a community scheme, and it was not all about the farmers running it, because that is not correct. At the beginning of the life of the scheme, the scheme was administered, looked after, and maintained by the local council, the Egmont County Council. Then later—later—the day-to-day administration was transferred to the company that had been set up by the farmers, but the council retained responsibility for the treatment plant and the headworks. This was not some noble gesture by the local farming community to take complete responsibility for the scheme. It was always a community scheme. It was 50 percent funded by the Government.
Now what we have is the 160-odd farmers seeking to control it and to own it. And who heads that company? A chap by the name of Neville Ardern. We have heard that surname before. We have a Jacinda Ardern and we have a Shane Ardern. Guess which one Neville Ardern is related to? Let me give you a clue: it is not Jacinda. It is Shane Ardern. When the South Taranaki District Council had a meeting on this in August 2011, who turned up to speak on it? Three people did. The three musketeers, Shane Ardern, Chester Borrows, and Neville Ardern, turned up hand-in-hand, hand-in-glove to prevail upon the South Taranaki District Council to hand this scheme over.
As my colleague Grant Robertson has said, and as Andrew Williams has said, the representations made at that meeting do not make for very salutary reading. Now these minutes are put together and are polite and pleasant, and it was not just the threat that came from Shane Ardern—according to the minutes—that if the Cold Creek community failed in their divestment request, then there would be some legislative programme through Parliament that would bring about the kind of ownership they desired. There is the first threat. That was followed by “the brother”. The brother came along, and he then said if the council did not proceed with the divestment, then the company would take legal action, which would cost a lot of money and headache for both parties. Well, we are going to make a headache, because we are going to quiz the proponents of this legislation.
Then Mr Borrows, the great liberal champion of the Government, turned up at this meeting. He was hand-in-glove with them, the black hand of the union movement. He turned up and said he noted that this was about community ownership. He said if the council could show where the money had come from other sources, then they would be happy to refund the council and the ratepayers those funds. Well, there has been a public contribution to this scheme, and it needs to be recognised in relation to any new scheme that governs it. It will not just be the nominal value of the contribution made; it will be the real value of that scheme—the capital value—and the share of it owed to the public.
This is an important local government bill that needs good scrutiny, so the select committee will need to have a close look at the reasons for this legislation and the people who are behind it. They will need to talk to not just the Ardern brothers and Chester Borrows but the South Taranaki District Council mayor, the councillors, and all of them. There needs to be independent scrutiny of this proposal in this legislation, and I look forward to seeing that happen.
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am sure that when members or representatives of the South Taranaki District Council come to the Local Government and Environment Committee, the committee will be very impressed with their acumen, their understanding, and their professionalism as they present this situation and this case. I do think that a number of issues need to be clarified that have been raised by the members on the other side of the House in their speeches. One of them is around this whole issue of water ownership. The South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill is not about water ownership; we understand that it is about infrastructure, about pipes, about concrete, and about infrastructure in the ground that takes a supply of water from Cold Creek, which is given under resource consent by the Taranaki Regional Council. My understanding is that the amount of water it takes is a small percentage. So obviously huge quantities of water are available to the residents of Taranaki, but there are times obviously, as Chester Borrows has mentioned, when Ōpunake does rely upon some assistance due to the silting of its water supply.
But we must understand that back in the mid-1980s, when the farming community came together to put in place a water supply system for their farming necessities, those farmers paid considerable amounts of money in personal contributions. This project was instituted by them for them, and they paid considerable amounts of money, and probably an amount equivalent to what it would cost to buy a house in Auckland at that time. So the contribution, the investment, and the commitment of this community to this scheme, from the very outset, have been tremendously high.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
JONATHAN YOUNG: It is my pleasure to stand in support of this bill, and, no doubt, hopefully, tonight members of the Pīhama and Te Kiri communities will be watching the progress of this bill through the House of Parliament. My own family roots go back to Pīhama. My mother and her family are from there, and their forebears. So I know the people of Pīhama and Te Kiri very, very well. They are industrious and hard-working New Zealanders who work on the farms of that particular area where irrigation is incredibly important. As we know by what the Hon Chester Borrows said in his speech, back in the mid-80s there was tremendous commitment by the farming community to invest in the Cold Creek reticulation and water supply.
It needs to be reiterated again that the farmers who contributed to that scheme raised their own personal capital to the vicinity of around about $45,000 back in 1984, which we know would buy a sizable house in any part of New Zealand, particularly in Auckland, where we know that those properties now would most likely sell for a quarter of a million dollars plus. So it was a substantial investment that they made at that particular time. We also know that the Government subsidised dollar for dollar for that investment, but it came on a condition that this project was going to enhance production for the farmers. I talked to farmers who still farm in that area today but who can remember back to that time in the mid-80s and the 1990s, and they did see a significant production lift.
The previous speaker from the other side made comments about the taxpayers, and whether they were going to have their interests looked after in this divestment into the local community. But the increased production of those farms no doubt contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of increased revenue to the people of New Zealand. I guess that is something that the other side do not realise—that private enterprise, hard work, and investment of this kind is what makes this country work. We need to recognise that. We need to recognise the contribution they have made, in the ownership and management that has been invested in them already over this last decade, and we need to support this bill that will recognise that. We also need to recognise that the future of this scheme is going to continue to enhance the profitability of these farming communities. It is a very important thing, and I am very happy to support this bill as it goes through to the select committee consideration. Thank you.
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): Thank you for the opportunity. I would like to just reiterate a number of points quite quickly that have been raised in the course of the first reading of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. The first is to make quite plainly the statement that this is about alkathene pipes and concrete. It is not about water. It is not about the mauri of the stream from which the water is taken. In the same way that the residents and shareholders of the company that administers, maintains, and pays for the Cold Creek scheme at the moment apply for a water right from Taranaki Regional Council, they would need to continue to do that.
I understand that the bill has, to go to the select committee at least, support from across the House, apart from the Māori Party, who will be voting against it on a basis of philosophy around the consultation in respect of South Taranaki District Council, and I can respect the stance that it takes. However, it is important to note that this is not about the Treaty claims process. The fact that the South Taranaki District Council now holds the legal title for this claim is really about where the scheme was vested at the time that it was constructed by the hands of the farmers, with the dollar of the farmers, with the dollar for dollar taxpayer subsidy scheme. In fact, questions were raised by, for instance, the Hon Annette King in respect of further calls for maintenance money and replacement money from the taxpayer or the ratepayer. That is actually in the history of the scheme itself, in that it was constructed by the farmers who were building it and who wanted it at the time. The reason, of course, that it was done was for productivity, and the taxpayers’ contribution at the time—as previously mentioned, dollar for dollar—has been paid back manyfold by that increase in productivity and the taxation that has been paid on that.
As I also said in my initiating speech, the South Taranaki District Council cannot find a single cent of ratepayer money that was paid in the construction, maintenance, repair, or administration of this scheme. Every dollar that has been paid has come from money generated by the administration and the running of the fees and the charges charged.
The point was made about the low cost of water per cubic metre from this scheme. It is about 35c. It is not the lowest in the South Taranaki region, but it is lower than other schemes. The fact is that the South Taranaki District Council, having said that that cost would have to go up, was speaking in respect of costs of other schemes and the maintenance and administration of other schemes if the South Taranaki District Council maintained administration rights, which, of course, it does not have.
So we end up in a situation where the farmers of a particular area in South Taranaki built themselves a scheme using a Government subsidy that was constructed for the purpose, funnily enough, under a Labour Government. Now what they want to do is to actually own the legal title of that scheme in its entirety, albeit that they do have property rights and they do hold legal ownership of part of that scheme. Because it came at considerable cost to them—it was not only with their money but also with their sweat and their energy that they constructed the scheme—they would like to have complete ownership of it. South Taranaki District Council has voted four times over the last 12 years to effect exactly that. We find ourselves now in a situation in need of a local bill because of the course of history and the introduction of the Local Government Act 2002. I look forward to the support of the House and the debate through the select committee process. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 117
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 3
Māori Party 2; Mana 1.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Bills
Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed from 29 February.
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 section 6A with a reference to section 4A.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not.
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): As I was saying before I was interrupted, this bill is unnecessary, because it is—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Sorry—I am just processing what we have just done. Leave was sought to go back and consider another clause, and we should do that now. Then, when that is dealt with, we will come back to the clause that we are currently on. We are returning to consideration of clause 2.
Clause 2 Commencement (reconsidered)
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tau Henare to clause 2 be agreed to:
to replace section 6A in subclause (1AA) with section 4A.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 as further amended agreed to.
New clause 5A Requirement for society’s rules to include secret ballots for strikes (continued)
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I was talking about the necessity for this bill, the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. The reality is that most unions of any substance and any size already have as one of the requirements in their rules the fact that any strike action needs to be supported by a secret ballot. The Maritime Union has it, the rest home workers who belong to the Service and Food Workers Union have it, and the meat workers employed by Talley’s AFFCO have it in their agreements. Most of those meat workers, of course, are being locked out. Some are taking strike action, and they take strike action as a result of a secret ballot.
The proposal to have the clause that requires unions’ rules to provide for a secret ballot is the most sensible way forward. We—that is, this Parliament—do not want to get into the Incorporated Societies Act, and dictate to societies and organisations that are incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act, and have them being told what to do. This Parliament could not do that. We have hundreds of thousands of interest groups and societies—do not let this be a precedent and a start for this Parliament deciding how private organisations, collective organisations of individuals, should run themselves and conduct themselves. That is a matter for them. For trade unions, which have been in this business for well over 100 years, that is the way they have conducted themselves.
The bill as originally drafted is unnecessary. Unions and their members, who belong voluntarily to these organisations, are quite capable of deciding their rules themselves. Let it be a requirement for registration as a union that the union’s rules are proper, appropriate, and fit for purpose, and that may well include the need to have a ballot to take strike action. But members should also understand that our industrial legislation has always provided a countervailing balance, and it has always been the principle for New Zealand industrial legislation. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so if it is a requirement that workers are required to conduct a secret ballot when they take a strike, so too for the employer when they take the egregious action of locking out workers, depriving them of their income against their will; so too the employer should be bound by obligations of procedural fairness. That is provided for as well in Labour’s proposals.
This bill is unnecessary; we continue to see it as unnecessary. Unions are quite happily getting on with what limited rights they have these days anyway. That will change, of course, on the change of Government, and workers will be free once again to express their views and act appropriately and properly in the workplace, as they once did. But in the meantime this will add nothing. It is not as if, either for the member who is promoting this bill or for the party he comes from, there are not some bigger issues to deal with in this day and age. It is not just about getting married so he can take trips to Uganda, either. It is really serious stuff, important things that we need to be doing.
Trying to interfere with voluntary trade unions simply is not going to lift productivity, and it is not going to provide the better future that has been promised, either here or in Finland. We say that the member’s bill is unnecessary, but our proposals provide a sensible way forward for unions for when they are registered. Thank you.
Hon TAU HENARE (National): It is just not about the cheap shot from the former leader of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, or wherever and whomever he represented—
Hon Lianne Dalziel: The EPMU.
Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, the “elephant union”—well, whatever. It is not about a cheap shot about me getting married and a cheap shot at my wife, because that is what it was. That is the sort of thing that I expect. We have been hearing it all day: the cheap, dirty shot. I will tell you this; I will let you in on a little secret. I went to the acting Opposition whip tonight and asked whether they would stand in the way of us going back to clause 2, and she said “No, not a problem. As long as you don’t play dirty, that’s fine.” What happens? The first speaker—
Kris Faafoi: Stop putting words into her mouth.
Hon TAU HENARE: It is very hard to put words into anybody’s mouth over there. I mean, I would have to have a million of them, because their mouths are so big. Look, the fact of the matter is that this is about democracy. He talks about freedom—the workers’ freedom. Well, I tell you what. Workers will be free if they are not bullied by the likes of Andrew Little—bullied into taking industrial action. Here is a question for the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, and every other union. How many of their organisers take the pay cut—do not take wages—while their members are on strike? What about Garry Parsloe? He took the wage, all right, while his so-called comrades were out on strike.
Andrew Little: I learnt everything on you from Michelle Boag.
Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, here we go. I have seen many a union organiser take the money, take the organiser’s car, and drive around in it, while their mates and their members are on strike. Do you know which is the worst one? Which is the worst union? The Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union. Its organisers drive around in a big car with a sign on the door, and it is the same with the Service and Food Workers Union. The one in Te Atatū Peninsula is always parked outside Countdown looking for a few members. It cannot get any.
Let us talk about the bullyboy tactics of that member when he was in charge of that two-bit outfit. [Interruption] That is right, oh yeah. They shivered in their boots, all right. Do you know why workers shiver in their boots? Because they do not want to take the action that they have been told to take by guys like Andrew Little. That is why. The only people who lose in a strike are workers. They are ones who do not get paid. These guys get paid—do not forget it. This is my plea to New Zealand: do not forget that workers are the ones who lose wages, not the union organisers. And, you know what, here is something else.
Andrew Little: Here it comes.
Hon TAU HENARE: That is right. If you shut up, I will tell you. The Labour Party is full of union organisers and failed teachers.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I wanted to speak to my amendment to insert new clause 5B and inject some sense back into the debate after that tirade from the member Tau Henare. But, before I do, I just want to record my pleasure that good sense has prevailed in the ports and that Ports of Auckland has agreed to go back to collective bargaining and not to contract out the workers or make them redundant, so I am very, very pleased about that. I think we will see a return to productive employment and, I hope, productive employment relationships, which is indeed what Labour’s legislation was always about. It was always about good faith, about productive employment relationships, and about mediation as a first call in disputes. But gradually what we have seen from this Government, of course, is interference in that, and that is what this bill is, too.
My amendment to insert new clause 5B is to make sure that, indeed, if this bill goes through, there is not more interference in the right of workers to have a secret ballot, which is what the member insists must happen. He insists it is about democracy, but actually what we have at the moment, thanks to this Government, is an impediment to access to a workplace. Under this Government, workers and unions have to get permission from the employer to enter the workplace. It is getting harder and harder.
In fact, Talley’s AFFCO, as everybody knows, is locked out. We are not talking about strikes here, and we are not talking about secret ballots of Talley’s shareholders, we are talking about illegally locked out workers. There are stories coming out about how the union was illegally denied access time and time again to its workers in the meat plants. By the time the union got to them, of course, management had been in their ears, had threatened them, and had put them on an individual contract.
So my amendment is to make sure that that situation is avoided, because if the member and the Government insist that there must be a secret ballot of workers before the strike is in, then, as my colleague Andrew Little says, most unions carry that out already, but they should do it in their own way according to their own rules and according to their own democratic processes. However, if the member insists on it, the union should not need to obtain consent for access to a workplace in order to hold a secret ballot, because if the employer can stand in the way of a union obtaining access for the purposes of holding a secret ballot, how on earth is the member’s objective of requiring a secret ballot before a strike going to be met? How is it going to happen? How is that the purpose?
He says it is all about democracy, crying all the rubbish that he talks about from his 30 years ago when he was the worst union organiser in New Zealand’s history—all the rubbish from that. However, accepting all of that, I am sure that the member in the chair, Tau Henare, does not want to see the provisions of his bill impeded by employers who can deny access to unions who come in, in order to carry out the requirements of his bill. [Interruption] Yes, and it will be very interesting to see what happens if an employer chooses to deny access for the purposes of holding a secret ballot.
Does that mean that the workers can just carry on and have a strike because they have been denied access to a secret ballot? Does it mean the employer has broken the law in terms of allowing a secret ballot to be held? Does it mean the union has broken the law because it has not been able to hold a secret ballot? These are things that I do not think the member has thought through.
As I said in previous discussions on this bill, we genuinely tried to assist the member to meet his objectives by doing it in a very, very simple form. That was in the previous amendment, to insert new clause 5A, which was about simply putting in unions’ rules a requirement that there must be a process for holding a secret ballot. But what his bill will do is make sure that there can be interference by employers, which there already is in places like Talley’s. It will make sure that there will be interference not only in the process of secret ballots, and challenges in the courts, tying up the courts, and compliance costs on unions like the Oceania Group workers, who are just trying to make sure that their workers, their members, who are on $13.61 an hour—11c an hour above the minimum wage; shocking—
JAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased tonight to speak on behalf of Denise Roche, our industrial relations spokesperson. The Green Party opposes this Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill in its entirety. In standing to speak for the Greens on this bill, I would like to recognise the work that has been done by my colleagues Keith Locke and Dave Clendon. When this bill went through its first reading the Greens supported it, but Keith Locke did outline concerns with the bill, and Dave Clendon outlined them again last time this bill was in the House. Those concerns have not been addressed, and now we have more concerns about the bill, so we will be opposing it. To be honest, I cannot believe this House has wasted so much time and resources—staff time, politicians’ time, time in the House and at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when more useful debates could have been had—over an amendment bill that, in effect, is a solution looking for a problem.
I am not sure what on earth possessed my esteemed colleague Tau Henare to develop such a bill when it is so completely and utterly unnecessary. It is some time since my esteemed colleague was a union official for the Clerical Workers Union, and, undoubtedly, times have moved on in the last two decades. Modern unions are now democratic. Members, rather than union officials, make the decisions around settling negotiations, and also about how the whole union is run. From having been a member of a union for many, many years, I can vouch for this. Unions—
Scott Simpson: Ah, a conflict of interest.
JAN LOGIE: I am not an organiser—a member. Unions are incorporated societies. They are required to act in an openly transparent and democratic fashion. Many unions already have rules that include the requirement for secret ballots on industrial disputes. What is the point in legislating to ensure a current practice becomes a current practice?
The decision to take industrial action is not one that unions or their members ever take lightly. For the union, if the strike is not widely supported, or if there is anything dodgy about the vote on it, it is likely to lose members. Unlike the industrial relations environment that existed when my esteemed colleague Tau Henare was a union organiser in the early 1980s, union membership is now voluntary. Frankly, in an environment of shrinking union membership in the private sector, particularly, no union with sane leadership is going to take the risk of acting undemocratically. From the workers’ perspective the decision to strike is also never made lightly. Strike action means loss of pay, and in an increasingly desperate job market—thanks to this Government—it is a huge risk to take strike action, because of the potential ongoing damage to the employment relationship. Strike action is an action of last resort, and, aside from health and safety reasons, it is used only when negotiations around the collective employment agreements have not been settled.
I join Labour in expressing my satisfaction in seeing the Ports of Auckland go back into negotiations, which we have seen at the end of a process of striking. It is really the only weapon in the struggle that can sometimes result from the imbalance of power between workers and the boss, and it is never undertaken on a whim or with a dodgy vote. Some of my colleagues recently spent the weekend at the picket with the Maritime Union members and their families at the Ports of Auckland. You know, they have been negotiating since September last year. Despite offering to make significant changes to provide more flexibility, including a 12-hour shift option for some workers, they have been stalled by management’s demands for more and more and more flexibility. These workers, all 300 or so of them, had a vote.
Recently I joined the striking workers at Elderslea Rest Home in Upper Hutt. You know, I know it takes a lot to get nurses and rest home workers to strike, because they care for their elderly clients and they do not want to jeopardise their well-being. Fifteen hundred of them went off the job at Oceania rest homes all over the country. These workers are asking for a cost of living pay claim of around 3 percent, with back-pay. The company, which is controlled by Australian equity firm Macquarie Global Infrastructure Funds and currently is spending millions on new facilities, is offering them 1 percent over 3 years and wants to cut overtime. These workers have been negotiating for 8 months, and 600 of those workers are on $13.61 an hour, just above the minimum wage, caring for some of our most vulnerable people. This is not about workers being greedy or unions being unscrupulous. It is about a decent living wage, and it is also about employer bullying. It is about employers seeking to bust the unions and achieve full flexibility, also known as casualisation of the workforce.
I note that this bill does not address the issue of whether the employer should have a secret ballot or even a transparent voting process before they decide to lock out workers. It is fine for the workers, but not for the bosses. Seven-hundred and sixty-two AFFCO meatworkers in provincial towns—in Moerewa, Manawatū, AFFCO Imlay in Wanganui, Horotiu, and Wairoa—have been locked out of their jobs. Like the Ports of Auckland workers, they have been fending off the bosses’ claims for more and more flexibility around rostering. The meatworkers and Talley’s AFFCO management have been negotiating their employment agreement for 18 months. The lockout is an employer tactic to get them to agree. Why is there no bill requiring companies to hold a secret ballot before locking out workers? We will not be voting for this bill. This bill does nothing to address bad-faith bargaining. In fact, it is dangerous. It opens a loophole for employers to litigate unions over ballots. This bill does not serve unions, which are the only collective voice for many people, it does not serve industrial democracy, and it does not serve workers.
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I am sure that the member’s motives with the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill are honourable and that his objectives, which I perceive as to ensure democracy in unions voting to strike or not to strike, are genuine. But if so, I am not convinced that the bill will assist that, and indeed the reverse may well be the case.
New Zealand First would wish to be even-handed in these matters, not necessarily wishing to promote the interests of either the unions or the employers and their organisations. However, New Zealand First will oppose the bill in its entirety, simply because we are not quite sure, notwithstanding what the member has said—
Hon Tau Henare: It doesn’t surprise me. In the pocket of the Labour Party.
DENIS O’ROURKE: —and what he is saying now, what the problem is to fix, and indeed how this bill would fix it. Our conclusion is that the bill is deeply flawed in concept and in purpose.
When you think about the bill and the way it goes about whatever its objective is, you need to consider what the interests of democracy require, first of all, when voting needs to be in secret, such as in parliamentary elections, and, second, when voting should not be secret, such as in Parliament itself. In this case union members are voting as a group on a decision to strike—something that affects them all, and that they do as a group in a collegial sort of way. Because it is not a private decision, unlike a vote in a parliamentary election, and because it is a group decision, this requires collegiality. It requires group discussion, in which it is proper and constructive for members to know why and whether another member is voting one way or the other. I think that is actually a very constructive thing to happen. There is no need for secrecy in that kind of situation. In fact, the reverse is the case; it is better if it is not secret. That is better for democracy; that is better for group action.
No reason is given by the member or by any member opposite why a secret ballot is necessary for a democratic decision to strike. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee report simply refers to the consistency with the principal Act. That is hardly a reason, and certainly not one that New Zealand First would recognise as such.
It is not necessarily always in the interests of democracy for voting to be secret, especially in private and voluntary organisations where secret ballots can lead to vote fixing, and auditing is impracticable. Moreover, it is not the business of the Government to dictate the manner in which private and voluntary organisations should conduct their internal affairs. This is not yet a police State, notwithstanding National’s steps towards it. Otherwise, would this Government not require secret ballots for boards of directors and shareholder meetings in private companies? What another member said is quite correct: what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But here we see not an even-handed approach; here we see a prejudicial one. A democratic society requires that unions be free, like all other private and voluntary organisations, to run their own affairs, to allow their members to make their own rules of governance, not Big Brother and not some tyrannical Government.
In summary, first, there is no need for secret ballots for a democratically run organisation where group or collegial decision-making is needed. Secondly, a decision whether or not to make ballots secret belongs to the members of the organisation, and not to those members opposite and not to any Government in this country. That is a private matter. It is not a Government matter. If the National Party thinks it should be making decisions on behalf of private organisations in this country, it had better look back to its principles, because as far as I can see it is not following them. Thirdly, the principles that are applicable in the case of union members’ voting methods are these: freedom of members to make their own rules; voluntary membership, which we certainly agree with; collegiality in decision making and voting; collective responsibility; and openness and transparency as between the members voting. None of those principles are reflected in this bill. The bill will achieve next to nothing except another step in excessive government and excessive regulation—something that I thought this Government was opposed to, but sadly it is not. New Zealand First will certainly oppose this bill, and every part of it.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton be agreed to:
to insert the following new clause after clause 4:
5A When society entitled to be registered as union
Section 14(1) is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (d):
“(e) the society’s rules include a requirement that a secret ballot of its members who are employed by the same or different employers (as the case may be) and who would become a party to the strike be held before any strike is undertaken.”
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1.
Noes 71
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
New clause 5A not agreed to.
New clause 5B Section 20A amended
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton be agreed to:
to insert the following new clause after clause 4:
5B Section 20A amended
Section 20A is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (4):
“(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a union does not need to obtain the consent of an employer or a representative of the employer to enter a workplace in order to carry out a secret ballot to determine whether strike action is taken.”
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1.
Noes 71
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
New clause 5B not agreed to.
Clause 6 Meaning of strike
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 6 be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 New sections 82A to 82C inserted
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): The Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is a very important piece of legislation. It requires close consideration. I will collect my thoughts to speak about this important topic. We can take this light-heartedly, but this is actually very important for the 350,000 workers in this country who belong to unions, and for the many thousands of workers who are in dispute with their employers at the moment, sometimes—on most occasions—totally unnecessarily. It is very pleasing to see that the port workers in the Ports of Auckland and their employer have today reached a tentative settlement before an Employment Court judge by which they can return to work. The employer will abandon its silly plans to contract out, disempower them, and drive down their wages.
That is a great victory, but those workers went through an extraordinary struggle to get to that point—against all the opprobrium, the criticism, the comments from the right, and the comments from the mainstream editorials that have been deeply opposed to what those workers have stood for. But those workers stood up for what they believed in. They stood up against an extraordinary power and extraordinarily powerful interests. They did it. They voted for strike action, they saw it through, and they have defeated one of the most iniquitous and insidious attacks on workers’ rights.
Once again, the waterside workers of this country have broken through, have set an example for the rest of the New Zealand workforce, and they hold their banner high. They do that because they are free to do that. They are free to belong to their union. They are free to make their decisions and their choices. They have done that, and they have achieved justice. I am confident they will achieve the ultimate end and they will keep those jobs—and they will be well-paid jobs and efficient jobs. It will be an efficient, effective, and flexible workforce like they have at the moment. But, most important, they will retain their dignity and their pride. That is what every worker wants. It is actually what every employer wants.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! We are debating clause 6, which has the title “Meaning of strike”. The member can make the sorts of comments he is making, but he has to tie them in to the meaning of clause 6. This is not an open debate. The member should be debating clause 6.
Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I believe it is clause 7 we are looking at at the moment.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Oh, yes—clause 7. I do apologise.
ANDREW LITTLE: I thought it was clause 7.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It was my mistake.
ANDREW LITTLE: I thought I was debating clause 7. My comments were completely relevant to clause 7. Having said that, we on this side of the Chamber are sitting in jubilation and elation because it has been a great day for the working people of New Zealand. The most brutal struggle for working people has seen the workers victorious. They have stood united; they remain undefeated. That is why it is easy to get confused between clause 6 and clause 7. I am at sixes and sevens tonight—that is indisputable—but now we are focused on clause 7. We are very clear about what it is, and it is very important.
Today demonstrates, above all, the importance of workers who are free to make their choice and, most important, free to run their union as they see fit. They make their decisions. That is what voluntary unionism is about. It is a very powerful force. That is why National Governments hate it, because they hate working people taking control of their situation. They hate the idea that when working people get together they form their own wisdom and sometimes they stand up.
The important thing about voluntary unions is that workers are free to come and go, and the port workers have stayed, they have stuck at it, and they have stuck with their union. They have stuck with each other, and that is what it is about. That is why this clause is so unnecessary. That is why we just do not need it. You just do not need to add compliance requirement upon compliance requirement for there to be a secret ballot. Ask those workers how they feel about the decisions they took. Ask them how they feel about their union. They are sticking together. They are very proud. Then go and ask the meatworkers who are fighting an even more brutal struggle against Talley’s. Talley’s—totally unnecessarily, after barely 10 hours of negotiations—locked those workers out.
Hon TAU HENARE (National): I just want to clear up a few things for New Zealand First.
Denis O’Rourke: You’ll be lucky.
Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, I might be lucky, but given the speeches in the Chamber tonight from New Zealand First, I think it does need some help. This is not about allowing organisations out there to flout what I consider to be a democratic process. If a person in any situation—whether it is right or wrong—wishes to make a decision to withdraw his or her labour, then surely to goodness—
Andrew Little: They should do it on their own, Tau—that’s right.
Hon TAU HENARE: No—surely to goodness you would allow that person the comfort of making the decision without fear or favour, regardless of—
Andrew Little: They have it already.
Hon TAU HENARE: No, I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is the pure and simple reason of democracy, which we afford everybody else in this country at an election—
Andrew Little: And they get it.
Hon TAU HENARE: Well, of course they do. So why is it any different for a person withdrawing their labour?
Andrew Little: The tie’s only light blue, Tau—you can still come back.
Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, OK. I am not getting into any of this rubbish about the best union organiser or the worst union organiser. Let us get down to some tintacks. It is about democracy.
Andrew Little: That’s right.
Hon TAU HENARE: Finally, somebody from that side says that that is right; it is about democracy. Why is it that the union is so fearful of giving somebody a secret ballot? Why is it?
Andrew Little: Because it’s already there, Tau.
Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, it is already there. Well, it is not already there. It is not already there, because there are some unions that do not have it—that do not have it. All we are doing is codifying what the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union already has for its members. So if it is good enough for them, why is it not good enough to have in a piece of legislation that if you are going to go on strike, you have a secret ballot? If you win, you win; if you do not, you do not.
We are not talking about whether a strike is the right thing to do; we are talking about the ability of somebody to withdraw their labour. It is their labour; it is not the union’s labour. It is their labour, it is not the union’s labour. It is their labour. Make no mistake—make no mistake—the bleating about the situation at the Ports of Auckland. This is what happened tonight. They have got back into negotiations. That is it. The wharfies did not win. The Ports of Auckland did not win. The people of Auckland now see that both organisations are sitting down and negotiating, like everybody expected to—like everybody expected to. Because at the end of the day the belligerent union, the guys who run around in their cars and get paid while everybody else is on strike and is losing their pay—
Andrew Little: The members on the picket line.
Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, they do not like it. They just do not like it. The fact of the matter is this is about individual freedom—individual freedom to cover your hand while you are making a decision. That is what it is all about. I must say that Andrew Little has had one secret ballot in his life, and he lost that one up the country. So, there we go.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Well, it seems like it is left for me to inject some sense back into the debate around clause 7. I have an amendment on this clause, and I am really, really happy to talk about the thing that the member Tau Henare keeps insisting on, which is democracy. On the one hand he wants to impose National Party democracy on a bunch of workers who choose to withdraw their labour—that is right; they choose to withdraw their labour—but he does not want to balance up the scorecard. So the situation is that workers will be required to have a secret ballot by the member’s bill. That provision will be able to be enforced by employers in a court of law, which is interference in democracy and democratic processes, actually. But on the other hand it is not balanced. It is biased against one party in the collective employment agreement relationship.
So my amendment to clause 7 is to add a new section, which would require shareholders to hold a secret ballot before they imposed a lockout. What is a lockout? It is the opposite to a strike. It is where an employer can say to its workers, its employees—like it has done in the situation of Talley’s and 1,000 of its meatworkers—“We are not going to allow you to come to work. We are not going to pay you to come to work until you are starved into submission—until you agree to our demands.” So it is the opposite. There is a balancing part of the Employment Relations Act: there is the right to strike, and there is the right to lock out. What this member wants to do is give privilege to one side—in other words, the employers. So he is saying on the one hand that workers must have a secret ballot. As my colleague and others have already said, most of them do, and they do it through their processes—through their processes. As democratic unions, it is up to them to decide how to do it. However, if the member insists on doing this, he should even up the balance.
His Minister of Labour likes to talk about balance in the employment relationship—having balance between employers and employees. My amendment would provide that. It would provide that if Mr Talley and the Talley family decided they were going to lock out their 1,000 workers, they would have to have a secret ballot of their shareholders before that lockout could take place. What is wrong with that? I ask the member in the chair, the Hon Tau Henare, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with having a balance? If he keeps insisting it is about democracy, why is democracy on one side but not on the other? Why is he not considering this very, very reasonable amendment that I am proposing?
The other thing I wanted to say about the port workers situation is that, actually, what we have seen tonight is, yeah, sure, they are back in negotiations, but do you know why? It is because a court has decided, under the Employment Relations Act—which Labour brought in and this Government has continued to interfere with, and which is based on good-faith bargaining and fair dealing—
Andrew Little: Mutual relationships.
DARIEN FENTON: —and mutual relationships of trust and mediation as the first port of call—that the port company has not met those provisions. So thank goodness for the former Labour Government and the Employment Relations Act, and may the Minister of Labour and this Government not get their grubby hands further on the Employment Relations Act, as they are planning to do. They are planning to weaken collective bargaining even further. They are planning to make it harder for workers.
This provision by this member will make it harder for members to carry out a strike. I do not see what the problem is in balancing up the equation. As I have said, we would rather not have this measure at all, but if the member insists that there must be a secret ballot, and if a law has to be there to require it and it can be enforced in a court of law, shareholders should have the same rights—the same democratic rights—to vote on whether their company should lock out workers like the Talley’s workers. Up and down the country in all the small towns throughout New Zealand, in the Moerewas, in the Wairoas, and in the towns where the whole town is dependent on the meatworkers, those workers are standing outside. They do not have a choice about a secret ballot. They have been locked out. They are being starved into submission. Their employer is completely disregarding the provisions in the Employment Relations Act. It is really unfair, and I appeal to the member in the chair to show that he is really serious about democracy and fairness, as he keeps insisting he is, by supporting this amendment.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Andrew Little told us that workers are free to join a union. He told us that they are free to stay in a union. But what workers are not free to do is vote in a ballot free from intimidation, free from standover tactics, and free from the bully-boys who are scared that the union’s desires may be found to be wanting.
This Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is a good bill. This clause 7 is a good clause, and I am surprised that the Labour Party is not supporting it. I am surprised that it is not supporting it, because it is supposed to stand for the small guy. It is supposed to stand for the little guy on the line, doing the hard yards—the little guy whose job and whose pay cheque are at stake when they go on strike. Labour should be supporting this if it supports the little guy, but, really, it is more concerned about the union. It is more concerned about the union being shown up by its own members.
We have heard a little bit about the port tonight. What has not been said are some of the—
Simon Bridges: Too much drinking of port.
JAMI-LEE ROSS: Mr Bridges! What we have not heard about the port is some of the things that have been in the paper that have been done by union members. We have had people on independent employment agreements who have been intimidated by union members. We have had people trying to get to work being stopped by union members and being stopped by union officials. We have had people on cranes trying to do their job, but some of the union members have been trying to obstruct that from happening.
I would have to say that if I was one of those workers wanting to cast a ballot that is different from what the union officials want and I had those types of people standing over me, telling me that it is wrong to vote against their desire for a strike, then I would be scared to vote against it. But if they had a secret strike provision, where they could make their own democratic choice around the strike, they could do so without fear of having comeback on them.
I have got a bit of a confession. It is a deep, dark secret that I have been bottling up for many years. I once joined a union. I am a bit ashamed to say it; I am a bit ashamed to say it. But it took me only a few months to work out what was wrong with that decision, because every week part of my pay cheque went out of my pocket and it did not go anywhere useful for me as a worker. So what I did was I decided to stay away from the union, and I went on to an independent agreement. But if I was ever sitting there in a meeting, having to vote on a strike, then I would want to know that I am not going to have union officials and union members breathing down my neck, telling me I could not decide against a strike.
This is a good provision. It will bring democracy to the little guys—the little guys whom the Labour Party is supposed to be supporting. It does not support the little guy any more. It just supports the unions. It supports the union officials, like Andrew Little and Darien Fenton, and it should be supporting this.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to clause 7 be agreed to:
to add the following subsection to new section 82A:
(5) For the avoidance of doubt, the legality of a ballot can only be challenged by a member of the union holding it.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to—[Interruption] Order! This House has by tradition not had comments under voting, for two reasons. It is hard enough to pick up exactly the diction of some people when they are voting. That is one. Two is that no person will vote in this House under any sort of duress—none whatsoever. If there are going to be interventions during voting, people will take an early shower. Let us make that quite clear.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1.
Noes 71
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to clause 7 be agreed to:
to add the following new sections:
82D Requirement for shareholders to hold secret ballot before lockout
(1) Before a lockout as defined in section 82E related to collective bargaining may proceed under this Act—
(a) the question must be submitted to a secret ballot of the owners of the legal entity that is the employer party to the lockout; and
(b) the result of the secret ballot must be in favour of the lockout.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), the result of a secret ballot is determined by a simple majority of the shareholders who are entitled to vote and who do vote.
(3) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the conclusion of the secret ballot under subsection (1), all shareholders who were entitled to vote must be notified of the result of the ballot.
82E Terms of question for secret ballot of shareholders
The question to be voted on in a secret ballot for the purposes of section 82D is whether the shareholder of the legal entity that is the employer party to the lockout is in favour of the lockout.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1.
Noes 71
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We move to Darien Fenton’s typescript amendment to omit clause 7. This is out of order as the bill is considered clause by clause and members can vote that clause 7 will not stand part.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 7 be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 Unlawful strike or lockouts
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The question is that Darien Fenton’s typescript amendment to omit clause 8 is out of order. No member is seeking the call. Darien Fenton’s typescript amendment is out of order for the same reasons as her amendments regarding clause 7.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 8 be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.
Clause 8 agreed to.
New clause 9 Transitional provision
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Tau Henare to proposed new clause 9 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 195 in his name be agreed to:
to replace in subclause (1) “section 6A” with “section 4A”;
to replace in subclause (3)(a) “section 6A” with “section 4A”; and
to replace in subclause (3)(b) “section 6A” with “section 4A”
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.
Amendments to the amendment agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 195 in the name of the Hon Tau Henare to insert new clause 9 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.
New clause 9 as amended agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Report adopted.
Bills
Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill
Second Reading
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I move, That the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time. I would like to start my contribution on the second reading of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill by giving tribute to those New Zealanders who have laid down their lives in lands far away from their homeland. Our forces are working hard to build peace and are reaffirming our commitment to create a world free from the fear of war and terrorism.
My bill repeals the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915, an Act that has not been used in many years and has clogged the statute book for too long. As I told the House in my first reading speech, the 1915 Act was enacted in the second year of the First World War and provides that the Governor-General may, by proclamation, declare that any land, for a period specified, is to be made available for military manoeuvres. After the manoeuvres are completed, the officer commanding the forces engaged in them must as far as possible restore the land to its former condition. To the best of the knowledge of the New Zealand Defence Force, the Act has not been used for the last 30 years. Largely, it was enacted specifically to deal with the extraordinary circumstances of mobilisation of the First World War.
I want to mention at this time that we are coming to the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I. The year 2015 will mark the anniversary of the Act, but, more important, of battles such as Passchendaele, and it will be great to have a reminder of the war off the statute book by that time.
I thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, chaired by my colleague John Hayes, for its careful consideration of my bill and the minor changes it has recommended.
I think my bill is a model for good legislation. It is short, to the point, and has a clear purpose. No member of the public reading my bill could fail to understand what it does. It is all very well for Labour members to stand and criticise my bill, as they did in its first reading. They are incapable of engaging constructively. When Labour was in Government, it did not remove one piece of useless legislation from the statute book. It only added to the piles of useless legislation with its social engineering and incomprehensible regulatory regime. I look forward to the passage of this bill and commend it to the House.
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to respond to the speech of the member who just sat down, who is the sponsor of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, Mr Kanwaljit Bakshi. Mr Bakshi was doing all right until he decided to lay into us. I was going to be quite gentle with him about this bill, but I am sorry, the gloves are off now, Mr Bakshi.
Really and truly, this is it. Not only is a waste of Parliament’s time being taken in this form but the bill is even a waste of paper, because if one has a look at the commentary on this bill from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, on which I served at that time—it reported back in 2010—it says “We recommend deleting clause 3,” which states the purpose, and “We recommend deleting clause 4, which provides that the Act binds the Crown. Clause 5, which would repeal the Military Manoeuvres Act, would be spent immediately after the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Act came into force. As there are no other operative provisions in the bill, there would then be nothing in the Act for clause 4 to act upon. Clause 4 is therefore redundant.” So even this little gesture here is far too much.
This is a ridiculous way of occupying members’ bills time, quite frankly. The only reason that this appeared in the ballot was in order for National to have something in the ballot to try to prevent Labour and Green members’ bills, in particular, from being drawn. That is not the appropriate process, Mr Bakshi, for this piece of legislation. This is not the appropriate mechanism. It could be done perfectly easily through a Statutes Amendment Bill.
We are not going to vote against this, but I will not let that member be used by his colleagues as cannon-fodder or lobby-fodder in this House. They need to treat that member with more respect, and stop giving him ridiculous jobs to do, which are no credit to him and no credit to his caucus. I think National needs to think again about just how it treats that member.
This bill, for the sake of the record, simply repeals an old provision that was enacted in 1915, at the time of World War I. It allowed the authorities to seize land for the purpose of performing military manoeuvres, so that the army could practise somewhere. That provision, as Mr Bakshi said that he understood—well, he understands it because that is what the Ministry of Defence understands, or it is to the best of the Defence Force’s knowledge, in fact—the Act has not been used for at least 50 years. I think times have changed. The bill clearly has no purpose any further. It should not ever be enacted. In this time and this day and age, it should never be acted upon. It is not the kind of thing that remains relevant to the circumstances of New Zealand these days.
But neither is this an appropriate way to bring this matter to the attention of the House. A Statutes Amendment Bill, any kind of omnibus bill that wanted to repeal laws that have long since passed their use-by date—it could have been done at the end of the last term. In fact, I remember we did do a Statutes Amendment Bill that had omnibus provisions in it, and that is the way to do it. Mop up all the little bits and pieces of legislation that are no longer necessary, no longer serve any useful purpose, and ought to be repealed, and get rid of them in one fell swoop. But no, National has obviously decided to trawl through any omnibus legislation it has sitting around and think: “Gosh, how can we clog the ballot process by multiplying the chances of defeating Labour and Green members’ bills.”
This does not deserve any more time in discussion. The Act should go. We will vote for it to go. We just object profoundly to this process and to the way that that member is treated by his own colleagues.
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill and to support my very competent colleague Kanwaljit Bakshi from the Auckland area. I particularly want to commend him, in the wake of that onslaught representing the New Zealand unions. Maryan Street said that this bill, the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, was absolutely nothing to do with Parliament, it is a waste of time, but that Labour is voting for it. Why are we voting for it? Because it is a very sensible thing to do. Certainly the legislation has not been used for 50 years, and what is it doing? It is clogging our statute book. This Government came to the community in New Zealand and said: “We want you to trust us to do the right thing.” This Government said: “We are going to get rid of legislation that is irrelevant.”, and that is what this process is about. I commend my colleague for his wonderful initiative in bringing this bill to Parliament.
I have some difficulty putting up with that member, Maryan Street, who did not in the course of the select committee raise the slightest reservation. She only uttered words of support; that is my recollection. She comes into the House tonight and spends 10 minutes of our time unnecessarily explaining why this is all irrelevant but why she will vote for it—well, can I just say that is nonsense.
I absolutely agree with this bill. It will reduce the legislation that applies in this country. It is a redundant piece of legislation. We need to do much more of it, and I absolutely support you and commend you for your actions. Thank you.
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): It is a privilege to follow John Hayes in this debate. I too wish to pay tribute to Mr Bakshi for his remarkable insight in producing a member’s bill, the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, to repeal this statute. It is presumably automatically updated when it is repealed. This bill should have been an omnibus bill, and we have had 18 months to reflect on that recommendation from Opposition members at the time, but we have not devoted sufficient attention to the matter to act upon that. Should the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 be repealed? Perhaps, but perhaps if it were I would need to give thought to whether I would introduce a member’s bill to bring it back in, although, on reflection, I probably would not.
As was pointed out, the Act has sat on the statute book for nearly a century for no real purpose. So the Act should be repealed but ironically, for reasons that are essentially lost on the Government. At the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee we were told: “As far as the New Zealand Defence Force has been able to ascertain, the Act has not been used for the last 30 years. We understand that no proclamations are in force, and there are no outstanding claims relating to past proclamations or military manoeuvres. Given these facts we believe that the repeal of the bill would not disadvantage the New Zealand Defence Force.”
In fact, the main reason the Green Party sees for requiring the repeal of the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 is the fact that the Defence Force cannot ascertain whether the Act has or has not been used for the last 30 years. No disrespect is intended to the member or to the personnel of the armed forces, particularly those serving overseas, by saying that the repeal of the Act would simply be saving the Defence Force from itself.
Hon TAU HENARE (National): You know, there is something else that has not been used for the last 30 years, Mr Graham. I suppose that member should be on the stage—preferably the next one out of town. The serious side of this issue is a place like Raglan, and like taking private property for military purposes, which is exactly what Raglan was used for. If you have it on the statutes, it could happen again. If you have it on the statutes, there is every likelihood it could be—
Dr Rajen Prasad: Oh, come on!
Hon TAU HENARE: The member says: “Come on!”. Well, let us go back to when that piece of legislation was promulgated—1915. At the end of 1918 people said to each other: “We’ll never do this again—never do this again.”, but in a few short years there was another world war.
Dr Rajen Prasad: Oh!
Hon TAU HENARE: You see, that is the sort of objection I would expect from an appeaser, from a person who is an appeaser—that is all he is—“It won’t happen to us!”. And that is what Kennedy Graham is saying—that this Act will never be used again. The fact of the matter is that it is still on the statute book. So why would we not get rid of it? As the Hon Maryan Street said, we could have done it in umpteen dozen ways, but democracy says that we are allowed to do it this way. So who says that we are wrong in doing it this way? Those members are going to vote for our bill. They are going to vote for Bakshi’s bill.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!
Hon TAU HENARE: Yes?
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows—he has been here long enough—that you refer to a person by their full name or their title.
Hon TAU HENARE: OK—Mr Singh. The fact of the matter is that it is still on our statute book, and for every law that is still on our statute book, it means that you can use those provisions, in any of those laws. It is quite simple. So Mr Singh, in his wisdom, thought: “Why not use the member’s bill process to get rid of legislation?”—pretty Draconian legislation, I might add. So if we cannot use the process that the Standing Orders give us, then there is something wrong with this place. All he is doing is using the process of Parliament to get rid of a Draconian piece of legislation. I salute my friend for doing that—getting rid of a Draconian piece of legislation. [Interruption] Oh, they are queuing up now. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not correct that when you want the call you are supposed to call?
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, it is, Mr Henare. It is New Zealand First’s opportunity, and the member should actually call, otherwise he does not get called—he loses it
Richard Prosser: Mr Assistant Speaker, I apologise. I was looking at the speaking order and—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No—the member must call first.
Richard Prosser: Mr Speaker.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Richard Prosser.
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the second reading debate on the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill, but not without certain grave misgivings as to the gulf that the passing of the bill will leave in the nation’s legislative tool box. I note from reading the Hansard of the 49th Parliament, during this bill’s earlier stages, that some speakers were given to wonder why the House was spending valuable time on debating the passage of a bill that intended to remove from the statute book an Act that those members regarded as being of little importance to begin with. We agree with a measure of that sentiment. It is true that there is far too much dusty, outdated, old legislation cluttering the law books in this country. Whether most of it actually does any harm by being there is probably a debatable point, unless and until, of course, it comes up against modern-day situations where the realities of life have changed in the decades, generations, or even centuries that may have passed since many old laws were created.
I am reminded of some of the arcane statutes recently removed from the laws of England, from where I have just returned, having represented this fine House at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Seminar on Parliamentary Practice and Procedure at Westminster. One such provision in the English legal code made it lawful, up until—[Interruption]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I just say to members on my right that members should not make references to the reading of speeches. It is entirely a matter for the Speaker to judge.
Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought that members were not allowed, by way of a point of order, to bring to the attention of the Speaker a member reading a speech. We were just interjecting.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have just said to the member that it is entirely a matter for the Speaker to judge.
RICHARD PROSSER: One such provision in the English legal code made it still lawful, up until a very few short years ago, for a person to shoot any Welshman found entering the city of Chester by night, provided, of course, that a suitable and approved bow and arrow was used for the purpose. Given my own lineage, I am grateful that my time in the United Kingdom some years ago did not include any such nocturnal visits to the aforementioned city.
The Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 was enacted in order to allow the Governor-General to declare by proclamation that certain lands would be available to the military for the purposes of manoeuvring during the First World War. Such proclamations were required to be published in the Gazette as well as in suitable local newspapers, and would allow the military to prohibit or restrict traffic; to pull down fences, or put them up; to erect or divert water courses; or to do anything else that the Governor-General considered in his wisdom to be necessary or expedient as far as the requirements of the military and its manoeuvring were concerned. An investigation in the Parliamentary Library on my behalf today has revealed that the most recent date on which such a proclamation under the Act was made was on 11 February 1943. It related to a defined area bordering the Manawatū River. The issue of the Gazette has a description of the schedule of land concerned, and ends with the splendid and appropriate salutation “God Save the King”. The library has been unable to ascertain precisely why the proclamation was made, and in all likeliness it is probable that the King was never directly aware of its intended purpose, either. With the inevitable passing of this bill and the demise of the Act to which it relates, it is an unavoidable consequence that his heirs and successors will never discover that reason, either. Perhaps the reasoning of those darker days conceals secrets that are best consigned to history, along with the Act itself.
We have some concerns, however, that the passing of this bill may leave the Government without access to a ready solution, should circumstances arise in which the nation is required to make swift provisions for the necessities of military manoeuvring. We support this bill only because we place faith in the ability of this House to enact any necessary replacement legislation without delay, should such need arise. In these uncertain times, as tensions in the Middle East are on the rise again, we can never be sure that the tentacles of war will never again reach out to threaten our peaceful existence.
I note also that one purpose to which the Act could have been put was to facilitate the use of lands for low-flying exercises for the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Nowadays, of course, thanks to the actions of a previous administration, and the inaction of the current one, New Zealand scarcely has an air force, so thus it is likely that this provision is probably now largely defunct anyway. New Zealand First hopes that any future legislation that may be required does include the provision for low-flying training, along with fencing, water-race diversion, and other curiously farming-orientated purposes as stated in the 1915 Act. It is altogether possible, in all seriousness, that in times of future conflict New Zealand may require to give itself a greater aviation warfare capacity than that required by top-dressing. We note that the 1915 Act does require that any land taken under its auspices is to be returned as nearly as possible to its former state, once the requirement for military purposes has expired. We expect that our colleagues from the Green Party will agree with us that any future legislation should similarly include a requirement for land restoration.
I am aware that many members have made note of the fact that the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 has not been used in more than 30 years, and have claimed that this in itself is proof of its obsolescence. Notwithstanding that our fine library researchers have determined it is in fact 69 years, I believe it is worth remembering at this time that this year marks the 30th anniversary of the war in the Falklands, which was not very long ago, and also that that particular conflict came very much out of the blue for the British, who at the time were Argentina’s single most important trading partner. Sometimes things happen when we least expect them, and it is important that the nation is prepared for all eventualities, including in a legislative sense.
That said, New Zealand First does not consider that this particular Act is of crucial importance to New Zealand’s security, and we are not opposed to its demise. We echo the sentiments of some speakers that much old legislation is perhaps best dealt with by means of an omnibus bill, but we congratulate the member on the drawing of his bill and we are happy to support its passage through the House. Thank you.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It gives me great pleasure to support this Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, and I too want to congratulate my excellent colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi.
But what I was a little bit concerned about was that I had always thought that Maryan Street was a woman who really appreciated aestheticism, because here is a slim bill, here is a sleek bill, and here is a bill that is a melody of brevity. In fact, as she herself pointed out—[Interruption] I think it is a page and a half long. But it was in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which worked so well together, so ably led by John Hayes, that it was deduced that it was right and proper to remove two of the clauses of this bill. So 40 percent was removed and hence it was made even a slimmer, sleeker, and more melodically magnificent bill.
But really this is indeed a great indictment, in many respects, on those long 9 years of the Labour Government when it accumulated bureaucracy, like public servants from 26,000 to 39,000. This bill represents at least someone, my good colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, starting on the difficult progress of cutting down the bureaucracy. So I indeed am very, very delighted to support this most excellent and timely bill.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is a real privilege tonight to be taking a call on the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. What I think is the most interesting aspect of this bill is not so much the military manoeuvres but the political manoeuvres that probably led to this bill. At a time when this country is full of low-flow shower heads, local government waste like public transport and community development, which this Government is so focused on, and all the letters that could be written on ACC letterhead, we get the Government focusing Mr Bakshi’s sincere political talent on the political manoeuvres to get the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill through the House.
This bill is an embarrassing waste of time. This bill epitomises the problems we are seeing in this country. At a time when we have children in poverty, when we have an economy in crisis, and when we have a whole bunch of Kiwis embarking on their own manoeuvres across the ditch to Australia, this Government is focusing on this bill. I imagine Mr Bakshi going through the tomes in the Parliamentary Library—those dusty alcoves—trying to find those 100 obscure bills he referred to in his first reading speech. But I want to ask how he got the bill through his caucus. How did he get it past his ambitious colleagues? Because we know that the National Party is a dog-eat-dog party where members try to step on top of each other. I cannot believe that Mr Mapp or Mr Coleman let this bill through. I cannot believe that they did not let this become a Government bill. I am really surprised we saw this in the members’ ballot.
We have these other 100 obscure bills that we are talking about. I want to ask what those bills are. Are we going to see subsequent members’ bills by Mr Bakshi or the enhanced caucus of the National Party? Really, what this is all about is clogging up the members’ ballot so that we cannot get good members’ bills through, like my Energy Efficiency and Conservation (Warm Healthy Rentals) Amendment Bill, that would make a significant difference to this country.
As a final parting note, I just want to point out that although we are getting rid of this obscure 1915 rule allowing the military to take over people’s farms for military manoeuvres, we are still seeing the Government take over Kiwis’ houses and their farms at the moment under the Public Works Act, and then there is the Kapiti Expressway and the other $19 billion monstrosities this Government is borrowing to build, even though they have a poor business case. We are also seeing land taken under the Crown Minerals Act for mining, for fracking, and for drilling. We are seeing our water resources tapped under similar manoeuvres, and I think at a time when we have so many crises facing us I would rather see the Government focus its political manoeuvres on more important things.
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): This Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill is an excellent bill, and I want to commend my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi for having the foresight to research fully this bill, and then to bring it to the House.
This is the “Sunlight Bill”. This is the bill that casts sunlight on some of New Zealand’s old legislation and brings it into the view of the Parliament so it can be fully discussed, fully considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, before it is brought back to the House. I want to commend my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi for that approach. You are absolutely right. Maybe this bill could have been dealt with in another way, but this is the Government that believes in full and frank discussion of our legislation. If there is a piece of legislation that is to be wiped from the statute book, then it should be done in this arena with full discussion, with full opportunity for members from around the House to have their view on this piece of legislation.
This is a small bill. This is a bill of some one page—
Hon Member: Wonderfully brief.
JACQUI DEAN: It is a wonderfully brief bill. In that bill I think it speaks a lot for New Zealand’s proud history through several world wars, and the fact that at the time the Governor-General was empowered to take over land that might be required for military manoeuvres. That is a piece of history that we should not just wipe from the statute book. I reckon that is a piece of history that should see the sunlight of a bit of discussion in this debating chamber. So I want to support this bill. I think it is a good bill, because it tidies up—
Dr Paul Hutchison: An elegant bill.
JACQUI DEAN: It is an elegant bill, as my colleague says. I want to commend it to the House.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): The big hand is on the nine and the little hand is on the nine, so I think that probably means it is time for Jacqui Dean to sit down. Can I congratulate Mr Bakshi on this, the defining moment of his political career, where he has managed to take a line item out of a Statutes Amendment Bill and turn it into a member’s bill, thus taking up a huge amount of time of the House. If this is the new efficiency of the Public Service the National Party is promoting, I am sure the bureaucracy will be rubbing their hands together very warmly.
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): What an excellent piece of legislation the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill is, brought to this House by the hard-working member of Parliament Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. Some members on the other side of the House will not realise that Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is going through some difficulty with this. You see, he is a man of some real military background, and to repeal a piece of legislation like this when, actually, he spent much time with the military shows us the strength of the man, his commitment to this House, and why he has come here to make such an important change for all New Zealanders—[Interruption] Can I say to Mr Prasad on the other side of the House that if you put in a draft bill to the members ballot, you could almost be as successful as Mr Bakshi is—
Dr Rajen Prasad: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member impugns my reputation by publicising that I do not have a bill in the ballot. In fact, I do.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.
TODD McCLAY: I will apologise to the member; I did not mean to impugn his reputation, although his point of order might have done that on its own.
Can I suggest to Mr Bakshi that in the last Parliament, when I sat on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, we paid great attention to this piece of legislation when it came to us. We offered the opportunity to members of the public to come forward and pronounce their opinion on it. From memory, not a single person in New Zealand spoke against this proposal he has brought to this Parliament. I congratulate him on that; he is a man of the people—well done for that. Can I say as I look through my notes in front of me that actually this is the mark of a good piece of legislation: my notes are longer than the bill. For that reason, I will take my seat. I commend this to the House. Well done, Kanwaljit—a great piece of legislation. [Interruption] Oh, is there still a speaker from the other side? I will take a few more moments.
I say well done to Kanwaljit. It is very important that he as a member of this House has brought forward a member’s bill that he believes in and that has the wholehearted support of the vast majority of members of the House—at least, the most intelligent members of this House will be supporting it. I look forward to spending much more time going into greater detail on this bill in the Committee stage at another stage. Well done; congratulations. Thank you.
Sue Moroney: Mr Speaker—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate has now concluded.
Sue Moroney: Oh—no it hasn’t.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do sit down. I will put the question. The question is that the—
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is this not a 12-speech debate?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, we have had 12.
Chris Hipkins: No, we have not. We have had 11. [Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. There has been an error. Yes, I have got it now. I will call the member. I apologise; I was relying on information left for me.
SUE MORONEY (Labour): In concluding this debate, can I say: what an embarrassment! What an embarrassing day for the National Government! It culminates in every single member of the member’s caucus who has brought this bill before the House getting up, firmly tongue in cheek, and actually being quite offensive about his contribution to this Parliament. I think that is the nature now of the sadness of the—
Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at being called offensive.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think the comment was made as a more general term. It was not directed at anybody. The debate has been in good spirit and I just ask members to maintain that for the final speech. Thank you.
SUE MORONEY: I think it is a very, very sad day for National when this is their piece that they have brought forward at this time of the evening, when they cannot even get up with a straight face and really wholeheartedly support a member’s bill that one of their own colleagues has brought forward. Firmly with tongue in cheek have they got up, one after the other, to actually pour scorn on a member of their own caucus, and I think that is the sorry state that the National Party caucus is in today. They all know, as we all know, on this side of the House, that the real reason that this bill has been brought forward is to stop other very good pieces of legislation of real merit from being debated—pieces like the member’s bill that I have in the ballot to extend paid parental leave. That is something that would make a real difference to New Zealand families, but instead National has dug up a piece of legislation that does not do anything anyway, and is wasting the time of this House debating this type of legislation.
Can I say to the member who has brought forward the bill that it is not his fault. It is not his fault. It is the fault of the National Party caucus who have decided that they would put him in this position. They put him in this embarrassing position of bringing forward a bill that has no effect, and of demeaning him in that way. I think it is a great shame that his colleagues have put him in that position. They have not only put him in that position by bringing forward that bill, but also they have got up one after another and denigrated that member’s contribution to this House and have made fun of him. I think that that tells us a lot about the spirit of the National Party caucus today in this House.
I am not going to take up any more time, because I want to get on to the sorts of bills that absolutely should be debated in this House. Bring them on.
Bill read a second time.
Points of Order
Leave for Introduction—Child Impact Reporting Bill
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to have the Child Impact Reporting Bill in my name on the ballot introduced.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has sought leave. It is not a point of order. [Interruption] He has sought leave to do something. It is not debatable, so I now put the leave. If members are not happy, it takes only one member to oppose it. Is there anyone opposed to that? There is. [Interruption] The House is in a very, very fractious mood and I am trying to assist it on members’ day. These are members’ bills.
Bills
Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) on behalf of Michael Woodhouse (National): I move, That the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I want to begin by thanking the Hon Amy Adams for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House and congratulate her on the effort she has put in to what is such an important cause and a worthwhile bill. It is my pleasure to have this bill transferred into my name and I am pleased to be able to contribute to such an important piece of legislation. It is important that the public have faith that their donations to charities are going to the charities. I want to increase public confidence in charitable appeals. I want to improve transparency and accountability for those who work for charities, and I want to discourage third-party collectors from charging charities exorbitant fees for their services. This bill seeks to restore confidence in the charitable giving sector.
The purpose of the bill is to increase the transparency and public accountability of third-party businesses that collect funds on behalf of registered charities. There is a concern that a disproportionate percentage of donated money may be retained by third-party collectors to cover costs, and that the members of the public making the donations are not aware of this. The bill purposefully does not seek to address the issue of consumer confidence involving charities’ internal use of funds. That is not where the concern lies, and, indeed, donors are free to decide on the basis of information about a charity’s objects whether it is worthy of their philanthropy.
What is not available is the degree to which donations are made having the ticket clipped, or so to speak, by collection agents, and the proportion of the donation that is being retained by them. By way of example, I am aware of a recent news release highlighting a group collecting on behalf of two very well-regarded charities where, under that organisation’s retention model, the full first year of a donor’s regular monthly donation is retained by the collection agent. I believe the public have a right to know more about those arrangements in order to make an informed decision about whether, where, and how much one is prepared to donate.
Concern also exists around the professional telemarketing firms and the so-called “chuggers”, or charity muggers, who approach and occasionally hassle passers-by on the street to donate to a charity. I have spent many hours volunteering to collect money on the street for charities like Arthritis New Zealand, my Rotary club, and other worthwhile charities. I am sure many of my colleagues in the House have done the same. I am pleased to be able to contribute in this way to the fantastic work that our charities do. However, through forcing disclosure of improper practices, I am hopeful that worthwhile fund-raising campaigns will not suffer from growing public concern about how much of the money donated actually gets to those it is intended for.
I would like to thank the Commerce Committee of the 49th Parliament under the chairmanship of the Hon Lianne Dalziel for its hard work and the recommendations to ensure that this bill achieves its function. The committee received and considered 25 submissions on this bill from interested groups and individuals. One of these submissions was from Arthritis New Zealand, which, along with a number of other submitters, generally supports the aim of this bill. In its submission Arthritis New Zealand stated that as a charity it has been concerned by media reports on the lack of transparency in the collection and use of money by some charities. It said: “Our experience is that these reports make the donating public extremely nervous. This impinges on our good name and that of others.” Well, it is absolutely right. The lack of transparency around third parties has caused public concern towards donating to charities.
The Commerce Committee recommended the bill be changed so that the new rules be delivered through regulations, rather than by amending the primary legislation as originally intended. The first version of the bill added provisions to the Fair Trading Act to prescribe what can and cannot be done when soliciting on behalf of charities. It proposed amendments to the “Unfair practices” provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1986 that would require disclosure by collectors, in particular by providing that when a third-party collector retains more than 20 percent of the funds raised, this fact must be disclosed to the public. The bill also provided that where the retained portion is greater than 50 percent, the percentage proportion must be disclosed proactively. The committee concluded that the complexities involved could not be dealt with in the primary legislation, as there is no simple universal solution.
The bill has been changed to instead provide for a regulation-making power. This gives more flexibility to make the changes work. I thank those officials who supported the committee through the submissions and the deliberation process, and also those involved in redrafting the bill to give effect to the committee’s recommendations. The select committee’s recommendations uphold the purpose of the bill in its original form, in that they will create transparency and ensure that the public are in fact aware of their donations, where they are going, and just how much is going to the charity. I welcome the Commerce Committee’s recommendations, and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): As the former chair of the Commerce Committee in the previous Parliament, I rise to support the passage of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I think the sequence of events in terms of who has had this bill in their name has added some interest in terms of the contribution of the member who has just resumed her seat, Louise Upston, because, of course, this bill was originally in the name of one Amy Adams, who quite rightly was promoted to Cabinet after the last general election.
Charles Chauvel: She was so good in The Muppet Show.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I think my colleague here keeps getting her confused with the famous actor called Amy Adams. No, unfortunately she was not on The Muppet Show, and she was not in Doubt either, so I have to convince him that this is not the case. There is just a coincidence of name. Unfortunately, this member here is distracting me from a very serious contribution that I want to make, because this is an important matter. The reason I want to make these comments is because of the nature of the contributions of the various members.
When Amy Adams brought this bill in front of the committee we ensured that she became part of the deliberation process of the select committee, so she was able to sit in at a time we were hearing submissions and to contribute and discuss with officials the way that we were going to resolve the bill. I think she brought a bill to the House under a member’s bill process, and this, unlike some of the other bills we have dealt with tonight, is an extremely good example of how a private member can actually use the member’s bill process to advance good law and make some very positive changes that can gain the support of the whole House, and I do not think anyone will get up and oppose this particular bill tonight. One of the deficits of our current process in creating members’ bills is that we simply do not have the skill sets for drafting complex pieces of legislation. No matter how simple they appear on the surface, they can, in fact, be quite complex underneath. We have the secret weapon of one Charles Chauvel, a former very prestigious, well-renowned partner in a major law firm in Wellington, to call upon in order to enable us to get good members’ bills into the ballot, but this one suffered from a particular problem in that the intention was well-thought-through, but the mechanism for delivery was not. The select committee, in fact, had to do considerable work in changing this into a provision that created a regulation-making power, rather than trying to deal with the problem in the law itself. [Interruption] I am sorry, but I am being distracted by my very good colleague in front of me. The point that I am making in relation to this bill is that Amy Adams certainly had, in a very short period of time in this House, set herself apart and was an obvious choice for the Government when looking to introduce a new Cabinet after the last general election. This bill now sits in the name of one Michael Woodhouse. The fact that he was not speaking to his bill suggests that he may, in fact, be in consultation right now over his future, and it may well be that the name of this bill will transfer to somebody else in the very near future, and we congratulate him in advance if that is the case.
I want to comment on the substance of the legislation, because although we have had a very good contribution from Louise Upston on behalf of Michael Woodhouse, I think that there is something that has been completely missed. I just want to remind people of a case, and I downloaded this off the internet just before I came down to the House, because I had kind of forgotten what the name of this person was. I know that my colleague Ruth Dyson is going to remember this case very well: “A man accused of pretending to be disabled to ‘scam’ money is still selling pens for $20 on behalf of a charity that has told him to stop. John Peters, a Christchurch man who says he travels the country as a professional fund-raiser, was in Wellington last week selling pens bearing a Wheelchair Tennis New Zealand logo.” Well, I also know that he also sold pens for something called the Disabled Children’s Trust as well. Anyway, it goes on to say: “Wheelchair Tennis administrator Amanda Hill confirmed the charity had accepted money from Mr Peters in recent years but had written to him in October telling him to stop selling the pens.” The difficulty with Mr Peters was that he actually took money off people, selling these pens—and they were for a paraplegic organisation—with a rug over his legs to make it look as if he was sitting in a wheelchair, which is quite disgraceful when one thinks about it. But the interesting thing about Mr Peters that really sets him apart from most other people by that name is that he is a former ACT Party candidate. As a former ACT Party candidate who still owned nine rental properties while he was doing this, he said to the media—he told the Dominion Post—that he was asset rich, but cash poor. So I thought that this was a terrible thing to be allowed to get away with, and this bill will go some way to ensuring that he has to disclose the fact that he sells the pens for $20 but donates only $5 of that $20 to the charity of his particular choosing. He will have to disclose that under the regulations when they are formed, but there is nothing in this bill that will stop him doing that at all. I think that is a flaw in the legislation, which we were advised would be picked up in the consumer law review.
If one reads the commentary from the Commerce Committee, we concluded our commentary by saying: “We are advised that there is likely to be significant amendment of the Fair Trading Act resulting from the review of consumer law that the Government is undertaking. Consideration of whether to require disclosure by collectors would fit within the wider context of the part of the review looking at possible additional best practice enforcement tools for consumer protection and promoting business competition.” That bill is now finally in front of the House. It has gone to a select committee and submissions have been called for on it. We did discuss with the former member in charge of the bill, now a Minister, Amy Adams, whether we should hold this bill over for the process of the consumer law reform legislation. In fact, she felt passionate about this and said, no, we should carry on with this bill regardless of the advancement of the consumer law protection legislation rather than including it within it.
There is another bill on the Order Paper, further down—the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill—where the select committee and the member in charge of the bill actually decided exactly that course of action. I hope that when we finally do get to the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill that that will be discharged and basically withdrawn from the Order Paper. I mean, all credit to Dr Jackie Blue, but in that particular case it was agreed that it would not proceed and that it would be subsumed within the consumer law reform legislation, which it has been. This one, on the other hand—the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill—stands on its own merits, and it is to the credit of Amy Adams and, I believe, to the credit of the member’s bill process, that we are able to support its passage through the House. I am very pleased that we have had the opportunity, finally, tonight to debate a bill that is worthy of this House’s time, and I commend its passage to the House.
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, brought to the House originally by the very capable member of Parliament Amy Adams, who has now become a Minister, and it is to be directed through the House by our senior whip, Michael Woodhouse. Can I say congratulations to Ms Adams. She is another member who has been successful when it comes to members’ bills, the same as the last bill that was up, in the name of Mr Bakshi. I wish all members on the opposite side of the House success with their bids that may be in, as well.
Chris Hipkins: How about voting in favour of some of them?
TODD McCLAY: I say to the Government whip that I will be voting in favour of this one.
Chris Hipkins: I’m not the Government whip yet.
TODD McCLAY: In fact, this is the first time I have addressed Mr Hipkins since he became whip. I wish him more success than the last member who had the seat, who also had red hair. But can I say to members opposite that this is a very important piece of legislation—[Interruption] I see that my friends in New Zealand First enjoyed that last one.
Can I say that this is a very important piece of legislation for many reasons. Charities do a very important job in our communities and they are very active in many of our communities. For the majority of these charities it is volunteers who are involved. Every day New Zealanders get up and go out and help out. They do good in our communities. They do a wonderful job and our communities are richer for their efforts, and I want to, on behalf of all members on this side of the House at least, thank them for their efforts.
Where this stops and falls down is when people go out and impugn their good reputation and undertake some activities that charities do without the positive and good effects. We have seen in the newspapers, and we have probably all heard in our communities—at least those of us who have electorate seats will have seen in our communities when we speak to our constituents—that there is a great effort made to support these charities, but people are becoming increasingly concerned about those who may act fraudulently, who may not have the community’s or the charity’s best interests at heart, or who may take too much from the activity they are doing. If somebody provides some money they want as much of it as possible, if not all of it, to go to that good work.
Over the last couple of years, as the local member of Parliament for Rotorua, I have done a lot of work with the people from the SPCA in Rotorua. It is a fantastic charity and they do a wonderful job on behalf of us. Most people in the community have something to do with the SPCA one way or another. They go along and support them and donate to them, or they go along and look for animals with them, or, sadly, they abuse their animals and the SPCA has to pick up that slack and care for them and help out. I would hope that every single person who donates to the SPCA in Rotorua does so knowing that the funds will be used for the intent that they are given.
I think this legislation takes a huge leap forward. I congratulate Amy Adams again on researching this, on listening to her constituents, on drafting the bill, and on then having the fortitude and good luck to bring it through the bill process to this House so that there can be more clarity, but, more than that, some important rules and laws around this to control the conduct of those who may not have the best interests of these charities at heart when they go out and work on their behalf.
I want to finish here, and recognise the work of the last Commerce Committee and the last chairperson of the committee, Ms Dalziel, and say that I think the committee did a very good job with this piece of legislation. There were some 25 or 30 submissions, and the committee members took their time to make sure they heard them properly and got it right. I agree with Miss Adams that it is important that we deal with it now, rather than waiting for another piece of legislation. We have legislation before the committee around consumer law reform, so we will have an opportunity to consider it further, but I think this is a wonderful piece of legislation.
As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said, there are two Amy Adams to acknowledge in this world, one an actress and the other now a Minister. Can I say they are both very talented people, but one of them probably more talented than the other, and that is the Minister Amy Adams. Well done to her for bringing this bill to the House. Thank you.
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I would like to make a few points about this bill, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, as one of the members of the Commerce Committee who heard the submissions. As you have heard tonight, Labour supports this bill. It is a good bill, and I would like to commend the work of the member who originally brought this bill to the House, Amy Adams, and join with other colleagues across the House in commending the work that was put into it.
It is a solid bill. It deals with some important issues. It attempts to address some real issues of concern to the public. The issue is that if you make a donation to charity, it should be just that, a donation to charity, not to a telemarketer necessarily, and that people who are donating to charity should have confidence that they are donating to that charity.
I note the contribution from the previous member, Todd McClay, around the SPCA. Having just signed up two junior members to the SPCA from my own family, and it being the first organisation that I ever joined at the age of about 10, I know the importance for charitable organisations to try to have people who are committed to them, especially from an early age, and for there to be confidence in those organisations. So it should be that any member of the public should be confident that when they actually donate to a charity, they can be confident that the vast majority of that money is going to charity. That is what this bill is trying to address.
I would like to, I guess, reiterate what my colleague Lianne Dalziel just said to the House earlier around the importance of that, and also commend the work that she did as chair of the Commerce Committee. She is obviously very sorely missed on that committee—
Hon Lianne Dalziel: I don’t think so.
CLARE CURRAN: —certainly by members on this side of the House. Actually I would say that the previous Commerce Committee was a very good committee and it dealt with some important issues. This bill that is now before the House is one of the significant members’ bills that actually came before that committee.
I do want to reiterate what my colleagues said around the intention of the bill being good, but that the mechanism did create a lot of discussion and a few headaches for the committee in terms of how to address it. We certainly acknowledged that the issue that it was meant to address was causing public concern, but that the current Fair Trading Act’s provisions regarding unfair practices provided for the prohibitions on conduct, but they did not include positive provisions such as the disclosure requirement that this bill proposes. That is why we had to go down the pathway of recommending that a power for the Governor-General to make regulations through an Order in Council was the mechanism that needed to be used, rather than what the original bill brought before the House.
I do just briefly want to make mention of some of the submissions, because we received submissions from some very large and reputable charities on this bill, and very passionate submissions—some very passionate submissions. They were passionate on both sides. Some really wanted regulations and for this issue to be addressed through a legislative mechanism, and some really passionately argued for self-regulation.
Just briefly, I want to mention that the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand certainly argued in favour of the self-regulation mechanisms, supported by Barnardos, which is a very reputable charity. It was mentioned before by a previous speaker on the other side of the House that Arthritis New Zealand argued strongly that it was not confident that self-regulation would be successful, based on its past experiences, and that there was a lot of confusion around coordinating awareness days, and the organisation felt that it was very difficult for self-regulation to be effective. Again, on the other side of the argument there was Greenpeace New Zealand. It brought a very passionate submission to the committee, which argued that although there was very good intent in this bill, organisations like themselves would be disadvantaged through such legislation. So there was a lot of juggling and argument and interesting discussion amongst the committee on this issue.
I think that what we have come up with is addressing the issue. It is acknowledging the issue. To reiterate what Lianne Dalziel said, this did demonstrate the importance of the member’s bill process, but there were issues with the way that the bill was drafted. I think that how the committee has addressed it did come down, on balance, on making this bill effective and workable, and it demonstrated how a committee like the Commerce Committee can work very effectively on a good piece of legislation that is brought before it. We commend the bill to the House.
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First certainly does support the purposes and content of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I do think that fund-raising for charities is something that needs regulation, and, of course, public confidence is the main reason why that is so. I think it is unfortunate that sometimes some professional fund-raisers are so slick in their methods that they turn people off. The reason for that is that they are not absolutely sure where the money is going. These regulations, when made, will have the effect of improving public confidence and, hopefully, ensuring that more people make donations to charity. I think that the methodology that has been adopted in this bill, by empowering the making of regulations, is the right way to go because, of course, there needs to be flexibility and we need to make sure that those organisations that are going to be affected by the regulations are, in fact, able to work within it properly.
It is a very complex area. Many of the organisations have quite different needs from others, and different attributes, so it is quite difficult to tailor-make all of that in an Act of Parliament, so regulations are the sensible way to go. I would say also that I often hear from some other members opposite—especially the ACT Party, I would have to say—why it is so important to have less regulation, less legislation, and less government, but here we see a situation where regulations are the sensible way to go. Of course, regulations are often very valuable ways for this country to govern itself, and in particular when you get situations of this sort of complexity.
It is very important that the Minister of Consumer Affairs should use the provision in the bill for consultation, because the people who are affected, as I have just said, do have very different needs, and there needs to be a very pragmatic approach to the way that these regulations are implemented. We must listen to the needs of the various organisations concerned to make sure that they are assisted in their objects and not hindered by the regulation that will come down as a result of this legislation.
The only other thing I would like to say is this: there is a possible problem, I think, with the definition of “fund-raiser” in the bill, which is that some charities exist for the purpose of raising funds for other charities. They may be caught—and maybe they should be caught—by the term “fund-raiser”, but it is not clear in the definition how those organisations would be dealt with. So it would have been preferable if there was a further provision under the definition of “fund-raiser”, especially in new section 28A(5), where it firstly says in paragraph (a) that a fund-raiser “means a person who, in business, makes requests”. Of course, charities that exist for the purpose of raising funds for other charities are not in business so would probably not be covered by that. However, in paragraph (c) under the definition of “fund-raiser” we see that it “does not include—(i) the charitable organisation concerned”. That probably does not apply to a charity that is raising funds for other charities, but that would be a matter for interpretation. In subparagraph (ii) it refers to “a volunteer (being a person who does not expect to, and does not, receive any financial benefit for his or her fund-raising activities)”. Perhaps charities that raise funds for other charities would come under the definition of “a person”.
I am just making a point that it is not perfectly clear in the bill what the situation is where a charity raises funds for others. I can tell you that I happen to be a member of a trust broad that does exactly that. It is a charitable organisation and its only purpose is to raise funds for other charities. It would be uncertain for its members, when they read this bill, how they would be treated under it. So I just raise that as a possible problem. I do not think it is a huge issue, and I do not think it is one that would warrant an amendment at this stage.
But, subject to those relatively minor reservations, New Zealand First is very happy indeed to support regulations when they are made under this legislation and, therefore, to support the legislation itself, which we think will assist charities in their objectives of raising funds by giving people confidence that the money will go where it is supposed to go and that there is adequate supervision in the way set out in the bill. So New Zealand First will be supporting it wholeheartedly.
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): It is a pleasure to stand and talk to this bill, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I also want to commend the member who introduced the bill, Amy Adams, as well as our Commerce Committee, which worked quite diligently on the provisions of this bill. I just want to start by saying that the bill, as has already been explained across the House, is about increasing transparency and accountability for those third-party businesses, particularly, that make it their affair to collect funds on behalf of registered charities. To give you an idea about how important this part of our society is, not only does it support great charities, as Ms Upston has referred to in terms of Plunket, Greenpeace, and other charities, but also it is a billion-dollar industry. It is a billion-dollar industry supported by 25,000 registered charities across this country.
One of the issues, as has already been alluded to by members, is that people do not know how much is being given to the charity and how much is being taken by these telemarketing groups, or these third parties. We have had cases in the past revealed by the media, thankfully, where between up to 75 percent and 90 percent of funds donated have been going to these third parties. That leaves 10 percent. If you extrapolate that out over $1 billion, that would be $900 million going to third parties, which are really not adding much value and not actually donating to charitable causes. So it is a problem that many understand, and it is a problem that this bill addresses.
We also addressed within the original bill that came before us a provision that set up a disclosure regime such that over 20 percent of funds raised would be disclosed to the public, and it would be disclosed in a way that was general, but if 50 percent was used for the third party, or these telemarketing groups, then it must be disclosed proactively. We had a number of charities that actually came in and argued against this particular clause—this key clause of the bill as first presented. One of the reasons they said this was that often there was a huge amount of marketing up front in order to get long-term clients—clients who were not just donating on the street but who were prepared to pay moneys over a number of years. We took these submissions into account when we looked seriously at how this bill would be applied in practice.
We could not in good conscience, I suppose, impose the original regime as presented by Ms Adams, so we have put in the bill a regulation-making power that allows officials, through an Order in Council, as enabled by the Governor-General, to sign off on these regulations. Although everyone has said thus far that that is acceptable, I have got to say as a legislator that I do this with great reluctance. We should do it with great reluctance, because we do not know what those regulation powers are to date—we do not. We delegate a lot of that discretion to officials who work behind the scenes. My preference personally is for us as a Parliament to table the clauses, debate them, and put them into law, but we could not find that solution. I am surprised that members opposite did not make that point, because we struggled long and hard during the select committee submissions over that particular point.
Having said that, I think the mischief behind this bill is important. I think we have all agreed upon that. What it would do is increase the trust and confidence of those donating to charitable trusts. It would also discourage these opportunists who actually prey on others. I know that the last speaker referred to his own charity that he is on, but some of these charitable organisations are preying on the smaller organisations and taking large and substantial fees for their services. We are not here, I believe, to intervene in those transactions made by private parties; all we are asking for is a little bit of transparency and a little bit of disclosure, such that those donating understand where their funds are going—and I do not think that that it too much to ask. I think that once we get that trust and confidence back into the donating process that New Zealanders go about every day, you will see more funds, more of those billion dollars in funds that go to charities, actually go to those worthy causes to which people have originally donated their funds.
Wrapping up, I certainly support this bill. As I said, I do so with reluctance to make a regulation-making power, but it was the best solution that we came to at that point in time in the committee. I think that accountability and transparency will actually be a good thing for the sector and a good thing for those who prey on these charitable organisations. I am pleased that parties across this House are supporting this bill. I urge you all to vote for the bill, and certainly I am looking forward to this coming to pass, whether it be through regulations or an enactment in this Parliament. Thank you.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to take a very quick call on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge all the wonderful work that charities do in this country and also the fund-raisers, because it is not the most popular job. I take issue with Louise Upston calling them charity muggers or “chuggers”. I think they do a hard job in trying conditions. I did it for Greenpeace for years. It is good training for politics, but it is a very hard job.
We support the bill. We support the intent of the bill, which is increased transparency. We note there have been out and out abuses and deception by these third-party fund-raisers. However, it is not going to stop the pen example we heard about earlier on—those out and out fund-raisers masquerading as acting on behalf of a charity. We would like to thank all the submitters who submitted to the Commerce Committee. We note that a few large, reputable charities did submit against the bill. We hope their issues have been addressed.
We think there are continuing issues around the threshold, the 20 to 50 percent; those charities, the third-party fund-raisers, who face large upfront costs; and those charities that depend on an ongoing income, be it monthly automatic payment or direct debit, that basically do not recoup the initial fund-raising costs for months or, in some cases, years afterwards. We want to raise the question of those one-off charity events. How can you say what proportion is being kept by the fund-raiser, the third-party fund-raiser, if you do not know what it is, because it is a one-off event? You are going to find that out only once you do the round-up at the end of the evening.
But in the end, what the Green Party wants to see is a well-regulated, transparent, thriving fund-raising and charity sector, so we are very happy to be voting in support of this bill tonight.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I stand in support of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. One makes donations to charities in the hope that money donated will go to helping those in need, whether those requiring help are in New Zealand or elsewhere in the world.
Over the years the number of charities collecting money has increased. The Charities Commission indicated that New Zealand has got more than 25,000 registered charities. For a small nation State like New Zealand, that is a lot of charitable organisations. Either we have a lot of people who want to work towards the betterment of New Zealanders and people at large, or there are many people fishing out the money. In recent times, one hears concerns.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.